HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-01/17/2018 Michael J. Domino,President �*Of Sy� Town Hall Annex
John M. Bredemeyer III,Vice-President ,`O l0 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Glenn Goldsmith Southold, New York 11971
A.Nicholas Krupski Telephone (631) 765-1892
Greg Williams a y�OUNTY, Fax(631) 765-6641
� Nct�
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes RECEIVED
1 •�3Pm
Wednesday, January 17, 2018 FEB 1 5 2018
5:30 PM &.4"4 Ll
So old Town Clerk
Present Were: Michael J. Domino, President
John M. Bredemeyer, Vice-President
Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Greg Williams, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist
Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 5:30 PM at the Main
Meeting Hall
WORK SESSIONS: Monday, February 12, 2018 at 4:30 PM at the Tow Hall Annex 2nd
floor Board Room, and on Wednesday, February 14, 2018, at 5:00 PM at the Main
Meeting Hall
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good evening, and welcome to our January 17th, 2018 monthly
meeting. At this time I would like to call our meeting to order and I would ask Jack
Hutchinson of Boy Scout Troop 39 please come forward and that you lead us in the
Pledge of Allegiance.
(Whereupon the Pledge of Allegiance is recited).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Great job, young man. First I would like to recognize the people on
the dais. To my left is Trustee John Bredemeyer, Trustee Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee Nick
Krupski, and our newest Trustee, welcome to the Board, Greg Williams.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: To my right is Assistant Town Attorney Damon Hagan and Senior
Clerk Typist Elizabeth Cantrell. We also have with us tonight our stenographer Wayne
Galante, and our CAC member tonight is Peter Young.
I'll also announce the agendas are located at the podium, if you would like one.
And I want to announce the postponements.
Board of Trustees 2 January 17, 2018
On page five, number two, SCOTT KAUFMAN requests a Wetland Permit and
a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove existing damaged stairway and terrace
retaining walls; construct along eroding toe of bluff approximately 210 linear feet of
stone revetment, including angled westerly return, all consisting of approximately
3 to 5 ton stone placed over 50 to 100 pound core stone and filter cloth; restore
bluff face using terrace retaining walls, approximately 600 cubic yards
of sand re-nourishment (including approximately 350 cubic yards to cover proposed
revetment), and native plantings; construct a ±3' wide berm with ±50 cubic yards of
sand/loam within 15' wide vegetated non-turf buffer to be established adjacent to bluff
crest to control storm-water runoff; and construct a new 4'x±50' elevated bluff stairway
with landings and handrails consisting of 4' wide x ±3' long entry steps at top of bluff
down to a 4'x8' upper platform with bench to 4' x ±8' steps to a 4'x8' middle landing with
bench to 4' x ±10' steps to a 4'x4' middle landing to 4' x±8'steps to a 4'x6.7' lower
landing to 4' x ±14' stairs to beach.
Located: 2050 Dignans Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-83-2-7.3
On page nine and page ten, numbers 14 through 18 have also been postponed.
They are listed as follows:
Number 14, En-Consultants on behalf of THOMAS & LINDA KELLY request a
Wetland Permit to remove existing fixed catwalk, ramp, and floating dock, and replant
any disturbed tidal marsh vegetation in-kind/in-place; maintain existing 335sq.ft.
on-grade walkway and patio area consisting of loose stone pavers set in soil on top of
berm and associated 3.5'x8' stone steps; remove existing mulch and landscaping from
approximately 175sq.ft. portion of non-disturbance buffer; remove approximately
340sq.ft. of existing mulch from cleared pathway that extends onto easterly neighboring
property within 100 feet of wetlands; reduce width of existing cleared/mulched pathway
to 4 feet by restoring approximately 1,350sq.ft. of pathway with. Native vegetation; and
clear and maintain new 4' wide pathway from existing 12'x16' timber kayak rack (to
remain) to the tidal wetlands boundary along Long Creek. Located: 4553 Wickham
Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-4-13.
Number 15, 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
Number 16, Cole Environmental Services, Inc. on behalf of OLE JULE DREDGE
COMPANY, LLC, c/o MARK DAVIS requests a Wetland Permit to dredge an
approximately .22 acre area of underwater lands within an existing canal to a depth of-4
MLW; approximately 750-1,000 cubic yards of dredge spoils will be deposited in various
bermed temporary off-loading areas on three properties abutting the canal for a
combined total of .04 acre of upland area used for de-watering of dredge materials;
equipment access and staging areas to be located through the thee upland properties.
Located: Canal within James Creek, 1570 Ole Jule Lane, 1700 Ole Jule Lane, & 1780
Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#'s 1000-122-4-44.8, 1000-122-4-3, 122-4-4, 122-4-5
Board of Trustees 3 January 17, 2018
Number 17, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of ROBERT RENGIFO & SARA
COLLINS request a Wetland Permit to demolish existing dwelling, wood deck, and
abandon/remove existing sanitary system; construct new dwelling with attached decks
within a 38'x60' footprint; new 11'9"x14'2" pervious staircase to ground using thru-flow
decking; construct a 19'5"x27'6" pergola structure of roof of dwelling; install new sanitary
system landward of dwelling; install gutters to leaders to drywells, and in accordance
with Chapter 236 of the Town Code-Stormwater Management; construct new permeable
driveway landward of dwelling; install subsurface water and electric surfaces; and for the
existing 75' wide Redi-Rock block retaining wall.
Located: 2175 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-4-14.
And number 18, Stacey Bishop on behalf of FORDHAM HOUSE LLC, c/o DENIS
BOUBOULIS requests a Wetland Permit to install a t1,167sq.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 t45' seaward; approximately 15' seaward
of proposed 28' long parallel retaining wall, install a t3' 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
Those have all been postponed.
I also want to announce under Town Code Chapter 275-8(c), the files were
officially 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 our next field inspection
Wednesday, February 7th, at 8:00 AM, at the town annex.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll entertain a motion to have the next Trustee
meeting Wednesday, February 14th, 2018, at 5:30 PM here at the main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES)
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like a motion to hold our next work session at the
town annex board room, second floor, Monday, February 12, 2018, and at
5:00 PM, February 14, 2018, here at the main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for December 2017. A check for$21,200.53
was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
Board of Trustees 4 January 17, 2018
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 VI Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, January 17, 2018, are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA:
Barbara Kohn SCTM# 1000-111-14-12
Robert Singer & Lynne Vitale SCTM# 1000-90-1-12
Scott Kaufman SCTM# 1000-83-2-7.3
Joseph Zevits, Michael Zevits, Robert Zevits & Patricia Zevits SCTM# 1000-90-1-13
David & Stephanie Sack SCTM# 1000-83-1-5
Barry D. Barth SCTM# 1000-106-1-26
Barry Root SCTM# 1000-86-6-20
Cove Condominiums Owners Assoc. SCTM# 1000-87-5-26 & 1000-87-5-23.9
Stritzler Family Trust SCTM# 1000-94-1-8
Matthew Cappabianca SCTM# 1000-135-1-4
Norman Parton & Ellie Becker SCTM# 1000-87-3-63.1
Thomas & Linda Kelly SCTM# 1000-107-4-13
Vincent & Donna Daley SCTM# 1000-70-4-32
Arthur Gruneisel & Juliane Tomiser SCTM# 1000-104-3-7
James Baumann & Patricia Perry SCTM# 1000-35-4-13
William Grella & Gary Osborne SCTM# 1000-117-7-30
Ole Jule Dredge Company, LLC, c/o Mark Davis SCTM# 1000-122-4-44.8,
1000-122-4-3, 1000-122-4-4 & 1000-122-4-5
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll move that. So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town
of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more
fully described in Section VI Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, January 17, 2018, 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:
Paul & Carolyn Azzariti SCTM# 1000-78-7-15
Board of Trustees 5 January 17, 2018
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral IV, Administrative Permits. In order to
simplify our meetings, the Board of Trustees regularly groups together actions that are
deemed minor in nature. Accordingly, I'll make a motion to approve as a group:
Number two, RONALD R. SCHWALB requests an Administrative Permit to
remove existing 4' high fencing and install 6' high fencing beginning at the existing
retaining wall and extending landward along the westerly property line.
Located: 3105 Sigsbee Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-126-6-6
And number four, Fishers Island Yacht Club & Marina on
behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION requests an
Administrative Permit to install an ±7'x18' accessible walk with
a 1:20 slope and no steps leading to new bathrooms.
Located: 1317 Central Avenue, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-1-9
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second the motion
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll take the first one. Number one, under
item IV for Resolutions for Administrative Permits, Karen A.
Hoeg, Esq. on behalf of 500 SOUNDVIEW DRIVE, LLC, c/o HENRY
MAZZONI requests an Administrative Permit to install 8' high
deer fencing along the easterly property line beginning at the
existing deer fence at the top of the bluff and heading landward.
Located: 500 Soundview Drive, Orient. SCTM# 1000-13-2-8.2
Trustee Greg Williams and myself performed the inspection
this Monday, albeit that a deer fence in this location is
needed, we understand there may be some property issues between
the owner of the property for the proposed fence and the
neighbors, and there is a pending --
MR. HAGAN: There is an issue with regard to whether or not a
Proper--whether we have a correct survey.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is an issue whether we have -- correct
that. There is an issue whether we have the correct survey
information, and there is also pending before the Planning Board
subdivision approval so as to allow for possible submission of a
correct map to the Trustees and more accurate information. And
to not create disharmony or problems with the pending
subdivision approval, I would move that we table this
application for one month to allow for the parties to possibly
meet and submit new information.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 6 January 17, 2018
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number three, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc. on behalf of WILLIAM H. PRICE & SUSAN P. ANDERSON requests
an Administrative Permit for the as-built 16'x26' (416sq.ft.)
attached seaward side deck with 4'x23' (92sq.ft.) steps to ground.
Located: 1345 Long Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-55-3-30
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from the fact that the deck was not
constructed with a Board of Trustee review and permit.
So as such, I make a motion to approve this application
noting that the approval will bring it into consistency.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number five, Chris Mohr Landscaping, Inc. on
behalf of PAUL CUTRONE requests an Administrative Permit for the
as-built installation of approximately 550' (±275' on either
side) of 8' high deer fencing attached to vineyard poles along
each side yard property line from the house to the water.
Located: 940 Maratooka Lane, Mattituck. STM# 1000-115-3-17
When we went out, we did a field inspection, we noticed the
deer fence was right up to the lake, as well as it has a fence
parallel with the lake, which is not allowed under Town Code.
