HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/20/2011 Jill M.Doherty,President ��OF soUryo Town Hall Annex
Bob Ghosio,Jr.;Vice-President ,`O 01
0 54375 Main Road
P.O.Box 1179
James F.King Southold,New York 11971-0959
Dave Bergen G Na
John Bredemeyer :rd Telephone(631) 765-1892
Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES 45-
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD JUN 2 3 2011
Minutesaja'w7t ' "
Wednesday, April 20, 2011 Southold Town Clerk
6:00 PM
Present Were: Jill Doherty, President
Robert Ghosio, Vice-President
Dave Bergen, Trustee
James King, Trustee
John Bredemeyer, Trustee
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, May 11, 2011, at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, May 18, 2011, at 6:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of March 23, 2011
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before we get started I just want to go over
the agenda. There has been some postponements. On page two,
number ten, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on behalf of 1900
MILL LANE LLC/KENNETH TEDALDI requests an Administrative Permit
to remove 315 square feet of phragmites, utilizing selective
cutting techniques, to 18" above grade and removed to an
approved upland site for disposal, and re-plant-areas void of
vegetation with Spartina patens. Located:1900 Mill Rd., Peconic,
has been postponed.
Page four, Costello Marine Contracting, Inc. On behalf of JULIE
ANDERSON & ANNE ADRIANCE requests an Amendment.to Wetland
Permit#7451 to allow for the removal of 151' of existing bulkhead and.
construction of 151' of new bulkhead in-place, provide 10' wide
non-turf buffer landward of new bulkhead. Remove existing 10'X30' wooden
deck and construct new 10'X 30' deck landward. Install 12,000 pound elevator
2 April 20, 2011
boat lift. Remove existing ramp (existing floating dock is missing). Dredge an
area 50'X 10' to -2.5' below mean low water removing approx. 25 cy. Of spoil.
Install new 32"X 12' aluminum ramp onto a 4'X 30' seasonal
floating dock secured by 2-8" dia. Anchor pilings in dredged
area. Place dredged spoil (approx.,25 cy.)As fill in area of
old marine railway. Vegetate filled area with native plantings.
Located: 4302 Wunneweta Rd., Cutchogue, has been withdrawn. So
that won't be heard.
Number two, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of
NORTH FORK KIWI, LLC requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#7203
from Christine Hunt to North Fork Kiwi, LLC, as issued on
November 18, 2009 and an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7203 to
allow the installation of 50' of fiber coirlogs at toe of bluff
and 1600 square feet of erosion control jute matting on slope,
and revegetate slope with native plantings.
Located: 5700 Vanston Rd., Cutchogue, has been postponed.
Number nine on page six, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of
JOHN & PATRICIA GARVEY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
3'X 10' extension to the existing dock, add two (2) anchor
piles, a 3'X 15' ramp and 5'X 18' floating dock. Located: 600
Deep Hole Dr., Mattituck, has been postponed;
And number 16,David Corwin on behalf of BARBARA PAGANO requests
a Wetland Permit to remove existing bulkhead, install in same
location 56 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead, reconstruct existing
6'X 20' wood float, 6'X 10' wood float, TX 14' ramp, TX 6'
platform, install two float anchor piles, and replace approx. 10
cy. Lost fill. Located: 2435 Cedar Lane, East Marion, has been
postponed. Those will not be heard tonight.
We have a lengthy agenda and a lot to discuss, so I
appreciate, if do you want speak, please come up to the mic,
state your name for the record, speak clearly and keep your
comments brief. We have Wayne Galante here taking the Minutes
for us, and with that, we'll get started. I believe -- who do we
have from the Conservation Advisory Council; did I see Jack come
in? Jack McGreevey is here from the Conservation Advisory
Council and Lori Hulse is here as our legal counsel.
Our next field inspections is will be May 11, 2011, at 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Our next Trustee meeting will be Wednesday, May 18, at 6:00 PM,
with a worksession at 5:30. If anybody would like to be on that
worksession, please let us know beforehand.
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Minutes of March 23, 2011.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Move to approve.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
3 April 20, 2011
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for February 2011. A check for
$6,044.55 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for
review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the
following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wed., April 20, 2011, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to
SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA.
They are listed as follows:
Warren & Nina Bernstein —SCTM#59-5-3
Kathy Tsoumas—SCTM#113-4-7
George Vail — SCTM#77-2-7
Jane G. Weiland —SCTM#111-13-11
Marylou Palmer—SCTM#145-4-6
John & Patricia Garvey— SCTM#115-12-7&8
Joseph Occhipinti — SCTM#33-3-19.4
Kenneth Heidt— SCTM#126-11-22
Julie Anderson &Anne Adriance —SCTM#111-14-30
Gilda Principi — SCTM#74-1-35.53
Vincent Curto —SCTM#74-1-35.54
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a motion?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
III. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Resolutions, number one, PATRICIA FITZPATRICK
requests an Administrative Permit to add dormers and
windows to the existing dwelling and add a covered porch over
existing entrance. Located: 1035 Calves Neck Rd., Southold.
We just discussed this at our worksession. There are issues
with other permits on this, so we need to just take a minute and
speak to Lori and then we'll start discussing this.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I did. So we can move on this and resolve the
other issue after.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we wanted to find out. Because
there was no violation written as of yet and we are here working
on it, and this request for an Administrative Permit has nothing
to do with that old permit. We are able to move on this. That's
what we just wanted to make sure, legally, that we can do that.
But in the meantime, you need to come to the office and we'll
discuss the other issues with the old permit. That has to be
4 April 20, 2011
re-applied for. So we can discuss that further at another time.
And I don't think we had any problems with this application, correct?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So what I would like to do, in the interest of
saving time, we have reviewed all of these, and I would like to
lump together number one, number two, number three, number four,
number five, number six, number seven, which was found
inconsistent because of-- there was no reason. The reason was
not stated why the trees needed to be taken down. Well, they fell over
and they are on the driveway, that's why they needed to be removed.
So with that, we'll find that consistent. And that's Sean Peters and
number eight. They are listed as follows:
Number one, PATRICIA FITZPATRICK requests an Administrative Permit to add
dormers and windows to the existing dwelling and add a covered
porch over existing entrance. Located: 1035 Calves Neck Rd., Southold.
Number two, PETER BENOTTI requests an Administrative Permit to construct
an 8'X 12' shed, install a 6' post/wire deer fence and install
an electric light on the fence at the beginning of the
path to the dock. Located: 930 Clearview Rd., Southold.
Number three, THOMAS GRAUL requests an Administrative Permit to construct a
300 sf. deck attached to the existing dwelling. Located: 1980 Nakomis Rd., Southold.
Number four, JOHN CORBLEY requests an Administrative Permit to convert one
existing overflow/cesspool into a septic tank, keep other overflow tank as is and
add two additional overflow tanks. Located: 680 Mason Dr., Cutchogue.
Number five, PAUL J. COLLINS requests an Administrative Permit to renovate
the existing porch and extend it approx. 9' to center it across the side of the dwelling.
Located: Peninsula Rd., Fishers Island.
Number six, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of JOSEPH SCHUPLER requests
an Administrative Permit to install a fence with a gate running parallel to the
bulkhead, up to 4' in height, and located 8' landward of the bulkhead and connecting
to an existing split-rail fence along the side of the property; install a 10' non-turf buffer
landward of the bulkhead; and construct a 10'X10' storage shed with electricity in the
front yard. Located: 3475 Wells Rd., Peconic.
Number seven, Twin Fork Landscape Contracting on behalf of SEAN PETERS
requests an Administrative Permit to remove three (3) dead trees
in the wetland area. 1910 Bay Ave., Mattituck.
Number eight, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of EDWARD FORTE
requests an Administrative Permit to remove Locust stumps and
re-vegetate area with native plants; install permeable stone patio; and relocate the
existing deer fence. Located: 750 Truman's Path, East Marion.
So I would like to make a motion to approve one through
eight, and they are all found consistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number nine, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of
THOMAS &VICTORIA PATTERSON requests an Administrative Permit to upgrade the
existing sanitary system. Located: 84 Bell Hill Ave., Fishers Island.
Jim and I did a Fishers Island inspection on Monday and we
reviewed this and I did speak to Glenn, who is here. We are
just going to try to find the right picture to correspond with
this. Okay, this is the area that we would like to see the
septic to go in, if possible. This is the area that the septic
is proposed to be. It's lower and on the opposite side of the
5 April 20, 2011
house than the image we just showed you. And this is the area
where the pipes would be coming out. It's just a lower area and
we were just wondering if it's possible to move everything on
the opposite side of the house near the road. And that would be
out of our jurisdiction.
MR. JUST: Glenn Just, Environmental Consulting. I spoke to the
project engineer today after speaking to you the other day about
this. He feels there is really no room to put it on the
Equestrian Avenue side of the property. And to put it in the
front yard it would be putting it much closer to the fresh water
pond that is right across the street. I know there were
questions about the system they are putting in. It's a sealed
system. It's not going to be pumping ground water. Only things
coming out of the sanitary system will be pumped into the
system. It's a distribution pump, which goes out to the rings, so
there would not be any ground water being sucked into the system
and the pump running all the time.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was one of our concerns.
MR. JUST: If you look at the test hole data, too, ground water
elevation is at 12. So there should really not be any problems
with that. It's a tough decision. The old system is right
behind the side of the house along that little drain that goes
through. I don't know if you saw, there is a picture of where
the cover for the system is right there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is one of the houses John Thatcher was
talking about for years when we were sampling there. I know the
area well.
MR. JUST: It's something we were playing around with for about
eight years with ourselves. According to Dick Strauss, the
project engineer, the Health Department has approved this system.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For this particular site specific?
MR. JUST: Site specific.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So they were required to get a Suffolk
County health approval as opposed to a lot of times rebuilds are
not under the jurisdiction of the Health Department in some of
the towns.
MR. JUST: What they did, Jay, is went to the Health Department
first and they played around with different systems in different
locations and the Health Department said we are happy with this,
go to the Trustees and go to the DEC.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I mean from a practical standpoint to not
have to have the maintenance on an electric pump and reliance on
it and have a gravity feed system always seems to be better, and
the area, no matter where you put it, is hydro-reactive because
you have large ponds upstream in any instance, and obviously it
will be a huge improvement.
MR. JUST: It's a difficult spot.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a very difficult spot, but a huge
improvement.
MR. JUST: And that's what we hope, it will help out Hay Harbor
with the new system, so, that's where we stand.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jay, are you satisfied with --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, if they've gotten the advice and they
are dealing with a totally sealed system, and it's an alarm
6 April 20, 2011
system, so they feed the groundwater infiltration issue to have
the pumps running unseen when people are not in residence, the
alarming, ideally, to have someone look in on the place for
seasonal, to check in on that, but yes, it's probably, those are
your only options. If it's too costly and too impractical to
locate on the other side with a gravity feed system and the DEC
and Health Department granted their blessings, it seems the
issues I'm personally familiar with, having done a bit of that
work years gone by, the way it is there now, the pools with bail
and it goes right in the stream, right into the harbor, I don't
have a problem with it. That's, you know. The other
administrative agencies also looked at it similarly and they
don't have a problem.
MR. JUST: Again, it's been a tough situation for a long time.
They have been trying to work out a solution for it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim is saying it's only jurisdictional from the
stream running through.
TRUSTEE KING: The little stream going through. That's the only
reason it's jurisdictional.
MR. JUST: Because Hay Harbor is more than 100 feet away. That's
why we try to triangulate it in that area there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, any other questions of the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve the application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that a motion?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's a motion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comment on that, from the Board
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five applications for extensions,
transfers and administrative amendments. We, again, inspected
and reviewed these, and I would like to lump together numbers
one, two, three and five. They are listed as follows:
Number one, GEORGE & MARY VAIL request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#4016
from Robert Wieczorek to George & Mary Vail and an Amendment to
Wetland Permit#4016 add a 3' high gate with 1" high sign on
ramp to dock. Located: 50 Oak Ave., Southold.
Number two, West Creek Builders, LLC on behalf of 1690 BAYVIEW ASSOC.,
LLC requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#620 to include two
(2) additional pilings and float supports at the new floating
dock location, and One-Year Extension,as Amended on
April 22, 2009. Located: 1690 North Bayview Rd., Southold.
