HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-09/22/2010 I
Jill M.Doherty,President QF SO(/lyO Town Hall Annex
James F.King,Vice_President ,`O �� 54375 Main Road
Dave Bergen P.O. Box 1179
Southold,New York 11971-0959
Bob Ghosio,Jr. N
John Bredemeyer Ol C�DUI �Q Telephone(631) 765-1892
Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED
Minutes OCT
2�5�2010 PM
Wednesday, September 22, 2010 Southold Town-Clerk
6:00 PM
Present Were: Jill Doherty, President
Jim King, Vice-President
Dave Bergen, Trustee
Robert Ghosio, Trustee
John Bredemeyer, Trustee
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
CALL MEETING TO ORDER .
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 at 6:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of July 21, 2010 and August 18, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Welcome to our September meeting.
Before we get started, I'll just do the postponements because I
know I'll forget them. I think we only have the one, right?
The last one, page six, Jeffrey T. Butler, PE, on behalf of
STEVE KUBRYK requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x24'
fixed dock attached to the existing bulkhead, 4"x4" CCA piles
with open-grate decking on surface. Located: 355 Lake Drive,
Southold, is postponed. We will not be discussing that tonight.
I'll introduce the Board. To my far left is Trustee John
Bredemeyer; next to him is Trustee Dave Bergen; Vice-President
Jim King; myself, Jill Doherty; Lauren, our office staff who
Board of Trustees 2 September 22, 2010
does a wonderful job getting all this organized for us; and
Trustee Ghosio; Lori Hulse is our attorney, our legal advisor,
she is not here tonight. And we have Wayne Galante taking down
the Minutes, so please, when you need to speak, come up to the
microphone and say your name clearly before you speak.
.With that, we'll get started. Our next field inspection,
Wednesday, October 13, at 8:00 AM. Do I have a motion to
approve?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our next Trustee meeting, Wednesday, October 20
at 6:00, with a work session at 5:30.
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Minutes for July and August, 2010. 1 read both of them and
didn't have any corrections.
TRUSTEE KING: I just got them. I had no problem with July.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I had no problem with July.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I read both of them and submitted the minor
changes. As a matter of fact I don't think I had any changes
for August, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to wait on August or do you want to --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have a majority. I have no problem.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of
July 21, 2010 and August 18, 2010.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for August, 2010. A check for
$7,177.71 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for the
General Fund.
11. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board for
review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: .
Board of Trustees 3 September 22, 2010
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, September 22, 2010, are classified as
Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations, and are
not subject to further review under SEQRA.
These are listed as follows:
Eric Klodnicki - SCTM#123-4-7.
Joseph Zevits - SCTM#90-1-13.
Penn DuPont Sanger and House 57LLC - SCTM#10-3-19&20.
Thomas & Maureen Dowling - SCTM#104-9-3.
Carol R. Denson - SCTM#56-6-8.7.
Kenneth & Elizabeth LeStrange - SCTM#123-10-1.
Cedar Beach Park Association - Cedar Beach Inlet Way Road, Southold.
Anna Costas C/O Renee Argentinis - SCTM#51-4-13.
Davies Family Trust - SCTM#104-3-2.
Cheryl Hansen - SCTM#78-5-17.
Robert Black - SCTM#24-2-13.1.
Hernan Michael Otano - SCTM#53-5-12.3&12.4.
Silvana Cadeddu - SCTM#35-5-23.
Mark Hansen - SCTM#87-4-3.
Annette Campbell - SCTM#137-4-27.
Jack Biggane - SCTM#83-1-33.
Alex Hillebrand - SCTM#115-11-23
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a second on that?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Resolutions administrative permits. We have
reviewed all of these, inspected them, they are pretty
straightforward and simple. We have a couple of
inconsistencies, though. So we'll have to take those out.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We can do them separately.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll do them separately.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a resolution to approve:
Number one, RALPH JEFFREY RUSSELL requests an
Administrative Permit for the existing deck. Located: 4782 Ole
Jule Lane, Mattituck.
Number three, GreenLogic, LLC on behalf of PETER & ANNETTE
CORBIN requests an Administrative Permit to install solar panels onto
the existing roof of the dwelling. Located: 275 Watersedge Way, Southold.
Number four, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of SCOTT &
Board of Trustees 4 September 22, 2010
SUSAN AMBROSIO requests an Administrative Permit for the
existing 8x12' shed. Located: 1940 Mason Drive, Cutchogue.
And number six, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of
MO AHMADZADEH requests an Administrative Permit to modify the
existing plantings by adding native species. Located: 925 North
Sea Drive, Southold.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, ROBERT H. WHELAN requests an
Administrative Permit for the existing deck. Located: 4782 Ole
Jule Lane, Mattituck.
It's inconsistent; policy six, protect and restore the
quality and function of the Town of Southold; protect and
restore tidal wetland; comply with Trustees regulations,
recommendations and fourth; Trustee conditions. I don't know
what that means, really, as far as inconsistent.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I honestly don't see how an existing deck could
be found to be inconsistent, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It says other reasons: Structures were
constructed without a permit pursuant to 275 in shoreline
wetland, which we know that, that's why he's in here getting the
permits.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As a matter of fact the deck was built before
275 existed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So he didn't need permits, at that time, but
now he does. How do we make that consistent?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Does granting the permit make it consistent?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We can say we found it based on our review with
the application, we deem it consistent.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a resolution to approve the
application of Robert Whelan, and I find it consistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Did you have something to say, Mr. Herman?
MR. HERMAN: I have nothing do with that application but -- of
course your counsel is not here -- but it's my understanding in
268, if you are not proposing an activity, it's like a
pre-existing structure, something like that, then it actually is
not defined as an action under 268 and therefore it's not even
reviewable. So you would obviously want to defer to Lori but
that is my understanding of 268. If it's a pre-existing
structure, it's there, they are not proposing to build it now,
then by code under 268 it's not actually an action to begin
Board of Trustees 5 September 22, 2010
with. So it should not even be getting reviewed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Appreciate that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good point. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, Creative Environmental Design on
behalf of EDWARD FORTE requests an Administrative Permit to cut
down evasive locust trees at specific areas on the bluff.
Located: 710 Truman's Path, East Marion.
It's inconsistent because maintain buffers to ensure
adverse effects of adjacent or nearby development are avoided;
maintain buffer to achieve high filtration, efficiency of
surface runoff; avoid permanent or unnecessary disturbance of
buffer; maintain existing indigenous vegetation with buffer areas.
In the event the action is approved, it is recommended, the applicant
be required to replant areas where the trees are removed.
TRUSTEE KING: I think the wording on is a little wrong. It's
cut down evasive locust trees when we were out in the field.
It's my understanding they were to be trimmed down. No root
removal or stump removal or anything. They were just going to
be cut down, until another planting plan comes in place.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right.
TRUSTEE KING: I think he took that as meaning the trees would be
removed. I think he misunderstood the language.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I think by us reviewing it and finding they
are just cutting them down and the knowledge of Mr. Chicanowicz
telling us he's coming in with a re-planting plan, that we can
find it consistent.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sure. The big trees would probably cause
more erosion and disturbance of the bank anyway. So judicious
and careful cutting, leaving the stumps for now--
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Dave Chicanowicz, Creative.Environmental
Design. At this point we are only planning on pruning downward
until we follow-up with a full permit plan as we had discussed
prior about revegetating and keeping the integrity of the bluff
in tact. So no intention of removing any root system, actually
it will probably be left up about three to four feet high off
the ground level, as we asked on our plans.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: I think that Bob took that language as removal.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I do, too. I'll make a resolution to approve
the request for Administrative Permit to trim down evasive
locust trees at specific areas on the bluff and we find it
consistent with LWRP as the root system is not being removed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 6 September 22, 2010
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven, JMO Environmental Consulting
on behalf of CHRIS & MARY PIA, requests an Administrative Permit
to construct a 42x17' addition to an existing on-grade terrace
and to construct two stone piers. Located: 5900-6000 Vanston
Road, Cutchogue.
Again, just as a reminder, this is not a public hearing,
this is just a motion for an Administrative Permit. It was
reviewed under the LWRP and found to be inconsistent. No decks
or platforms should be permitted on or near bluffs. Platforms
associated with stairs may not be larger than 32-square feet.
Again, it's my understanding this is not a platform, this is a
terrace.
I went out and looked at this in the field on the 15th, and
based on the plans that were submitted at that time, I also,
excuse me, I had an issue with this project as it appeared as
though the terrace, proposed extension to the terrace, was going
right to the top of the bluff. Since then we, Jill and I, both
met with a representative of the applicant and our understanding
was that this project that is proposed was going to be reduced
in scope tonight for our consideration. And I'm just looking,
were there any plans -- I see a set of plans here stamp dated
September 22. So these came in today, Lauren?
MS. STANDISH: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. And it appears as though this has
been pulled back, the extension of the terrace has been pulled
back from the top of the bluff, back.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was 16.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, but I'm trying to determine what it is.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was pulled back eight.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm trying to determine, it looks like -- no,
sorry, it's eight foot versus 16 foot. So what was originally
applied for was 16 foot and it's reduced to eight foot. Hang on,
I have to get a set of the original plans (perusing). Here we go.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a curve, so it's eight foot at the longest.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup. So what was originally submitted on
August, plan stamped August 31, had a ten foot, excuse me, a
roughly 16 foot extension to the terrace, and that's now eight
foot. So it's been, the width of it has been cut in half, so
that now it's no longer going out to the top of the bluff, it's
now back from the top of the bluff by approximately eight feet.
So, again, I know this is not a public hearing, but I see a
couple of people at the microphone. If somebody-- it doesn't
matter to me who goes first, if someone wants to make some very
brief comments.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just another part of the description, what it's
being reduced to is basically where the lawn ends and the buffer
Board of Trustees 7 September 22, 2010
begins. So it's not going past the existing buffer that is there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That was going to be the question I was going to
ask.
TRUSTEE KING: In other words the buffer in this area here
(indicating).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, the lawn goes to here. Here is the
privet hedge. There is a buffer between the privet hedge and
the lawn, and this is where, this corner here, is where the lawn
ends. So it's not going into the existing buffer that is here
and they are actually going to extend the buffer a little bit.
MR. BURGER: Eugene Burger, Burger Construction. I want to
mention both dimensions are pulled back by over 50%. It was
16'9" and ten foot and change. Now it's eight foot and four
foot on the sides. And we agreed to take out the turf and put
in native vegetation on that four-foot dimension out roughly 20 feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Glenn?
MR. JUST: I didn't realize he was sitting there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you have any comments?
MR. JUST: No, I didn't see Eugene sitting there before.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any comments from the Board on this?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think it's a good compromise.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Great compromise. Protects the natural
resource beaches.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was also noted that the plantings are going
to continue in this area. It's a double bulkheaded piece and
they have been planting beach grass and everything, and they'll
continue the native plantings all along the disturbed area.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jill was pointing to the bluff area.
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't see it, so I'm just looking at the
contours. Is that a real steep drop off there? It goes from 44
to 42 in about not too many feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: On the plan you'll notice the privet hedge,
there is a very steep drop off just prior and after that privet hedge.
TRUSTEE KING: Between the patio and here, what's it look like?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is a drop off in there. Definitely a drop
down in there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But you can walk through there. It's a path
you can go through. It's a drop off but that's why we asked for
replanting in that area. The privet hedge is pretty substantial
and stable.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And like I said, on the rest of the bluff they
are planting beach grass.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments?
(No response).
Board of Trustees 8 September 22, 2010
If not, I'll make a motion to approve number seven, JMO
Consulting on behalf of Jim and Mary Pia as per the plans dated
received September 22, 2010, and with the reduction of over 50%
on the scope of this project versus what was initially applied
for, and the maintenance of that non-turf buffer in that area
where the reduction of scope of the project is taking place, I
would deem it to be consistent under the LWRP. That's my
motion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye.
Trustee Bredemeyer, aye).(Trustee King, abstain).
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't see this. I'm a little uncomfortable
with it. I'm inclined not to vote. So I'll abstain from the
vote.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Make a note Trustee King abstained.
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, Applications for Extensions,
Transfers and Administrative Amendments. Again, the whole Board
reviewed every one of these and they were inspected. And they
are pretty straightforward, just procedural. So I'll make a
motion to approve numbers one through six on the agenda.
They read as follows:
Number one, Garrett A. Strang on behalf of PAUL BETANCOURT
requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#6972 and
Coastal Erosion Permit#6972C, as issued on October 15, 2008,
and Amended on April 21, 2010. Located: 1825 Aquaview Avenue,
East Marion.
Number two, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of KIMOGENOR
POINT COMPANY requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit
#6980 as issued on October 15, 2008. Located: 50 Jackson Street,
New Suffolk.
Number three; CAROL & JOE KANE, request an Amendment to
Wetland Permit#4990 for the existing 3x12' ramp at the bottom
of the permitted beach stairs. Located: 3100 Sound Drive,
Greenport.
Number four, YAN RIEGER requests an Amendment to Wetland
Permit#7210 and Coastal Erosion Permit#7210C to allow for two
rows of stone at the toe of the dune. Located: 370 Harbor Road,
Orient.
Number five, Patricia Moore, Esq., on behalf of PETER &
STEPHANIE COSOLA requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7312
to add 3.5' to the proposed addition and provide an exit door
Board of Trustees 9 September 22, 2010
from the kitchen area to screened porch. Located: 2880 Minnehaha
Blvd., Southold.
And number six, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of SCOTT &
SUSAN AMBROSIO requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7221 to
authorize the relocation and downsizing of the previously
approved dock, specifically the construction of a 4x12' inclined
ramp; 4x84' fixed timber catwalk; 3x14' hinged ramp; and 6x20'
float supported by two 8" diameter pilings. Located: 1940 Mason
Drive, Cutchogue.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, JMO Environmental Consulting
Services on behalf of MICHAEL & BETH NEUMANN requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit#7237 to use six-inch piles to
secure the approved open-grate catwalk instead of 4x4" posts and
to allow the use of a 3x25' ramp instead of a 3x20' ramp.
Located: 3329 Grand Avenue, Mattituck.