So I make a motion to table this so we can meet with the
property owner in the field and discuss. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item number six, ROBERT & PATRICIA ALCUS
request an Administrative Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance
Permit to hand cut the Common Reed (Phragmites australis) to no
shorter than 12" in height, on an as needed basis.
Located: 1457 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. SCTM# 1000-92-1-2.1
We don't have an LWRP on this, so that would preclude
finalizing activity on this. The Board may have seen an e-mail
return I got from Robert Marsh of the DEC, so it would appear to
discount the information that the applicant gave us in the field
that somehow he was given advice that there was an allowable
cutting of the phragmites.
So I guess I would ask to table this application subject to
receiving an LWRP and also possibly communicating to the
individual that purportedly gave this gentleman advice, the
individual we know who is considered a competent botanist, that
we just might communicate with them what this individual had
attributed and that we wait for an LWRP and that the Board take
the matter up at a subsequent work session whether we want to
refer the violation to the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation. That's my motion.
Board of Trustees 7 January 17, 2018
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONSITRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, Roman numeral V, applications for
extensions, transfers and administrative amendments. Again, in
order to simplify our meetings, I'll make a motion to approve as
a group items one through eight. They are listed as follows:
Number one, DANA & MICHAEL SAVINO request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#6622 from Anthony Graziano to Dana & Michael
Savino, as issued on May 16, 2007.
Located: 915 Lakeside Drive North, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-4-6
Number two, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JAMES J. BAUMANN & PATRICIA A.
PERRY requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#5607 from Alexandra Jones to James
J. Baumann & Patricia A. Perry, as issued on August 21, 2002.
Located: 1625 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-13
Number three, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of FREDERIC ENDEMANN requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8734 to modify the original bulkhead
replacement to be a 37 linear foot replacement with a 21 linear foot bulkhead extension
installed in more of a straight line in lieu of the angled version of a 40 linear foot
replacement and 20 linear foot of new bulkhead.
Located: 840 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-5-51.1
Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of NORTH FORK PROPERTY
VENTURES, LLC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8990 to
include the connection of water and electric to the dock.
Located: 5310 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-138-2-15
Number five, RICHARD DEMOTT requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit#682 for the existing t11' wide boat slip/ramp adjacent to the bulkhead
return. Located: 5240 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-138-2-14
Number six, Timothy Hough on behalf of BARBARA KOHN requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9059 to relocate the existing
boathouse/storage shed to be placed approximately 40' landward of bulkhead and 20'
from the east property line; and to reconstruct the boathouse/storage shed to be no
larger than 100 square feet.
Located: 50 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-14-12
Number seven, WALTER & BARBARA FITZGERALD request an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit#8685 for a proposed irregularly shaped patio around the
pool consisting of side 1 to be 107' wide, side 2 to be 4' wide, side 3 to be 6' wide, side
4 to be 6' wide, and a diagonal 25' wide by 15' deep pool patio area.
Located: 8915 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-6-27.3
Number eight, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of THE BOATYARD
AT FOUNDERS LANDING, INC. requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit#8666 for the reconfiguring of three (3) existing fixed piers by removing the
existing and constructing a 4'x50' fixed pier, and two 4'x60' fixed piers with a 4'04'
walkway in between so that they are in a more parallel position with the other
finger piers along the south bulkhead staying within the existing dock line and
Board of Trustees 8 January 17, 2018
footprint as the current layout, and no seaward extension into the waterway; and
to reconfigure the floating docks within the boat basin consisting of constructing a
new 4'x5' cantilevered platform with two (2) 3'x12' ramps leading to A Dock & B Dock,
"A Dock" reconfigured to a 6'x80' main float with three (3) 4'x16' floating finger piers,
"B Dock" reconfigured to a 6'x100' main float with three (3) 4'x18' floating finger
piers and two (2) 4'x16' floating finger piers, "C Dock" construct a new 4'x5'
cantilevered platform with a 3'x12' ramp to a reconfigured 6'x100' main float with
four(4) 4'x16' floating finger piers, "D Dock" reconfigured to a 6'x60' main float
parallel to the bulkhead; and to install a splashboard system underneath the two fixed
outer docks just outside the boat basin by using 3"x10" boards spaced 2" apart and a
2' space from the bottomland to protect the basin from significant wave action.
Located: 2700 Hobart Road & 1000 Terry Lane, Southold
SCTM#'s 1000-64-3-10 & 1000-64-3-11
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roman numeral VI, public hearings. At this time
I'll take a motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and
enter into the public hearings.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is a public hearing in the matter of the
following applications for permits under the Wetland ordinance
of the Town of Southold. I have an affidavit of publication from
the Suffolk County Times. Pertinent correspondence may be read
prior to asking for comments from the public.
I suggest that you keep your comments relevant, organized
and brief. Five minutes or less would be appreciated.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Amendments, number one, Timothy Hough on
behalf of BARBARA KOHN requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit
#9059 to remove the existing t1,340sq ft. pressure treated
decking and substructure against the bulkhead, and construct new
t1,950sq.ft. (16' wide) non-pressure treated decking with
pressure treated substructure along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 500 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-14-12
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application, suggesting the use of best management practices.
The Trustees did a field inspection on January 9th and
actually at that time did an in-house, having been out to this
location several times in the past, and found this to be straightforward.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
Board of Trustees 9 January 17, 2018
MR. HOUGH: Tim Hough here on behalf of Barbara Kohn, here to
answer any questions you may have, any concerns, for the applicant.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HOUGH: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We'll suspend action on number two, Costello
Marine contracting on behalf of ROBERT SINGER & LYNNE VITALE.
It's suspended for a few minutes. It will come up again after we
deem with the neighboring property.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next item is under Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits,
number one, Michael Kimack on behalf of SOUTHOLD SUNSETS, LLC requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to demolish existing one-story dwelling,
decks and foundation; construct on a piling system to elevate the finished floor to 16ft.
elevation a proposed 957.77sgf.ft. one-story, single-family dwelling with a combined
262.75sq.ft. of seaward side porch area with 7.6' wide stairs to ground, and side deck
area with 4' wide stairs to ground.
Located: 4200 Kenny's Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-4-3.
This is a return to the Board after last month's hearing, the Board could not
conclude action on this application because we did not have before us at that time an
LWRP report, the project having been determined to be inconsistent at that time. And for
the failure to have a plan showing a sub-surface onsite sanitary disposal system. We
have since then received those plans.
The LWRP coordinator has issued an LWRP report dated January 17th. The
project is considered inconsistent, specifically with relating to certain coastal policies
concerning minimizing potential loss by locating structures away from flooding and
erosion hazards and avoiding development other than water dependent uses in coastal
areas, and specifically with relation to water dependent uses.
The LWRP coordinator indicated that in the event an approval is contemplated
by the Board, it is recommended that to further policy numbers five and six, that
an innovative alternative onsite waste water system is recommended.
So those are the recommendations of the LWRP coordinator.
Also to refresh the Board's recollection, the Conservation Advisory Council was
disposed to support this application but made, in reviewing this again, made a very
specific repeat of their recommendation of concerns for preservation of the primary
dune.
So those are the comments on the record by the LWRP and the Conservation
Board of Trustees 10 January 17, 2018
Advisory Council.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant.
You did receive the revised survey, primarily, and it does
show the septic system on there. It's my understanding that
until the town actually has a vote on the IA system, that we are
sticking with the standard systems until such time. Am I correct on that?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can't answer that question. There has
been discussion concerning this issue with reference to whether
the Board would wish to go ahead on individual sites in advance
of or in anticipation of a whole town law or what the Board had
just advocated before the Town Board yesterday to incorporate it
into the Wetlands code as a starter. I don't believe it's the
final sentiment or determinations of the Board has been made.
Is that fair to say, Chairman Domino?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, that's correct.
MR. KIMACK: Well, I would say as a result of the last meeting,
primarily, and conversation that we had, that my understanding
was is that until the Town did vote, that there was jurisdiction
for you as Trustees to move forward with making a recommendation
of IA. As a result of that, I already submitted to the Health
Department this particular system.
Now, we placed the system on the back side so that we can
minimize the disturbance to the dune, but also it's placed to
the back side because the Health Department requires a 100-foot
setback from the high water mark. And that's 110. So it's the
only location that can be for that particular system on the
site. It also happens to be one of the higher locations there so
we have ground water two feet underneath it. But we were under
the knowledge basically that we would, until the Town actually
voted, that we would not be subject to an IA system and had
moved accordingly on that one. This is a standard system and the
standard system has been submitted to the Health Department as a
result of that conversation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would be fair to say, since I'm the one
that carried the file here, it's fair to say that
characterization was my understanding, until quite recently,
understanding that these things are in discussion and in flux.
The concerns of the Conservation Advisory Council to
minimize incursion into the primary dune were also part of the
Trustees' discussion on our field inspection this month as well
as in the work session. So the Board during the course of our
review of the file had indicated that we thought we would want
to have more specific detail concerning the primary dune,
operations of the primary dune.
So there are concerns about the primary dune, and the LWRP
coordinator, for us to bring this into consistency, has also
advanced his position that an IA system to meet coastal policies
would be advisable. And the Trustees have genuine concerns
concerning the disturbance to the primary dune. It would seem
Board of Trustees 11 January 17, 2018
that we don't have enough information to make a determination
with respect to honoring the LWRP coordinator with respect to
putting an IA in, as versus, because an IA may actually cause a
greater disturbance to the primary dune. So I would think that
if the Board had information concerning, in other words what
coverage an IA in disturbance to the primary dune versus our
concerns with the conventional system, which we would be asking
to have addressed.
MR. KIMACK: The impact for both systems is essentially the same.
What you have is essentially a septic system right now, a
thousand-gallon tank or so, or 1,200 depending on bedrooms. That
particular tank in an IA system is essentially broken into three
compartments. The one that has the aeration factor in it, the
second being the sludge transfer back and forth and the third
having the filter. It's the same size. So for physical
disturbance, it would be the same. The disposal pools are
essentially the same whether it's an IA system or whether it's a
conventional system. So the disturbance to the primary dune
would essentially be the same between either system. That would
not be a difference. The only place that it actually can be put
is where it is, on the back side of that primary dune, because
there is no other location. We are proposing to raise that house
within the same location. There is no place behind it, there is
no place on the roadside. It's tight up against it. And the
recommendations and resolutions from the last time was to raise
it in the same spot. So if we are raising it in the same spot,
there is no other location. And your requirement of us was to
put a septic system on the site. The only place for the septic
system is where it's located. There is no other choice.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. Then if the Board honoring the LWRP
and our interest in having a higher degree of water treatment
could, based on your information for this specific site, you
don't envision it taking more ground surface area for an
innovative alternative denitrification system then the Board
would be of the possibility to render a determination to require
the IA, since you are saying the footprint would be for all
practical purposes the same.