Number three, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of KEVIN MCGILLOWAY requests
an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7276 to increase proposed
backfill to approx. 40 cy. clean sand; to use anchor system of
tie-rods and deadmen instead of helical anchors; and to
temporarily remove and replace approx. 810 sf. of decking around
pool house to allow for installation of anchor system.
7 April 20, 2011
Located: 430 Sailor's Needle Rd., Mattituck.
Number five, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of FREDERIC
ENDEMANN requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7235 to
maintenance dredge a 145'X 25' area located approx. 20 seaward
of the low sill bulkhead to a depth of-5' MLW. Resultant spoil,
approx. 130 cy. of sand, shall be used to backfill the bulkhead so the
area can be revegetated. Located: 840 Old Harbor Rd., New Suffolk.
So I'll make a motion to approve one, two, three and five, as
applied for.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Quick question, there were slight
modifications to one, I think was a request on a drywell. I
don't know if that got tied in with the drywell, I think
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we have the file on Mary Vail, please
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): It has nothing to do with the drywell.
TRUSTEE KING: Is that because of the shed?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The shed, I think there was a question if we
could tie the shed in with the drywell system.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse us one minute, please. This is to
transfer the wetland permit. This is the transfer one.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is the dock only. This is not the other.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. I stand corrected.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I'll make a motion to approve numbers one
two, three and five.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number four, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on
behalf of EUGENE BURGER, JR. requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#7417 from Davies Family Trust to Eugene Burger, Jr., as
issued on September 22, 2010, and to Amend Wetland Permit#7417
to construct a 4'X 59' fixed catwalk, 3'X 20' ramp, 3'X 5'
bump-out float, and a 6'X 20' float in an "L" configuration
secured by two batter piles and a proposed tie-off pile.
Located: 2385 Pine Tree Rd., Cutchogue.
Rescind Resolution of March 23, 2011.
Just to give a little history to the people here, we approved
this last month and we requested that the ramp go from a 15-foot
ramp to a 20-foot ramp. And in review of that resolution, the
applicant feels that he needs a little bit of a bump out to hold
the ramp so that it's not tilted all the time. So we feel that
that is a reasonable request. That's why they are back to us,
and since this was just done last month, we are rescinding the
resolution from last month. So that's why, basically, I'll make
a motion, we should rescind first and then -- I'll make a
motion to rescind the motion of last month as read just now.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Now, I'll open the discussion to the Board of
issuing a permit as stated, and I think our notes, the amendment
to this request is a 3x5 bump out on the ramp, and I think we
discussed in our notes we feel only maybe a 2x4 bump out is
needed for this. How does the Board feel on that?
TRUSTEE KING: I think it, rather than a separate float, it
8 April 20, 2011
should just be part of the 6x20 float.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: An extension on that end.
TRUSTEE KING: With a U-shaped piece. Part of the float itself.
MR. JUST: That's basically what we are looking for.
TRUSTEE KING: And if it's 2x4, it's more than enough to support
the end of the ramp. I was just curious about the overall
length. I had some questions.
MR. JUST: The length wouldn't change. That would be on the
landward side, that bump out.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm trying to figure out what was originally approved.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We didn't sign it yet because he didn't give us
new plans. That's why we submitted the old ones. Here is what
we talked about last month, and he was going to give us, and we
changed it from 15 to 20, so we have not received the amended
plans yet. That's why we rescinded the other one.
TRUSTEE KING: So one inch is 30. The overall length, including
the float, is 87 feet.
MR. JUST: 84 feet.
TRUSTEE KING: 84 feet, including the float.
MR. JUST: Yes, and that goes to the seaward side of the float.
TRUSTEE KING: By this drawing it's almost 88. So the overall
length will be 84 feet, including the float.
MR. JUST: Exactly.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So including the 2x4 extension, it will be 84.
MR. JUST: The position of the 6x20 float never changed.
TRUSTEE KING: All right. I was just looking at the overall
length into the creek.
MR. JUST: I know that was the concern when we originally went
there. We tried to keep that same pier length.
TRUSTEE KING: Which was 84 feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other questions of the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are you, Mr. Just, fine with the 2x4 instead of
3x5?
MR. JUST: That's fine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With no further questions, I'll make a motion
to approve the transfer of wetland permit#7417 from Davies
Family Trust to Eugene Burger, Jr., as issued on September 22,
2010, and amend wetland permit#7417 to construct a 4x59 fixed
catwalk, 3x20 ramp, 2x4 bump out float that is attached to the
ramp, and a 6x20 float in an "L" configuration secured by two
batter piles and a proposed tie off pile with the condition of
receiving the surveys showing same.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: And the overall length is 84 feet to the seaward
side of the float.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Overall length to be 84 feet to the seaward
side of the float.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on this?
(No response).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
9 April 20, 2011
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before we move on to Moorings, I would like to
go back to Resolutions.and.Administrative Permits and reopen
Patricia Fitzpatrick. Do I have to rescind that, Lori, then
re-do it?
MS. HULSE: No, just add to.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to add to the motion that we did
prior.
MS. HULSE: Can I just interrupt. Cathy, did you want to make
A further request regarding that application?
MS. MESIANO: Yes. Catherine Mesiano on behalf of
Mr. Fitzpatrick. After discussing with Mr. Fitzpatrick and with
Lori Hulse, the matter, I would like to request that you add to
the resolution the buffer plantings which Mr. Fitspatrick would
like to do immediately, since we are now in the planting season.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. Makes sense.
MS. MESIANO: And not to have to re-apply just for that matter
and delay things.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was just trying to look to see what we did
before.
.MS. MESIANO: If I might go off this, Lori, I just have a
question.
TRUSTEE KING: Why are we doing plantings?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The previous permit has expired and he doesn't
want to wait to re-apply for all that, to do the plantings now,
so he wants to attach this to the Administrative Amendment, the
non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The non-turf buffer at that one tier.
MS. MESIANO: To get rid of the grass between the retaining wall --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO:.It's something we wanted, anyway.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right now he can't do that because this permit
has expired. So instead of waiting to go through all this, he
wants to attach it to the Administrative Permit so he can get
this done now, and this is the prime planting season.
TRUSTEE KING: I see.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I'll make a motion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think that's a good idea.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to add to the Administrative
Permit for the dormers and to do a non-turf buffer between the
two lower bulkheads, to remove the turf and do plantings between
the two and make it a non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just request native plantings.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, with native plantings.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I already spoke with Mr. Fitzpatrick about that.
I'll second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. MESIANO: Thank you
VI. MOORINGS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, we are off to number six, Moorings. The
Board has reviewed all the files on the following moorings and
they are all replacing existing moorings with the same size boat
or less, and therefore the Board feels these are approvable. So
10 April 20, 2011
I'll make a motion to approve one, two, three, four and five
moorings as applied for, and they are listed as follows:
Number one, FRANK INZERILLO requests a Mooring Permit in Cedar Beach
Creek for a 13' boat, replacing Mooring #7. Access: Public
Number two, DON COTRONE requests a Mooring Permit in Gull Pond for a 22'
boat, replacing Mooring #20. Access: Public
Number three, JASON GLASSTEIN requests a Mooring Permit in Gull Pond for a
27' boat, replacing Mooring #23. Access: Public
Number four, JASON TAGGART requests a Mooring Permit in Corey Creek for a
14' boat, replacing Mooring #111. Access: Public
Number five, JOHN CLEARY requests a Mooring Permit in Gull Pond for a 9'
boat, replacing Mooring #3. Access: Public
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to go off our regular agenda
and go on to public hearings.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
COASTAL EROSION PERMITS
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number one, JOSEPH OCCHIPINTI requests a
Coastal Erosion Permit and an Administrative Permit
to repair an eroded bluff by adding approx. 60 cubic yards of
fill and re-vegetating with native plants, and to install a 4'
wide path. Located: 1250 Sound Dr., Greenport.
Before we get into this, just a little history on this.
This property had a violation for clearing, and that violation
was taken care of, and we instructed the applicant that he had
to apply for a full coastal erosion permit because there is no
division to do any administrative permit. And at the time when
the Trustees looked at it, we felt it would be an Administrative
Permit. So we looked, he's applied for that, we went out and
looked at it again and we found there was regrading, and we were
not happy with the regrading because it all goes over the bluff
face and also goes off, down into and goes off the property on
to the next property, which is in violation of Chapter 236 of
the Drainage Code. And we have other issues. So we have now
asked the applicant to make it a full permit, not an
Administrative Permit. However, that being said, since this has
been advertised under Coastal Erosion, we can move forward on
the full permit process tonight. We don't have to postpone it a
month to do that. We just have to do a full permit review.
We have gotten an LWRP report on it and it came in
inconsistent. And the Conservation Advisory Council did not
support the application because there should be a detailed plan
for the restoration stabilization of the bluff. The CAC
recommends a non-turf buffer and a berm. And that's part of our
recommendations. And we do have notes on this, which I'll, let
me just start with LWRP and why it's inconsistent.
The application is inconsistent because it doesn't follow
11 April 20, 2011
the buffer area, vegetated buffer area of 275 and Chapter 111.
It also is in violation of a Planning Board covenant and
restriction on the subdivision. The clause reads: No grading
shall be permitted within one hundred feet of the top edge of a
bluff except that which is necessary to control or remedy
erosion or to prevent storm water from flowing over the edge of
the bluff. And that is a Planning Board covenant and restriction
on the subdivision, so every lot has that covenant and
restriction on it set by the Planning Board. It's in violation
of that. However since the violation was issued through the
Trustees, and you are here, we can settle all that, hopefully,
in this process. With that being said, is there anyone here to
speak on behalf of this application?
MR. OCCHIPINTI: I am. Joseph Occhipinti.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Board was disappointed to see what was out
there. This area that you see in dirt was all covered with
plantings, and not only was it plantings, as you can see in this
picture, this was regraded, and the land naturally goes toward
the set of stairs, which is a right-of-way for the subdivision.
So to be kept like this, that it is today, the water would run
off and eventually undermine those set of stairs. What we would
like to see in this area is the whole area to be planted up
again and bermed so the water flows back toward the house and
not over the bluff. If it's left like that, you'll just wash out
your bluff completely.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: That's what we are working on now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, before any of this was done, you should
have come to us first.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: I apologize. I'm a new homeowner there and I was
never told this was freshwater wetland
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not a freshwater wetland. It is within our
jurisdiction, on The Sound, is from the top of the bluff, 100
feet back. It's our wetland jurisdiction.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: I apologize. I paid my fine for it. My intention
was to just move those bushes over to the side, which I did. And
cleared that out. I never touched any of the ground or the
bluff at all, until you guys asked me to. So what was there is
what was there. So I did not disturb the ground until you asked
me to re-fill it back in.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We asked you to come in for a permit before you
did that.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: Yes, but at that same token, after you asked me
to, I was told I needed vegetation and to refill it with dirt.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, you need to get a permit to do that. Not
do it without a permit. So this should not have been done.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: I understand that. This was after I applied for
the permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You didn't get a permit but the work has been
done.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: Okay, but in the meantime I'm getting erosion, I
had to do something.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, you need to come and get a permit from us
before you do anything. You can put hay bales up, you can do
other things without a permit. This should not have been done
12 April 20, 2011
until this was satisfied, until the violation is satisfied and
us review the whole application, because we have certain
criteria under our codes that we need you to do. Because the
way that was done, although it looks beautiful, you'll blow out
the bluff. You'll blow out the neighbor's stairs. You know,
it's nice and even and everything, which is great, but we are
not looking for esthetics here, we are looking to save the bluff
and save the neighbor's stairs. So what we need to see from you
is a planting plan. We would like to see a berm at the edge of
the bluff, and the elevation changed so all the water runs back
toward the house. And that whole area to be non-turf. We don't
want to see grass planted in that area. You can have the grass
where you have it now, but the area of dirt to be non-turf
plantings, whatever you want, they have to be native,
salt-tolerant plants.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: You asked 25 feet from the bluff.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What we are saying now is we want that whole
area, we feel the way the whole property slopes down, we feel it
would just be beneficial to you and your neighbors, to have that
whole area non-turf. And you can plant it in any way you want.