I think the reason this was not lumped in with the rest of
them was because it was a violation on this project. I wish
Lori was here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's been taken care of.
TRUSTEE KING: Has the fine been paid?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I spoke to her about it.
TRUSTEE KING: It's been taken care of. It was a little
troubling to me that the work was done before the amendment was
approved. That's the bottom line. And the dock builder got
caught. So as a result, the work is already in place. What
bothers me more, I think at the time, I don't have of a huge
issue with.six-inch piles. The reason we went with the 4x4's is
the DEC will not approve any docks unless it was 4x4 posts
through the wetland area, and then usually six-inch piles and
the use of eight-inch piles to hold the float in place. That
seems to be a thing of the past now. So I don't know.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words, the DEC you are saying is now--
TRUSTEE KING: They have a modification to their permit on July
27 to use the six-inch piles. So they had the modification from
DEC. Like I said, the thing that troubled me, the work was
already done before we approved it. I would request that the
piles be hand dug instead of jetted in. Because it made a mess
of the wetland area jetting them in. 44's should be put in by
hand. Six-inch piles should be put in by hand, too. It's a
little more of a responsible way of working in the wetland area.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim, I believe you wanted to add overall length
in there, too.
TRUSTEE KING: The overall length, when you look at the plans,
Board of Trustees 10 September 22, 2010
the overall length was for 108 feet, and at the time of the
hearing they requested a 15-foot ramp to the float. At the
Board's suggestion, we suggested a 20-foot ramp because of the
rise and fall of the tide in Mattituck Creek. Now you are
asking for a 25-foot ramp, and as long as this does not increase
the overall length of the project, I don't have a problem with
it. But if you look at the plans now, and scale it off, that
structure is supposed to be 108 feet long; from the landward end
to the seaward end of the float is supposed to be 108 feet.
What it measures now, I don't know.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would come out in the compliance
inspection.
TRUSTEE KING: When it comes to the compliance inspection, that
will be the time for that. It's one of the things we have to
tighten up when we write these permits is to put the overall
length of the project, because what some folks do is add it up
and the numbers come out a little different than what is on the
plans. With that being said, I guess it's the issue is over.
The dock has been constructed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Navigability, from your perspective?
TRUSTEE KING: It's well out of the way of navigation. The big
issue was when they go ahead and do something, specifically when
they are told not to, you know, that kind of irks me.
MR. BERGER: If I may, I just wanted to apologize for that screw
up on behalf of myself, the Neumann's and Angelo. I want to
just publicly say that to you. It was not intentional to
provoke anything, it was just trying to move the job along and
we didn't realize it.
TRUSTEE KING: Well, you paid a price.
MR. BERGER: I agree. I just wanted to say we are sorry about
that.
MR. JUST: Jim, if I may, I got a call from Angelo when he set
that first offshore pile and I believe that was the first day
you had stopped him, and he called me. And we had clarified
that number of 100 feet offshore from the house. I believe he
moved it four feet inshore after you talked to him and I talked to him.
TRUSTEE KING: Good. Well, when it comes up for compliance
inspection, we'll know.
MR. JUST: I think that will be obvious. The thing, as far as
the ramp, I was told some of these aluminum ramps, they come in
certain sizes; 24, 25, 30, things like that. They might be made
to order, I truly don't know.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought I saw Jack Costello in the audience.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: He's hiding behind Glenn.
TRUSTEE KING: Jack, do they come 20 foot standard length?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, 20 is stock. You can get them whatever you
Board of Trustees 11 September 22, 2010
want.
TRUSTEE KING: 20 is the standard?
MR. COSTELLO: 20 is stock, yes.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what I thought. I've seen an awful lot of
20-foot ramps around.
MR. JUST: I understand the impression they are not custom made.
Again, the reason for the increase in the ramp is not to make
the float go any more seaward, it's because of the tidal flush
in the creek. That was the only reason for that.
TRUSTEE KING: If you still want to stay with 25, 1 don't have a
huge issue with it.
MR. JUST: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: So I would make a motion to approve this as it's
been submitted and everything is taken care of now.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. BERGER: Jim, if I may, I have a question. Mrs. Neumann
asked me if it was possible to put ropes on the sides of the
catwalk for the children. Is that an issue?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That would have to be a request for an
amendment.
TRUSTEE KING: By the code, it's one handrail.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The code allows for one handrail. I don't know
if the code even addresses the use of rope. Since it's mute on
ropes --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, it is mute on ropes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: To me, I have no issue with it whatsoever. Just
thinking from a practical perspective.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let's get back to you on that. I want to get
Lori's interpretation of the code before we tell you can do that.
MR. BERGER: It's since they have three young kids.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. Okay. I'll make a motion to go off the
regular agenda and on to the public hearings.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And before we go any further, I want to mention
that we do have a representative from the Conservation Advisory
Council, Jack McGreevey here. .
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
COASTAL EROSION PERMITS
Number one, David Corwin on behalf of VIRGINIA DIETRICH requests
a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to remove 95 linear
Board of Trustees 12 September 22, 2010
feet of deteriorated timber bulkhead and replace with vinyl
sheathing in same location. Extend east wing eight linear feet,
construct 28 linear feet west wing, backfill with 25 cubic yards
sand from an upland source, and install rock toe armor. Located:
55755 CR 48, Southold.
have spoken to Mr. Corwin today. He cannot make it. He
said he dropped off of a copy of the DEC permit, which I see is
in the file. Mrs. Dietrich did not want to -- this was
postponed from last month, because we requested maybe a splash
guard, and Mrs. Dietrich did not want to go through that
expense, she never had it before, and this served well for
years. And the DEC did not request anything, they approved it
as he submitted it. So.
TRUSTEE KING: It was just a suggestion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So this is found consistent with LWRP and the
Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application
based on the following: There is a storm water erosion
condition to the east of the property of County Road 48 coming
off the Corwin property; vinyl sheathing is inadequate because
of the fierce wave action; bulkhead interferes with public
access. There is a question as to whether or not the property
owners own the underwater lands and location of actual deed
line; the plans depict 131-foot bulkhead and the description
states 95 feet of bulkhead; the toe armor is destroying the
intertidal zone, modifying the environment and; there should be
the requirement of an environmental impact statement. That's
the CAC report.
I was at a press conference this afternoon in this exact
area. Ed Romaine had a press conference. This whole area is,
it's not considered an emergency yet but there has been quite a
bit of erosion in this area and a lot of damage from mother
nature in the past few years. And since the CR-48 abuts these
properties and it's getting pretty narrow there, the monies are
trying to be approved for a project in this area and it's been
determined by different agencies, which is the towns, county and
the state, that a study has to be done to see which is the best
way to do this. So the county and the town and the federal
government have given their blessing for this, and the county --
and federal government have put in their share, which is 50%
from the federal government, 15% from the county, and they are
waiting for the state to put their 35% in, which that is what
the press conference was for today. This is an area that
definitely needs something done, and with all due with respect
to the CAC, I feel we need to move on something here because
this property, this wall is deteriorated enough that if the next
storm comes, it's going to break down that wall even more and
Board of Trustees 13 September 22, 2010
take away even more of that property. The property lines, we
did review carefully, because they were, the description of the
property lines and the way they were on the map, once you are
out there, you can see that it is correct. At least in our
opinion it is, when the whole Board went and inspected it last
month.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there a survey in the file?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was just looking for the survey. I have a
drawing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Doherty, a question. The conference
today, does it sound the study will be looking for a more global solution?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it's for the whole cove area.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because I know public access is an issue and
there has been such a loss of beach there, with need for having
a bulkhead, maybe the Trustees or Conservation Advisory Council
in their capacity, advisory capacity, can communicate with the
different groups that are putting together the funding so the
issue of public access can be worked into the study so if
additional beach nourishment or structure that allows people to
move along the foreshore --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's part of the whole situation is the
access, and they talked about a number of things they will
consider. And we'll be part of that process. So, yes, we can
make sure that is relayed. But it has been relayed already.
TRUSTEE KING: There was tremendous damage just west of this site
a couple of years ago.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The reason I ask for this is one of the concerns
from the CAC, from what I heard, this project was not on their
property, it exceeded their property line. And we have a survey
of the property here in front of us that shows that the deed
line goes well beyond this bulkhead. So according to this
survey, this entire project is within their property. That was
one thing that I keyed in on of the CAC's comments, which is
very interesting.
TRUSTEE KING: I see that.
MR. MCGREEVEY: A question, Jill. The potential study that will
be done on it, including public access, is it also incorporating
the CR-48 as it presently is?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that is why the federal government can put
in their 50A because it has to do with protecting CR-48, which
is an evacuation route, and as we all know, it serves for lots
of people. So that is why the funding can be used for that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could interject here, we are talking about
something that is really not part of this permit application,
and it's a public hearing for this permit application, so I
would just like to keep the comments specific to this permit
Board of Trustees 14 September 22, 2010
application and not talk about other issues brought up in a
press conference.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Just for information purposes for the
Conservation Advisory Council.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's important information but it's not part of
this application we are looking at tonight.
MR. MCGREEVEY: I understand.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any comments from the audience?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application
of Virginia Dietrich as submitted.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing is in the matter of
Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of ANNA COSTAS C/O RENEE
ARGENTINIS requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit
to realign the existing concrete seawall and install 16 10"
diameter batter pilings on front side and install 150 ton of
rock armoring at base of seawall consisting of 1-3 ton rocks;
repair and/or replace existing concrete splash slab as needed,
inplace; remove sections of collapsing lower retaining wall and
construct new rock retainer, inplace, install 16 10" diameter
support pilings in void area and fill void area with 150 cubic
yards of 20-50 pound core stones on filter cloth, and pour new
six-inch reinforced concrete splash slab, inplace; remove
existing collapsing wooden deck and walkway and construct new
deck and walkway moving new deck eight feet landward and
revegetate open area of bank to match existing; repair and/or
replace sections of existing stairway and handrails as needed,
inplace. Located: 20795 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
The Local Waterfront Revitalization Program has listed this
project as both consistent and inconsistent in part and
(perusing) okay, the construction and repair to the existing
bulkhead and other associated structures has been deemed
consistent but they propose construction of a new deck and
moving the deck eight feet landward has been found by the LWRP
coordinator to be inconsistent. So that is where this
particular application bifurcates.
The Conservation Advisory Council had a written report on
Board of Trustees 15 September 22, 2010
it, a copy of which I don't know if it made it into the file.
Do I have it here? It's right here, sorry. It was moved by the
Conservation Advisory Council not to support this application to
re-align the existing concrete seawall and install 16
10"-diameter pilings. The Conservation Advisory Council did not
support the application because the project will intensify
erosion elsewhere and it will prohibit public access along state
property and there was an attached statement the Board approved,
Doug Hardy, that was the statement I may have left for you
before the meeting. I don't know if the Doug Hardy statement
was attached here or not.
MS. STANDISH: It was not attached to that. It was attached to
the other application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can make it part of the record.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, because that was for Argentinis,
was it not?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you have an extra set of plans?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. It inadvertently ended up in another
file. It is part of this record. We'll re-collect it. The
Conservation Advisory Council cannot support the application of
Anna Costas in care of Renee Argentinis. The present seawall
is now footed below mean high water on state tidal public land.
The placement of 150 ton of the rock on public land would
illegally deny safe public access and lateral passage along the
shore. This is of particular concern to the Conservation
Advisory Council's extensive length of shoreline border of
eastern section of Soundview Avenue has suffered recent major
erosions involving a number of property owners who have been
permitted to protect their property by armoring the base of
seawalls and bulkheads, this effectively closes off thousands of
feet of public land to adjacent town beach from lawful public
passage. The hardening of extensive of lengths of shoreline by
immobile rock placed on top of natural setting represents a
habitat change with physical and ecological repercussions that
are presently unknown and requires a coastal management or
environmental review. This piecemeal approach of each
application should be considered on its merits as isolated from
the local coastal system is not sound management practice, and
and last was combination of extensive lengths of vertical
seawall and bulkhead walls which are basically armored by
immobile rock will have fundamental affect on the littoral
transport of sediment. This massive hardening of the shoreline
will change the physical dynamics of how the sea interacts with
a unilaterally modified coastline and unnaturally modified coast
line with results that are usually unwanted. That's the
Board of Trustees 16 September 22, 2010
Conservation Advisory Council's additional comment. So we have
those comments of LWRP and Conservation Advisory Council.
Is there anyone here wish to speak on this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. Jack Costello, on behalf of the applicant.
Do they have any ideas on how to rectify the problem and protect
the neighbors' rights? I mean, already one of the neighbors has
approached me about their rights and not moving on this. And
another question I have, is it still in code to armor bulkheads
on the Sound by this Board? Did that come out of code yet?
TRUSTEE KING: No.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, it has not. It is in code committee. Our
Board has acted on it but Town Board has not.
MR. COSTELLO: So it's still code to armor. So, I mean, as far
as all the recommendations go, as far as this Board goes, it's
still in the code that bulkheads on the Sound have to be armored
with stone.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct.
MR. COSTELLO: As far as the deck goes on the top of the bluff,
can the size be decreased to 100 square feet to become consistent?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure
MR. COSTELLO: That would be fair enough? Because that's not
really an issue. It's protecting the person's property I'm
really concerned about. Having a deck there would be nice.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would still want to see it moved back. That
was hanging over.
MR. COSTELLO: We are moving it back eight feet. It's in the
application. I think the size of the deck might be the issue.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You'll move back the existing deck.
MR. COSTELLO: That's what it says.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The size, in Coastal Erosion, can be 200
square feet, but it should be behind the coastal erosion line.
MR. COSTELLO: Right now it's overhanging the bluff. We were
going to move it back eight feet so it's not overhanging the
bluff. I believe that was the number that was established on site.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We were going to see with Lori if that
constitutes a full removal, because under the code, if you
remove a structure that is in coastal erosion, you can't replace
it in coastal erosion.
MR. COSTELLO: Would it be better to apply for where it is?
TRUSTEE KING: What if it's under 200 square feet?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's unregulated, less than 200-square
feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So when Jack asks if he could put it to 100
square feet then it's out of coastal erosion.
TRUSTEE KING: Then it's unregulated activity.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not out of coastal erosion; it's
Board of Trustees 17 September 22, 2010
unregulated by coastal erosion.