MR. KIMACK: Look, I have always been straightforward with the
Board, basically. I know enough about these systems, we have
already done one, primarily, and I know what the dimensions are
and the disturbance. Essentially there is no difference. I think
my concern is that, my understanding was that we would not be
subject to the IA as a result of the last conversation I had,
and I went forward on that submitting it standard back to the
Health Department, which is already in process of review. So if
you are asking me now at this particular point you are more
thinking about an IA system because of the nitrification issue,
and what you are saying is that the Board can recommend it or
put it in and oppose it even though the Town has not voted on it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What we are saying is that the LWRP
Board of Trustees 12 January 17, 2018
coordinator is also advancing to us that it's his recommendation
that an IA would be appropriate to meet the coastal policy, and
that would bring the application into consistency. But I think
we covered this pretty well now. I'm just wondering if you have
anything to add or if the Board has questions.
MR. KIMACK: The only thing, I mean look, on behalf of my client,
basically, and we, obviously, from the practical matter, an IA
system is a $25,000 venture. No matter what you do, even on a
thousand gallons. Because you also have to put in standby
generation. It's a requirement of the Health Department. And it
has to be there, electrically it has to be operational. It's
fairly sophisticated on that one. The essential system by itself
is about 6,500 to $7,000 but beyond that, everything else being
added, is between 22 and $25,000 with standby generation. It's
a very expensive process, and in this particular case, the need
from the county or anything like that, because they are not
residents. I do understand for the nitrification, essentially,
I'm very, very familiar with that process. But I would suggest
that it's kind of hard to make the overall argument. I know
where nitrogen comes from. Most it is coming from the farms and
not the land. A much smaller percentage.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Also not fair. We are not here to argue this
point, but --
MR. KIMACK: We are not here to argue this point, but I would, we
were under the impression that we would be under the standard
and we would not be subject to it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We hear that. I think the Board hears that.
There may be also, maybe it would be advisable to take
additional comment from individuals here and since we just have
this LWRP coordinator report as well as the information about
standby generation, so maybe we need to gather additional
information.
Is there anyone else here to speak to this application and
then the Board can possibly also, since it is further at a
work session, I'm just thinking we have a number of issues to
deem with.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That math is definitely wrong, anyway.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, yes. Is there anyone else who wishes
to speak to this application?
(No response).
I would recommend that we table the application for our
Work session discussion because we have a number of competing,
both environmental principles and needs and to take into
consideration what Mr. Kimack said with respect to prior
discussions that we had. So I'll move to table this application
for work session discussion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
MR. KIMACK: One more time for the work session.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 13 January 17, 2018
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Any additional information you want us to bring to
the work session?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do the Board members request any additional
information?
(No response).
I guess information on the county standard as far as standby
generation because of the site being so constrained and
additional space needed for generation.
MR. KIMACK: Standby generation is a requirement right in their
code.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you want to bring in a price so I can see
what you are talking about with an additional $25,000, 1 would
appreciate it.
MR. KIMACK: It's a factor, no question. I'll bring the estimate
of the contractor are putting it in.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. KIMACK: Thank you.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under Wetland Permits, number one, Costello Marine Contracting
Corp. on behalf of JOSEPH ZEVITS, MICHAEL ZEVITS, ROBERT ZEVITS &
PATRICIA ZEVITS request a Wetland Permit to construct 100' of new retaining wall with
a 16' long north return and a 16' long south return; fill void areas landward of new
retaining wall with approximately 140 cubic yards of clean trucked-in fill and regrade
area; install and perpetually maintain a 25' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge
of retaining wall; and construct a 5'x5' platform extension between retaining wall and
existing dock. Located: 1945 Little Peconic Bay Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-1-13
The LWRP coordinator found this action to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application.
The Trustees visited the site on the 4th. All were present. Notes include no
evidence of erosion on property even following major storm event. That's wrong. What's
the date on the inspection?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 1/9.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Excuse me. Even following the major
storm on 1/4, the inspection was 1/9/18.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. My name is John Costello, I'm with Costello
Marine Contracting. We are the applicants and the agents for the
Zevits', and we made this application and, you know, we
convinced the Zevits' to keep it back away from the water as far
as possible, and we tried to maintain whatever vegetation that
is there is curing some of the erosion that is occurring there.
It is a little slumping in the boggy areas and leave the
vegetation alone, move beyond the tide and try to put the
retaining wall. With a little reluctance, they -- you are not
going to get a permit, don't worry about it. So what they did is
they said we prefer to have the permit, and the retaining wall
costs are minimal because the elevation of the retaining wall as
Board of Trustees 14 January 17, 2018
you can see is approximately two to 32 inches in height. Just to
try to separate the wetlands vegetation and the upland
vegetation. And they're willing to give up their buffer area
behind it in order to plant the natural vegetation instead of
grass, that exists there now. So, and I think you are also wise
to hold off on the other amendment until this is either
discussed because there would be leaving a slight hole of eight
foot, nine foot of bulkheading connecting two adjacent
bulkheads. But, that's what we try to do, minimize it. And I
think that they, this is the minimizing of the project.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We definitely appreciate the efforts put forth
there. I think the Board felt this area was, I mean the area
certainly inappropriate for a new bulkhead, which this is a
retaining wall. But in order to sort of mitigate that, so it
doesn't become a bulkhead in the near future, I think we are
looking for something ten feet back from the wetland line to
make that a legitimate retaining wall.
MR. COSTELLO: Well, I mean, I disagree. By giving the buffer,
you still have the filtration system and, you know, you are just
giving up land and, you know, the erosion there is going to be,
there is no one here will see it erode to where it's located
now. No one here. But there will be some degree of minor
slumping. That's why actually we request that five-foot
extension on the dock. That's not much of a dock. There is not
much of a boating creek, per se. And it's just that when they do
build a home, in the roof runoff and whatnot, I think that is
one of the reasons he, they, both brothers and father, would
prefer to have that buffer. And I think that filtering system
will protect whatever that wetland.
Now, the wetlands, whatever is there, I think probably
should try to figure out how to improve it, whatever you can,
would probably help some of the slumping that is going into the
bog. There is some chunks of bog slumping off as you can see
around the dock area and I think probably what little teeny wave
action that is there is probably carrying off the floating dock
and causing that little slumping now. I think that is, I think
having the dock remain open as much as possible is certainly
alleviating that slumping. By moving it back, I don't see where
it serves any purpose except giving up land.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, we were not really looking at it as
giving up land. It's more of a habitat fragmentation issue. It's
a wetlands retreat issue. It's obvious sea level rise, you'll
have to leave room for wetlands to retreat at this point.
Otherwise it will be a bulkhead eventually. Hopefully I'm not
around for it. But that's what we are all just trying to avoid.
MR. COSTELLO: It's a good theory to avoid that. I think you are
right. But it will never be a bulkhead because it won't
constructed as a bulkhead. It's pretty light construction. It
will be gone if it became a bulkhead. The next door adjacent
neighbor does have a bulkhead and you can see what they have
Board of Trustees 15 January 17, 2018
done there. They tried to save a tree. And by trying to save
that tree, they extended that little teeny return, about four or
five feet, and it's rotted. And the Baccharis that they planted
in front of it to protect that void, that is doing quite well on
the north side. I mean, if that was required, I think that would
be wise, particularly around the dock. I think that would be a
wise environmental move. But I'm not going to be planting
vegetation. I'm not into that. But it's doing well in that
corner and that's probably the best vegetation along that whole
shoreline. And I think if you have that as a condition, it would
be more reasonable.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any thoughts?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I believe this area has a history of denials.
Looking at this, I can't see any evidence of slumping or--
obviously it's snow covered.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a bad picture.
MR. COSTELLO: That's not what exists.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's a big action to take.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Even a monitored retreat from the current
proposed location, say five or six feet, and then you would
actually have, you would meet the area seaward then would meet a
full 15 plus foot of vegetated buffer, and then they could have
managed lawn, you know, on the other side of that retaining wall
with less restriction or no restriction. In other words just a
modest retreat would provide more protection long-term for the
fringe which would be functional. Which is just a thought.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not a bad thought.
MR. COSTELLO: Could I show you a couple photos?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm very familiar with this, because having
been --
MR. COSTELLO: I know, but there are areas --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll take a look.
MR. COSTELLO: You can pass them down the line. But I could see
there are other alternatives which I think would be. That's the
beach that exists there now. And here is that corner of the
adjacent neighbor, where they planted vegetation in that corner.
Now, if the Board decides to put a condition of re-vegetating a
few of the areas, there is quite a bit of rip rap and whatnot.
I don't know if you have been to the site, but there is rocks
and some old bricks and whatnot, have that removed, and if they
re-vegetated in front a minor degree in front of the bulkhead,
without equipment, I think you would be accomplishing
considerably more.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: You didn't mean to call it a bulkhead just then.
MR. COSTELLO: Well, I plan on building one for you before this
one. But this is the neighbor's.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have been to the site a number of times
years ago. But we had this tremendous snow cover. Is there
maybe an opportunity to meet on the site again and see if we can
bring this back a bit?
Board of Trustees 16 January 17, 2018
MR. COSTELLO: By giving up the 25 feet of the buffer area, do
you want to reduce that down --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If we can push it back by eight feet and shrink
the buffer to shrink the buffer to 20 feet.
MR. COSTELLO: Or even ten feet. What difference does it make.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Additional protection.
MR. COSTELLO: I know.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I mean five feet would do a lot. It would
probably buy almost a generation of additional protection before
it becomes a bulkhead. Five feet would do a lot.
MR. COSTELLO: If we were to build a bulkhead, I would probably
build it a lot heavier. I don't want to go into excavation. Do
you know what the sheathing, how do you put it in? I don't know
if any of you built a bulkhead. I'll tell you. It would be
driven in. You would not jet it in.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: (Perusing). Remove and revegetate.
MR. COSTELLO: You can have the photos, I mean.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You might want to revegetate.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone else here that wishes --
MR. COSTELLO: One of the other things that would, by leaving it
where it is, that could be eliminated, would be probably after
you go back and hear the administrative amendment, eliminate the
return. That's a return that was going to be put on there. Won't
be necessary.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: By moving it back five feet.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, you would have to extend --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, I understand what you are saying. Okay,
anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
All right, hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close
this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I'll make a motion to approve this
application with new plans showing the retaining wall moved back
five feet from the wetland, a 20-foot non-turf buffer, removal
of concrete and, on the plans, depicting a re-vegetation plan,
possibly using coir logs if necessary. If necessary.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Or jute. Something to stabilize it.