We are not telling you how many or what to use, but we don't
want to see turf going up there. And it needs to have a berm and
come back toward the house. And Chapter 236 of the Town Code,
which the Town Building Department administrates, states that
you must keep all your runoff on your own property.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: I understand that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just per, as we get into it, the specific size
of the non-turf buffer, we had taken measurements, Jill, that
are in the field notes, just to help the applicant out. So
there are some very specific measurements measuring from the
house to where we want to see the edge of lawn. Beyond those
measurements would be non-turf. It would just help you out with
a definitive line.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: But what I have now is okay, though.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What you have now is basically, what we did is
we measured from the house -- do we have a picture?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a picture of that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: From the one corner, I believe, it's the
western-most part that stands out, we measured from that corner,
which is not quite the middle of the house, but it's toward the
western --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have this picture here you can use.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The western side, Bob.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We measured from here out to where the dirt
starts, and that was 92 feet. And then we measured from here,
and that was 76 feet. So basically follows the dirt line that
you have. So when everything is said and done and we go inspect
it for a C of C, we'll be measuring that to make sure those
measurements are what we want.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: So I can leave the existing grass that is there
now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: And from the bluff back, all native plants.
13 April 20, 2011
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. But before you can do that, you need to
give us a plan and we need to approve that plan.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does the Board have a problem with approving
something subject to receiving the plan or do you want to see a
plan first, since this is extensive and we really don't have
anything in front of us?
TRUSTEE KING: I would rather see it tabled until we see a set of
plans. In the meantime, I would strongly suggest a row of staked
hay bales along the top of the bluff to stop any further
erosion. As a temporary measure until we get this mess
straightened out.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: You have the elevations of dirt you want me to
install?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would leave that up to your surveyor to
figure out, to do a berm and figure out, because they'll figure
out the calculations. We are not the experts. To figure out how
the water will not runoff the bluff and also stay on your
property. If you have to put some kind of drainage in there,
they'll let you know that, too.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: Am I allowed to use some sort of rock or brick
walls or something?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you choose to do that, just put that on the
plan and change, amend your application to state that.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: So I could put a brick wall or rock wall around
the property and that would suffice, instead of dirt?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I can't answer that now.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: Because I'm just afraid the dirt in the future
will just wash out.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, plantings would be better than the rock
wall. A rock wall puts too much weight on it, I think.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think if you did a berm with some plantings on
that berm, I think the berm will hold up pretty good. We have
seen that done on properties along The Sound in many different
areas, and we would be looking for you to bring in an engineer
to determine the height of that berm, and we obviously would
want to see through a profile what the height of the berm,
elevation of the berm is. We want to make sure it's something
substantial enough to hold back the water.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Mark Terry, the LWRP coordinator, gave me a call
today about this, and his experience, of course, encompasses all
the bluffs, all along Mattituck and Greenport. And he felt that
that perhaps some kind of drainage system bringing the water
back, aside from the berm, also incorporates some kind of French
drain system or something to bring the water back, to decrease
the pressure on the bluff. I happen to live in this neighborhood
and we had a few blowouts there. Particularly over by 67 Steps
Beach, a home just built just around the same time as yours, and
the whole bluff blew out mainly because of the pressure on the
bluff. And they had a vegetated bluff, no less. But theirs
slopes down.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: So I'll have an engineer.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think it's smart, for you, too. And they were
14 April 20, 2011
not happy when they lost 20 feet of their property into The
Sound. And there is not as much of a backyard for you, so.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: All right. So what's my next step?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Your next step, depending on any other comments
from the Board, is to put hay bales in that area. Do not do
anything else because you will get another violation
MS. HULSE: Jill, just to interject, you may get another
violation for the C&R's.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: What's that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Planning Board has the right to give you a
violation because you violated their covenants and restrictions.
C&R's, covenants and restrictions, of the Planning Board
subdivision. So you might get another violation under them. And
under us --
TRUSTEE KING: It was filled in after the fact.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Technically, we can give another violation. At
this point, he's here, let's get him to do the right thing.
That's how I feel. If the Board wants to issue another
violation, that's up to the Board here.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: I was not told I couldn't. I was under the
impression you wanted me to do it, because of the erosion issue.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: After applying for a permit.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: So I didn't do it facetiously. I could have
waited. It was never clear to me that that was not to be done.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hay bales and move on.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, at this point --we'll probably be
tabling this and I would put hay bales out as soon as you can,
and put it all around so it doesn't go toward that, and get an
engineer to look at it and give us a proper plan, and then we
can move on this.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: All right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments? Yes, sir?
MR. KARAHALIS: I'm Phil Karahalis. I'm to the east and I'm
affected directly. We came with my wife a few months ago and we
saw bulldozers removing the trees and pushing the dirt on to the
bluff. It cost me $120,000 to fix my bluff, and I'm directly
affected. I'm going to lose my stairs, I'm going to lose the
bluff. If you go see it today, because of all the rains we had,
there is tremendous erosion. I was forced to the next property
to put three drywells, to put a berm, to put a French drain so
water cannot go over the bluff. If you go see there, the water
goes like this (indicating). And the builder was instructed to
put drywells. Not a single drywell is there. Not one drywell is
there. I have six drywells on my property.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: These are your stairs in this picture, right?
MR. KARAHALIS: Yes, sir. It cost me $120,000 to fix, because
there was a problem on the other side. As you said earlier.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, this is an ongoing issue down that whole
neighborhood. I know.
MR. KARAHALIS: I mean, I just want to protect my property. We
have been there over 25 years.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, thank you.
MR. KARAHALIS: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments?
15 April 20, 2011
MRS. OCCHIPINTI: I'm Joanne Occhipinti. I'm a little concerned.
I understand what the gentleman is saying, however he needs to
be aware that his pool drains out the walls.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, this is becoming --
MRS. OCCHIPINTI: I understand that. But it's washing away as
well. So we have to rectify that as well, which is not our
problem, that runs off. Which is causing all that drain off. We
are certainly not getting that kind of rain other that that one
storm.
MR. KARAHALIS: My pool has a drywell, lady.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is not relevant to the application before
us. So that needs to be worked out between the two of you. If
he's not keeping his water on his property, go to the Building
Department and find out the code and work from that.
MRS. OCCHIPINTI: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments?
(No response).
Any other comment from the Board?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to table this application in order to get a planting plan, as stated
earlier.
MR. KARAHALIS: Excuse me, can I make another comment. Today they are planting
things over there on the bluff. They have people working and planting over the bluff.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Gentlemen --
MR. KARAHALIS: Please take a look, I want to request the Board,
please.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you, if I could continue with my motion.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we need to stipulate hay bales by such and
such a date and no further activity in that area.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I was going to do. I would like to
table this application with the condition, in order to get a
planting plan, showing, as stated, previously, and hay bales are
to be put in place within five days.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With a silt fence.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With a silt fence, and no further activity will
be done, not even planting a bush, until you have our approvals.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: All right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further comment from the Board?
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number two Docko, Inc. On behalf of ROBERT WARDEN
requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct 62
linear feet of 4' wide wood pile and timber pier and install an 8'X16' float
with hinged ramp and associated float restraint piles, boat berthing tie-off
piles, utilities and ladders all waterward of the apparent high (spring) water
line. The overall length of the pier from the existing patio is 70' landward
of the high tide line and tidal wetlands vegetation. Construct shoreline soil
retention and stabilization, cribbing of concrete, wood or plastic materials,
backfill with suitable topsoil and plant native noninvasive, salt tolerant ground
cover. Located: Equestrian Ave., Fishers Island.
This was found consistent with LWRP. The CAC did not make
16 April 20, 2011
an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. We have
been out there a couple of times.,We were out there last August,
I believe it was. And again on Monday, this past Monday.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MR. NIELSON: I'm Keith Nielson from Docko, Inc., on behalf of
Mr. Robert Warden and his application to have a dock built at
this site for recreational boating. When you made your first
recitation of issues on this, did you say this was determined
consistent with the LWRP?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, it was found consistent.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Basically because it's an island and it's a
water dependent use. I don't know if the Board really agrees
with a recreational dock being a water-dependent use, but that's
the determination of the LWRP
MR. NIELSON: Thank you. The application before you is very
similar to the one that we proposed about, more than a year ago,
actually. And I prepared this sketch to show the relation of
this particular cove and the adjacent land owners and the
proposed dock facility. I prepared the application following the
local law number six, the wetlands law and the LWRP, and I
believe that everything I've stated in there is true and factual
and accurately represents this project.
I've tried hard to make sure that we followed all of the
guidelines, not only the Town of Southold but also the DEC and
US Army Corps of Engineers. One of the issues is how far out a
dock can go for recreational boating without adversely affecting
navigation. We went through this little cove between Tennis
Racket Island and the peninsula to make sure that we would not
exceed those standards. And what we have detailed in our
application drawings and on this illustration is that we are
within the 25% of the waterway width. I know your standards says
one-third, but we are within 25%, because that's the Corps of
Engineers standard. We are also trying to make sure we are in
deep enough water so that the floating dock would not have to
have suspension devices to keep the float 24 inches off the
bottom sediments. So that's why the extent of the pier that we
have shown was important. Having said that, the narrative that
prepared includes all the necessary statements, the sequence of
work references to the LWRP, the Department of State planning
documents, and I believe that everything we have done here is
prudent and appropriate for a dock. I understand that you have
some concerns about the amount of structure, and so I was
wondering if we could just have that discussion now.
TRUSTEE KING: Well, we would kind of like to keep this in line,
right across from there is another dock, we just looked at also,
which is a much smaller structure, and in my mind is much more
in line with that little, small cove.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There are some concerns about water depth as
well. Were you able to achieve that at low tide, the two feet?
MR. NIELSON: Where the float is proposed now, I can reach, I'm
at two feet. And so the, you know, I have met the recommendation
of the National Marine Fishery Service.
TRUSTEE KING: Now this is directly across from there. This
17 April 20, 2011
structure here, the set of stairs going down.
MR. NIELSON: Right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The lower part is boarded.
MR. NIELSON: This is boarded, right.
TRUSTEE KING: And the other set of stairs, they are coming in to
apply for a 27-foot extension on this. So that is significantly
smaller than what you are asking for here, and I think this is
more in line with what we want to see in this little cove.
That's my feelings. And for those who were there to look at it,
felt the same way.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe May of 2009 or was it 2010 --
MR. NIELSON: It was 2010.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: May, 2010, we went out there, and that's the
comments we had on our field notes back then. This area is
basically just as wide as these. In this picture it goes off a
little to the left there, but I think being no structures there
now, it's a shallow area, it's a small area, I think we feel
that this is a good area just for the catwalk and stairs going
down. Maybe a tie-off piling. That's, you know, how I feel,
anyway.
MR. NIELSON: Well, if I can, this is, if I could just go on a
little bit further. This is one permit process out of four that
I have to go through. And the state DEC requests that we go out
to a point where, one, we will not require any dredging. Usually
they like to see four feet. I know we can't get four feet within
the confines of the regulations. And I'm okay with that. But
they also want to make sure that we are minimizing the potential
environmental impacts due to impacts on the bottom sediments,
sediment resuspension, gouging the soils and so on, and so I
think it's important for us to work to maintain the greatest,
depth, or achieve the greatest depth we can within the written
regulations. And that's what I tried to do. The, I was a little
unclear from the notes about whether you are concerned was the
amount of structure or the esthetics.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, I think it's a combination of both and I
think we feel if all the lots did the same thing, you would have
all the docks meeting in the middle, eventually, they'll keep
asking for more, because it is so shallow there, and we feel
this is an area where you have, you can have the catwalk and the
stairs and maybe have a small boat and get out to a mooring to a
bigger boat. Because that's an area you won't get bigger boats
in there anyway. So we just feel that's the type of area. We do
have areas in the town like that where we said no ramps and
floats.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: My feelings are just slightly different.
Largely, quite similarly, being there in May I was struck by
what I thought was the shallowness, last May, which was not
maybe so evident this time out. That I'm a great proponent of
access to your dock, so I may diverge from other Board feelings.