MR. COSTELLO: How about if I leave it where it is? Is that an
option? Or does that also remain inconsistent?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is it a permitted structure. If it's not a
current and permitted structure, and I don't think it is, given
how old it is, then it's not allowed to be replaced unless it's
permitted. Looking at the structure, when we looked at the
field, it didn't appear, it looked like significant damage,
structural damage to this structure, to this deck, and it didn't
appear as though, you know, it could be repaired. It looks like
it's a repair to the extent of replace. And according to the
code, that can only be behind the coastal erosion hazard line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Unless it's under 200-square feet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Then we have the 30-square feet on the end.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: He's talking about demoing a deck that is more
than 200, reconstructing it so that it's 100, and you are saying
then it would not comply, not come under--
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not regulated --.anything under 200-square
feet is not regulated under coastal erosion, as per the code.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What you are endorsing then is construction of a
deck adjacent to the bluff within coastal erosion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The code endorses it.
TRUSTEE KING: Then we have the wetland code.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just talking coastal erosion here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just looking at coastal erosion. This is
why, I'm sorry, I wish Lori was here tonight. Because I think
we need advice from Lori.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This conversation started post-field
inspection in the office when we were trying to come to grips
with the very specific issue of the size of this deck. So it's
not come to fruit yet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Look it up in the code. Do you have that
section in the book?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I do.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we know, we have it on the record exactly
what the code says, so we all understand it.
MR. COSTELLO: Maybe while John is looking that up, the deck is
not really an important issue. I wanted to move it back to make
you happy. Where it is would be nicer for the view and everything
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have it right here. Unregulated activity.
It goes to say except activities which are not regulated by this
chapter include but are not limited to elevated walkways or
stairs. Stairways constructed solely for pedestrian use and
built by individual property owners for the limited purpose of
providing non-commercial access to the beach, docks, piers,
wharfs or structures built on floats, columns, open timber piles
Board of Trustees 18 September 22, 2010
or other similar open-work supports with a top surface area of
less than 200 square feet or which are removed in the Fall of
each year. So that is the unregulated aspect. Unregulated
under coastal erosion hazard .
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So in my opinion this is not a wharf or
structure built on a float, column or timber piers.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Read the end.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Or similar open-work supports with a top
surface area of less than 200 square feet.
TRUSTEE KING: That would be a deck.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That would be a deck.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, let's move on to --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you have anything further to say on the
application? I had a question
MR. COSTELLO: Well, as far as the deck goes, I'll build it any
size, put it any place in the back of the bluff. I'm willing to
work with you guys and put it anywhere. Even if it had to go
down to 100 square feet. Whatever the code says. If it's 200
square feet, fine. I'm willing to work within the parameters of
the code, whatever it may be, and we be can certainly adjust the
plans to show that.
TRUSTEE KING: I think you have the wetland code to contend with.
It's basically exempt from coastal erosion but you still have
wetland to look at.
MR. UELAND: I have a question on this application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sir, if you could step up to the mic and
introduce yourself for the record.
MR. UELAND: My name is Steve Ueland and I represent the owner of
the property, east of the applicant's property. And the owner
is my mother, Mrs. Ueland. I had a question. You read these
environmental impact reports, I guess or requests, about
erosion, and I was concerned, since the rock armoring is going
to extend the bulkhead out beyond the plain of the bulkheading
that already exists on the property just east of the applicant's
property, whether this will create an erosion on the eastern
side due to wave action and will undermine that particular bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The reason why the rocks are placed in front is
to break the wave energy.
MR. UELAND: I understand that. But in effect it will act as a
jetty to create erosion on each side. Because on this
particular beach when jetties are put out, erosion occurs on the
east side while the west side builds up. And I don't want that
bulkhead on the east side undermined and eventually collapsing
because of that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Point well taken.
Board of Trustees 19 September 22, 2010
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think it would help prevent it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I'm thinking. Jack, you can maybe
explain it better than I could.
MR. COSTELLO: I mean, a more major concern would be the bulkhead
not being addressed. It's a massive piece of concrete. It's
basically unmovable. If we were to do nothing and not secure
this bulkhead, that would put his mother's property in a far
greater risk than worrying about what might become. I mean,
it's not a jetty. We are talking about going out eight to ten
feet with rock armor. What affect that will have on that
coastline, I don't know. That whole coastline is slowly
dropping because we have the issue straight down that beach, and
I'm sure you guys spend the lion's share of your time out there.
Eight or ten feet of armor whatever it may be, I don't think it will affect.
TRUSTEE KING: The plans only show four feet
MR. COSTELLO: I didn't open it up. Whatever it might be.
TRUSTEE KING: The plans show four feet from the base of the
rock. It's not very much.
MR. COSTELLO: It's not very much. Will,it act as a jetty, I
would hope not but I think the greater concern would be not
addressing the issue. If that bulkhead were to go, were to fall
over, than that bulkhead would certainly go with it. And I'm
sure you have seen that plenty of times, where the neighboring
bulkhead was at fault, and it would certainly be my client's.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Typically, on the placement of the armoring,
how do you place the armor, what configuration do you put to
either break up wave energy or stabilize it at the base of the bulkhead?
MR. COSTELLO: The base of the bulkhead has been compromised. So
we basically want to hold it in place with the piling and place
the rocks directly at the foot of the wall to hold it. That's
what we are hoping to do. And we'll backfill the wall with rock
so there was not sand and small granular material to run through
whatever cracks may develop. That's what happened to the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: These are one to three ton stones. Physical
how much space to they occupy? Is one stone that four-foot width?
MR. COSTELLO: It's large stone at the bottom and smaller stone on top.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are those stones put at any particular _
elevation relative to mean high or mean low water?
MR. COSTELLO: The bulkhead is continuously in the water. That
will be an issue down the line anyway, as far as the Army Corps
of Engineers, when we keep going down the permitting process.
But it's what to do with these monolithic slabs that are basically unmovable.
TRUSTEE KING: So that initial stone is setback.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I see. It's fairly clear.
MR. COSTELLO: The elevation is changing, but it's changing more
dropping than anything. That's been apparent.
Board of Trustees 20 September 22, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When we were out there, we met George out
there, George Costello, and he explained everything. And I
think we went out and met you also, we went out twice. This
seems to be the best solution there. What Jack said, you can't
remove that concrete.
TRUSTEE KING: When do you plan on doing this work, Jack?
Because we'll start getting some northerlies here pretty soon?
MR. COSTELLO: Whenever you tell me I can.
TRUSTEE KING: This is something to think about. We'll have bad
weather coming out of the north and that place takes a shellacking
MR. COSTELLO: I know. This is a difficult application. The
committee process is going to take a while. Of course I still
have to deal with the Army Corps of Engineers. They have not
responded to the application yet. Because it's confusing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there a possibility of coming back to us to
amend it?
MR. COSTELLO: There may be. Like I said, I submitted to the
other agencies and they have not responded on it yet. But being
that, it's in the town code.that the bulkhead, if I'm going to
do anything with the bulkhead I feel it's still in the Town
Code, it should be armored with rock.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I happen to agree with that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Me, too.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As far as the deck is concerned, I think we are
pretty much limited to 32-square feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, under the wetland code, under 275,
32-square feet.
MR. COSTELLO: As far as the deck goes, it's not a major issue.
It's losing bulkhead. And I'll work under whatever parameters.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under 275 it's still an issue with it being near
the bluff. It says no decks on or near the bluff, according to 275.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So he's proposing to move it back.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So if he moves it back and reduces it to no
larger than 32-square feet then it would fit under the 275
requirements.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other questions?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a concern about the problem moving
along the foreshore also. I know the Conservation Advisory
Council has been a regular champion of us being able to move
along the foreshore. It just seems with all this material going
in there, there must be a way we can work something out so we
don't infringe upon people's ability to move along the shore
going forward. Maybe the study with CR-48 can start to look at
Board of Trustees 21 September 22, 2010
some of these issues, because we don't necessarily want to hook
an individual applicant up who is trying to protect property and
there, where there is issues that can even damage neighbors, but
it's a really important area. I'm thinking that probably we
have to look at some kind of new coastal standard here because
going forward. The sea levels are increasing, we are getting,
these high energy, and these areas are getting blown to pieces.
And people still want to access the shore. So I want to stay
I'm very sympathetic to the thinking and attempt by the
Conservation Advisory Council to try to come to grips with this.
TRUSTEE KING: The problem is it's late in the game.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It is late in the game. It's early in the
game considering we are going to have, at least for the
foreseeable future we'll be dealing with issues of maybe higher
energy and maybe more water coming in on us.
MR. UELAND: So is the answer to my question it will not create
accelerated erosion at that point?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think any of us can predict a definite
yes or no on that. We have not seen, I have not seen, since I
have been on the Board, that happen, in such a small going out.
It's only going out four or five feet, but that doesn't mean it
can't happen. Mother Nature, we can't predict. But it
generally does not happen, from what I have seen. But I can't
tell you no.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe Mr. Costello or others that are very
familiar with coastal process here can indicate any
opportunities to remediate, if there is issues with, you know,
that stone armor.
MR. COSTELLO: By dispersing the wave action you get less of a
backlash effect. If it was a smooth faced concrete wall, I'm
sure it was much more of an erosionable issue, having that
straight-faced concrete wall causing a backlash of wave action.
If you disperse the wave energy, I feel it would help maintain
the beach. But that whole beach level is dropping. I mean it will
continue to drop. That's why these bulkheads are failing in that area.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The stone won't disperse the wave energy to east
and west, it will have it become more perpendicular to the
shoreline, which should help your situation.
MR. COSTELLO: I would think. Just logically thinking about it,
with a flat-face concrete wall, you'll get 100% backlash.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It will help your situation.
MR. COSTELLO: And if the bulkhead were to fail, I mean then it
would be cataclysmic on their part, too.
MR. UELAND: Well, that was per east to west wave motion but most
of the wave motion is west to east on that particular shoreline.
That's why the, you see that where jetties have been put out
Board of Trustees 22 September 22, 2010
there is considerable erosion on the eastern side of the jetty, and
build up on the -- because the sand is not allowed to flow through.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is different than a jetty.
MR. UELAND: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, any further comment?
(No response).
I'll take a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Before we close, what is the recommendation as
far as addressing the inconsistency of the deck in the application?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We did. He said he'll reduce it and move it back.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can we move it back behind the coastal erosion
hazard line?
MR. COSTELLO: On top of that bluff, where is the coastal zone
established?
TRUSTEE KING: Why don't you come and look at it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Why don't you come up and look at it. It's on
the plans here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can't require him to do that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just asking if he would consider doing it.
TRUSTEE KING: That puts it back quite a ways.
MR. COSTELLO: And at the top, where that piece of property dips
down, the contour of the property, and the deck becomes useless
to move it back that far unless we build it up and the deck is
elevated. It would kind of be -- the topography of it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I thought we might hammer that part out.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's about 28 feet, if we move it back.
MR. COSTELLO: Because when we had originally met on site it was
moving it back eight feet.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If it's 32-square feet -- stay with me on this.
If it's 32-square feet and it's associated with the stairs,
Okay, it can be on the bluff, all right. And it can also be in
front of the coastal hazard line because it's less than 200
square feet. So we don't have to make him move it back behind
the coastal erosion hazard line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As long as it's attached to the stairs.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As long as it's attached to the stairs. And it is.
MR. COSTELLO: Because there is a walkway that goes across and
that is in the area of the stairs.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, because it's attached to the stairs.
That's interesting, Bob.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you take into consideration then that walkway
as part of the structure, part of that 32-square feet.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. So if you move it closer to the stairs
you'll have a larger deck area.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words, put it at the top of the stairs
and you have 32-square feet that you can put behind the bluff.
Board of Trustees 23 September 22, 2010
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Admittedly it's 6x6. It's not very large, but.
MR. COSTELLO: And then the 200-square feet that we are talking
about.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 200-square feet can't be associated with the
stairs. It would have to go behind the coastal erosion hazard line.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think that's a excellent idea.
MR. COSTELLO: So move the 200-square foot deck just behind the
coastal erosion?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's not what I just heard.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If it's under 200-square feet --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If it's 199 behind the line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you make a 32-square foot deck, you have to
move it back to where we agree. But you can also attach it to
the stairs and it can be in the coastal erosion line because
it's under 200 square feet.
MR. COSTELLO: Fair enough.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I think what we can do is just --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are we -- question of point of order here are we addressing the inconsistency as part of the public
hearing or part of the permit vote?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You make a resolution of inconsistency along
with your other resolution.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: After we close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: After we close the hearing. But the wording is
that, because we don't know where he wants to put the deck at
this point. Does he want to attach it to the stairs or move it
back. So how do we address that. We could say approve the deck
less than 32-square feet subject to receiving plans.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think it might be easier if we just remove the
deck from the application, approve everything else and he can
come in as an amendment in the future for the deck, and just
leave the deck alone.
MR. COSTELLO: That would be fine. Like I said, I'm not really
concerned about the deck right now. Let's strip the deck from
the application and we'll come in for an amendment afterwards.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That makes it simple and easy.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it makes it lot simpler.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll take a motion to close the hearing in
this matter.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application as submitted, absent the portion which was deemed
inconsistent: The deck and for subsequent submittal of a
potential amendment, if any, I would so move.
Board of Trustees 24 September 22, 2010
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And in doing so, removal of the deck will deem
it consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. Thank you, Dave.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: For my own edification, the application stays
the same except for the deck.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Robert Barratt, PE, on behalf of
ROBERT BLACK requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit for the existing 6x21' concrete dock, install an
eight-inch diameter piling positioned 32' off seaward end to
support mooring line pulley, six-foot wide access steps and
boarding ladder. Located: 1440 Village Lane, Orient.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be
consistent. It was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory
Council and they resolved to support the application. We did go
out and looked at this in the field and it looks like a pretty
straightforward application.
Is there anybody here to speak for or against this application?