MR. COSTELLO: I think if you put some vegetation you would
accomplish that more easily.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, that's my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Backing up a little bit, under Amendments,
Board of Trustees 17 January 17, 2018
number two, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of
ROBERT SINGER & LYNNE VITALE request an Amendment to Wetland
Permit#1992 to construct a 9' long retaining wall in order to
connect the existing bulkhead to the retaining wall on adjacent
property; fill void areas landward of wall with clean trucked-in
fill as needed. Located: 1865 Little Peconic Bay Lane,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-1-12
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection, therefore no recommendation was made.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on January 9th
noting, again, natural shoreline with no evidence of erosion
following the 1/4/18 winter storm.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Again, my name is still John Costello and I'm with
Costello Marine Contracting, representing Singer and Vitale on
this application.
The only comment I would have to make before the Board asks
me, I'm willing to answer any questions, there will be a
slightly different, if the Board with their last resolution, the
return instead of being approximately nine foot, it would
probably be ten foot, maybe. Whatever it is. But make that
because I don't want, I don't think it would be wise to leave
any kind of void and I think that the extension on the dock was
going to be five foot, I think that might have to adjoin the
retaining wall. That's all. So just as long as everybody is on
the same page. It would probably make a better project
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wish to speak regarding this
application?
(Negative response).
Questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
application contingent upon new plans showing the new retaining
wall in length to connect to the adjacent property.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. COSTELLO: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number two under Wetland Permits, Michael
Kimack on behalf of COVE CONDOMINIUMS OWNERS ASSOC. requests a
Wetland Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to
maintenance dredge to three (3) feet below mean water
approximately 82 cubic yards from channel at entrance to
association docking area, and as needed within the docking area
Board of Trustees 18 January 17, 2018
itself; dredge as necessary in the same areas to maintain width,
depth, and full accessibility of entrance channel and docking
area on a maximum of four(4) additional occasions during the
next ten (10) years; spoil will be removed to an approved upland
location for deposition; along the north bulkhead at boat dock,
remove approximately 145' of existing wood bulkhead; construct
145' of new vinyl bulkhead in-place with two (2) 8' returns at
both ends for a total new length of approximately 161 feet;
along south bulkhead at boat ramp, remove approximately 180' of
existing wood bulkhead and construct new vinyl bulkhead in-place
with two (2) returns, 12' on the north end and 8' on the south
end for a total new length of approximately 200'; for the
existing 31.5sq.ft. platform leading to existing 80.8sq.ft.
fixed dock with two (2) 8" diameter pilings and two (2) 8"
square pilings; existing 25 5sq.ft. walkway; and 1,758 25sq.ft.
of an existing floating docking facility with (15) 8" diameter
pilings securing the floating docks.
Located: Meadow Court & 8552 Main Bayview Road, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-87-5-26 & 1000-87-5-23.9
The LWRP coordinator found a portion of this project
consistent. In addition, they recommend that the existing 31.5
square foot platform leading to the fixed dock with pilings and
walkway is inconsistent due to a wetland permit that is not
obtained. A wetland permit will bring this into consistency.
The Trustees inspected this on 1/9 of"18. All were
present. The field notes were to do the work behind the existing
retaining wall to keep siltation to a minimum.
The Conservation Advisory Council did inspect this and they
supported the application.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. It's
fairly straightforward, I don't need to go through here. The two
existing wood bulkheads were constructed some time ago,
three-and-a-half to four-foot height that need replacement. And
it was recommended by the contractor to do two returns on each
one in order to preserve the ground. If you do look at the map
that I put together, I wanted to make sure there was a depiction
of the vegetation that is there. There will be some disturbance,
he'll have to do some tiebacks along that way, but other than
that it will be done from the shore, removed from the shore and
then the tieback areas will be the only place to be minimized
for the cuts in there.
As far as the, we did ask also for the as-built dock that
has been in-place for a number of years with the walkway and also
with the stairs leading down to the approved for this application.
There was a question that I had answered about the way with
which the dredging would be done. It had always been done by
Latham and had been done several times before. It had always
been done from the ground and putting it into trucks, which I
understand now he has to make sure they don't leak on the way to
Board of Trustees 19 January 17, 2018
where he takes them. I'm not privy to where the material is
taken by Latham. But I'm sure that he obviously has done a lot
of this before, would have a site that would be approved. It's
not a substantial amount of material, some 80 to 85 yards or so.
This is a permit that had been issued by the Trustees prior and
had expired. The work had not yet commenced. The request was for
ten years.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Anybody from the Board have any questions?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, I think it's pretty straight forward. I
recall a prior action there. I think it's a question of whether
there was a recommendation from the LWRP coordinator, the Board
wants to consider a silt boom for the bulkhead replacement to
try keep siltation down a bit during the course of the work,
because it is a vital creek for shellfishing.
MR. KIMACK: That would be fair straightforward because it's so
narrow, they could put it at the entrance over there from the
silt point of view, right across from that particular situation.
It's not something that would be extensive in terms of silt.
Just close it right off.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Will he be replacing that 25-and-a-half foot
walkway?
MR. KIMACK: No, that's something that is in structurally good
shape at the present time. I think it was found to be
inconsistent because as the floating dock had not received a
prior permit approval, primarily. We would be asking for that
small landing area with the fixed dock with the staircase to be
that leads to the floating dock, to part of the application.
It's described in here, I believe I have indicated exactly this
is part of the request for to make it legalized. Something that
had been in place for over a quarter of a century.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there any chance in getting it re-decked
with through-flow, during the reconstruction process?
MR. KIMACK: Yes. I have one of the members behind me. So. I
suspect so. Yes. I'm not quite sure how it's framed and the
reason I would be a little cautious is on the through-flow you
have, on three foot wide, you have three place basically, you
essentially need to have the frame match up. So it's not so much
taking a boards off and putting it back on. You may have to
reconstruct it. I would ask that be a recommendation but I
don't want to have to necessarily have him rebuild the whole
thing in order to create a frame underneath it in order to
support the through-flow. It may not be necessarily constructed
that way now. But I would say that if in fact it had to be
replaced at some time in the future that it be replaced with
through-flow. Would that be a fair compromise?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anyone else here to speak regarding
this application?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
Board of Trustees 20 January 17, 2018
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve this application
therefore bringing it into compliance with the LWRP.
In addition, with the amendment of a silt boom prior to
construction and replacing the decking with through-flow decking
if possible, at the time of construction. If not, when decking
is to be replaced, it will be replaced with through-flow
decking. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number three, DAVID & STEPHANIE SACK request a
Wetland Permit to demolish and remove existing one-story
dwelling, deck, hot tub, and all other related structures;
construct new 2,060sq.ft. two-story, single family dwelling with
attached garage and roof terrace; a 305sq.ft. swimming pool/spa;
a 330sq.ft. on-grade masonry pool patio; 270sq.ft.
walkway/steps/deck to pool, all located no closer than 50' from
top of bluff; remove existing sanitary system and construct new
sanitary system; remove existing driveway and install new grass
paver block driveway; install pool enclosure fencing and
drainage system of leaders, gutters, and drywells; and establish
a 1,035sq.ft. non-turf buffer to be planted with native
vegetation in place of existing lawn within 10' of bluff crest.
Located: 445 Glenn Court, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-83-1-5
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees have been to this site on numerous occasions.
Most recent inspection is done by area Trustee Nick Krupski. We
found no issues with this. It is essentially reissuing an
expired permit.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MS. SACK. Stephanie Sack, and I'm the homeowner. Yes, we'll
just, it was my fault, I accidentally let the permit lapse. And
I came proactively, the minute I realized it happened, to come
in and fix the situation. Our building permit was extended.
It's building permit 40573 and it's been extended to 3/29 of
'18. We are less than a week away from completing and exterior
work. It would have been done if we had continued and there were
no holidays and things like that. The entire project will be
done within six weeks.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would also like to mention that we received a
letter on January 17th from Doris Garcia, addressed to the
Trustees, a letter in support of the application.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application?
MS. LUBANSKI: My name is Carolyn Lubanski. I'm the secretary for
the Birch Hill Property Owners Association of which the Sack's
Board of Trustees 21 January 17, 2018
are also members. And I just have a couple of questions. I
understand that the permit had expired. I don't know when it
expired, and I would like to know the date.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It would have been August 19th, 2017.
MS. LUBANSKI: So we are talking five months, four months, that
the permit has been expired. And I guess what I want to know is
it permissible by the Town then, the Board, to allow work to go
on when the permit has been expired?
Because construction of the property has been ongoing. So is
that permissible when a permit has been expired?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would ask the Assistant Town Attorney to
address that
MR. HAGAN: Well, there has been a building permit that has been
in place with regard to the property. When there is an issue
with regard to completion of permits or some sort of issue on a
property, the Town has always tried to take a philosophy where
they give the property owner an opportunity to correct and cure
prior to jumping into violations.
MS. LUBANSKI: So five months is satisfactory on behalf of the
Board?
MR. HAGAN: I won't answer that question. It calls for a legal
conclusion that is not appropriate to give at this time.
MS. LUBANSKI: All right. My other question is since you have
originally given the approval for a permit, is it your
understanding that the house with the construction of the
property has been built based on that approval. And we are
talking about in regard to the height of the house, I guess the
footage from the bluff, back from the house. Um, fencing around
the pool, it was my understanding that, and I'm taking it, if I
heard correctly, that there has been a recent inspection. It was
my understanding that when there is a pool and there is fencing,
number one, we do have covenants and it should have been brought
to the association, which it was not. Putting that aside, it has
been my understanding when there is a pool, the fencing for the
pool is either around the pool or from the house around the
pool. Not around the property. And, um, as I look now, the
fencing that is there looks to be around the property and not
around the pool area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Pool code is not us.
MR. HAGAN: If you would like, I can address that. Because you
are asking a legal question. When it comes to whether or not the
property has been --the first half of your question, was the
property built pursuant to the plans that have been set forth by
the Building Department and up to what has been presented. That
Building permit is still open. It has not been closed out, so it
has not received that final inspection. In order for a CO to be
issued you have to follow the plans that have been submitted to
the Building Department. If there is some sort of issue then the
Building Department will then bring it to the property owner's
attention so they have an opportunity to correct and cure prior
Board of Trustees 22 January 17, 2018
to the issuance of C of O. The same with would apply for a
Trustee C of C
MS. LUBANSKI: If they were also doing work without a valid
permit and no one was out, I guess checking on things, how do
you then know things are being done correctly.