I believe, in a general sense, I think of the dock as another
means of ingress and egress from a piece of property. So if the
depth was there and I was confident of the depth, I might not
actually think that this might be the last place for a dock
under this configuration given there has been an attempt here to
18 April 20, 2011
meet all the standard guidelines. So as it's going with the
discussion, if there is sufficient depth and it's not going to
be an impediment to navigation, other docks, to the head of that
harbor would certainly have to look like the other one we were
looking at.
MR. NIELSON: Well, I appreciate your comments. And by the way,
screwed something up, I was supposed to hand this in. This is
the mailing certificate. We only got the one back.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay
MR. NIELSON: But we did provide the certificates indicating that
we sent all the proper notices out. As I said earlier, I was a
little hard pressed to fully understand the extent of your
concerns on this project and so I talked with the owner, having
only found out about this a couple of days ago, I talked with
the owner quickly and I said, there is a reconfiguration that I
can propose. First of all, if I had realized that your, if I had
received a copy of that report from last year, and I don't know
why I didn't, but I'll presume that we lost it. I did not see
it. But if I had seen that, I would not have come in for the
same dock that you had an objection to. But in order to try and
meet the, not only the intention but all of the written elements
of the regulation, I prepared another concept plan that I would
just like to give to you now, because it reduces the total
number of piles from 24 to 14. So it takes out 40% of the piles.
It takes out all the tie-off piles. By keeping the float in two
feet of water, I don't have to have float suspension apparatus
on it, and it shortens the pier by 20 feet. And so I would like
to just give this to you so that you can see it and maybe we can
talk about that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sure.
MR. NIELSON: The cloudy areas just before the floating dock, I
partially whited out the old float illustration so that you
could see the perspective. It reaches the same two foot of water
depth, so we don't have to have the float suspension devices.
But like I said it, substantially reduces the structure and yet
also maintains the access to the waterway without prohibiting
anybody further in the cove from navigating. I would also like
to point out that the only other properties down here are
Anthony's, at the far southwest end, Borden, Chapotan owns two
pieces and this is the Warden property in here. And Anthony's
and Borden's has the dock that they would like to modify
tonight, in a future hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Borden is a direct neighbor to Warden?
MR. NIELSON: No, this is Chapotan in between.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So there essentially this is the last
structure, conceivably, you can configure with a conventional
dock, ramp and float, really, based on depth.
MR. NIELSON: Right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So Chapotan couldn't come in for that?
MR. NIELSON: Chapotan can come in, Chapotan actually has a fair
sized piece of property here. And they can come in with a dock
over here that would be similar to this. But judging from the
comment that they have given to the Borden's, I think they would
not apply for a dock.
19 April 20, 2011
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But in the future, new owners could, so it's
something we have to --
MR. NIELSON: They could. But you see the distance here between
Chapotan's property and the Warden's, and the fact that the
middle 50% of the small cove is open. We have met the more
significant standard of the Corps of Engineers for the 25% of
the waterway. So we have tried to, one, keep this to a minimal
structure, and yet meet the environmental design performance
criteria. So I hope you will be willing to consider that.
TRUSTEE KING: Another thing, Keith, when we went out last May,
that was a pre-submission, so you maybe didn't get a report from
us. It was not a true application. It was just to go out and get
a feel for what was there. And that was for shoreline
stabilization and a docking facility. And at that time we felt
terracing and maybe incorporate some stairs to the beach, but we
felt it was not an appropriate place for a dock. Those were the
notes from 2010.
Even though you pulled this in, for one thing, I think DEC
would not be happy and they'll want you to go back out further.
That's been the constant battle between the Board of Trustees
and the DEC. They want water depth and they don't care how long
the dock is to get it. This Board and previous Boards has always
tried to keep the docks as short as possible so there is not a
lot of intrusion into the public domain. So it's kind of
loggerheads at times with the DEC. They used to want strictly
four feet. Then we finally got them down two-and-a-half feet for
seasonal floats, and they have been very strict on that. And you
have two feet here. I don't know.
MR. NIELSON: The features we have here for Warden are almost
identical to Sheila Kennedy's, which was approved over here.
They are almost identical. I even used the same size float. So,
you know, I tried to use my best judgment for abiding by your
standards and what I know the other environmental agencies are
going to say as well.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In the what-if department, what if this were
granted other agency approvals and we can get a restaking under
the new configuration and revisit for field inspections. Ground
truth and limit the extent of water depth, since we don't, it's
really, I think that's a valid point. Other administrative
agencies may have a different thought on this, and we don't want
to create a ping pong effect for the applicant, and though
there might be divergence of opinion from most members of the
Board, we only had three members available for field inspection
on Fishers, it might be advisable to allow this to go through
other agencies for their review and then give it the opportunity
for an additional look-see by the Trustees.
MR. NIELSON: I'm certainly agreeable to that.
TRUSTEE KING: The only thing in my mind is what Linda Borden has
been through to get what she has, which is really minimal,
compared to what you are asking for. Her project has been going
on for years.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I agree. I would just like to take another
look at it. I think it's a compelling argument here that it
meets most agencies approvals and it's a bona fide attempt to do
20 April 20, 2011
that, and of course what we saw on the pre-submission is, our
view, doesn't come with the soundings and measurements that are
provided in this hard application. That's why I would like
another opportunity to review it further.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I appreciate the work you have done to try and
downsize and everything, and I'm not opposed to take another
look at it, but my feeling is still this is not an area we need
to see ramps and floats. Just a catwalk with stairs to get a
minimal boat into the water I feel is sufficient for this area.
But again, I'm not opposed to everybody taking another look.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm not afraid to take another look at it. Not at
all. To see what kind of progress you make with the DEC on it.
Any other comments from anybody?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to table the application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Land Use Ecological Services,
Inc., on behalf of MARIA STANISIC requests a Wetland Permit and
Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct approx. 118 linear feet of
existing timber bulkhead in place utilizing steel sheeting; 30
cubic yards of.clean fill from an upland source is proposed landward
of the reconstructed bulkhead as required to match existing adjacent
grades. Located: 19725 Soundview Ave., Southold.
Just to summarize, this is an application that came before
us last month. It was determined to be consistent under the
LWRP. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application as long as fertilizers are not used on the
bluff. This was tabled because there was additional structure
that we found was done that had not, a permit had not been
applied for, and work was done without a permit. A violation had
been issued, and the Board's practice is not to move forward
with projects when there is a current violation in place. So
the first question is since the violation was issued and that's
why it was tabled from last month, has that violation been
resolved?
MS. HULSE: No, it's on for arraignment Monday.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, so the violation has not been resolved.
Like I said, our practice would be to continue tabling this
application. But what I would like to do now is, is there
anybody here who would like to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. HALL: Yes. Dan Hall, Land Use Ecological Services. There is
a court date on Monday to resolve that. In the meantime, I don't
know if the Board wants to give me an idea on how they want to
handle this. I have plans that show a note on it about the walls
being there and, you know, proposed legalization, and the
existing timber retaining walls with native plantings. I don't
know what the Board is looking for. I want to be prepared so we
can move this along after the court hearing has been addressed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have in front of me plans stamped received
March 2. Has there been more recent plans submitted?
MR. HALL: I have plans I can present to the Board tonight. Can I
21 April 20, 2011
approach?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Great. Yes.
MR. HALL: It's just, let me know, it's just a note, basically.
I'm not sure what the Board is looking for. It's a couple of
sets there. Can you pass it around?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Basically what needs to be done is full
application for all the structures. So the application would
need to be amended to add all the other structures on there. It
would be for the new bulkhead and the as-built retaining walls.
And fees accordingly.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to clarify something, what you just handed
me is identical to what we already have in the file stamped
dated March 2
MR. HALL: It's not. There is a note on there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Oh, Bingo. Sorry. Thank you. I saw the wood
wall there but I didn't see proposed legalization to continue
maintenance. Thank you.
MR. HALL: Now, there is several walls have already been there
since she purchased the property. You guys saw it. It's tiered
walls. A lot of them were just boards. Do you want every board
shown? Because I think that's the most significant structure
out of all of them, but there are other ones there that,are
board, tiered down the bluff.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Every structure that is there needs to be
permitted. So you need to show every structure that is there.
And describe it in the application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's actually to the applicant's benefit so that
way all the structures are here and if the Board -- I don't want
to presume anything -- but if the Board does approve it, then
they are all permitted. So there won't be a problem in the
future where the applicant has to come back again and again and
again. So it's actually to their benefit to get all the
structures on here and get it all permitted at once.
MR. HALL: I agree. I just wanted to find out exactly what the
Board is looking for so we could take care of it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we need dimensions of the decking around
the stairs, the platform.
MR. HALL: The deck and stairs are shown here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. Do you have dimensions there?
MR. HALL: Are those stairs illegal?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. What we would like to see is a description
of a 5x10 deck leading down to stairs by a platform to a ten by,
you know, whatever it is. We need that detail.
MR. HALL: I didn't know the stairs was illegal. I thought it was
the retaining walls. She told me it was retaining walls
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Every structure that is there, that's within
our jurisdiction, if you could describe and apply for.
MR. HALL: I didn't understand. I could certainly do that. Thank
you, very much.
TRUSTEE KING: Those stairs may have been built before we had
jurisdiction, so in order to repair them, it has to be
permitted. See what I'm trying to say?
MR. HALL: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: This way here once everything is legitimatized,
22 April 20, 2011
then they can do ordinary repairs without doing anything.
MR. HALL: Thank you, I can do that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience who wishes
to comment on the application?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board now?
TRUSTEE KING: It was not a huge horrible thing they did environmentally. It was just,
we just want to get it straightened out.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want to clarify to Dan, if you are, once
the violation is taken care of, or in the meantime while you are
doing that, you can apply for all this and get on for next
month's meeting.
MR. HALL: Right, we'll just amend the current application, not a
whole new application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can amend the application, work with
Lauren, she'll let you know what the fees will be. Some of it is
as-built fee because the structure is already there. So Lauren
will help you out with what the fees are supposed to be and what
paperwork you'll need. And most likely-- Lori, will this have
to be re-advertised? It's a lot more structure. So does it have
to be re-advertised and re-noticed?
MS. HULSE: Yes
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it has to be re-advertised and re-noticed
for May. So the process basically has to start over.
MR. HALL: Will I get notification in the mail on that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Work with Lauren on that.
MR. HALL: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No other comments, I'll make a motion to table
the application of Land Use Ecological Services on behalf of
Maria Stanisic.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing I'll entertain an attempt
to try to have two items on the agenda run the hearing together
because the comments from the Conservation Advisory Council are
identical. Both properties are substantially similar. The
Trustee field inspection notes are essentially identical, and
both projects are deemed consistent under the Town's Local
Waterfront Revitalization Plan. And counsel said it would be
acceptable to move it in that fashion. The hearing will be,
number four, Richard Principi, Jr., on behalf of GILDA PRINCIPI
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to
construct a new two-story single-family dwelling; remove
existing dwelling including sanitary system and drainage
structures and restore area with grass and natural vegetation;
and clear vegetation between new dwelling and bluff.
Located: 4690 Blue Horizon Bluff, Peconic, and;
Number five, Richard J. Principi, Jr. on behalf of VINCENT CURTO
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to
construct a new single-family dwelling; remove existing dwelling
including sanitary and drainage structures and restore areas
with grass and natural vegetation; and clear vegetation between
new dwelling and bluff. Located: 4730 Blue Horizon Bluff, Peconic.
23 April 20, 2011
Both applications are consistent under the LWRP, and I
would open the hearing for anyone who wishes to speak with
respect to this application.
MR. CONDON: Hi, I'm John Condon, I'm representing the owners.
Rick Principi could not be here tonight, so I'm here in his place.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Trustees visited the site and performed
a field inspection. There was some concern that we would want to
see a planting plan and restoration plan for the area adjacent
to the bluff because the removal of the existing structures will
obviously have an impact on the soils and vegetation near the
bluff such that we would want to have a restoration plan that
included the steps for the removal of the existing structures,
and include a 20-foot, non-turf buffer. Those were essentially
the identical comments for both properties from the Board of
Trustees.
The Conservation Advisory Council was concerned that the
angle of repose of the bluff face there would be something that
you might want to take a serious look at from an engineering
perspective with all the volume of work necessaries to remove
the structures, the CAC's advice, which I think was well placed,
was to give consideration to developing a new angle of repose
and include in the vegetation a revegetation and planting plan
the bluff face to further stabilize the properties, which would
be in both applicants' best interest and that of their
neighbors. So those were the chief concerns.