MR. BARRATT: Good evening. My name is Robert Barratt and I'm the
engineer who has put the application together. And it's a great
pleasure, actually, that I could tell you that Robert Black, the
actual applicant, is here in the room, and I'll ask him to come
up here and stand by me whilst we hear the discourse, and we are
ready, of course, to answer any questions you might have. Thank
you, very much.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. As I stated when we looked at it out
in the field, we didn't have any issues. It was a pretty
straightforward application. Is there any comment from anybody
from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Subsequent, going back to the office, we did
the check on the unregulated activity section of the Coastal
Erosion Hazard Area Act, and because the applicant is simply
trying to put a set of steps or stairs, rather, and a pulley
line to a mooring, which is an open stake, it actually comes
under unregulated activity under the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act,
and the wetland ordinance applying for that for which
essentially is a mooring is a pretty thorough application review
in and of itself and would allow for minor repairs for the
existing structure we had discussed. I don't know if it was
further discussion in the office but it seems like since it's an
unregulated activity to accept these on the Coastal Erosion
Hazard Act where it was not warranted, so I want to bring that
Board of Trustees 25 September 22, 2010
up to the Board because of the post field inspection, I don't
know, other than maybe Jim King, I think there was only a couple
of us discussing it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY:-It sound like it's exempt.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it needs a coastal erosion permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A couple of years ago it would not have
needed any permit, it would have been an unregulated mooring,
practically.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we should do a resolution to refund the
coastal erosion fee.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So that can be part of whatever we do. Thank
you, Jay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
If not I'll make a motion to close the public here hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Robert Barratt on behalf of Robert Black as described at 1440
Village Lane, under the wetland permit; in other words Chapter
275, and with regard to coastal erosion permit it's deemed to be
an unregulated activity, so as such there is no need for a
coastal erosion permit and we'll refund that fee to you, to the
applicant. That's my motion.
MR. BARRATT: Thank you, so much.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Moving into Wetland Permits, number one, CHERYL
HANSEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family
dwelling, install a gravel driveway and sanitary system.
Located: 405 Williamsburg Drive, Southold.
TRUSTEE KING: Which one are we doing?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm sorry, all I saw was "Hansen."
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can do both. Bob, just do both.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what just happened.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So he'll do both.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have two Hansen's. I had the second file.
Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application with the condition that every effort is made to save
the large trees. LWRP has found this to be consistent with
Board of Trustees 26 September 22, 2010
LWRP, and in fact this was a permitted project in the past. The
project was expired and they have just come back in for the same
thing as what they had before, in an effort to extend their time
to do the project. Is there anybody here who would like to
address this application?
MS. HANSEN: Cheryl Hansen.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any comments from the audience for the Board?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Does the applicant wish to speak?
MS. HANSEN: No, I was just going to say, I just put an
application prior to this and we are doing the exact thing we
had done in the past. So we just did some other things in the
interim. We put in a new bulkhead. So now we are applying to
have the building done.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So again, I'll entertain a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
stated, noting that it is consistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. HANSEN: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, MARK HANSEN requests a Wetland
Permit to replace the existing bulkhead. Located: 680 Windy
Point Lane, Southold.
This application -- again, this was for a project that had
a permit previously and the project was not done. It expired
and the folks are coming back in to re-apply. The Conservation
Advisory Council resolved to not support the application and
recommends a low sill bulkhead and rebuilding of the salt marsh.
LWRP has found it to be exempt.. Is there anyone here to address
this application.
(No response).
Any comment from the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: No changes?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm taking a look at it now. (Perusing). The
original application said to replace the existing 82-linear feet
of timber bulkhead inplace using vinyl sheathing and a nine-foot
return extension with the condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer
along the bulkhead. And it references plans from 2007. The new
application does not reference any of that.
Board of Trustees 27 September 22, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe it was the same plans.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He has a permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I remember our field inspections we were
looking at the previous plans.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't see any changes. Lauren told me the DEC
has shortened the return. That was the only difference.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, they did. It's nine foot. I'm showing
nine foot here. (Perusing). Okay, the DEC permit is showing,
that was issued back in August of 2010, is showing a return of
12-and-a-half feet instead of the 15 that they had originally
applied for in their first permit. They actually extended it
from nine to 12-and-a-half. And also allowed them to have a
ten-foot non-turf buffer, reduced from 15. 1 guess I'll just
read the DEC permit and the buffer instead of what we normally
do. It makes sense.
TRUSTEE KING: The previous permit had a 15-foot non-turf?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I would keep it the same.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And a nine-foot return, and the DEC approved a
couple of weeks ago a ten-foot non-turf buffer and a
12-and-a-half foot return.
TRUSTEE KING: The return is not an issue.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just make the return 12-and-a-half.
TRUSTEE KING: And the buffer stay at 15.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application,
to remove and replace inplace 82-linear feet of bulkhead;
construct a new 12.5 foot return landward of the existing;
backfill with 20 cubic yards of clean fill from an upland
source; establish a 15-foot non-turf buffer along the bulkhead
and plant with native species.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on behalf of
FRANK & MINDY MARTORANA requests a Wetland Permit to demolish
the existing house and construct a new house on the existing
foundation/footprint of the existing house. Reconstruct existing
deck with stairway in place and install a pervious driveway.
Board of Trustees 28 September 22, 2010
Remove or abandon the existing sanitary system and install a new
sanitary system. Located: 3450 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck.
We all went out and looked at this a couple of times. It's
exempt from the LWRP. It's found exempt. Conservation Advisory
Council resolved to support the wetland permit with the
condition the creosoted logs were removed from the wetland area
and a landscape plan is submitted for the area seaward of the
deck along the creek side and the area underneath the deck is
non-turf. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against
this application?
MR. BOWMAN: Good evening. Chuck Bowman, Land Use Ecological
Services. I know this is a continuation. I think we'll go on
with a continuation. I think the Board, when we met in the
field, had requested I send you a sketch, which I hope you have.
And what we have,done is we took the approval that was issued in
2001 by this Board and outlined that. We came to the conclusion
out there and agreed with you that the house could not be
repaired. Therefore, we are going to give you a whole new
modified application saying we'll be moving the existing house,
demolishing it and moving the foundation landward and what we
did is we moved it landward to the line of the house that was
approved, much larger house that was approved, in 2001 by this
Board. What that does is the existing house and deck is
approximately 17 feet from the wetland line. We move it 15 feet
further. That deck line would now be 32 feet from the wetland
line. And of course the sanitary system would be moved up
toward the street. And the only question that I had from the
Board is, no matter what you approved, how wide a buffer you
wanted -- 15 feet seems to be reasonable to me -- and we would
include that in the new plans that we have to submit to you with
a new project description.
So I guess all I'm looking for is some guidance on what you
would like so I can go back and have the plans drawn up.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay so are you going to look for what was
previously approved, the same size structure?
MR. BOWMAN: No, it's a much smaller house.
TRUSTEE KING: So just this dark green --
MR. BOWMAN: The dark green, which also includes the deck area.
You can see the house is not quite small. It's a two-story
house but it's hopefully showed up as kind of a pinkish color,
that's the house part, and the, it shows the deck and just an
entry porch and stairs out the street side. The house is the
same size as what is there now.
TRUSTEE KING: So this new structure will actually be a little
bit seaward of the previously approved larger house.
MR. BOWMAN: Actually, we held it right in the same line. And on
Board of Trustees 29 September 22, 2010
the plans I submitted to you, there is an extension, if you see,
on the north side of the previously approved house, which was
kind of a deck and stairs area. We held that line for our deck as well.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: (Perusing). The house was here, now the house
will be here and the deck will be there.
TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing). I'm confused.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is the original -- yes, the existing house.
MR. BOWMAN: Would it be helpful if I came up?
TRUSTEE KING: Show me how you moved it, that's what I don't
understand.
MR. BOWMAN: No problem, Jim. I think this is easier to look at.
This is the existing approved house from the 2001. And this
deck and stairway projected out this far, which is about 32 feet
from the wetlands line. So what we did is hold that line for
our deck. The house is actually further landward than the
existing house.
TRUSTEE KING: So this will be decking in here.
MR. BOWMAN: Correct. Because the orange is decking. This is
actually the structure of the house with a new entryway and
stairs here on-the landward side.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay.
MR. BOWMAN: And again, I understand I have to get the plans
changed and send up a new project description.
TRUSTEE KING: That clarifies it for me. I think it's pretty much
what we talked about in the field.
MR. BOWMAN: The only question I would have is that a sufficient
buffer, because I want to include that with a planting
specification in the plans as well.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How many feet is that?
TRUSTEE KING: Six-foot.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Where would we measure it from? Currently if
you go down there now it kind of looks where the flood zone line is.
TRUSTEE KING: You could do it right to the -- make that a
buffer area, the flood zone line.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I'm thinking. It kind of looks like
that now, when you go on site.
MR. BOWMAN: I have no problem with that. It slopes down toward
the creek, and I know Mr. Martorana doesn't have any problems
with planting a buffer either.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm good with that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's good.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just measure that out. Because I'm just
thinking when someone physically does it, they won't know where
the flood line is.
MR. BOWMAN: I'll have some distances off the existing house put
on there and distances down the property line from the street.
Board of Trustees 30 September 22, 2010
TRUSTEE KING: Give us a distance from the deck to the flood zone
line.
MR. BOWMAN: I have to actually talk to the surveyor and
engineers and get this all redone. So that's not a problem.
And I would just ask that we have a continuation until we get
this to you.
TRUSTEE KING: So we can move forward on this.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We can move forward subject to receipt of plans.
MR. BOWMAN: That's wonderful. I would appreciate it. That's great.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't see why we can't. Any other comments from
anybody on this application?
(No response).
Anyone from the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application
based on the new plans showing what we discussed here with the
house being moved landward and a buffer area being installed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: To the flood plain line.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. BOWMAN: Thank you, have a good night.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number four, Frank Notaro RA on behalf of CHRIS
MESKOURIS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new 1 1/2
story dwelling on pilings, attached deck and sanitary system.
Located: 530 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck.
This is consistent with LWRP. And the Conservation
Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of
drainage plan for the new construction and a pervious driveway.
The Conservation Advisory Council has a concern with the
septic system flowing into the water. And we also have, are in
receipt of Zoning Board of Appeals approval of, I believe it's
lot coverage. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf or
against this application?
MR. MESKOURIS: Hi, I'm Jim Meskouris.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have been out there a couple of times. One
of our concerns is the location of the house. We do try to keep
it in line with the other houses. So we would request that this
house be moved, proposed house be moved back; moved back about
15 feet. And that would put it in the line of houses that are on that block.
MR. MESKOURIS: Well, the last time we were here you asked for a
survey. We sent to you a survey to give you an idea of how the
Board of Trustees 31 September 22, 2010
other houses are lined up.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we inspected it, again, the whole Board
went out there this past month and inspected it and we feel your
proposed house sticks out that much further than the line.
MR. MESKOURIS: In other words you are comparing it with the
adjacent house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The whole line of houses. The adjacent.house
is --
MR. MESKOURIS: The adjacent house has the little garage covering
on the left of the site.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. MESKOURIS: Then you have the house to the right is ours,
the bungalow. And you see the house on the corner, that
protrudes out way past the erosion line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry for interrupting, we have an aerial also
to show. And that's what we based our decision on also. We
would like to proposed house to be moved back 15 feet.
MR. MESKOURIS: Moved back 15 feet, I'll be stuck with a
bungalow over there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a small piece of property.
Are there any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I think we all felt the same,.downsize the house.
MR. MESKOURIS: 15 feet will put me way behind the adjoining
property and way behind some of the other properties on that beach.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, if you want to come look at the aerial,
we'll show you what we are talking about. Here the aerial. We
drew this line here.
MR. MESKOURIS: This is the existing house. That's my house.
And we want to build here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right.
MR. MESKOURIS: But we have a.structure here, a structure here
and her property is protruding out here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We understand that. What you are talking about
is a house that is not adjacent to the property. If you look at
what the code says, it says immediately adjacent homes, and
you'll see, this is the survey you submitted. And so I'm
demonstrating here --
MR. MESKOURIS: I understand that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what we went by.
MR. MESKOURIS: The thing is this house is in pretty bad shape
and I know the property is going up for sale or whatever, but
the thing is that somebody that takes this house won't be able
to live in this house. It doesn't have heat, it's falling
apart. They'll use this house to set some sort of precedence to
bring this out, house all the way out here (indicating).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we don't allow, just because one house is
Board of Trustees 32 September 22, 2010
protruding, it has to stay within the line. So we would not let
it go out past that line.
MR. MESKOURIS: See, these houses here, if you go down the block,
you see how these houses are way out.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As per the code, it's the adjacent houses.
These are the houses. This is the most current aerial we took
off the computer. And it matches with your survey, so we would
like to have it moved back.
MR. MESKOURIS: I thought it was just the whole line going down
the road. It can't just go with the adjacent houses. And she
doesn't object, she has 125 feet of property. She doesn't
object. I spoke to her already.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If you scale the 15 feet out I think you
may find is actually may approach more of an average than what
you are requesting. It's a generous pull back, not to the
protective side, but --
MR. MESKOURIS: It brings the house back to almost 30 feet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In relation to the overall setbacks it
doesn't appear that it's as severe --
MR. MESKOURIS: I followed the coastal erosion line, I'm behind
the coastal erosion line. I really don't understand.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll read the code for you. It's 275-11(a),
section three: New and remodeled homes. New and remodeled homes
cannot be situated or modified such that they project closer to
the wetland boundary than homes on either side of the subject
lot. So that's either side. It doesn't include houses down the street.
MR. MESKOURIS: So in other words, these three houses, these
three houses have to be in the same line, and it will be setback
compared to the other line of houses?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are not addressing other homes. We are just
addressing your application. And what we looked out now in the
field twice and have determined is that we feel your home, the
footprint of the home must be pulled back at least 15 feet from
its present location.
MR. MESKOURIS: That's a lot of footage. I don't accept that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to table this application so you
can work it out with your architect?
MR. MESKOURIS: What do you mean "table" it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In other words we won't make a decision on it
tonight. You can take it back to the drawing board and come
back to us next month.
MR. MESKOURIS: What do you suggest, Frank?
MR. NOTARO: Frank Notaro, I'm the architect for the Meskouris'.
Basically we are dealing with a ten-foot deck there on the
house. So you are suggesting another five feet of the actual
house plus the deck be removed.