MR. HAGAN: Okay, there is a valid building permit in place that
is still open and there is a C of O inspection that occurs at
the conclusion of construction, and the things have to match up
in order for the C of O to be issued.
MS. LUBANSKI: I'm a little confused. If you are saying it's
still open then why are we here today?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The building permit is still open.
MR. HAGAN: You have two permits. Okay, you have a building
permit with regard to construction of the home. You have a
Trustees permit that deals with the fact that the home is being
located within jurisdiction of the Trustees.
MS. LUBANSKI: Okay, and, this is just not for the building, this
is for--
MR. HAGAN: This is the Trustees permit only.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If not for the fact that they let this
lapse, the Board also typically to allow construction to proceed
in orderly fashion does provide permit extensions, a maximum of
two one-year extensions beyond the initial permit issuance. It's
simply we did not seek a request for that at this instance. So
that's also the Board policy, as we understand things don't
necessarily proceed as planned.
MS. LUBANSKI: Okay, thank you.
MS. SACK: If I may address some of those concerns. We have
complied, my architect is here as well this evening to answer or
address any additional questions you may have. But we have been
completely conforming to the original scope of the work.
Complete with height restrictions, the bluff, we have been
extremely sensitive to adhering to all both ZBA and Trustee
requirements every step of the way. We have received approvals
every step of the way for sanitation, for septic, for
everything. I mean we have been working very closely and in hand
with all of you.
And then just regarding the fence, we are exactly putting
the fence in that is exactly as was submitted and approved by
the Trustees last time. It's just not completely finished yet.
It will be finished, if all goes well tonight, it's scheduled
next Thursday to finish. Then it will go around the house to
be, it will look just like what is on the approved drawings
that, the previously approved drawings. My architect is here if
you have any questions for him.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
Board of Trustees 23 January 17, 2018
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application
noting that as Trustee Bredemeyer said, we normally give an
extension. So my motion is to approve the application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. SACK: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number four,
En-Consultants on behalf of NORMAN PARTON & ELLIE BECKER request
a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place approximately
194 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead;
remove and replace in-place existing t8' and t19' timber
bulkhead returns with vinyl returns, and backfill with
approximately 25 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be trucked
in from an approved upland source; reconstruct in-kind/in-place
existing 2'x3' steps to grade; construct a 10'x12' on-grade wood
deck using untreated decking; install t8 linear feet of stepping
stones to existing dock; and to establish and perpetually
maintain a 8'-10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge
of the reconstructed bulkhead. Located: 1920 Minnehaha
Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-63.1
The project has been deemed to be consistent with the LWRP
with the recommendation of silt boom during construction since
it's immediately adjacent to the surface waters of Corey Creek.
And the Conservation Advisory Council is supporting the
application with the condition of a slightly larger 12-foot
non-turf buffer adjacent to the constructed bulkhead.
The Trustees performed a field inspection, also had a
discussion with Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants concerning the
advisability of the, trying to build behind or minimize
siltation, which I believe questions at the work session
addressed that. And we do have a recommendation for the silt
boom in the file from LWRP coordinator.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. CROWLEY: Ian Crowley on behalf of Ellie Becker and Norman
Parton, pinch hitting for Rob. He kind of explained to me what
you guys spoke about. If you could kind of bring me up to
speed, it would be helpful.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The discussion, we thought if possible all
construction could be done landward of the existing bulkhead,
leaving it in place and cutting it down. I don't know, I think
the Board was satisfied with the explanation he gave at the
work session that there is so much disturbance anyway.
MR. CROWLEY: The DEC used to ask for that years ago. They kind
of got away from it. But it's going to be get trampled. And I
think he had added a re-vegetation plan.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: He suggested the Board request a
re-vegetation plan for the disturbance.
MR. CROWLEY: I think that would be perfectly fine.
Board of Trustees 24 January 17, 2018
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, any discussions questions from the
Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this matter?
(Negative response).
Seeing no one, I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve the application
noting it's consistent with the LWRP, with the stipulation a
silt boom be used during construction and that re-vegetation
with Spartina Alterna flora be made in any disturbed areas that
are seaward of the new construction.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number five, BARRY D. BARTH requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a 21.3'x17' one-story addition with
car port underneath onto easterly side of dwelling; and to
construct a 10'x13' wood deck against seaward side of addition.
Located: 2040 Central Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-1-26
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on January 9th,
noting that it was a straightforward application.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BARTH: I'm Barry Barth, the owner of the property. I'm here
to answer any questions.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Pretty straightforward, right?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. Any comments or questions from the
Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number six, Robert Wilson on behalf of BARRY
ROOT requests a Wetland Permit to enclose the open area within
the existing carport attached to the east side of dwelling in
Board of Trustees 25 January 17, 2018
order to create additional living space by installing a masonry
foundation and constructing exterior walls within the footprint
of the existing second-floor roof; and to construct a 18'4"x5'5"
front entry deck onto addition. Located: 6315 Indian Neck Lane,
Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-6-20
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this.
And the Trustees went out on the 9th and overall found it
to be okay. Just note that we would like to see gutters to
leaders to drywells on the property and for the whole house.
And I also would like to note that there is an e-mail in here
from the adjacent property, and they support the plans for this
project. Is there anyone here to speak regarding this application?
MR. WILSON: Robert Wilson, just to answer any questions on
behalf of Barry Root.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the one concern that we saw at the
time, there were gutters but there were no leaders or drywells.
And I think during the completion of this project we would like
to see the whole house done up, because it's right on the creek.
MR. WILSON: Yes, I noticed actually there is a broken leader
hanging down from the gutters I don't know if that actually
came down in the storm, but we discussed that this morning and
we'll be happy to include storm water runoff and drywell plans
when we submit the Building permit applications.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Is there anyone else here that wishes to
speak regarding this application? Comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Okay, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the following amendment, that the new plans depict leaders to
gutters to drywells for the entire house.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. WILSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number seven, Environment East, Inc., on
behalf of STRITZLER FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit for
the existing one-story 1,186.58sq.ft. dwelling with seaward side
1,022.26sq.ft. deck and steps to grade; existing 109.68sq.ft.
side deck attached to dwelling; existing 347.50 front boardwalk
and 175.62sq.ft. rear boardwalk; existing 41.91 well house; and
to construct a 53.03sq.ft. kitchen addition; a 63.16sq.ft.
bathroom addition; and a 110.65sq.ft. seaward side deck addition.
Located: 955 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-94-1-8
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports this application.
Board of Trustees 26 January 17, 2018
On January 9th, the Trustees all were present, did a site
inspection with questions of, notes in the field was the deck
built without a permit, and a coastal erosion question and there
was some land clearing.
To bring this into consistency with the LWRP, it would need
to get a, to grant a permit. The LWRP coordinator also noted
that he would like to see a vegetated buffer landward of the top
of the bluff.
Is there anybody here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Peter Stoutenburgh, with Environment East. I'm
basically here to answer any questions. I'm a little surprised
at what they are saying about vegetation at the top of the
bluff. It's pretty vegetated. I think they might have had the
wrong property. They were talking about things without permits.
I mean, you guys were there. I saw tracks. Something does seem
quite right with that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did note the vegetation at the top.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We did note the vegetation, yes.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Everything, we are doing, you guys did the
permit three years ago for a small addition, maybe they didn't
have that information? The kitchen is on an existing deck space
and so is the bathroom under it. So I think maybe he missed your
permit three years ago.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not sure --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we had some disturbance.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All those pictures were of the house.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Even the bluff is vegetating in very nicely.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would recommend there be no further pruning,
just referring to the photograph.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think one of the issues that we did observe
while we were in the field is there was quite a bit of trimming
between the house and the bluff, and typically where you would
have to come in, obviously you are representing the homeowner,
and it was not you out there with the hedge trimmer. But please
pass along they would have to come in if they want to do any
trimming on the top of the bluff. And that's unrelated to the
LWRP coordinator's comments That's just from our field observations.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: And I heard you reading through it, sort of
like what exactly, how does this fit with what you guys saw?
There is something that doesn't seem to be
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm unclear on what his comments per were about
the vegetation.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is the photograph I'm referring to. You
can see all the vegetation that is seaward of that deck is pretty much
uniform. It's been cut. And any action like that requires a Trustee permit.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: I'll definitely pass it along.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anybody else here that wishes to
speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Board of Trustees 27 January 17, 2018
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I would like to make a motion to close the
hearing on this application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I would like to make a motion to approve the
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eight, Anthony Trezza on behalf of
MATTHEW CAPPABIANCA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
4'x35' bluff stairway consisting of a 4'x11' upper platform to 4'x10' stairs
to a 4'x4' middle platform to 4'x10' lower stairs to an 8'x10' bottom
deck against the toe of the bluff; and to install a 4'x4' cantilevered
platform off of bulkhead with 3'x8' retractable stairs to beach.
Located: 21415 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-135-1-4
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and
inconsistent. The consistency, essentially the proposed stairway
and platform from the bluff to the bulkhead is deemed
consistent. The inconsistency arises from the fact that there is
an 8'x10' platform, the lower level platform at the toe of the bluff.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
And the Trustees did a field inspection on the 9th. All were
present, and noted that the application was straightforward.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. TREZZA: Yes, Anthony Trezza on behalf of the applicant
Matthew Cappabianca. I think you described this pretty
succinctly. The property on the north side is Soundview Avenue,
you have been there, I think all the Board members here know the
property. It's a pretty straightforward application. I'm here to
answer any questions regarding the LWRP inconsistency. I have
some aerials of the area but there are other structures that
serve similar purposes as the one we are proposing. I would say
that I don't know that it would be inconsistent with the LWRP
considering this is a small, private piece of property whose
purpose is to serve access for the water. So.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: In the past, similar situations, we have asked
for open decking so that wave action doesn't lift up the deck
and make it become a projectile, which I believe is the concern
of the LWRP coordinator. In other words, on the statement is to
minimize loss of human life from flooding and erosion hazards, so.
MR. TREZZA: So that portion, that's what makes us inconsistent.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
Board of Trustees 28 January 17, 2018
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I make a motion to approve this application as submitted with
the amendment that the 8'x10' deck, bottom deck, be constructed
in an open fashion thereby bringing it into consistency with the
LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. TREZZA: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on
behalf of ARTHUR GRUNEISEL &JULIANE TOMISER GRUNEISEL request a
Wetland Permit for the existing 38.2'x26.2' one-story dwelling
and existing 25.3'x20.3' detached one-story garage; construct a
26.2'x20.4' and an 11.5'x8.5' second-story addition onto
dwelling with a 16.6'x18' second-story deck with 3.4' steps from
second-floor deck to grade; construct a 3.8'x14.1' one-story
addition on east side of dwelling with 3'8" cement stoop and
steps to grade; construct a 14.7'x5.3' one-story addition on
west side and a 29.4'x9.4' front porch onto dwelling; construct
a 21'x20.3' second story addition and a 25.1'x9.3' one-story
addition onto garage; for the existing 18'x20' first-floor slate
patio under proposed second-story deck; abandon existing
sanitary system and install new sanitary landward of dwelling;
install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff on
the dwelling and garage, and in accordance to Chapter 236 of the
Town Code-Stormwater Management; and install a line of staked
hay bales and/or a line of silt fencing prior to and during construction.