MR. CONDON: The owners have been talking about that. This winter
they really took a beating. I think they are having discussions
on how to move forward with that, the bluff. There are
discussions. So I'll talk to the owners and see how they want to
proceed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, is anyone else, Board members, any
additional concerns; the angle of repose, I know, it was a
startling inspection when you go up to the bluff face, you are
concerned for your personal safety, with the degree it was
undermined. I don't know if the Board has any additional
thoughts on that.
TRUSTEE KING: I think that lip is going to have to be pulled
back.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. I think the lip will have to be pulled
back or allowed to fall. And that will have to be taken into
consideration then with the positioning of the house and the
other structures there.
MR. CONDON: The structures right now are at least 110 feet from
the edge of the bluff. I believe they are actually more like 120.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just for a second; is that Curto property?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The concern I have with this one is I remember
the original application, and it was an application to replace
windows and doors. And during that hearing it was specifically
asked of the applicant is this structure going to have to come
down. Absolutely not. Okay, if it does have to come down, you
must come in and see us prior to doing any work. Obviously a lot
of work was performed in excess of what that permit allowed. And
24 April 20, 2011
it's just a shame that we have gotten to this point, because
there has been a lot of obviously expense on the owner's part
put into this, and now this will all have to be ripped out and
filled in and I'm just, personally, I'm concerned and upset that
the applicant, when he discovered that this structure needed
more than windows, that he didn't immediately stop and come in
and work with us, rather than go through all this additional
work. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments?
(No response).
Being none, I'll take a motion to close the hearing in both these matters and I'll move
resolutions separately though, on approvals. So I move to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: I just have one comment to make. In the
description, wetland permit and coastal erosion permit to
construct new two-story single-family dwelling. If it's out of
our jurisdiction, that should be stricken from the description,
no? The only thing he's coming to us actually for a permit for
is to remove those. It's not for the new construction, because
that's out of our jurisdiction.
MR. CONDON: The intention of the owners are, if they do want to
do some work on the bluff, would be to come back under a
separate application. We are getting rid of the structures
there now and building new structures --
TRUSTEE KING: What I'm saying, you don't have to apply for the
new structures because they are out of our jurisdiction.
MR. CONDON: We just noted it in there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, we can work through that maybe in the
permitting phase.
TRUSTEE KING: There is another section there, clear vegetation
between the new dwelling and the bluff. We need to get into how
much clearing will take place between these new structures and
the bluff. Just a couple of questions. That's all.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think now is the time to discuss that, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's a good question.
TRUSTEE KING: What do they mean by that?
MR. CONDON: I think the intention of the owner is remove some of
the bramble and dead trees and clear, where the house is going,
between there and the water is a lot of bramble.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So he wants lawn between the house and the
bluff?
MR. CONDON: Yes, and you have the buffer at the bluff.
TRUSTEE KING: Here is where the new house is coming. They are
saying clearing somewhere between here and there. We need to put
a nice buffer in there; a substantial buffer, I would say, from
the top of the bluff landward.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Like a 50 foot.
TRUSTEE KING: Like 50 foot.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 50-foot buffer from the top of the bluff
landward and then the rest would be lawn.
MR. CONDON: 50 foot from the bluff is lawn?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 50 foot from the top of the bluff back will be
non-turf buffer. Is that--
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Non-turf or non-disturbance?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's disturbed already.
25 April 20, 2011
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to see after it's all been
revegetated and planted, maybe a 25-foot non-disturbance buffer
at the top of the bluff.
MR. CONDON: The bluff slopes back toward the property.
TRUSTEE KING: We understand that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We should maybe condition it on new plans
because if the decision was made to change the look of the bluff
or new angle of repose, we will be looking at a significant
change to the property.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Maybe we shouldn't address the vegetation.
Establish the buffer tonight and require a planting plan or--
TRUSTEE KING: And anything within our jurisdiction, they have to
come to us. If they want to do clearing 75-feet back, they
still have to come to us.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what they are coming to us for now. They
want to be able to remove the structures there and do the
clearing while all the machinery is there. And that's all within
our jurisdiction. That's why they are asking to do that now.
TRUSTEE KING: I want at least a 50-foot buffer on the top of the
bluff. None disturbance.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can do 25 not disturbance and 25 non-turf,
with a total of 50, and we can condition it on plantings have to
be stabilized. We can check it in six months with plantings, to
make sure it stays planted.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: My concern is, when I hear"clearing," and I
look at that picture, every one of those trees are going to be
gone, every shrub will be gone, and this will be clear cut, and
I don't want to see that happen. So what I'm thinking in my
mind is 50-foot non-disturbance buffer where they come in -- --
excuse me, non-turf. And it could be combination
non-disturbance and non-turf, but I want to see a landscape plan
showing the present trees in place and those trees will be .
retained there and not removed. Because I'm just afraid, again --
TRUSTEE KING: Those things happen?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we have this happen so often where we've
talked about this and then we go out'and it's clear cut.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So why don't we say clearing from 50 foot back
from the top of the bluff landward can take place, but clearing
50 feet, you know, that space can not be cleared. The only
disturbance there is to remove the structure and nothing else
can be cleared
MR. CONDON: We are not intending on taking every tree down
either. I spoke to the builder today. He indicated he can mark
trees he would like to remove. The Board can come out and see it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think in keeping with what Trustee Ghosio
said, I think we should have a plan and it should be a fairly
detailed work plan that will include what trees, if there is
some non-indigenous vegetation that maybe could come down, but
trees that are native species, that are valuable, should be
protected. There is other notions here, too; trees that are
right at the lip and you have to alter the lip, obviously those
trees will present a risk. If the trees lodge, they'll continue
the blowout. So probably a detailed work plan that will include
all stages and levels of fill trees to be removed and replanting
26 April 20, 2011
is needed for this particular site.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is the Board is comfortable on approving it
subject to respect receiving all that and inspecting it,
physically inspecting it, or do you want to have all that happen
and then table it and have all that happen?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I personally would like to see this tabled until
we receive that landscape plan.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's a lot of work.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a lot of work. And that way it makes it
very clear for everybody from the start and hopefully the
limited chance of ambiguity later.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that makes a lot of sense.
MR. CONDON: We would like to move forward with the plans for the
new buildings. Is there a way --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The houses are outside of our jurisdiction. They
are non-jurisdictional, so.
MR. CONDON: We were told we had to get your approval before we
move forward.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They want to take these structures out before
they start building the new houses. The procedure, as I
understand it, is take the structures out, do the clearing,
build the house.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: But the houses are not going anywhere near these
two structures.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But if they are having the machinery in there,
it's the process of how they want to do it. That's what he's
asking. It doesn't mean we have to approve it that way. You
know, it makes sense; you have the machinery in there, take the
structures out, clear it, then start rebuilding.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And again, if we can figure out how to do this,
I have no objection to that, that they could, in this case, in
this particular piece of property, remove the foundation, all
the structure, fill that in, as part of this process. But, you
know, I just don't want to see any clearing done until we have
received a detailed landscape plan.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there a possibility we can separate, give
them approval tonight to remove the structures, and table the
planting and clearing until they come in with a detailed plan
and we can go look at it again?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There can be a permit issued -- sorry?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: She is not recommending that we do it that way
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Table it until we get the plans.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If we can't split it, then that's the only thing
to do is table it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's up to us if we want to split it or not,
but I think with the history of this property it's wise not to
split it and just get all the information first, to get the
complete application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We've had so many problems with the issues on
these bluffs, it's just prudent to do it that way. I don't want
to hold you up here, either. I'm in the trades. I know. But we
have had this issue, we had a house built, you know, and a bluff
was supposed to be non-disturbance bluff area gets totally
27 April 20, 2011
destroyed, fences put up, plants put in, then we find out down
the road, then we have to have them rip it out and re-do the
thing. It's not good for you, it's not good for anybody. I think
it's probably the prudent thing to do, put together a planting
plan and come back in a month and finish this thing off.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comment?
MR. CONDON: Is it possible to take the landscaping portion near
the bluff out so we can go ahead with our permits for the
buildings?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I was suggesting but I think the
discussion up here is probably not, at this point. You know,
it's kind of all tied together and we would like to see the
complete plan and complete application before we move forward.
MS. HULSE: That's my recommendation, Jill.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That being said, though, if the two new
structures are out of our jurisdiction.
MR. CONDON: We should not need to come here for those structure
then.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup. They are out of our jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They are out of our jurisdiction. You can dig
the holes and get started, you know.
TRUSTEE KING: Just as a point, I would apply for a letter of
non-jurisdiction for them. Just to verify it. Then there is
absolutely no question.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: A suggestion with that would be a set of hay
bales or some kind of fencing on the hundred foot mark so the
contractors know where the hundred foot mark is and don't go
beyond that. Because even though the structure might be beyond
the hundred feet, if you are going to do work within the hundred
feet, you still need a permit. So you have to make sure all the
work being done will be behind the hundred feet. Not just the
structure.
MR. CONDON: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing no further comment, I'll make a
motion to table this application and wait for receipt of a
detailed bluff restoration and planting plan, including steps
necessary to remove the existing structures, the amount of fill
to be placed and or removed and graded and details concerning
the types of vegetation and species to be requested to be
removed and/or altered, and types of vegetation to replace and
be part of the planting plan.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, I'm just thinking to make this clean.
Your motion was this application, so which application are we
doing, the first one, number four, Principi?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We should separate --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just want to make it clear.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, move to table Curto with a
detailed bluff restoration and planting plan, including elements
of how much fill to be brought in or re moved and such plants
being removed or replanted, so moved for Curto application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
28 April 20, 2011
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Move to table the application for Principi
for bluff restoration plan, detailed plans concerning amount of
fill and/or removal, and detailed plans concerning the
vegetation to be removed and to be replanted. So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. CONDON: Thank you, for your time.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Number one, under Wetland Permits.
Samuel Fitzgerald, Architect, PC on behalf of ANNE R. BUNTING
requests a Wetland Permit to remove the entire 3,000 sf.
swimming pool complex, including partially aboveground pool,
surrounding deck, storage building, spa, and pool equipment
enclosure; solarium and all adjoining decks; two-story family
room and master bedroom extension on north side of house; entire
length of deck along southeast side of house; two-story portion
of house between existing garage and main body of house, making
the garage a detached structure; and all windows throughout.
Construct a one-story addition to the northeast side of the house;
2.83' extension of kitchen to north; 121 sf. pergola in place of 3,000 sf.
swimming pool complex; new bluestone terrace on southeast side of house
in place of existing wood deck; extend existing deck in rear of
garage by 92 sf.; covered roof connecting house and garage,
which will be a newly created accessory structure; and new windows
throughout. Located: 2427 Isabella Beach Rd., Fishers Island.
This was found consistent under the LWRP. The CAC also did
not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made.
This is a rather extensive renovation of a home on the south
side of the island. Jill, myself and Jay went and looked at it.
Is there anybody here to comment for or against this application?
MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, for the
applicant. I would like to hand up the mailing receipts. One
came back with the address not proper. But you have that. Also,
since the application was filed in early March, as you might be
aware, the Zoning Board of Appeals has a comparable application,
and what happened was is they referred to the Soil and Water
Conservation, so I have the letter from the Soil and Water
Conservation and the response that we worked out with the Soil
and Water and with Mr. Fitzgerald's cover letter, and then I
have three amended maps. They are the same maps that you have
with the exception that they have eliminated the hay bales and
went for a silt, all inclusive silt fence. So you'll see that.
It's the only difference. Other than that, everything is exactly
the same. And lastly, would you like to have a copy of the Board
of Appeals application for your file? Because it's quite
similar in a lot of the aspects that you'll be considering. I'll
be glad to give you a have copy of it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. And just to clarify, do we have a letter
in the file stating that you are the agent for--
MR. LARK: Yes.