Board of Trustees 33 September 22, 2010
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Actually, the overhang of the house went out the
extension of that deck. We went through this last month when we
looked at the plans, and it's not just the deck. You have an
overhang of the entire structure going out above that deck.
MR. NOTARO: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, we are looking to move the whole
footprint back 15 feet.
MR. NOTARO: Right. Obviously we went over this before. The
septic is where it is. We have Health Department approval on
that. We can't move the house closer to the road at this point.
Now, if we built the deck without the covering, is that
constituting, including in that 15 feet? We had discussed that
briefly at the last meeting in terms of not disturbing --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are talking about taking the deck off and
the overhang above it.
MR. NOTARO: Taking the overhang off and leaving the deck on.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are not back 15 feet. Even if we were to
say yes to that, the house without the deck would still be in
front of the line, as we measured it out.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what he's-saying is take the overhang
off the deck, make it just the deck, no covering, move the house
back five feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Did I misunderstand? I apologize.
MR. NOTARO: That's what we discussed at the last meeting. You
discussed that possibly and now I'm resuggesting that back to
the Board, you know, to be included in that 15 feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: My understanding is decks are not, as long as
they don't have a cover over them, are not included in this
code. It's just the actual covered structures; is that correct?
TRUSTEE KING: I think that's pretty much the way we interpreted it.
MR. NOTARO: If I could produce a drawing in the next three or
four days, can we send it for your approval, to look at it? In
other words with the deck, cutting back an additional five feet
of the structure itself, the building, everything moves back.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Would the Board feel comfortable moving the
house back five feet and no cover on the deck and then subject
to new plans, or do you want to wait until we get the plans and
look at them?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would wait until we get the plans. I'm
interested in the footprint of the.home, excluding the deck
being back behind the lines we determined to be appropriate.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to see it staked that way and we
could go out and look at it?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's fine with me. I'm just one person.
MR. NOTARO: You just basically said the deck is counting as the
footprint of the house.
Board of Trustees 34 September 22, 2010
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As long as you take the cover off, it won't
count. So you can't cover the deck, now or in the future.
MR. NOTARO: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It always has to remain an open deck with no
covering.
MR. NOTARO: So am I to understand the overall movement back is
from the edge where it is now toward the wetland, 15 feet, so we
are basically moving the actual occupied space back five feet
plus-the deck would be uncovered?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. And I think we are inclined to table
this. You have to stake it out to what we are talking about,
and we'll go and inspect it next month, with the new plans.
MR. NOTARO: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we make sure we are all on the same page and
know exactly.
MR. NOTARO: Okay, we'll submit those new plans.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a small lot.
TRUSTEE KING: It's putting ten foot of house in'a five pound bag.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to table this application to
review it further with the changes next month.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application is JMO Environmental
Consulting on behalf of ERIC KLODNICKI requests a Wetland Permit
to construct a 12x18' elevated deck and 3.3'x13' stairs.
Located: 2350 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck.
The project has been deemed consistent with the LWRP. The
Conservation Advisory Council has moved to approve this with
their support. Trustee field inspection has found no problem
with the application. I open this matter to any comments for
the public hearing.
MR. JUST: Good evening. Glenn Just, JMO Consulting, if there
are any questions from the Board and public.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a straightforward application for a
small deck.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I looked at it. It's straightforward. It's
just really squaring off what is existing, and it's even with
the house. There is plenty of vegetation and it's far enough
away from any wetlands.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And even with the existing elevated deck.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, I move to close the hearing in this matter.
Board of Trustees 35 September 22, 2010
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number six, En-Consultants on behalf of SILVANA
CADEDDU requests a Wetland Permit to construct a +/-12'x+/-23'
second-story addition over one-story portion of existing
two-story, one-family dwelling; construct a +/-10.5'x22'
two-story addition; and construct a +/-55'x+/-9' deck and steps.
Located: 1380 Wiggins Lane, Greenport.
The Board did go out and looked at this. This was
determined to be exempt under the LWRP, and the Conservation
Advisory Council resolved to support the application. Again, we
went out and we looked at it. It looked like a straightforward
application. The only condition we wanted to make sure was met,
that it complies with Chapter 236, the drainage code, so the
home would be, with the changes, the home would be brought into
compliance with 236 with the use of gutters and drywells. Is
there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. HERMAN: Yes. Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of
applicants. Just a couple of quick things, Dave. I just handed
up a revised site plan that essentially improves the overall
scope of the project. There is an existing asphalt driveway on
the east side of the property, so we would just like to amend
our application to replace that asphalt driveway with a pervious
gravel driveway, which would actually bring the lot coverage by
impervious surfaces down by about four or 5%. It's not an issue
of coverage with the town because the Building Department does
not treat driveways as coverage but, anyway, it would be an
additional improvement to the property. We did show a proposed
drywell for roof runoff associated with the proposed addition,
that's on the survey, just to the north of the house, near that
driveway. But otherwise you are right, it's a straightforward
project, it's exempt from LWRP due to the fact that it's less
than a 25% increase in the footprint of the existing dwelling.
And otherwise it's just a vertical addition over the existing
garage, which is currently the only one-story portion of the
house. And you probably saw that as required by your prior
permit for the bulkhead replacement there is a non-turf buffer
that is established now, and bounded with a railroad tie down
near the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
Board of Trustees 36 September 22, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What Jim is just stating, we had talked about
this with the permit application from the bulkhead. It's
unfortunate there is a drain, a town drain on Wiggins Lane that
has a drain pipe running all the way through and goes out under
their bulkhead and out into the water. It's just frustrating
for the Board, we go through all these steps to try to address
236 and we are telling the applicant to address 236 and here our
Town-maintained drain is in violation of 236.
TRUSTEE KING: It's frustrating for me. It really is. I don't know.
MR. HERMAN: You have to put the water somewhere.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But getting back to the application with the
addition of the asphalt driveway, just a portion of it is within
our jurisdiction. But again, I think you are absolutely
correct, that this improves the proposed project from an
environmental prospective.
Are there any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
En-Consultants on behalf of Silvana Cadeddu as described at 1380
Wiggins Lane, as per the plans stamped received August 30, 2010,
which shows the asphalt driveway replaced by a pervious
driveway, and the plan is in compliance with Chapter 236 and it
is exempt under the LWRP.
MR. HERMAN: Dave, if you just wanted to reference the actual
date of the plan itself, it's September 16
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, the plan --
MR. HERMAN: You mentioned stamped received.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Stamped received August 30. It's August 18,
2010 update, I have here.
MR. HERMAN: September 16 is the last date on the map I just
handed up.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. I apologize. You are absolutely
right. We want to make sure all the technicalities are there.
That's the motion.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERMAN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, Nigel Robert Williamson on behalf of
ANNETTE CAMPBELL requests a Wetland Permit to add an 11x21'
covered sunroom to the southeast of the existing structure;
raise the existing roof over the existing kitchen/living room
Board of Trustees 37 September 22, 2010
area; and add 24-square feet to the existing deck. Located: 1185
Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue.
This is found to be consistent with LWRP, with the
recommendation that the vegetated buffer be required landward
from the edge of the tidal wetlands. Did you look at this, Dave?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Conservation Advisory Council moved to resolve to
support the wetland permit with the condition of a drainage plan
to contain the roof runoff from the dwelling. Conservation
Advisory Council also observed a public safety issue with the
location of the existing driveway. What's that all about?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't know. That's well outside our jurisdiction, but.
MR. MCGREEVEY: It was a notation we felt it was worth while
mentioning because the one that did the inspection of the
property brought it to our attention. I didn't see the property myself.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: So they are talking about this is a hazard area up
here, in here somewhere.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I guess.
TRUSTEE KING: This looks pretty simple.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If it helps you out, Jim, I was the one that
went out and looked at this property. I had no problem with
this. The only question I had was to make sure, again, that it
complies with 236, the project complies with 236. And also,
again, if this turns into a demo, in other words if during the
construction phase you find that this whole structure has to be
demolished, that you need to return to the Board for an
appropriate permit.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you wish to speak on this application?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Just don't wish that upon us. Nigel Robert
Robert Williamson for Mrs. Campbell. And I will submit a
drainage plan.
TRUSTEE KING: Looks pretty simple to me. Are there any other
comments from the audience?
(No response).
Board comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application.
Does it show, do we need drywells for roof runoff?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I recommend, under 236, there be
gutters, leaders and drywells to address the roof runoff.
Board of Trustees 38 September 22, 2010
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'll.give you a drainage plan.
TRUSTEE KING: With that being said, I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number eight, Mark Schwartz, Architect, on
behalf of THOMAS & MAUREEN DOWLING requests a Wetland Permit to
construct an addition between the existing house and existing
garage apartment; construct alterations within building;
second-floor expansion; proposed rear deck; and screened-in
porch. Located: 1200 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue.
This is consistent with LWRP and the Conservation Advisory
Council does not support the application because of possible
wetland code violation on the property. The area seaward of the
limits of clearing is being mowed and should be addressed before
consideration of this application. Dave inspected this. His
notes are clearing toward water with a question mark. So he
noted that also. Only the deck is in our jurisdiction, and to
comply with Chapter 236, hay bale and silt fence. Is there
anybody here to speak to this application?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz, architect for the project. That
area down by the flag pole, apparently has been a mowed area for
many years previously to when the current owners, the Dowling's,
had purchased it. So they have been doing exactly what everyone
else has been doing in that property, probably for 20 or 30
years. It doesn't really, visually it doesn't really look like
wetland. It's more sandy. This just came up about a month ago
when we had the wetlands reflagged because our original
application showed that the wetlands was kind of on both sides
and not in the middle. We do have a new survey that shows that
we have an upland area along the bulkhead, upland along the flag
and in this area is considered wetlands, but it's kind of more
like a beachy, barely wet area, and it's been mowed for many,
many years. I would say probably 20 or 30 years. It's nothing
that is new to this property.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Have the Dowling's recently moved?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMERY: So'there should be a photographic record,
there might be a photographic record. Not that that would be an
issue. That might be an issue to avoid a violation. I don't know the
feelings of the Board may want to put it under review. We don't want
patens or wetland grasses being mowed on a regular basis.
MR. SCHWARTZ: It's really more sandy than grass. If you want to
go out there and take a look at it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what we can do, in our review here, we
can decide if we want you to stop mowing and it we'll give you a
Board of Trustees 39 September 22, 2010
four-foot wide path. That's our general. So we'll discuss it
further during this hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Two things to recommend. First, since this is,
I'm not sure whether that flag pole was ever permitted, so
recommend including that flag pole in this application so that
it's permitted and we don't have to worry about that. Again, if
it was previously permitted, I'm not worried about it. But I'm
just thinking it's so old it was probably was never permitted
and I'm just putting it in here just to protect the property
owner. The other is obviously the CAC had the same concern I
had, and I recommend, as we have done commonly, is approve this
with a four-foot wide path going down there to --when I say
going down there, from the upland area near the house, down to
the boat basin, pretty much straight, four-foot path, that would
not include the area of the flag pole. In other words I
understand it has to expanded around that flag pole, slightly.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When you say up to the area of the house, what
do you mean? The edge of the wetlands line here?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What is on the survey is edge of wetlands down
to the boat basin. That would be fine. That would address the
CAC's concern also, I'm thinking.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So landward of that edge of wetlands line they
can continue lawn.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's pretty much lawn.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I want to clarify for the record.
MR. MCGREEVEY: As part of that report, I don't see it on the
disposition here, the CAC recommended at least ten-foot non-turf
buffer landward of the designated wetlands.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to come up here, Jack?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I see what he's asking.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is the survey they just submitted to us,
and they have edge of wetland line all the way up.here.
MR. MCGREEVEY: This is what is in question here (indicating).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The home is here. Here is the edge of the
wetland line (indicating). We are saying from here down they
cannot mow.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Right. And what we are recommending is wherever
that wetland line is, is then we recommend at least a ten-foot buffer landward.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Because it is lawn.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. I wanted to clarify where you were
talking about. How does the board feel about that?
MR. DOWLING: I'm Tom Dowling, the property owner. I bought the
property, it was obviously being mowed at the time, I'm sure
there is photographic evidence of that. I think the combination
of shrinking to a four-foot wide section what amounts to lawn,
Board of Trustees 40 September 22, 2010
from my point of view, and adding another buffer, ten feet wide,
greatly reduces the property that I purchased. I'm not entirely
sure I would have purchased it if I knew these restrictions
would have applied.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, I have to disagree. It doesn't reduce the
size of the property at all.
MR. DOWLING: No, the usable property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. And again, non-turf buffer, it usable
property, as far as we are concerned. We have people put in
gravel non-turf buffers that you can put chairs on. Decks you
can put chairs on. 'Limited plantings with combination of mulch
and gravel you can put chairs in. So it's usable area.
MR. DOWLING: It just can't be grass, correct?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, it can't be turf, that's all.
MR. DOWLING: I'm fine, in that case. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What does the Board feel? Do you want to see
an additional ten-foot, non-turf buffer?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's necessary.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree, I don't think it's necessary in that area.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't think it's necessary either because
essentially what we are creating is a very large non-turf buffer
between the edge of wetlands down to the boat basin and we are
limiting a four-foot path. So I think in doing so that is a very
large non-turf buffer, so I don't see the need to go farther
landward than edge of wetlands.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, any other comments?
(No response).
From the audience?
MR. SCHWARTZ: One other thing, that area that is mowed is not
fertilized. The fertilized you can see the difference. It is
not touched. It's a good wetlands area, it's purely natural.
MR. DOWLING: That's the intent.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Any comments from the Board?
(No response).
Motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application
of Thomas and Maureen Dowling as submitted, with inclusion of
the flag pole and with the condition of the area from the edge
of the wetlands seaward,not to be mowed, and a four-foot wide
path may be maintained. And subject to a survey dated August
24, 2010.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 41 September 22, 2010
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mark, do you want to give us new plans showing
the area not to be mowed and the four-foot wide path, and we'll
stamp those.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number nine, Kinlin Rutherfurd Architects, PLLC,
on behalf of PENN DUPONT SANGER AND HOUSE 57LLC request a
Wetland Permit to combine lots 19&20; demolish the existing
dwelling on lot 19 and renovate the existing dwelling on lot 20
with an addition on the west side. Located: Peninsula Road, Fishers Island.