Located: 2875 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-3-7
The project has been determined to be consistent with the LWRP.
The Conservation Advisory Council has approved, had
recommendations were to support the application.
And the Trustees inspected the site on January 9th, noting that
the project is substantially honoring the current footprint.
The Board in its discussions did indicate that they would
recommend an alternative, IA-type of alternative sanitary, and
that the Board, because of the major construction, would want to
see included a minimum of ten-foot non-turf buffer adjacent to
the wetland.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Good evening. Patricia Moore on behalf of
Arthur and Juliane Gruneisel. They are both here. Juliane is
the architect. And what I gave you just a moment ago is just a
very simplified version of what the surveyor shows and what
their construction drawings. Just to make it simpler, I did
compare it to the description that is identical to the description.
It's just a nice, clean format. So that was her effort to make it
Board of Trustees 29 January 17, 2018
very clear. And particularly the garage, the surveyor just made
a shadow of a garage and the side is a small shed portion that is
accessed from the inside of the garage for tools and standard stuff.
So we just want to make sure that was part of your record.
I did want to say that we already have Health Department
approval that was obtained since the sanitary is so far from the
water, and it's in front of the house, that my clients got the
Health Department and that is already set to -- is it installed or--
MS. GRUNEISEL: No, it's just the permit, it expires April 2nd, 2019.
It's over 100-feet from the wetlands.
MS. MOORE: So it did not need the Trustees approval. We are
actually eliminating a non-conforming system and putting in a
proper system. The age of the house is around the 1930s and it's
in need of repair, and obviously that is a good time to upgrade the
sanitary as well.
So we would ask that that be waived in this instance. The
non-turf buffer, um -- come on up here because there is a
bulkhead and all the marine structures have a permit that the
Trustees issued. It actually, there is an old permit that starts
from the, at least, early 70s, I think the original permit --
60s. '68, maybe. And then there is a more current permit. So
I'm not sure.
MS. GRUNEISEL: Julianne Gruneisel, partial homeowner.
MR. GRUNEISEL: Thomas Gruneisel.
MS. GRUNEISEL: There is a concrete block retaining wall that is
adjacent to my neighbor's retaining wall, and it was adjacent to
my other neighbor's timber retaining wall. But he got a permit
to rip that out and put a stone veneer concrete block wall up
that adjoins my wall, but is much higher. So it's all
continuous on Little Creek.
MS. MOORE: They are asking just a simple, the ten-foot non-turf buffer.
MS. GRUNEISEL: That's what I'm saying. Where would you
put that? There is one that goes up to this, and after that is
beach and vegetation That's all natural that has not been
messed with. It is whatever.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board makes a standard recommendation
for non-turf buffers. Obviously, we couldn't see what was on the
ground because of the snow. So we are suffering from, it's a
standard recommendation that particularly with new construction
that we are, if you have a hard retaining structure, which I
think we did perceive in the field, we typically would like to
have that not be fertilized lawn right up to the edge. So the
non-turf buffer would be an area, we would ask would be an area
of ten feet that would be devoted to non-turf requiring --
MS. GRUNEISEL: My neighbors have that. But they use herbicides
and they mulch it. And I find when the rain comes, because the
property is now, the wall is much higher than my adjoining
property, all their mulch rolls over to my lawn, rushes down the
slope of my lawn and lands on the beach. So I don't think that
is such of a great idea What I have is weeds. I understand most
Board of Trustees 30 January 17, 2018
people would use some kind of fertilizer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are not saying it has to be maintained.
Weeds work just fine for non-turf area. I have a whole yard full.
MS. GRUNEISEL: But if you are recommending that I do what my
adjoining neighbor does. I don't think that's such a good idea
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, no.
MS. MOORE: This is, the ten-foot buffer is this area here that
is the portion of whether it's, I think he's saying --
MS. GRUNEISEL: It's very sloped, it's very pitched. So anything
you put on there will just go over into the wetlands.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You could leave it alone. The reason we put it
in is because most people want to put lawn everywhere. So all we
are asking is that you can't put lawn there.
MS. GRUNEISEL: Whatever is there I want to leave.
MS. MOORE: So the bottom line is yes it's fine because that's
how you have it now.
MS. GRUNEISEL: I believe it's holding the dirt from going --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It absolutely is.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We said no managed turf within
six-and-a-half feet of the existing retaining wall.
MS. GRUNEISEL: That's fine, perfect.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional questions from the members of
the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else who wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application as submitted noting that it does have a Suffolk
County Health Department approval for a sanitary system which is
essentially beyond the jurisdiction of the Trustees. And that
the project is consistent with the LWRP and that we would, that
the Board would stipulate that there be no managed turf within
ten feet of the existing retaining wall. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number ten, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
JAMES BAUMANN & PATRICIA PERRY request a Wetland Permit to
remove the existing bulkhead and replace in-place with 106
linear feet of new vinyl bulkhead with two 6 linear foot long
returns; raise the height of new bulkhead an additional 12"
above existing top cap elevation; re-establish and perpetually
maintain the existing non-turf buffer area along the landward
edge of the bulkhead; remove existing cantilevered platform,
Board of Trustees 31 January 17, 2018
ramp and floating dock, and install new 6' wide by 17' long
fixed platform/dock off of bulkhead; a 3'x16' aluminum ramp; and
a 6'x40' floating dock using un-treated decking supported by
three 10" diameter CCA piles secured in a configuration parallel
to the bulkhead.
Located: 1625 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-13
The LWRP found this to be consistent and inconsistent. The
replacement of the bulkhead was consistent. The construction to
install new six-foot wide by 17-feet long fixed platform dock
off the bulkhead, a three-foot by 16-foot aluminum ramp and
6'x4' floating dock using untreated decking supported by three
ten-inch diameter CCA piles secured in the configuration
parallel to the bulkhead is inconsistent, due to the structure
was constructed without a Board of Trustee permit. And also
that required the installation of a silt boom in areas where
practicable.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on January 9th,
noting there was some concerns about extending the dock into the
creek. And that the proposed float would exceed the 120-square
feet.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant.
During construction, just to clear up some of the issues
that I remember, we have no problem installing a silt turbidity
curtain during construction. We'll be jetting the piles in so
that handles that one.
As far as the proposed project which is the bulkhead and
extending the dock and installing a new aluminum ramp with the
floating dock, we currently have a DEC permit approving the
plans as submitted to the Trustees. And the 120-square foot rule
is also a DEC rule, they approved it, and the ideas behind that
would be for the location. In the past and in the handout I just
gave everybody, the dimensions are fairly rough but they are
within the nearest foot or so. In that area all along the whole
inlet there, all of the docks there, which were permitted,
actually, I did two of them, so I know that they were permitted,
are of larger size, due to the storms and the tides and damage
that it brings in that inlet there, when east winds and south
winds. And also the clients, their boat size is a sailboat,
fairly large, 39-foot, I believe, so they need something a
little more substantial for docking. That is also on top of that
would adding water depth to the keel depth.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Generally accurate description I think with
the exception of the larger docks drew from the fact that in
most cases it was private bottom and they were rebuilds of
pre-existing nonconforming docks where the owners had acquired a
property right in larger structures. So that is really what
happened with some of the old ones back in the days in the last
century when Trustees were ignorant. And I was on the Board.
Board of Trustees 32 January 17, 2018
We, back then, we were granting the structures that were really
covering too much bottom based on best management practices. So
that's where the larger structures had come into vogue. But we
have not of late, since recently, we have not granted larger
than 120-square feet unless there was a prior property right in
a dock permit.
MR. PATANJO: Just one or two other things. There was talk of
extending out the dock. We do meet the DEC requirement and also
the Trustee requirement. So they are in alignment with the
other docks in the area, as well as the one-third of the
waterway width, which we are well in adherence to. And where
this new dock is located you can see it's essentially in line
with the ones to the north, and there will be no additional
projection beyond those. And it won't impact navigation at all.
As you can see there is 207 feet to the nearest dock in one
location and 84 feet in the other location, if you go on an angle.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Part of my concern here is that it's, the land
mass kind of comes to a point there and it's on an awkward
curve. And I know further up if you are looking at the photo
into the canal there, where the private bottom is, there is the
big floating docks, there are large boats that pass through
there. So part of my concern is if we go out too far on this
corner, we are really going to provide problems for people with
existing docks.
MR. PATANJO: I've never been on a boat in this canal so maybe I
can bring up the homeowner, just to kind of indicate where the
boats normally pass by, if that's helpful. He has been living
there for a couple of years.
Mr. Baumann can come up and just kind of--
MR. BAUMANN: James Baumann, 1625 Gull Pond Lane. The entrance to
that canal is approachable. You can see it's a "Y" and there is
quite a wide berth from both the east side of that point and the
west side, which is my property. There is significant amounts of
water east of where this dock is going to be, eight to nine
feet, and granted there are some rather large boats that go in
and out of that canal. I think one just recently left
permanently. And they'll use both sides of the approach to the
canal to get in and out. Sometimes uncomfortably close to where
the current dock is. But that is a matter of navigation on their part.
One of my concerns all along is that, and I raised this
with the Gull Pond Yacht Club, which is the homeowners
association, is the no-wake rule inside the pond and particularly
as they are approaching those, the canals. I've repeatedly asked
that people slow down and they don't throw any wakes in there.
That's the only concern that I think is an issue in that
particular case. And I really don't see that the extension of
the float out off the bulkhead is going to necessarily create a
Board of Trustees 33 January 17, 2018
navigation problem for anybody going in and out of the west
canal.
MR. PATANJO: If I could add to that, too. I don't think he would
want to put his boat in a situation and destroy his boat worried
about a navigation hazard. He would not want to put his boat in
that situation. That's one item. And right where Elizabeth's
mouse is right now, I believe, you can correct me if I'm wrong,
the normal cross of travel is in the center of that main canal,
then it goes off to the two tributaries. So they won't really
be in the way.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: How much beam does your vessel have?
MR. BAUMANN: The sailboat is nine feet and the Chris-Craft
center console is maybe seven-and-a-half, pushing eight.