29 April 20, 2011
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
MR. LARK: Very briefly, I have handed those additional things up
and as I understand, the application here is seeking to permit,
as you have it in your application, which is pretty conclusive,
to remove the existing swimming pool complex and various decks
and terraces, and reduce the size of the house by 2,195 square
feet. Add some additional living space in the rear on one floor,
first floor, of 529; fully renovate the house and install a
small pergola. They are all within the jurisdiction, the work
will all be within the jurisdiction of 100 feet, as you saw on
your map there that was submitted, and it shows the same on the
amended map. There is no difference, other than the silt fence,
that I pointed out. And the whole idea of the whole application
is that the applicant wants to restore the house to its original
design in 1920. Over the years, since the 1920s it has suffered
or had many renovations, and when this applicant bought the
property, she loves the property but she doesn't like all the
renovations because, if you have seen the property, it has a
resort mentality; you think you are checking into a resort
there. And she does not want that. She wants to restore it to
what it was originally designed by the architects involved. And
as I said, a permit is going to be required because everything
will be done pretty much within the hundred feet of the bluff,
and in that letter that I gave you, that the Board of Appeals
was concerned with also, is there is a detail of how they will
do the construction. Most of it will be hand done. No machinery.
So because of the proximity of where the house and all of the
work is going to take place, it's virtually on top of the bluff,
and the removal. But I think after Mr. Fitzgerald fully explains
the application to you, I think a permit will be, should be
forthcoming, because it does meet the criteria the way they are
going to do it and it won't adversely affect the wetlands of the
town or cause any damage or any erosion. That is all being
taken care of, so there won't be any of that erosion that would
cause a problem. And it won't weaken or undermine the existing,
stable bluff. Fortunately that is probably one of the most
stable bluffs on Fishers Island. It's really pretty much rock
solid, and it has existed for, I talked to the surveyor, and he
has surveys going back 30 years, and nothing has changed there.
And I think the application will be in conformity, so it won't
affect the esthetic value of the wetland or the bluff area or in
any way affect the health or welfare of the people of the town.
I'll turn it over it to Mr. Fitzgerald. He'll explain in detail
what they are doing with the construction because he is
personally charged by the owner to supervise it. So he's the one
to answer any of your specific questions as to the construction.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, if we could just make a couple of
comments first, and then maybe you can help us with that.
TRUSTEE KING: When we were out there, we noticed, I guess the
southeast corner, there is a deck on the bluff, and there is an
access path with stairs going down. We would like to include
that in this application to get them on so they can be repaired
without any problems.
MR. FITZGERALD: Okay.
30 April 20, 2011
TRUSTEE KING: So while we are doing this whole process, let's
get them in the description so we legitimize everything.
MR. LARK: That's not a problem, but when the owner did the
survey, the structural survey of the property in getting Mr.
Fitzgerald, they determined that was solid and didn't have to do
anything. So it would be something in the future. Nothing has to
be done to it at the present moment.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what I'm saying. But they are not
permitted. They don't have a permit. By code you can't fix it if
it's not permitted. So now we'll get permits, so when they need
to do reconstruction or whatever, they don't have to worry or
anything. It's not-- I'm just trying to keep things simple for
these people.
MR. LARK: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are in here now, just to add it to the
description, then it's done.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Also, consistent with that, it was also very
heavily vegetated, from the vantage point of the pool. Is that
a solar collector array or--
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, it's actually, that's not on their
property. That's on the adjacent property.
MR. LARK: You are talking about the solar--
MR. FITZGERALD: The solar.
MR. LARK: Yes, this property was split, all approved by the
Planning Board. And the owner of that property was at one time
the owner of this property. And they had the whole complex
being, like I said, it was a resort complex. They had all the
energy all with the solar. So that structure was separated when
the lot line change was done. Just to answer your question,
John. It has nothing to do with this. It's terrible looking.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's, we are lumping in stairs and decks.
If that was part of this, to get it under permit.
MR. LARK: No. It should have been removed. It's terrible. But
it's there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you have any comments?
MR. FITZGERALD: No.
TRUSTEE KING: We don't have to beat this do death, because we
didn't really have any problems with it.
MR. FITZGERALD: Sure. We are reducing considerably from the
built structure so I think that would be looked upon favorably.
MR. LARK: Just a couple of words on the construction methods
then, and the sequencing. Because you know we have a few
separate projects. This existing wood deck here is to be
replaced with a bluestone terrace of the same size, but of a
more sort of organic shape. That's one task. The other is the
pergola or sort of glorified grape harbor, and that will be the
removal of this sort of huge pool complex, 3,000 square foot
pool structure. We are going to carve out a portion of the
existing house so as to make this garage piece a separate
detached structure. Then with that we are going to extend the
decks here. So those are the facts here. We also have a couple
of smaller one-story, upper additions. Here is a thin sliver and
on the street side is a five-foot wide, one-story frame addition
there as well. With all these projects, our goal is to stay off
31 April 20, 2011
the lawn as much as possible and in fact the only part of this
work where we do have to get on the lawn, in the back side here
is actually just to dig the foundations for this terrace here.
But otherwise we are going to leave all equipment on
pre-disturbed ground. With this pool complex here, the
construction access will be from the street, in through here.
We'll first take out the deck boards by hand, and there will be
a dumpster out here in the front. So that will all be pulled
off by hand. The actual pool deck structure itself and the pool
enclosure will be taken down with a mini excavator with rubber
tracks. Very small machine. Once that is demolished, then all
the debris will be removed by hand. There is a retaining wall
along here. That is very close to the bluff. It's three feet
from the bluff. That will all be removed by hand as well. So,
again, there will be no big trucks or machinery on the lawn at
all. It will all be in that disturbed area. With the terrace
here, the existing wood deck will be all taken down by hand and
will be carted by hand up to the dumpster in the front of the
house. There will be, one time, when the machine will be brought
to the lawn to bring the plywood down, and once this is gone it
will be put into this disturbed area and work from the inside
out to dig the foundation for this terrace here. And the
excavated, further from this digging here, will just be piled
inside here to use as the fill to raise this up here. And then
forms will be put in, this will now be, it will be poured in
place concrete. It will be a concrete pump truck brought in and
put on the front of the house here, and then a hose will be
brought around then the forms will be filled with concrete from
the hose. So all of this piece right here will be brought down.
Also from the front of the house by machine. No machines will
be placed on the water side or the back side of the house. And
this new deck work here will be all built by hand. So, it
appears will be dug by hand. And it will be built by hand. And
the pergola here, we'll be using hole construction, which means
that the main supports for the pergola structure here will be
buried in the ground so there will be no concrete there at all.
It will just be a guy with a posthole digger digging five holes
for these, and the rest of it, which is pre-made structure will
be made by hand. So obviously our intent here is to have as
little of incursion into that area as possible.
TRUSTEE KING: Like I said. We went and looked it. I don't think
any of us had any issues. Anyone else? Any comments, Jack?
MR. MCGREEVEY: The Conservation Advisory Council, we didn't make
an inspection on it. I think our concern would have been, if we
did inspect the property, in spite of the what is being said,
being handled very well, the concern is the removal of that
pool, how it's handled. It's right near the bluff edge, and
possibly a consideration would be instead of physically removing
it, capping it off, filling it in, would that be more environmentally--
TRUSTEE KING: I think what they have planned is more than
adequate to safely do it. Environmentally.
MR. LARK: It's really an above ground pool. It is just minimally --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was going to say, most of it is above ground.
The deck is elevated around it. Once that's removed, you'll have
32 April 20, 2011
this thing sticking above ground.
TRUSTEE KING: I can't see it being an issue.
MR. FITZGERALD: Then all the work.will actually be on the
landward side of the pool, so the retaining wall that separates
the pool structure from the bluff, all work will be from inside
of that.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What is the reason for eliminating the hay
bales?
MR. LARK: Yes. The Soil and Water Conservation took the view to
do the hay bales you have to bury them four to six inches; four
on the uphill side, six on the downhill side, and you have to
have a width of about 16, 18 inches. The width of the hay bale.
Whereas with the silt fence, you only have to have a width of
two to four inches, then you dig it down, and you don't have to
have the poles which is supporting the fence, every ten feet or
something like that. So the damage to the property, because it
slopes quite a bit from the house to the other, and after the
lady talked, Polywagon, talked to the engineer, they decided
to eliminate the hay bales, because if you have too many storms
while the construction is going on, it ran the chance of more
erosion being created than prevented. Whereas if they move it
landward up, closer to the house, they would catch any debris
that would be coming over quicker and it would allow more
runoff, if you would, to go to the edge of the bluff.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And not have the weight the of the hay bales on
the edge of the bluff.
MR. LARK: Yes. And they were concerned about it. Because this
won't be done overnight. This will be a period of nine months,
doing it. So there will be some weather changes there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What you just described, is that detailed in
the --
MR. LARK: In the amended one, the silt fence is, with the detail
of it. Yes, it's right on the plan.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I know it's on the plan but is it in the Soil
and Water Conservation letter that you handed us tonight?
MR. LARK: That was the letter requesting it from the Board of
Appeals. What I gave you was the response to it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: From you to the Board of Appeals?
MR. LARK: And to her. And she's approved it. Because she talked
to the engineer, Mr. Strauss.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: "She" being the lady from Soil and Water?
MR. LARK: Right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's just hard getting all this information now
instead of a week ago.
MR. LARK: It just came in.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want to take a minute and review this
Soil and Water response. It's dated March 28, addressed to
Leslie Weisman, Chairperson of the ZBA. (Perusing).
According to this letter from Soil and Water to Leslie Weisman,
Chairperson of the ZBA, dated March 28, it is saying to you
both, it does talk about what you said but it's saying to move
it ten foot back from the top of the bluff. And to read one
paragraph, it says: The straw bales and silt fencing can be used
33 April 20, 2011
together, with the silt fence installed upslope of the hay
bales, and.both should be sited at least ten feet away, as far
as practical, from the top of the bluff to provide a natural
buffer as straw hay bales and silt fencing serve only as
sediment barriers and not water control structures. Ten-foot
vegetated buffer slows the runoff velocity, encouraging
infiltration and runoff cresting over the bluff. So it is saying
to you both hay bales and silt fence, but move it back ten feet
from the bluff.
MR. LARK: She is withdrawing that, is what I was explaining with
the hay bales, and just go with the silt fence where he's
proposing it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's not what this letter is saying.
MR. LARK: That was the initial letter that had the inquiry where
we.did the response with the amended map and the response.
That's what created it. And the engineer talked to her directly.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, but we don't have that in writing. You
just changed the survey.
MR. LARK: We changed the map to reflect that. And if you need to
get a letter from her, I'm sure she will do it. Because she is
the one that agreed to do it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does the Board want to --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a big problem.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have an issue.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Not in this particular situation.
MR. LARK: I took no view on it and the engineer said with the .
slope that is there, it will cause more problems. And she
agreed, when she went back and did her calculations.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I want to clarify, because we have one thing in
writing and you are telling us another thing.
TRUSTEE KING: Why did they go to Soil and Water Conservation to
begin with?
MR. LARK: The Board of Appeals did.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The ZBA asked them to. You know, for the
record, just for looking back at this file, I think maybe we
should get something in writing to change that. Because if we
have this in the file and somebody a year from now sees what it
says now. So if we can get that.
MR. LARK: Not a problem. She was the one that told the engineer
to do it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So if she just gives us a supplement, that will
be fine.
TRUSTEE KING: This shows a continuous line of silt fence.
MR. LARK: That's what they want. The whole thing encircled, is
exactly what they want.
TRUSTEE KING: And they are also planting up that edge a little
more. They are coming in three feet and doing some plantings
along the top of the bluff there to extend that bluff area a
little bit, which is a good idea. Are there any other comments?
MR. MCGREEVEY: One comment, Jim. I don't know if the new
structure, will it have adequate drywells?
TRUSTEE KING: There is drywells on the plans.
MR. LARK: Yes, yes. We increased them.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Increased them on the new?
34 April 20, 2011
MR. LARK: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it all has to be in accordance with
Chapter 236. And it shows that on the plan.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
(No response).
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 as
submitted, with the addition of the existing deck that is there
and the path and the steps down to the beach, be included in
this so they are legitimized.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What about the shed that is on the survey? Is
that out of our jurisdiction?
MR. FITZGERALD: It's pretty far back, the small shed.