We were -- were we all there?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think Jim, you and I.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The majority of the Board did see this
application. The CAC did not make an inspection, therefore no
recommendation was made. LWRP has found this to be consistent
with LWRP, and I guess, just to summarize, essentially it's two
lots, each lot having a house on it. One will be removed. The
lots are essentially going to be combined. The notes we have
from our field inspection is we would like to see the septic
moved back and the non-turf buffer, the one non-turf buffer
extend into the other lot so it's a continuous non-turf buffer
across both lots. Also it should be noted at least here in the
hearing, in doing this, it will create a non-conformity in the
sense there will be two docks on one property, which is not
allowed by code. However, it is a pre-existing condition,
historically this has had those two docks, and I don't think the
Board really wanted to see you remove one dock because you were
taking down a house and extending the other house.
MS. RUTHERFURD: Billy Rutherfurd, Kinlin & Rutherfurd. We
submitted a revised site plan since your visit which shows the
septic moved back, I think three feet. That's basically as far
as it can come back without going under the driveway, and the
Health Department, you would need to have penalties and a
covenant in the deed for the owner if we need to put the septic
under the driveway.
TRUSTEE KING: It's close to the garage.
MS. RUTHERFURD: And the other concern is there is a well near
the garage, which is currently used for irrigation, but if the septic is
moved under the driveway, that septic would have to be abandoned.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Did anybody see this?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's moved back a little. So that's something
MR. KINLIN: Bruce Kinlin, Kinlin Rutherfurd. We had a
discussion, actually with Dick Strauss, head of CME, we had a
discussion as part of our team with the Health Department. Not
specifically, didn't show them this site plan. But when we,
after your visit, which we were not at, which I have a question
Board of Trustees 42 September 22, 2010
about also, I just was not sure whether you wanted us there or
not. So we just, anyway, we were not there. Anyway I spoke with
Penn was there, Penn Sanger, and he gave us the feedback that was
one of the comments. So we spoke to Dick Strauss of CME and
they said they wanted the septic pulled back further, even under
the driveway, perhaps. And his concern was we can do that. I'm
just not sure the Health Department will approve that. Then he
had a conversation with the Health Department. Not specifically
looking at this. He didn't forward them a plan and have a
discussion. But he said can we put the septic under the
driveway. And the feedback we got from Dick was that in cases
where people have done that before going to the Health
Department, they have been fine, they have been allowed to keep
it, they have been fined, and they were required to put kind of
a structural slab above it with kind of an extension of the
access to the system. So he asked further and he feels that if
we pull that back, that the Health Department might allow us to
actually do it, the owner would have to pay a fine, then the
owner has to sign a covenant saying the Health Department is not
responsible for issues that arise from the system being under
the driveway. So our thought was to, in consultation with Dick
Strauss, was to follow your, try to implement your request and
pull it back. And so in the new drawing it's a little
different, not much, from the one you saw originally, it's
pulled back a little closer to the driveway. Anyway, that's --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought the Health Department allowed them but
you have to have a traffic bearing top over the cesspool.
MS. RUTHERFURD: It's not only that. It needs to have a traffic
bearing top. You have to pay a fine to them.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a process for that. It's called a
review board and you make an appeal much like you would appeal
to the Zoning Board of Appeals or any appellate boards. So that
it can be done if it's deemed or it certainly can be applied
for, if it's deemed a direction this Board wants it to go. As
far as fines, the review board is a review body much like a
Zoning Board of Appeals and they have their own individual
standards for applying, if an individual decides to thwart the
intent of the sanitary code, then they might be looking at fines.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: On the upland side of the home there is not
really very much room to work at all when you consider you have
the garage and driveway.
MR. KINLIN: The other potential location we looked at was
further on the northwest corner closer to the northeast corner,
sorry, closer to the, far enough away from the house to be
allowable but closer to the neighbor's property. And the issue
Board of Trustees 43 September 22, 2010
there is the neighbor has a well just on the other side of the
line. Sanger approached the neighbor and asked them would he
consider abandoning the well and removing it and running off
town water, but he didn't want to undertake that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, it's still 52 feet away from the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And it is pretty raised over there. Pretty high
off the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KING: It is what it is.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. Any other comments or questions from the
audience?
(No response).
The Board?
(No response).
Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I make a motion we approve the application
noting the change on the new plans which are dated September 21,
2010, showing a new location of the septic system and also
noting a hay bale line which is to be maintained during
construction. And that is already on the plans.
MS. RUTHERFURD: The date on the revised drawing is actually
September 8. It may have been received on the 21 st.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Received September 21. Dated September 8.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KINLIN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application is Fairweather Design
Associates, Inc., on behalf of HERNAN MICHAEL OTANO requests a
Wetland Permit to replace the existing deteriorated and
collapsing foundation of the existing cottage and install a
drywell for roof runoff; construct a non-habitable attic space,
replace the existing waterside porch; construct a landward entry
addition, an outdoor shower on the south side; and replace the
windows, siding and roof framing. Located: Unit 5, Sage Blvd., Southold.
The project is exempt under the LWRP. The Trustees have
been to this site twice now; previously for a wetland permit
issued that dealt with the foundation replacement and the
drywells, and now a more expansive set of plans for these other
items and elevations of the proposed construction on the house.
The Conservation Advisory Council was unable to, was not able to
make an inspection, so we do not have a CAC report on this job.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
MS. MARTIN: Good evening, Amy Martin here for Fairweather Design
Associates representing Hernan Otano. As you know, you issued a
Board of Trustees 44 September 22, 2010
permit to lift this house, repair the foundation, previously,
and then at this point in time we have done further discovery
and certain parts of the structure are in serious disrepair and
we were advised by your department to re-apply as there could be
considerable damage in the moving process, and as such, major
repairs will need to be done and would like to be done to this structure.
I have -- there is an error on one of the application
documents which just shows -- the draftsman didn't change a two
foot above grade marking, it's actually a 3'9" when we reach the
eight foot necessary for the flood plain elevation. And upon
discovery with the designer, the existing roof is 2x4's three
foot on center. So in an effort to keep it from imploding, we
will have to re-roof, and in the process, the applicant has
asked that he get a four foot over addition of height to it.
The only thing I'm not totally sure of is your review of the
exterior shower. I assume we would need to make sure that that
also runs to the runoff or is the water usage there not
considered enough to deem that. I mean we obviously would have
it pitched away from the foundation so as not to do any damage there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would say in that area it would not hurt to
be attached to it, because it's such a low area and it's so
close to the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And very clayey.
MS. MARTIN: Very clayey, as we all know. The renovation is
totally keeping with the character. It will be a seasonal
cottage. We are not trying to be anything else. We are just
trying to keep it from falling down. And the only thing that we
have that was not on the original application that is closer to
the bulkhead is the stairs were not included in the original
application. Which would be needed, as it is now. It needs
five steps to get down to grade level.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the house.
MS. MARTIN: On the house.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you have those revised plans you want to
issue to us now, or--
MS. MARTIN: I do not have the one that just shows the TV'.
I'll submit that tomorrow. I only realized that tonight that
that was a typo. The elevations show the property, proper
amount, it's just that one --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are there any additional questions or concerns?
(No response).
We all went to the site. I think we didn't, based on the
configuration, the land slopes significantly back toward the
house from the bulkhead, so we didn't feel it needed a hay bale
line during construction. At least that's the field discussion
recall when we looked at the site.
Board of Trustees 45 September 22, 2010
MS. MARTIN: So we had included the hay bale line and it's not
necessary? Even though we are replacing the seaward porch?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The DEC may require it in their permit, so
you may not want to remove it.
MS. MARTIN: We have a revised approval from the DEC. They have
approved it and I do believe it has the hay bale line.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I stand corrected. I was under the
impression I didn't see a line on the plans I was looking at. I
know there was a brief discussion concerning it. It's pretty
straightforward. Any further comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll move to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE KING: What happens if you pick it up and it falls apart?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I just moved but we have not seconded yet.
MS. DOWDE: Hi, I'm Mary Dowd. My husband and I own two cottages
at Breezy Shores. And I have a question. This is going to, if
the expansion of footprint is approved, I wanted to know will it
be setting a precedent? No one at Breezy Shores has expanded a
footprint. And I'm curious to know from you how that will
affect other shareholders because I imagine it will probably
prompt a lot of the different.shareholders. This is a co-op and
we own the land communally. Will it allow other shareholders
to, because now we are using buildable, areas being built up
more with housing. Can we --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't believe it's expanding the footprint.
I believe the footprint is the same.
MS. MARTIN: There is a landward porch/mudroom addition. That's
expanding six feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. I'm sorry.
MS. DOWDE: So my question is: How does that affect people down
the road, ten years from now, if 15 people want to expand the
footprint, will that affect other shareholders, since now the
land mass is being filled up with more housing?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any restrictions or anything on the
deeds or co-ops that would not allow them to do it?
MS. DOWDE: Yes, we have within our own community, we have
restrictions.
MS. MARTIN: I believe the restrictions, if I may interject, from
what I understand, the restrictions have so that no more
bedrooms or whatever can be, because of the septic system, so
there is no more drain on septic systems that exist. For
non-livable space and for egress-type things, I don't believe
that they pick that out as something that can't be done.
MS. DOWDE: You can apply for a variance within the Board.
TRUSTEE KING: Were these restrictions put in by the town or--
MS. MARTIN: It's not a town issue. We checked that out.
Board of Trustees 46 September 22, 2010
TRUSTEE KING: We have nothing to do with that. If it's not town
imposed, that's a private situation we are not part of.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Although the bedroom issue might be with the
original approval.
MS. MARTIN: I think that's part of the covenant with the property owners
as far as not stressing the existing septic systems that are there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think this area is so old we would not have
C&R's on any subdivisions and planning at this point. I think
it's way before that time.
TRUSTEE KING: It's something we don't get involved in.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not town imposed, so.
MS. MARTIN: No, we checked that out.
MS. DOWDE: Say everyone decided to expand their footprint by 15
or 20%, does it limit future owners of cottages by one cottage
being larger, do you look at it from that point of view or how
do you decide?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, each --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Not from the Trustees' perspective. From the
Trustees' perspective we are just looking at it in terms of how
it affects the wetlands.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We were looking to see it doesn't go any
closer to the wetland edge. By the same token, the Building
Department would be looking at the town building requirements as
far as setbacks and setoffs.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This may indeed be one permit out of several the
applicant has to get to be able to do this work.
MS. DOWDE: I see. Thank you.
MS. MARTIN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I made a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted per the plans. We have two separate dates for a
site foundation plan, which is dated July 22, and the
elevations, plan of elevations which is dated on August 16,
2010. 1 so move.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eleven, Condon Engineering, PC, on behalf
of CAROL R. DENSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct an
approximately 1,400 square foot second-floor addition.to the
existing building, install a French drain throughout the parking
lot, install a 25' vegetated buffer along the landward side of
Board of Trustees 47 September 22, 2010
the retaining wall, and install a post and rail fence or an
approved equal at the edge of the buffer zone. Located: 750 Old
Main Road, Southold.
This was reviewed under the LWRP. It was found to be
consistent. The Conservation'Advisory Council resolved to
support the application with the condition of lateral public
access path. The Board did go out and looked at this and this
is what was the Old Barge Restaurant. And so we have looked at
it. So is anybody here to speak on behalf of this applicant?
MR. CONDON: John Condon, on behalf'of the owner Carol Denson.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just a couple of things, just to confirm. It
appears on the plans that have been submitted this second floor
addition is clearly within the footprint of the first floor
addition, it's not expanding outside of that footprint.
MR. CONDON: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: When we looked at this, as people who are not
engineers, it was pretty apparent, our concern was that the
structure is -- anybody familiar with The Barge -- leans in
about three different directions, the roof is sagging, and
structurally, will it be able to handle the weight of putting a
second floor addition on it without the whole thing collapsing?
MR. CONDON: When you come into the harbor there on the boat, you
can see it very well. From what I understand, the second floor
structure will be supported by piles separately from the rest of
the building.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Gotcha. Because you understand if this becomes
a demo or a teardown, you have to come back before the Board.
MR. CONDON: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What do you propose to do with the sagging
part, that has to be fixed before --
MR. CONDON: That is something the owner will have to look into.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You'll have to come back to us for that as well.
MR. CONDON: I'll bring that up.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Anything you do, if it's a repair, even if it's
just raising it and putting another piling, you have to come back to us.
MR. CONDON: I know that floor always had a -- it was never
leveled. We noticed it. I'll bring it up to the owner, definitely.
TRUSTEE KING: The bottom line is this second floor would be
basically self supporting.
MR. CONDON: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: You are not relying on The Barge itself for
support of the second floor.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The structure itself is actually larger than what is
there, unless you plan on putting supports through the restaurant.
MR. CONDON: The piles will actually go through what is below.
As part of the work we have a permit to do some floor repair and
Board of Trustees 48 September 22, 2010
they are going to provide a space to allow the piles to be drifted through.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just for clarification, looking at the plans
here. The post and rail fence you are proposing -- I find it
now. It runs parallel to the floating dock in the non-turf buffer area.
MR. CONDON: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, I just didn't see it when I first looked
at the plans.
MR. CONDON: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience that wants
to speak on behalf of this application, either for or against
this application?
(No response).
Again, we would want to make sure this complies with Chapter 236
of the drainage code of the Town the Southold, which includes
the use of gutters, leaders and drywells.
MR. CONDON: Okay, we do have very large gravel drain going in
that will accommodate a four-inch rainfall.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The French drain, yes.
MR. CONDON: Yes, that was approved by DEC.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As long as it fits into Chapter 236, that's fine.
MR. CONDON: And runoff will be directed to it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think given the scope of the construction
project we would also like to see a silt fence and hay bale line
between the proposed construction area and the mean high water
mark. I know there is very little room in there to work, and so
I would try to tuck that up as close as you can to the structure.
MR. CONDON: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the Board?
MR. MCGREEVEY: Dave, is there any asphalt parking area there
that should be taken into consideration?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's all existing gravel parking area.