MR. PATANJO: We are not talking about a 50-foot boat with a
16-foot beam. It will be tighter to the dock.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So what is the dimensions between your
proposed float and the bulkhead?
MR. PATANJO: It's about nine-and-a-half feet.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And you have a seven-and-a-half foot beam
boat?
MR. BAUMANN: Yes. Seven-and-a-half, possibly eight. It's a
22-foot Chris-Craft, what they call tournament sport fisherman,
which is pushing the description. It draws about 20-inches of
water and it's a 1974 boat that I restored.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board historically has allowed
120-square feet but not always necessarily in a 6x20
configuration.
Any thoughts to, you know, 120- square feet made up of
let's say five by whatever it would be; in other words, narrower?
MR. BAUMANN: 5X24 --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 4X30 gives you length but doesn't have
stability. Exactly.
MR. BAUMANN: One of the concerns I had with 430, having been in
boating as long as I have, is the stability of a four-foot wide
float. It's really a finger and I'm sure that you all have been
on them in marinas. Even if they are pinned at the end, they
don't have the kind of stability that I think is necessary. I
have a 12-year old grandson that will be on the dock. And with
people going back and forth on a four-foot wide float, I would
be concerned of having more than one person on it at a time.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 5x24, I was thinking.
MR. BAUMANN: 5X24 could work there. With the extension of the
dock platform and the ramp. That could work for me with the
sailboat. That would give me enough space. Obviously I would
prefer more dock.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Would you need a tie off pile due to length
of your sail boat?
MR. BAUMANN: I'm going to leave that up to my dock builder.
Maybe we are going to need one, yes.
Board of Trustees 34 January 17, 2018
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I would say if, we are restricted by code,
keep that float to 120-square feet, that we could consider
putting a tie off pile, which would help you to dock your vessel
and also give you the safety. So that's one thing that we could
consider.
MR. BAUMANN: Okay.
MR. PATANJO: That being said, 1 could keep the three piles shown
on the drawing and just modify the size of the dock.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Point of clarification for me. This float is
going to be nine foot from the bulkhead.
MR. PATANJO: Nine-and-a-half approximately.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Nine-and-a-half. Then the float six-foot or
five-foot, that has you at 14-and-a-half feet. Then the beam of
the boat, I think I heard say nine feet. So that's, considering
there will be space between the boat and the float, you are out
22 -- 25 feet. You'll be out 25 feet in this channel.
MR. PATANJO: Normally the boat, the keel of the boat, on a
sailboat is arced, so it will be level with it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It will be 24-and-a-half feet if it's snugged up
tight to the float.
MR. PATANJO: It could be. Which is consistent with all the
others on the canal. And even at 24-foot, it still meets the DEC
regulations of one-third of the waterway width, as well as Trustees.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In this case I don't think it even exceeds
one quarter, which the Army Corps is looking for.
MR. BAUMANN: The difference is my property is not on the canal.
My property is on the pond. And the distance east/west from
where my float is to the property immediately east of it, is 207
feet. So putting the boat on the outside of that float, I can't
imagine how that would interfere with any navigation in there
given the fact that the main course of the traveling in and out
of the pond is on the east side of the pond to start with.
That's where the deepest water is. There is ten feet of water
there
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are certainly concerned, as you would be,
for your own vessel. Of course there is an opportunity to put a
private aid to navigation, I believe, under Navigation Law, that
you could put the appropriate light on a dock or structure to
warn mariners. And I don't want to say what it is because I'm
not exactly sure what the navigation law is, but I believe it's
a colored light, colored green flashing light you could procure
yourself to advise mariners.
MR. BAUMANN: I absolutely would do that under any circumstances.
We are in the house now going on, this is '18, it will be three
years and a couple of weeks. And sitting on the back porch and
watching the boats go in and out, particularly at night, the
guys that are fishing, I really need to have a light out on the
end of that dock. I would like to put a no-wake sign out there, too.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here that wishes to
speak regarding this application?
Board of Trustees 35 January 17, 2018
MR. STEPNOSKI: Greenport Dock. I have been going in and out of
that canal for 40 years Every time there is a storm or
hurricane, I go in the canal. We bring barges in 100-foot long,
26 foot wide, never have we had problem with navigation going in
the mouth of the canal. Getting up inside of there, it's tight.
But the mouth of the canal I always approach east to west. It's
not a problem. Navigation is absolutely not a problem going 50
feet off that bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Any other questions or comments
from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that the float be limited to 120-square feet
and that you can have that third tie off pile, if so desired,
and the use of a silt boom where applicable during construction.
And by granting this permit it brings it into consistency with
the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. PATANJO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number eleven, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting, Inc. on behalf of PAUL & CAROLYN AZZARITI requests a
Wetland Permit for the as-built reconstruction of the existing
dock assembly measuring ±78' in overall length, consisting of a
4'x48' fixed elevated catwalk with open grate decking and
supported by six (6) 6"x6" posts; a 3'x14' hinged ramp; and a
6'x20' floating dock secured by two (2) 6" diameter pilings in
an "I" configuration. Located: 1175 Waterview Drive, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-78-7-15
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
dock structure was constructed without benefit of the Board of
Trustees review and wetland permit.
The CAC resolved to support the application
On the 9th of January, the Trustees went out, all were
present, and the notes read: Appears to violate construction
standards. Would not have received a permit to build, depth to
water an issue, pier line, construction materials from an older
dock, neighboring dock, sitting on creek bottom. Some question
of depth at float.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicant. We are here as a result of a violation issued
in Justice Court. And what happened, it was, as I understand,
Board of Trustees 36 January 17, 2018
the dock was reconstructed fixed in-kind in-place. The only
difference I know is that the dock extends straight out where it
was previously a "T." Is what I understand. And so we are here
to fulfill our promise to the Court and that is the application
that is before you.
As to the water depth, all I can tell you is the
alternative would be to further extend the dock out into the
water, and the purpose here was to simply legalize a replacement
of what was already there, albeit with the float turned facing
out. As you can see from the aerial, people line their floats
either straight out or perpendicularly. And I think as you can
also see there is a whole lot of shoaling in that area anyway,
and I think the depth problems is probably common to all the
docks in the area. But we were not charged to make it any larger
or extend it out to deeper water. Simply to permit what was a
reconstruction of the dock. And that is what we did. And we note
that there are no apparent navigational issues. I think it's
deeper water than many of the docks that are already out there,
for whatever that is worth. And I would see no benefit in
changing it or making it bigger, which would be the obvious
solution to deeper water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So the permit I have here, which is the August
6th, 1973 permit#986, the dock listed here is construct a dock
4'x32", a ramp 4'x14', and a float 6'x20' with two pilings.
So that is the permit that is on file. So regardless of
how it magically grew in that timeline, it is now 40 --the
catwalk itself is 48-feet longer. So that is an additional 16
feet longer. So what was rebuilt is not what was permitted.
And I also am curious as to the depth of the float as it is
now. Do you know what the depth is of the float?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. We are showing 36 inches at the end of the
dock, but less than 18 inches at the landward terminus of the
dock. And I can tell you --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So that's insufficient water under the landward
edge of the dock. So that's not even approvable as it stands.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, there seems to be a difference as to what
was there and what you are describing as permitted. If what you
are describing as permitted, what was permitted should never
have been permitted. Because it would be yet in shallower water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's possible in '73 the water was not that shallow.
MR. ANDERSON: It's possible. This particular individual, all he
knows is he bought a property with surveys indicating what he
bought. He's not an expert in 1973 regulations. And I have a
copy of that survey. And the only difference I can see is that
the float was turned.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, unfortunately since we were not brought
in on the process, we didn't see what was there at the time. We
just have to work with the permit.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to note that we, on field
inspection, we noted the time we were there was 12:38 on the
Board of Trustees 37 January 17, 2018
9th. I'm not exactly sure of the tidal stage at that point, but
the property to the west, the float was on the bottom when we
were there. So I'm, due to the conditions, we didn't walk out on
to the float, it was covered with ice and so forth, and I'm
really questioning the three-foot depth at the seaward end of
that float. It seems to be less than that.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, I observed a normal tide, not, with
persistent westward winds or any of that, some time ago, I would
say, during the -- and those are the actual measurements I took
at that time. It was normal low.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is the float that was in the mud at 12:38,
which I don't believe was at low tide.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think if you look at that picture, and Liz
goes to the next, you can see that clearly it goes out further
into the creek than -- at first it was in line with the pier
line and now it extends past the pier line.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, the shoreline is further out as well. I
guess what I'm confused about, you have two things working here.
First is depth of water, the second is the pier line. And they
are working against each other, so I'm a bit confused as to
where you are going with all this.
In other words if you want the dock shorter, you are
putting it in shallower water. If you want the dock longer, you
are putting it in deeper water. But I would say that whether
longer or shorter, there is not a navigational issue here.
That's fairly obvious from looking at the aerial.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It would have been nice have that conversation
with the application for this, what is built there. At this
point--we could have wrangled over the depth to water at that
time.
MR. ANDERSON: I understand the sequence here. The dock is
rebuilt by an owner. He is cited with a violation. He hired an
attorney, he goes to Justice Court -
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The point I'm trying to make --
MR. ANDERSON: We are not involved in that. I have no idea what
was there. I have no way of knowing, nor have any way of knowing
what the actual depth was.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: But I'm saying I don't believe he has sufficient
depth there right now. And I'm certainly not inclined to get it
further out to get it to depth. So there is a real issue here.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If we were looking at a new dock action, we
would probably be looking for a different, we would probably be
looking for something that would include a set of steps or bench
off the side for small vessel uses, that would be man powered or
not motorized, because you are tearing up the bottom.
MR. ANDERSON: But you are telling me that everyone has a float
there and a boat attached to this, and you seem to be saying
that they don't have the same depth I have, so you are treating
this application differently.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Certainly not differently, if you came to us
Board of Trustees 38 January 17, 2018
with the original dock that was there and wanted to rebuild it.
I mean it's very complicated now because this dock was put in
and it's not in compliance. It was put in without a permit and
there doesn't seem to be a very easy fix, oh, we can move it
out, that doesn't satisfy the pier line. We can pull it in and
that doesn't satisfy the depth. Now we are in an awkward
position and it's certainly not our doing that put us in this
position.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the granting of an extension of the pier
line means that neighbors are going to go, gee, this guy just
went and built it and you permitted him in, now we want to go out.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because the original permit had 32 feet.
MR. ANDERSON: Deepening the water, would that be a bad thing?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The concern there is the domino effect. You
fill the creek up with docks. Sorry, Mike.