TRUSTEE KING: It's to remain. What are we worried about it for?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just saying, if it's in our jurisdiction,
just add it into the description. If it's out of our
jurisdiction, don't worry about it. If it's on the plan, I just
figure add it in, since we are adding everything else in. You
are aiding three structures, why not add four, right?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If it's in our jurisdiction, might as well.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I want to make sure it's clear.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it's pretty close to our jurisdiction.
It's 140 feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Don't make fun of me, Jim, I'm just trying to
be --
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just stating fact.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it's on the record, the shed is not in our
jurisdiction, so we don't have to add it to the description.
Thank you. And if I didn't add it and it was in our
jurisdiction, you would say why didn't you say something, so.
TRUSTEE KING: Oh, boy.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do we have a motion?
TRUSTEE KING: I made a motion to approve with the addition of
the stairs down to the beach and the small deck.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments on this, from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any consideration of a non-turf buffer, near
the edge of the bluff here, just to increase --
TRUSTEE KING: They increased the planting by three feet, they'll
do more plantings along the top of the bluff there, more than
what it is now.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, I just thought maybe a little
broader non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to make it wider?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, I would say maybe go for like an eight
to ten-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would agree with that.
TRUSTEE KING: So we'll increase the planted buffer to ten-feet
wide along the top of the bluff.
MR. LARK: But you don't want them to remove any of the orchard
grass or the existing plantings along the bulkhead.
35 April 20, 2011
TRUSTEE KING: No, just come landward of that and increase that
buffer area ten feet.
MR. LARK: Okay, that's fine.
TRUSTEE KING: With natural plantings.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If she wants orchard grass, that would be
great; not maintained, and as --
MR. LARK: The owner will approve of that completely.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And a letter from Soil and Water clarifying
what was said tonight.
MR. LARK: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was all discussion during the motion. Do
we want to re-do the motion?
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with
the inclusion of the deck and the path and the stairs down to
the beach, and the non-turf buffer along the top of the bluff
will be ten feet wide instead of three feet. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And if we can have revised plans showing a
ten-foot buffer.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, Docko, Inc., on behalf of LINDA
BORDEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 27' wood
timber and pile supported pier extension, to the apparent low
water line, with associated ladders. Located: Equestrian Ave.,
Fishers Island.
This one is across the water from Warden. It is consistent with
LWRP and the Conservation Advisory Council did not give an
inspection over there.
Our comments. The only comments, we had a question on the
mooring that is, there is a mooring also, included in this,
under the drawing. So that should be in the description. And
what type of mooring; is it an anchor mooring or is it -- if
you could just describe that for us.
MR. NIELSON: Sure. I'm Keith Nielson from Docko, Inc.,
on behalf of Linda Borden, and I have the certificates of
receipt from the mailings, for the record. I know you are all
acquainted with the application, so I'll keep my comments short.
This is a straight fixed pier, 27 foot extension to the apparent
low water line. There is a mooring attached to, I should say
attached to the pier by a pulley tie off line. It will be a
mushroom anchor set in the mud to avoid having to put in a pile
and permanent structure. And the, it will be about 50 feet out
beyond the end of the pier to make sure that their little dinghy
boat can be floating at all times. It won't be hard aground.
know that there were some concerns about the differences between
this and the Warden's dock, as proposed and discussed earlier,
and I would like to just state for the record that the Borden's,
this is all the Borden's wanted. And this is very similar to
what we asked for in the permit application years ago, and it
was thought that we might have to go through and get a floating
dock instead of a fixed pier, but this is really what they want.
They promise not to come in again to extend or modify this. They
36 April 20, 2011
are very, they would be very happy with this.
I have included in the application documents all the
assessments required by the code and by DEC, Department of State
and Corps of Engineers assessments. The application drawings
accurately show the extent of tidal wetlands and natural
resources on site. And this can be built without any impact on
any of them. It's clear of the resources and will be built with
customary pressure treated wood pile and timber components,
except for the decking, and as you saw, the decking on the
existing stairway, they'll use the same sort of materials for
this as well. And it should be a nice looking facility,
consistent with every standard that we know of, and we are
hoping not to have a large battle with the DEC in particular on
depth of water, but in view of the tie off mooring, I think we
can avoid that issue. So if there are any questions I would be
happy though answer them.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is the applicant planning on doing any planting
in that area? Because I know some sections, you know, didn't
have any plantings on it and I was just wondering if they
thought about planting up the area that will not be walked
across and utilized.
MR. NIELSON: You are talking about the bank?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, the bank area.
MR. NIELSON: They did have some plans to put some vegetation in
there and I told them that they needed to make sure, they needed
to develop a plan and come back in for that. They don't have
those details ready, and so I went ahead and issued my
documents.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, just I know on the other properties there
is plantings and I know one section on the right side is rocks,
but on the left side it's kind of just plain, so some plantings
would be good there.
MR. NIELSON: And I cautioned them about native, non-invasive.
So when they, I don't know when their timing is on that, but
I'll remind them again to make sure they get it before you early on.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Depending on the rest of the Board, I don't see
why we can't add plantings to that area as long as they are
native plantings. In this case I don't see where we would need a
planting plan. It's simple, you can only do it one way, really.
If they were going to bring fill in and everything, you need to
come back to us. But if it's simply planting, we can add it to
this permit.
MR. NIELSON: Let's add it as condition to the permit. They
don't have intention of bringing fill down there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. I just want to read a letter we have in
the file into the record. It's just a short paragraph. This is
from Old Donaldson Chapotan, received in our office March 17.
This letter serves as our objection to the above-referenced
permit application, as we have objected in the past to a
previous filing for a pier at this location. Due to the narrow
perimeters of the inlet and fragile ecosystem, we feel this pier
will adversely affect wildlife as well as obstruct movement and
access on the water of the inlet. Furthermore, the high water
line is very shallow at this location. Respectfully submitted.
37 April 20, 2011
And it's signed by Mr. and Mrs. Chapotan. I wanted to read that
for the record. Are there any comments from the Board?
(No response).
This seems like a pretty straightforward application. We did a
pre-submission on it back in May, and this is the type of
structure that I think is fitting for this area. So I don't have
of a problem really. It does need to be extended because it's
not really reaching the water the way it is right now. And in
the back area, I don't think it's going to do any harm just
extending it over that rock area. Are there any other comments
from anybody?
MR. MCGREEVEY: I'm not familiar with the mooring code, but in
putting in this extension, does that eliminate the mooring for
that applicant or is that--
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The mooring, that's why we asked, because the
mooring should be included in this description. The boat will
be, in other words it's kind of like, the boat will be tied to
the end of the dock and the mooring, to keep it steady, so it
doesn't go from side to side. So it's part of this structure.
MR. MCGREEVEY: It's my own education, does that also apply to
the mainland of Southold or is there a contradiction there to
having a dock and floating dock for a boat to be adhered to, and
then that person could also have a mooring off that dock?
TRUSTEE KING: I think this is more like a stake and pulley
system, only they are using a mooring instead of a stake. It
will be pull the line in to pull your little boat into the dock.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not a single and separate mooring. It's
just, instead, it's used as if a piling was there. And the boat
will be tied in and they can pull it, you know, pull it in and
pull it out.
MR. MCGREEVEY: The reason I asked was more for my own education.
If there is any difference between what is there on Fishers
Island and with --
TRUSTEE KING: Everything is different on Fishers Island.
MR. MCGREEVEY: That's why I raised the question.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are talking really two different things,
though. This is not a single and separate mooring from the
dock. It's a pulley system. I could talk to you about it later.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Okay, good.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments relevant.to the
application?
MR. NIELSON: I have one. Can I get a copy of the Chapotan's
letter, please?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure, no problem. All right, hearing none, I'll
make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application
as submitted, with the addition of the mooring pile as noted on
the survey. The mooring, sorry, leave out the word "pile." With
the condition that the bank in that area is planted with native
plants.
TRUSTEE KING:.I would rather call it more accurately a pulley
38 April 20, 2011
system. When everyone thinks "mooring" they think mooring with a
ball out there. It's actually an anchor for a pulley system.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll reword it. I'll re-do the motion to
approve a 4x27' wood timber and pile supported pier extension to
the apparent low water line with associated ladders and
associated pulley system with mooring, an anchor-- pulley
system with an anchor.
TRUSTEE KING:. It gets the mooring language out of it, so it's
not an actual mooring.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So pulley system with an anchor. And the
condition that the bank area is planted with native, salt
tolerant plants.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Docko, Inc., on behalf of HEDGE STREET, LLC
requests a Wetland Permit to repair or partially reconstruct 79
linear feet of 6.5' wide pile supported timber main pier, a 10'X
14' pile supported "L" pier, 660 sf. Pile supported timber pier
landing, a 10'X 24' float with associated ramp and one 4'X 25'
float, and two(2)tie-off piles; retain and repair as
recovery 78 linear feet of existing mortared stone seawall with
a concrete cap, all at and waterward of the apparent high water
line. Located: Hedge St., Fishers Island.
This was found consistent with LWRP, with the
recommendation that all intertidal construction and excavation
requires the installation of silt boom and retain suspended
sediments within the immediate project area.
The CAC did not make an inspection on that one. Is there
anyone here to speak on behalf of or.against this application?
MR. NIELSON: I would like to speak on behalf of it. My name is
Keith Nielson, I'm with Docko, Inc., and we prepared the
application documents, including the drawings that you have
before you tonight. I would like to submit for the record the
return receipts on the mailings.
The pier in this case is a pretty longstanding pier. We
have some records showing construction back decades ago, but
some of the green hard piles are deteriorated to the point that
they need to be replaced, as is some of the framing and
independent pieces of decking -- not areas of decking, just
isolated deck planks. And so we submitted the, prepared and
submitted the application documents accordingly. And the, it's
minor maintenance work, it's routine maintenance work, but
essential to the structural integrity. So, in the application
documents I have made a full description and assessment of the
activities, including the reconstruction citing the conformance
to the sections of the Wetlands Law, local codes, DEC criteria
and Corps of Engineer standards regarding proximity to waterway
width. I would like to point out that the, in spite of the
length of the dock, it reaches only four feet of water at mean
low water, and so knowing what we are going to be facing with
the DEC, we kept everything just the way it is, and since this
is a longstanding structure, they are, any impacts that may have
been created by the structure have long since become part of the
39 April 20, 2011
current habitat environment. This, the Hedge Street LLC is a
family property. It's used by David Burnham and his, all his
family, including his father. And they have boated at this site
for 40 years or thereabouts. I would be happy to answer'any
specific questions,that you may have, areas of concern or
whatnot.
TRUSTEE KING: I think that we felt now would be a good time to
maybe downsize some of this a little bit. It's pretty, there is
a lot of structure here. In the notes we have reduce the width
to six feet, allow two 6x20 floats, and reduce the length by 25
feet. Those were our suggestions in the field.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We felt you would still have sufficient water
depth and it would be in line with the other docks. We kept it
in line with the other docks.
MR. NIELSON: I think it is in line with the other docks now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not if you draw the line across. You have some
docks going in further and going out further, so you draw the
line going across. That's how we do it, normally.
TRUSTEE KING: It would be some discussion on the next hearing,
in keeping with what we were looking at.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Especially in the next application, in
keeping with what we were looking at, as a possibility we'll
discuss with the next application and in view of the dock
immediately over, two over to the south.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: To pull this structure back by 25 feet, in other
words making it, I mean, what is the depth there?
MR. NIELSON: It will be foot-and-a-half shallower.
TRUSTEE KING: It looked a lot deeper to me than this.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We should have dropped the measurement down.
Jay is six feet. We could put him in there.
MR. NIELSON: Our survey was provided by Dick Strauss on this
project and we, of course --
TRUSTEE KING: The water just looks a lot deeper than that to me.
MR. NIELSON: Perhaps it was the tide.
TRUSTEE KING: When we were there, we were there about 9:30,
10:00, it was probably close to high tide. You don't have much
rise and fall there; two-and-a-half, three fleet?
MR. NIELSON: Three-and-a-half at high tide. 3.6, 3.7. Something
like that.
TRUSTEE KING: So if these soundings are accurate, it's probably
nearer to seven feet of water, at high tide, if he was taking
these at low tide.
MR. NIELSON: When were you there?
TRUSTEE KING: Monday morning.
MR. NIELSON: Was that--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Pretty much high tide all around.