MR. CONDON: Might be a small area for handicap parking, if I recall.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, but that's further, it's landward of the
building or landward end of the building.
MR. CONDON: Yes, it's up by where the entrance is.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, being no further comments, I'll make a
motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Condon Engineering on behalf of Carol Denson described at 750
Old Main R with the condition of the inclusion of a hay bale and
silt fence line between the mean high water mark and the
proposed constructed area of the structure, and then to make
sure that the project complies with Chapter 236 of the Southold
Board of Trustees 49 September 22, 2010
Town Drainage Code.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And it is found consistent under the LWRP.
MR. CONDON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 12, Creative Environmental Design on behalf
of ALEX HILLENBRAND requests a Wetland Permit to install a
retaining wall adjacent to the house ad renovate wetland
plantings to native species. Located: 50 Lupton's Point Road,
Mattituck.
It was found consistent with the LWRP. I don't see
anything from the Conservation Advisory Council.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me, can we go back to the other, to the
last one. I want to re-do the resolution. First I'll do a
resolution to reopen the public hearing. I'll make a motion to
reopen the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then I would like to add to Dave's resolution
that if there is any demolition, that they have to come back to
us for an amendment. So Dave's resolution, what he said, but
add to it if there is demolition.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought I included that in the discussion. It
was not in the resolution, you're right, but in the discussion I addressed that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it should also be addressed in the
resolution letter. We have to put it in the resolution.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, number 12, again, Creative Environmental
Design on behalf of ALEX HILLENBRAND requests a Wetland Permit
to install a retaining wall adjacent to the house ad renovate
wetland plantings to native species. Located: 50 Lupton's Point
Road, Mattituck. Like I said, it was found consistent under the
LWRP. I don't see anything in here from the Conservation
Advisory Council. Probably because I had the file. Did anybody
go out and look at this, Jack?
MR. MCGREEVEY: I did.
TRUSTEE KING: Any comments?
MR. MCGREEVEY: We don't support the application because the
project was not staked at the time it was inspected. There is a
serious drainage problem presently flowing directly into the
wetlands. And there is also a serious runoff condition from the
town road into their property and into the wetlands. So we do
Board of Trustees 50 September 22, 2010
have a problem.
TRUSTEE KING: Is that a highway drain?
MR. MCGREEVEY: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Bob and I have been out there for that and met
with Mr. Hillenbrand a couple of times, and we spoke to Pete
Harris about it. It's on our list on the Stormwater Runoff
Committee. That's all I could say about that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As a matter of fact, we recognize that as being
an issue, particularly in our town, but while I was there, in
one particular meeting with Mr. Hillenbrand, somebody, I don't
know who it was, pulled up with a whole trailer full of leaves,
you know, it was during the Fall and took everything and threw
it over into the wetlands and took off before we could do
anything about it.
MR. MCGREEVEY: The wetlands are part of the Hillenbrand property.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, it goes right all the way down the road
there. They dumped everything right over the guardrail.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, on the town property.
TRUSTEE KING: We were all out there on a pre-submission, all of
us.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I went and looked at it the other day.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we felt this would enhance the wetland
and help the filtration of the water that is running off there.
The town still has to do their part on the road.
TRUSTEE KING: That's my feeling. He's improving a bad situation.
Are there any comments from the audience, pro or con?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Dave Chicanowicz, Creative Environmental
Design. Again, our proposal is just to help correct some of the
problems that exist. The retaining wall adjacent to the house
will allow Mr. Hillenbrand access around the house, because
right now it dramatically slopes off toward the wetland. Along
with the application it would be noted that we retain the gutter
water to drywells landward of the wetlands, which do not happen
now. So we'll be improving several issues with this permit.
TRUSTEE KING: That was my feeling, and I guess the feeling of
the Board, too. Any other comments from anybody?
MR. MCGREEVEY: One other comment, Jim. If I recall correctly,
at present it says "cesspool," I think it says "cesspool." If
it's indicated on the diagram. It's very, very close to the
present wetland. I don't know if that's a problem, though.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The whole property is close to the wetland.
TRUSTEE KING: There is nothing we can really do.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is no place to put it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we had a discussion in the field. We
noticed that also.
Board of Trustees 51 September 22, 2010
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You could put it across the street and it would
still be closer than it normally would be.
TRUSTEE KING: If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion
to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 13, Creative Environmental Design on
behalf of JACK BIGGANE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
timber stairway on the bluff. Located: 8871 Oregon Road, Cutchogue.
The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the
application because of the following: There is a serious
drainage condition on the bluff, the location is questionable
for beach stairs because of the close proximity to the property
line and in the area of the blowout, and the CAC recommended a
best management plan. We don't have an LWRP report and it has
not been 30 days, so we cannot make a decision on this tonight.
Before I open it up to the floor, I will comment on the stairs
are close to the property line because the Biggane's are sharing
it with their neighbors. So it will be a shared stairs with the
two properties. So we felt that in this case that that would be
fine. And we thought that the blowout area, which they have a
permit to revegetate and repair, since it's already blown out
and there is no vegetation to take out, it's the best place on
the property to have that. Are there any comments from the
audience?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Dave Chicanowicz, Creative Environmental Design
representing Jack Biggane. As per the plans we submitted,
again, they, the neighbor to the east Jose Suquet and Jack
Biggane are actually making some legal documentation so they
both have access to the staircase and will be sharing the
expenses, at that point. But keeping it located close to the
property line on Mr. Biggane's property. And again, we do have
the permit to repair the blowout of the bluff and this is the
perfect opportunity to, while this is being reconstructed, to
coordinate the reconstruction or construction of the new
staircase, as per plan. Again, noted on the plan, we are trying
to keep the elevation of the staircase walkways a minimum of
three to four feet above the vegetation to allow enough sunlight
for good erosion control through the slope all the way down to the beach.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The catch basin that was placed there many
Board of Trustees 52 September 22, 2010
years ago on the guidance of the Trustees that everybody feels
has failed, has that been abandoned yet?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Currently not, but will be probably within the
next week. It's actually going to be converted to a smaller
size catch basin piped back inland 100 feet.to a new drywell.
That's all part of the other permit process that was approved.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, that's what I thought.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: The drywell is part of that permit process, the
other one.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. So I'll make sure that other permit is
forwarded to the LWRP so they can review it as well.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: That should have a major impact on what they
conclude.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because I did speak to Mark and that was his
major concern is the drainage in that area.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Right, as well as ours. Because we determined
that's the source of the blowouts on this these bluffs are these
drywells. We also found out the pool companies have been
dumping all their water in there. So I'm make a strong notation
to these owners they'll never put another drop in this or
anywhere near this area.
TRUSTEE KING: Would that water have to be pumped landward?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: They can pump it landward: There is plenty of
farm fields for acres.
TRUSTEE KING: I mean from the present drywell now, if you use
that as a small catch basin.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: We are using it because it's actually at the
lowest point of the two yards.
TRUSTEE KING: That water has to be pumped landward from that.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: We'll actually have some fairly deep trenches
going back.
TRUSTEE KING: That will be a big change,in elevation there.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: One property, not so bad. The other one, a lot
more.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, that addresses the drainage.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: We'll also be maintaining the slight berm that
is existing there along the bluff edge so that we can contain
any rain water back to the catch basin and, again, pipe it landward.
MR. MCGREEVEY: The Conservation Advisory Council would also like
to make a recommendation pertaining to drainage. There is a
small drainage pipe on your eastern property line that comes
down parallel with the stairs, and it just empties itself right
on to the top of the slope. It's a plastic--
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we noticed that, too.
TRUSTEE KING: Couldn't figure out where it was coming from.
MR. MCGREEVEY: I couldn't figure out where it came from but that
Board of Trustees 53 September 22, 2010
should be addressed.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: It's something that will be removed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments?
(No response).
Unfortunately we'll have to table this until next month until we
receive the LWRP report.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Okay. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion that we table this
application for the LWRP report and also, Lauren, if you can
make sure that Mark gets a copy of the --
MS. STANDISH: He has it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Great, thank you. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 14, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc., on behalf of JOSEPH ZEVITS requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a single-family dwelling, northerly deck and a
second-story deck and stairs facing the water, staked hay bales
and silt fencing along the six-foot contour line prior to
construction, 10' non-turf planted buffer area with a four-foot
wide access path to the water, pervious driveway, and gutters,
leaders and drywells to contain roof run-off. Located: 1945
Little Peconic Bay Lane, Southold.
The Board was out there and we have all seen this. This is
coming back to us, as I understand, because it expired, right?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The CAC resolved to support the application.
LWRP finds it inconsistent with LWRP because of the setback
issues. If the action is approved, LWRP does ask that the
applicant use best management practices and require a 25-foot
non-turf buffer. That being said, again, it's just, this was
approved once before. It expired. I just want to double check
to make sure -- everything is the same?
MR. ANDERSON: It was approved in 2008. It was amended in 2009.
It expired last July 23 of this year. We filed the exact same
application that was approved. LWRP issues were mitigated by
the ten-foot active planning to runoff controls that were made
part of this application. So these are conditions that were
exacted on this property by this Board. It overcame the
previous. So to my mind since there has been no change in law,
there should be no change in conditions. It should simply be re-approved.
TRUSTEE KING: This was found inconsistent the first go around?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Bob, the date of the first LWRP review?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: July, 2008.
Board of Trustees 54 September 22, 2010
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it was found inconsistent at that time. This
Board amended to address that, found it consistent. So it
should remain consistent under the LWRP.
MR. ANDERSON: Precisely.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So we'll just copy the same permit that was
there the first time. That's all.
MR. ANDERSON: That's what I would like.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions, comments?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application
and just copy the existing permit and change the dates on it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I would just, also, with regard to the
inconsistency under LWRP those inconsistencies were
addressed in the permit of 2008. So as such we find this
application consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that your second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 15, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
on behalf of DAVIES FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 4x64' fixed elevated catwalk; 3x15' hinged ramp and
a 6x20' floating dock on the eastern shoreline of the subject
property. Located: 2385 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue.
The Board went out and did field inspections on this
project. The entire Board was there. The.Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program has voluminous comments to bolster its
inconsistent review, which will probably take a bit of time.
I'll go through them point by point. And the Conservation
Advisory Council supported the application and recommends the
dock be constructed in an "L" to reach adequate water depth. I
believe there was some discussions at the CAC meeting that I
attended as the Trustee liaison that parallel some of the
Trustees' concerns on field inspection concerning having
adequate water depth but not extending out beyond the existing
pier line.
Now for the LWRP comments. The application does not
include the dimensions of the proposed vessel for the dock and
standards under 275 that LWRP believes should be considered is
to whether the dock will unduly interfere with public use of
waterways for swimming, boating, fishing, shellfishing,
waterskiing, other water dependent activities. We did feel the
Board of Trustees 55 September 22, 2010
proposed dock may stick out a little beyond the pier line so it
conceivably could be a problem for water skiing in Little Creek.
There was a vessel moored beyond it that was a concern when we
were out there. Again, relating to the length of the dock.
Whether the dock would unduly prevent people from moving along
the foreshore, the elevation of the dock was in fact discussed
by the Board while we were doing field survey. The project is
located within a critical environmental area so the Board may
consider modifications to the structure to protect elements of
critical vegetation in the critical environmental area. I think
that was also part of the Board's discussion during the course
of the site inspection. I mean the comments are voluminous, but
many are exactly what the Board was looking at at the time of
the inspection without the benefit of the inconsistent review--
excuse me, the determination of inconsistency.
The water depth at the terminus of the dock of the
structure is indicated to be 4.3 feet and it was recommended to
be shortened to reconfigure the dock to achieve minimum water
depth of 3.8 feet or less. That is also in keeping with what the
Board determined independently on its inspection. And preserve
the public interest in the use of lands and waters held in the
public trust by the state and Southold. There was an indication
the applicant could access the waters obtaining a temporary
vessel mooring permit. This is purely discretionary for the
Board of Trustees. I don't think it really has a place in the
LWRP determination but, anyhow, that's what we have from the
LWRP on this. Anyone here wish to speak on behalf of the application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting.
I put together an aerial photograph to give you an idea --
TRUSTEE KING: This dock is pretty much surrounded by docks, isn't it?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. This is how the neighborhood looks. And I'm
not going to quibble with if something is two feet longer than
the dock next door. I would be happy to shorten it two feet.
TRUSTEE KING: There is plenty of water depth.
MR. ANDERSON: There is clearly no impact to navigation. We all
know no one water skis here. As far as movement along the
foreshore, I would be more than happy to put in a set of stairs
to go up and over it, if that's what the Board requires. It
seems that would mitigate that concern. Whether or not the LWRP
or through the LWRP they designate the area a critical
environmental area does not preclude the construction of a dock.
The temporary mooring permit we don't feel is a reasonable
alternative, given what is out there. We don't have the
dimensions for the boat. I suppose I could ask what kind of
boat would be docked there. I will tell you this, though, we
did consider making the dock an "L" shaped and we are requested
Board of Trustees 56 September 22, 2010
to make it straight because it's the fellow's grandchildren who
will be using the dock, it will be much easier to get in to and
from the dock. That's why it's made out straight. The dock
directly south of it is laid out in an almost identical
condition and hasn't apparently caused any kind of navigational
hazard or any of the impacts that are listed in the LWRP.
Having said that, we can be flexible and we could reduce this by
a couple of feet. If you have a recommendation, I would
certainly consider that. And as far as we are suitably elevated-
off the existing grade because it comes off the top of that
stairway. So I don't think there are any shading impacts. And
because the dock extends, essentially eastward into the creek,
and the sun travels across the southern sky, I don't believe there is
any shading concern that rises to the level of changing it here.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that is fairly the discussion; the
Board was looking at the vegetation heights under neighboring
docks and didn't feel vegetation was a large concern. I would
just like too refer to the field notes for the inspection.
Actually I think the Board was inclined to feel that the height
of the proposed dock could actually be lowered because
neighboring docks are much lower than what you propose. And they
still have very ample Alterna flora growth right up through the
floor boards. The Board's concerns was to move the dock, I
think in the field we were discussing some three or four feet.
Which would still give you the depth.