MR. ANDERSON: I would suggest you table it and I'll refer it
back to the attorney, because I honestly don't know what to tell
you. You know, the gentleman has no knowledge as to what was
there before. He's not a dock expert. He did rebuild it but the
dock is substantially different than what was historically there.
Now, I don't know what happened between 1973 and 2015,
which would be 40 some odd years.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The creek has been consistently shoaling up.
MR. ANDERSON: I can't speak, I'm not in a position --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Tabling it may also give us an opportunity to go
out there in better weather and take a better look at the situation.
MR. ANDERSON- That's fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I am inclined, my personal opinion, as it stands
right now, is that location should be a catwalk with through-flow and no float.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think if we go out there and do a field
inspection. I'm doubting the 36"water depth and if we were to
get 18 or less than it is not conducive to a float.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But if you want to table to take a look at it.
MR. ANDERSON: I think you better table it. I think this is more
of a legal thing at this point. By I think you should go out and
check out the water depths. It's just not, I'm not in a position
to commit one way or the other here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Is there anyone else here that wishes to
comment on this application?
(No response).
Or any other comments from the Board at this time?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to table this application for further information gathering.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number nine, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc., on behalf of VINCENT & DONNA DALEY request a Wetland
Permit to construct a 480sq.ft. swimming pool with a 475sq.ft.
Board of Trustees 39 January 17, 2018
pool patio elevated a minimum of 4' above grade in order to
connected to existing deck; install a t15sq.ft. pool equipment
area; and install a t50sq.ft. pool drywell.
Located: 135 Hill Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-32
The LWRP coordinator viewed this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council inspected this and they
voted to support the application, with no notes.
On January 9th, the Trustees were all present and did
inspect the property with notes that the seaward side of the
pool and patio appear to need a retaining wall if the pool is to
be raised to the level of the existing patio.
Is there anybody here to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicants Donna and Vincent Daley, who are here tonight
sitting behind me.
This is a straightforward application. So that you know,
it's the intention the pool will be the same level of the deck.
It's a masonry structure. It will be fill between -- it's, I don't
know if you consider it a retaining wall or not, but it's all
integral into the structure, so. We may have to come back at
some point for some sort of railing. We'll make that a call of
the Building Department. But at present that pool would be, I
guess approximately four feet above grade. And that's how it is
designed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So it will be a gunite pool, and the --
MR. ANDERSON: It's a masonry structured gunite pool
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And it will be a concrete wall surrounding the
pool. And there won't be any fill on the outside of the wall.
MR. ANDERSON: The cavity between the exterior surface of the
pool and the wall, would obviously be filled with the material
excavated to construct the pool. So it's not a question of
really bringing in fill.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Right.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS- One of the questions I had is on the plans
there is a lack of detail from the edge of the proposed patio
going down to the waterway. Is there going to be a retaining
wall installed or is there just going to be a slope?
MR. ANDERSON. No, there is no retaining wall. The pool is
essentially above ground or partially above ground pool, and
its top surface is supposed to match the deck. So you walk out
onto the deck and the pool is at the same level. So I don't know
that necessarily the perimeter, I guess serves as a retaining
wall. It retains the structure for sure, and whatever minor
amounts of earth or sand might occupy the space between the pool
and its exterior surface, which is on the seaward side, might be
a foot. Maybe, it's not a retaining wall as we normally --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Will it be a salt water pool?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, it will be. Most of the pools we do nowadays
is salt water.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I just want to make sure.
Board of Trustees 40 January 17, 2018
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The concern was we are creating very steep
slopes from the edge of the pool construction down to the creek
as far as whether it needed additional retaining structure or an
additional soil stabilization.
MR. ANDERSON: There should be no impact on existing slopes on
the property.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Did we want to see a side-view cross-section
showing what the grade would be from the patio down to the
water?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Will there be a footing? I understand you are
saying the exterior. The seaward wall of the pool is going to
act as the retaining wall.
MR. ANDERSON: It will be engineered, yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Will it have a footing?
MR. ANDERSON: It will have to have some sort of foundation
beneath it, yes. There is no grading involved here. That's why
we don't see topos. There is no manipulation to the slope. It
essentially sits on top of the existing earth and it's raised so
that the patio that surrounds it matches the same elevation as
the deck.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So from the patio that is --
MR. ANDERSON: Seaward there is no alteration of slopes.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So as I walk from the water up to this pool,
I'm going to walk into a cement wall at the edge of the patio?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. That wall would be, it's integral to the
structure, but it would be four feet, four-and-a-half feet high.
Something like that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Could you submit to us a cross-section of
representation of what will be there?
MR. ANDERSON: I presume we would have to engineer--that's not
an issue. I assume I have to do that for the Building Department
anyway. But I just want you to understand, it's not a retaining
wall per se. That's not the way we talk about retaining walls in
this forum.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We understand.
MR. ANDERSON. I don't have the actual footing details. You know,
the engineer might say we would build it like a box jetty. If
you see a box jetty, there is no footings because the opposing
wall support the wall. They are supported by cross tie rods. So
I'm not sure exactly how that would be done, only to say we are
not looking to manipulate any grades or change any grades.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anybody else here to speak regarding
this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion we close the hearing on this application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 41 January 17, 2018
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll make a motion we approve this application
with the amendments, two amendments; one being the pool be salt
water; and the second amendment, that updated plans showing
construction from a side-view elevation be included with the
plans. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, LUCINDA BARNES requests a
Wetland Permit to remove invasive/non-native vegetation and
vines within an approximate 9,OOOsq.ft. area landward of the top
of bluff, and re-vegetate area by planting native vegetation
consisting of low and high bush blueberries, beach grass,
bayberry, and beach plum; and to maintain the existing access
path to the beach.
Located: 63875 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-40-1-21
This is a carryover from last month's public hearing. I'll
motion to open this hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to
speak to this application other than Board discussion?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. I just, I do recall when we were
originally there, that we happened to mention it's a nice
non-invasive way to traverse to the beach, given the slope, and
the scope of what it is. And so that's, I just wanted to put
that out there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That is a point. Greg and I went looking at
the site and we basically found the same situation. Then I
indicated Greg after the inspection, I wanted to think about it
a little further. And a couple of precedence that the Trustees
previously had with respect to issues and violations that ended
up spending considerable time in court related to construction
and the coastal erosion hazard area. And what Greg and I
actually, my impressions of being nice, we all saw it the first
time, and then going back and revisiting it and actually walking
down to the water, is that this actually is nicely engineered,
it is engineered and dug into a bluff. So that with the
standards that we have and the coastal erosion hazard area and
two precedent-setting applications where the Board had started
legal action against individuals that were named in, one was
Martino, the other was Hugh. One case, extensive marble
construction was done, set into the bluff, as well as the other
cement block construction was set into the bluff.
In this case, there is between six and eight-inch locusts
that had been dug in and but also pinned with rebar and have
made unit steps. Arguably nicely done, and to my mind if I saw
this on a set of plans I would say it looks pretty good.
Nevertheless, the coastal erosion for the construction standards
in a bluff, are very specific concerning new construction
Board of Trustees 42 January 17, 2018
modification or restoration of walkways or stairways that are
done, in other words, done in accordance with the conditions of
the coastal erosion management permit. It's a permit required
activity and based on the Board's prior actions, which I was not
involved with and, not that I mean, we obviously all think, hey,
you are trying to build hard steps in the previous instances,
the Board I think properly viewed them as being contrary to
standards because we have generally open stairway construction
standard. But I looked in both codes, it doesn't mandate it
because we know that we have minimalist walkways where someone
lays something on the ground, like railroad ties or whatever,
it's almost like into that, but I thought I want to bring it
back for discussion whether we wanted to actually have them go
for a coastal erosion permit in light of precedence or whether
you felt it was minimalist that we would just ask them to pen in
a four-foot, in other words treat it as a four-foot wide path.
It's a little bit of description type thing here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You certainly have been there most recently, so
I would be happy to defer. But in my memory in walking down, I
thought I would in this state consider it a four-foot wide path.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was a neighbor raising the issue
concerning the walkway.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's why we are addressing it now. We want to
make sure that we took into account both sides of the issues
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Personally, with respect to a marble steps, or
concrete steps, it's a different situation than we have here.
Because when this, it rains and there is marble steps, the
velocity of the water flow will be great and you have a great
opportunity for erosion. The way this was constructed, the
locust step itself slows down the water and the surface is
permeable so you don't get the same sort of volume of water or
velocity that would give you a problem.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We also granted a permit through the coastal
erosion permit for the inlaid set of steps for the Pebble Beach
homeowners association where they had come in with specific
plans to do inlaid stone work that was not leading to erosion or
to runoff issues. It was not improperly engineered on a bluff
face. It was a gentle sloping, so. I thought it might be
appropriate to also not only to be consistent but also to
protect interest of homeowners, maybe we should ask for a
coastal erosion permit and bring it in on permit, that way they
can also continue to maintain it and it doesn't make the
neighbor who may have different feelings, because they felt they
were told to put an open constructed, you know, set of stairs.
And this, I don't think anyone has a problem with that, the
consistency, we should ask for a permit on that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It certainly would protect the homeowner.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What would the application state, a four-foot
wide path with locust posts for stabilization?
Board of Trustees 43 January 17, 2018
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: To a walkway, yes. Walkway, four-foot wide
walkway, bluff walkway stabilized with natural, untreated lumber.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So I think it would be something --
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: You couldn't get any more natural and
untreated.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, you couldn't get any more natural and
untreated. I don't know how you all feel, if someone came in
with an application that looked like that, I would say, hey,
that's good. We saw no evidence of erosion. In other words, on a
performance basis it had been built, you have a permit, but you
are looking after the fact, we did have the ability for
hindsight, 20/20 hindsight, I didn't see any evidence of
erosion.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: No evidence of erosion, the funny thing is the
neighbor that complained, the bottom of his steps were hanging
out because there was so much erosion at the base of his
landing, his 44's were totally out of the sand, like just
hanging there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Noting that your inspection was done
after the January 4th storm graced him, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's true. All right, so accordingly, I
would make a motion to table this application with a request to
the owner to submit a coastal erosion permit application for the
construction of a walkway, bluff walkway, constructed of
non-toxic materials, and that way could be appended to the
current pending wetland application for the current vegetation RECENED
to give approval for the coastal erosion and the planting, which It
is an essentially contiguous, continues with it. ,1e,6 k 'o3P M
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I second that motion. qSoutholdTown
EB 1 5 2018
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? 0. n
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll entertain a motion to adjourn Clerk
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfullysubmittedby,
Michael J. Domino, President
Board of Trustees