MR. ANDERSON: I think that's fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And we were going to request that you lower
to match the height of the neighbor, which would be to the
south. There was some open discussion on the fact of whether or
not we would suggest open-grating or not, but that might help
address additional concerns for the LWRP for what would span
over water, so if we are looking at widgeon grass or other
beneficial vegetation in the water column, that maybe open
grating would suffice to meet some of the legitimate LWRP
concerns for habitat protection.
MR. ANDERSON: I don't personally have a problem with the
open-grating dock.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That pretty much, that was the configuration
-- we tossed it around and I don't know, maybe the Board has
additional comments concerning configuration.
TRUSTEE KING: No, I think that's it. Just make it shorter. If
you chop four feet off it, that's more than enough, I think.
MR. ANDERSON: We would be fine with four feet shorter.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we would amend the 4x64 to 460 fixed
elevated catwalk.
MR. ANDERSON: All right.
Board of Trustees 57 September 22, 2010
MR. MCGREEVEY: Would the stair case be recommended by the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, relative to what the neighbors have,
the neighbors are, correct me if I'm wrong, approximately
two-and-a-half to three feet below what the proposed is, and
that would put the level at the mean high water, that would be
traversed. It's not particularly an area where we want a lot of
walking anyway because it has such a heavy, emerging line of
vegetation.
TRUSTEE KING: Who will be trampling through the wetlands.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, it's one of those areas, if it's below
low tide, you are moving below low tide and you can duck under
the structures. Otherwise it's very uncomfortable to walk
through heavy Spartina.
MR. MCGREEVEY: That would be a condition in the future, specific
sites, whether a staircase is appropriate or not.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: If you have an open beach area, sandy beach area,
people like to walk, of course.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: By having open grating and the dock lower it
allows for persons to walk.
TRUSTEE KING: In a heavily vegetated wetland, why would anyone
walk through that? Just to have public access.
MR. ANDERSON: Why would you want people walking through that.
TRUSTEE KING: Right.
MR. MCGREEVEY: So it's specific to the site.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, I move to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve the application of
Suffolk Environmental Consulting in this matter subject to
conditions that will address concerns of the LWRP in that we
require open-grating decking; that the decking be moved
approximately three feet lower than the proposed, to match that
of the neighbor; and submission of plans consistent with that elevation;
and that the terminus of the dock be moved landward four feet.
MR. ANDERSON: Shortened.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's right. That's what I mean. Terminus,
the end of it, moved in four feet.
MR. ANDERSON: So we have the 4x60 foot catwalk.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, adjust the description to 4x60 foot catwalk.
Board of Trustees 58 September 22, 2010
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, I would move that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: With those changes find it consistent under the
LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 16, Costello Marine Contracting, on
behalf of CEDAR BEACH PARK ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit
to remove the existing cross-over stairway to beach; remove
existing face pilings and cut down top of existing 40' bulkhead
section; construct 40' of new bulkhead to match adjacent east
.bulkhead immediately in front of old bulkhead; regrade northwest
corner of beach area to match grade at east bulkhead; and'
construct new cross-over stairway to beach. Located: Cedar
Beach, Inlet Way Road, Southold.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be
consistent. The CAC resolved to support the application with
the condition that there is lateral access for the public. The
Board did go out and looked at this application, and we found it
to be a very straightforward application.-
There is plenty of room between the high tide mark and
the structure to allow for public access along the beach there.
So is there anybody here to comment on this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. My name is John Costello. We are the agents
for the Cedar Beach Association on this application. And
basically it's a bulkhead that is in dire need of repair.
People have used this bulkhead as access for rebuilding some of
the bulkheads there. They are picking the machinery off the top
of it. And the age of the bulkhead, it's probably more than 40
years of age. It's creosoted and it's just so deteriorated it's
going to fail somewhere in the future just because it's totally
rotted right now. And it's a replacement with vinyl sheathing,
consistent with both parcels, adjoining parcels. If the Board
has any questions.
TRUSTEE KING: Did you build the original one, John?
MR. COSTELLO: I could have. But I didn't. 48 years, to tell you
the truth -- I'll tell you who did, though, it was original
James Rambo. You could tell by the design of the sheathing and
the wood they used.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
No other comments, I'll make a motion to close this public
hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
Board of Trustees 59 September 22, 2010
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application-of
Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of Cedar Beach Park
Association as described on Cedar Beach Inlet Way Road. And it
was found consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number 17, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf
of KENNETH & ELIZABETH LESTRANGE requests a Wetland Permit to
construct 136' of low sill bulkhead with two ten-foot returns
and 136' of retaining wall with two ten-foot returns. Sheathing
for low sill bulkhead to be driven in place and supported by
batter pilings. No excavation to be done in inter-tidal marsh
area. Located: 960 Willis Creek, Mattituck.
This was found inconsistent with LWRP because --
MR. COSTELLO: Could I present new plans to the Board? Because
some of the original plans submitted show going into the,
through the wetland, and I'm sure that the Board would object to
that. So I had the plans revised after the meeting that we.had
onsite to make sure that we did not interfere with any of the
existing wetlands. And I also requested that we excavate a
short area adjacent to the property going into the Deep Hole
edge of the creek. Instead of spending the additional money to
haul in fill and/or try to bring it in by barge, there is
minimal access through the property. The only access through
the property is through the northwest side, where there is
wetlands. It would be difficult. So by taking off a point that
is a navigational hazard to the next communities to the west, we
would try to excavate the amount of yardage necessary to fill
the retaining walls and then revegetate with Alterna flora and
native vegetation. That was discussed and we have altered the
plans to include that.
TRUSTEE KING: You are sure that second wall is 80 feet, John?
MR. COSTELLO: Originally we were going to go longer, but we went
through and walked through the phragmites. It's only phragmites.
But the only spot that was severely eroded into the bank was
adjacent to the stairs for about 60 feet. There were a couple
of trees that are roots are being undermined, and we stopped
right there. The elevation of the land going up hill, too much
excavation, so we stopped with less of the upper retaining wall.
The upper retaining wall is only two-and-a-half feet out of the
bottom, and basically it goes to zero on the west end. So there
is no use digging a trench and installing it, so we stopped.
TRUSTEE KING: Some of the comments now on the LWRP. File photos
indicate the shoreline is relatively stable, except in two areas
Board of Trustees 60 September 22, 2010
around the dock pilings and under the existing stairs. The -
areas lack vegetation. It is recommended the Board require
alternative erosion control methods, replanting of vegetation,
fiber controls, selective stone armoring in areas where erosion
has occurred. It is recommended the Board consider requiring
the applicant retain existing vegetation where practical,
restore vegetation within the intertidal zone to control
erosion. The low sill bulkhead proposal includes replanting of
disturbed areas, however the species specifications and spacing
of the vegetation have not been identified. Those are the
comments from the LWRP.
MR. COSTELLO: I would like to -- could I submit this as part of
the record. How stable that bottom is.
TRUSTEE KING: The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to
support the wetland application. CAC does not support the
application because the barrier is not necessary, it's an
intrusion on public land. We have a little history in this
area. I know, I think it was the Keith property and Scollard. We
had a lot of erosion problems there. I think one of the
original concepts was to put a rock revetment in or rock
retaining wall of some kind, and when it went to the DEC, the
DEC recommended a low sill bulkhead. And in my mind, I think it
worked out well. There is a wetland area behind it now that
would not have been without that low sill bulkhead there. I
think this type of project is an improvement, environmentally,
of the area. It stops the shoreline loss, increases the wetland
area, and in my mind they are a good thing to do. I'll listen
to any comments from the audience.
MR. COSTELLO: Well, I just submitted one photograph which shows,
you know, the bog in the area. And I have a couple of more.
The bog in the area is not a stable vegetation. What happens is
those clumps of bog break off every year and reduce the
wetlands. You could see to the west of that project where the
beach was barren of any vegetation because the bog has
disappeared over a period of time.
Going through it the other day, I have some photographs,
and I gave one, there is no vegetation. And the bog is chunks
of bog in the last storm, broke up, and washed around the
corner. And that's an ongoing project.
TRUSTEE KING: Same thing was happening on Keith's property years ago.
MR. COSTELLO: I know. Well, you've seen it. Some of the people
have not seen that occur. And that's the irregularity of that
shoreline. But it could be stabilized.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And your low sill bulkhead, you have open
slat?
MR. COSTELLO: No, with the elevation of it, it allows, it is
Board of Trustees 61 September 22, 2010
between high and low water, so every tide goes above this and
feeds the Alterna flora.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So at maximal high tide you are allowing
killifish and other products to wash in and out.
MR. COSTELLO: A foot point two of water to go over. And it's
working next door incredibly well.
MR. MCGREEVEY: When you say work next door, you are talking to
the east of the present?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, to the east of it is Scollard and Keith. And
Keith had a permit to continue the low sill bulkhead but I believe it's
expired, and I told Rob Herman. You know, I'm not going to go into
Rob Herman's backyard, but he should renew that permit for Mr. Keith,
and Mr. Keith would like to have it renewed. There is 91 feet that will be
open there. It will erode. And I'll submit two additional photographs; one
showing the shoalness going into the Willis Creek. It's the area that we
propose dredging and I have one area, and I would only take the yardage
that I could utilize, and it will probably, for two or three years, help the water
flow into Willis Creek.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want to take a little extra and bring it
home with you?
MR. COSTELLO: I'll tell you, the town, actually, it would be
nice if we could get it out of there. It would be asset to the
town. Where people have erosion on the shore front, but, it's too bad.
TRUSTEE KING: We did another one in Mattituck not too long ago
by the Hess station. And I think--
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That came out nice.
TRUSTEE KING: And the batter piles, that was a suggestion by the
DEC. They didn't want deadmen up in the wetland area there.
MR. COSTELLO: We changed it. Absolutely. You could put
helicals in, without disturbing it, but that drives the cost up considerably.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
MR. MCGREEVEY: Jim, I didn't get a look at the new plan but what
is being considered is one bulkhead versus two on the original application?
TRUSTEE KING: No, there is still a second landward retaining
wall. Probably 20, roughly, I would say roughly around 20 feet landward.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It looks like everything we discussed.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it will improve the situation there. In
my mind. With the experience we had with the Keith and the
Scollard properties, I think it's an improvement. Of course
those projects were done before we had the LWRP, so there is no
reference in their mind on what went on there and how it looks
today, compared to the way it looked.
MR. COSTELLO: I don't know if the LWRP personnel went and looked
at the site and compared. If they did, it was evident the other
day, you have to go at low tide, when you see the vegetation.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know that they physically go out and look
Board of Trustees 62 September 22, 2010
at the site or if they look at it from aerials. I don't know
MR. COSTELLO: Google.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else have any comments?
MR. MCGREEVEY: With the adjustment, Jim, with the new
application, the adjustment, is all the construction on private
property and not on public land? Because the original one was,
the one nearest the water was on public property. Is it all
within the property line?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think so.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Well, that's a question then.
TRUSTEE KING: It's hard to tell from this survey.
MR. MCGREEVEY: The original application, the bulkhead nearest to
the water was definitely, no question about it, off the private
property on to public land.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is it below the high tide mark on the survey?
MR. COSTELLO: I could address that. The proposed low sill
bulkhead is on public property. And the intention is to
preserve the wetlands. It works both ways. By preserving the
wetland, it's preserving whatever erosion may future occur to
the upland portion of the property. We are using the wetlands
as the erosion control device. The vegetation will help everyone.
MR. MCGREEVEY: What might happen here, Jim, I'm just taking the
devil's advocate side, you set a precedent, then you leave it up
to debate with other applications later on. I don't know if you
want to go there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think this is a unique area. It's like the
mouth of the creek, it's not something that is ever going to be
walked across.
TRUSTEE KING: I could think of four low sill bulkheads we did in
Mattituck: Scollard, Keith, we did Finora and we did another one
down on'Deep Hole, and they are all outside of the property line.
MR. COSTELLO: This doesn't give this owner the ownership of
that. It does not give him the ownership.
TRUSTEE KING: No.
MR. COSTELLO: He only owns what's in his deed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Functionally it would not make sense to pull
it in because then it would diminishing the wetlands you are
trying to grow.
MR. COSTELLO: No, you would be going backwards. The town will
own the wetland, still own the wetlands.
TRUSTEE KING: Of course.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Is that part of the agreement with the town when
that takes place, that that bulkhead becomes public property
then? I'm just, I don't know.
MR. COSTELLO: No. The person that has the permit to put it in
has the responsibility of maintaining it.
Board of Trustees 63 September 22, 2010
TRUSTEE KING: Actual ownership, I don't know.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Liability.
TRUSTEE KING: You are opening up a hell of a can of worms, Jack.
MR. COSTELLO: We have the CAC lawyer here tonight.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments before we beat this to death
entirely?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted, on replanting the wetland area, Spartina Alterna
flora 12" on center. And as far as the inconsistency goes, we
have had experience with these low sill bulkheads and every one
has turned out to be a plus environmentally because of the
increased size of the wetland area. And just that alone, in my
mind, brings this into consistency with what we want to do in the town.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Plus the plantings we are requiring as part of this.
TRUSTEE KING: We are actually creating a good size wetland area.
The neighboring properties, just go look at them and see what an
improvement it is. I'll make that motion.
MR. COSTELLO: What about the dredging?
TRUSTEE KING: That's part of the project.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's not in the description. So let's approve
it as per these plans.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you are, your approval is as per--
TRUSTEE KING: This is based on these plans you submitted to us
on the 22nd of last month and dated September 21, 2010.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Which includes the dredging. I'll second that.
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. COSTELLO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have two more resolutions to do that are not
on the agenda. One, I'll make a motion to allow Bob Terry to have his
30x90 barge in Mattituck Inlet until October 31, 2010, as per his letter that
he submitted, at a fee of$500.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The second resolution would be in the matter of
Clair Mather, located at 805 Osprey Nest Road, Greenport, to resolve that
the buffer can match the neighbors on both sides, which would be from ten
feet going down to eight feet. The one neighbor has eight feet, one neighbor
has ten, so the line can match to the neighbors. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
Board of Trustees 64 September 22, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
Jill Doherty, Preside
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
OCT 2 5 2010
S uthold Town Clerk