MR. NIELSON: I don't think it got low tide on Monday. I think we
were in Mystic, we were looking at mean high water and above all
day.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We were on Fishers Island between nine and 12.
We left the island at 12, so, and this was the fifth out of nine
applications we went to. So what do you say, about 10:00, 10:30?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are also experiencing full moon high tide at
40 April 20, 2011
that time. So, I'm in favor of reducing structure, but, again,
my concern with pulling it back 25 feet, is the depth going to
be reduced to less than two-and-a-half feet at low tide.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think that's our intention.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's not our intention at all.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
MR. NIELSON: Speaking on behalf of the Burnham family, I know
they would like a chance to meet with you personally, if there
is, if you want to reduce the size of the dock, because --
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking at that outer portion, that wide portion.
MR. NIELSON: The square landing?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, 12, 12 feet. 16 feet wide. If that was
removed then you would have just a regular pier and put the two
6x4's and two 6x20's there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would be agreeable to that.
TRUSTEE KING: Which is still a lot more than the code allows,
you know. Think about-something like that.
MR. NIELSON: Can we table this for tonight so I can talk with
the Burnham's?
TRUSTEE KING: Absolutely. I know you are not used to downsizing
on Fisher's, but sometimes the time comes we have to think about
it, when we have the opportunity.
MR. NIELSON: It appears the tides on Monday the 18th would have
been somewhere around six to eight inches above normal mean high
water. So that would have probably been slightly less than the
highest tides of the year, but with the winds the way they were,
it's a little hard to say how close we were. So when you were
there, it was probably close to high tide.
TRUSTEE KING: Where are you with DEC on it? Have you started
the process with them?
MR. NIELSON: We have started the process. Everything was mailed
in to all agencies at the same time.
TRUSTEE KING: Because they don't get out there very often at
all. I don't think we'll be holding you up if we table this.
MR. NIELSON: We sent in our permission forms and everything for
them to visit the site, so we are waiting to hear.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Jim, is there a limitation to square footage
regarding bottom cover? Specifically, in regard to, I see a lot
of floating docks there.
TRUSTEE KING: That's the whole idea of trying to reduce some of
this.
MR. MCGREEVEY: But is there a limitation they have to work
within?
TRUSTEE KING: Not that I know of. That's why we always wanted
the 6x20, kind of as a standard. It's big enough to give you
good access.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And this dock has previous permits from years
ago. So that's all legal, what's there.
TRUSTEE KING: One float is 10x24. One float here is 10x24. And
there is a 4x25 foot float. So there is a lot of structure
there. We are trying to give them still good access to the
water, but try and downsize a little bit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are willing to give them more than the code
allows, because it's been approved before and it's been there
41 April 20, 2011
for years. That's kind of our policy that we have worked with.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments from anybody?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to table the application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing is in the matter of Docko,
Inc., on behalf of Docko, Inc., on behalf of PETER SCHWAB
requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct 72 linear feet of 8'
wide pile supported timber main pier, a 1,300 sf. pile supported
timber pier landing, two 6'X 20' floats and one 8'X 24' float
all with associated restraint piles/pipes, retain 55 linear feet
of existing concrete seawall all at and waterward of the
apparent high water line. Located: Hedge St., Fishers Island.
This is a neighboring property to the one we just held a
hearing at. The CAC was unable to get to Fishers Island to
perform an inspection. The application is deemed to be
consistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan. The
Trustees visited this -- Jill Doherty, myself and Jim King --
there is a permit history here. This structure was previously
used in the lobstering business. But a section of the existing
structure, the large deck immediately adjacent, was constructed
without benefit of Trustee permit, but had a DEC permit, I think
is what we found upon review of the file. Our feelings in doing
an inspection here run parallel to the previous discussion, that
we felt it's time to bring this closer to the current standards
with a maximum of a six-foot wide catwalk, which is pretty much
the norm for Fisher's Island, and for this immediate vicinity,
and to downsize the deck, if possible. So for a starting point
of discussion, we felt the deck area immediately adjacent to the
home being 20x30 feet wide, would be something that we would be
looking for, and the catwalk from eight feet down to six feet in
width, and we were also hoping that the dock being reconstructed
can be centered within the deck, and we would go out
approximately 50 feet from this new deck, 20x30 foot deck, go
out approximately 50 feet from it, and with a standard ramp,
6x20 float assembly, possibly have two 6x20 floats. Here,
again, to minimize the amount of structure but bringing it down
to a higher degree of consistency with what we currently approve
for docks. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on the
application?
MR. NIELSON: Yes, please. For the record, Keith Nielson from
Docko, Inc. And I would like to submit the certificates of
mailing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have the file here, Mr. Nielson.
MR. NIELSON: Thank you. The first of all, I did start off this
application document preparing all the necessary analysis and
certifications in accordance with local codes and laws and
considering the previous permitted status of the dock, and
anticipating that this was, this is more than routine
maintenance. This needs a fair amount of work. And I have talked
to Mr. Schwab, I had a chance to talk with Ms. Doherty the other
day, yesterday, and had some kind of hint of where you were
42 April 20, 2011
probably going to be making your recommendations today.
Unfortunately, because of his schedule and my schedule, we have
not really had an opportunity to discuss fully some of the
considerations that you have offered, and in order to do that
and be fair both to him and to you, it probably would be best if
we tabled this hearing as well. And I just, before I start
preparing concept plans for relocating the pier, I would like to
get an initial read from the DEC. I don't believe that the DOS
is going to have too much to say regarding the project, and I
don't believe the Corps of Engineers is going to offer
significant input on this as well. As a matter of fact, I think
this probably would qualify for nationwide permit
pre-reconstruction. But if it's okay with you, I would be
agreeable to tabling this. I'll get hold of the DEC, I'll try
and go through some dock reconfiguration concepts with the
owner, and let me come back to you as soon as I have something
decisive.
TRUSTEE KING: Can you show the other picture, Bob? The one that
has the cement retaining wall. There we go. What do you know
about that? Anything?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's from the property behind that.
TRUSTEE KING: It's the house right behind it. Somebody has built
this wall down, across the property and filled it, and there is
drain pipes and everything coming out the bottom of it, and we
could find no permits for anything for the work that is recently
done. It caused a real erosion problem on the other side going
down the other side of the building. We have a little problem
here.
MR. NIELSON: That's not this wall, is it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it is.
TRUSTEE KING: Right behind the house. And in front of the house
that is landward. It's all new construction.
MR. NIELSON: I'm not sure what to say about this. Because --
TRUSTEE KING: I think they caused some problems for the seaward
property.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We believe it's the house behind the
applicant's house.
MR. NIELSON: I don't know what to say, but I'll find out.
TRUSTEE KING: It could open the possibility of a violation being
an issue, and that would drag things along, I think.
MR. NIELSON: This is for the parcel behind, the upland parcel?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Right. It's four, five feet high and it's all been
filled with fresh fill and you could see it's all running down
on this side and the opposite side it's running down.
MR. NIELSON: What happens on the road?
TRUSTEE KING: That's it. It's all eroded. It's flushing down now.
MR. NIELSON: I mean the driveway, does the wall go all the way
across?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can't go down to the water anymore. It's
all blocked off. The wall goes all the way across there. So they
eliminated that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As bad as it looks, fortunately, the only
saving feature at this point is the bulkhead and the final areas
43 April 20, 2011
of the walk are sloped up so the silt doesn't appear to go
straight shot into the harbor at this point.
TRUSTEE KING: We just didn't know why it was built, I mean --
MR. NIELSON: I'm speechless.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We don't have to talk further on it. You
just don't know.
MR. NIELSON: If it's not my client's, what do I do?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You do nothing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We just wanted to know if your client knew
anything about this. That's all.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Our office will be handling the issue.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We just wanted some inside information.
TRUSTEE KING: We wanted to surprise you.
MR. NIELSON: I think it's time for me to go.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table the application in this matter.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. NIELSON: Thank you for your indulgence tonight.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number five, Garrett Strang, Architect, on
behalf of GEORGE VAIL requests a Wetland Permit to construct
alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, conversion
of existing attached garage into living space, and a 100 sf.
Accessory shed. Located: 50 Oak Ave., Southold.
The Board was out there on inspection day and had no
problem with the application, except that we had one question,
was about having leaders from the shed go to the drywell. The
Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with the condition that the location of the shed
meets all the required setbacks. And it was found to be exempt
from LWRP. So essentially, we were okay with it. We just wanted
to know if we could have all the drainage from the shed going to
the drywell.
MR. STRANG: Yes, I'll introduce myself. Garrett A. Strang,
Architect, on behalf of the Vail's. I don't see a problem with
that. We'll be more than happy to make sure any runoff from the
.shed makes it into the drywells.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any comments, questions from the Board?
(No response).
Any comments or questions from the audience?
(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 as
submitted, with the condition that there are gutters and leaders
from the shed leading to the existing drywells.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
All in favor?
44 April 20, 2011
(ALL AYES).
MR. STRANG: Thank you. Have a great Easter.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You, too. Thanks
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number six, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf
of KENNETH HEIDT requests a Wetland Permit to construct wood
steps from upland grade over existing retaining wall and over
existing bulkhead for private access to beach, and construct a
wood deck approx. 12'X 15' between retaining wall and bulkhead.
Located: 8530 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel.
This came from the LWRP. Part of it is consistent and part of
it is inconsistent. The steps from upland grade over existing
retaining wall and over existing bulkhead for private access has
been reviewed under Chapter 268 and is found.to be consistent.
The square foot deck is not consistent because in the code 275
it says: Decks and platforms; no decks or platforms shall be
permitted on or near bluff. Platforms associated with stairs may
not be larger than 32 square feet. This is an area where the
request for the deck is behind the bulkhead and in front of the
retaining wall. And it's a flat area.'So it's not really on a
bluff. So I don't see where it falls into that area of the code.
The CAC supports the application with the condition the deck
area conforms with the code and plantings between the two
bulkheads and landward of the upper bulkhead. On our field
notes we suggested and we met Mr. Fitzgerald out there, that we,
right now, he requested to put the deck, the stairs right where
Dave is standing in the photo, with the yellow raincoat, that's
where the stakes are for the stairs, and he wants to put the
decking on the west of that. Now, as you can see, there is
plants there, so we suggested we put the decking on the other
side of the stairs where there are no plantings and then plant
the rest of the area with beach grass.
MR. FITZGERALD: You have the drawings for that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We do, okay. Is there anyone here to speak on
behalf of this application?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Jim Fitzgerald, for Mr. Heidt.
think the location of the deck, to save the second big rosa is
the only significant comment that I got from your inspection,
and we changed that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, does the Board have any questions?
(No response).
Is there any other comments from anybody?
(No response).
This is pretty straightforward.
TRUSTEE KING: It was pretty simple.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was pretty simple. Being no further
comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve this application as per the
revised plans dated March 25, 2011, with the condition --
MR. FITZGERALD: Excuse me, the date of the revised plan is not
March 25. It's April 15.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We are looking at the wrong set of plans. I'm
45 April 20, 2011
sorry.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's why Bob and I are confused. We are
looking at.wrong set of plans.
TRUSTEE KING: You have the wrong plans
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I thought. That's why I have the
quizzical look upon my face.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, I'll make a motion to approve this
application as per the revised plans dated April 15 with the
condition that the remaining area between the bulkhead and
retaining wall is planted with -- do you want to specifically
say that it's just planted with salt tolerant plants or do you
want say grasses? Leave it up to the applicant? Any comment?
I'm asking the Board.
TRUSTEE KING: American beach grass is fine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With the condition that the area, remaining
area between the bulkhead and retaining wall is planted.
MR. FITZGERALD: With native species.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. And salt tolerant. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. MCGREEVEY: On that deck, between the two bulkheads, is there
a limitation of square footage, was that brought up?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It shows 12x15. And that was sufficient. We
were fine with that.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc.,
on behalf of MARYLOU PALMER requests a Wetland Permit to reface
90 linear feet of bulkhead landward of the existing utilizing
vinyl sheathing and backfill with 10 cubic yards of clean fill
from an upland source landward of the bulkhead, and as needed
under the existing walkway areas; remove and replace all
existing walks with a 10'X 10' timber walk extension at the
south end of the site; construct a 3'X 10' ramp off the existing
platform leading to two (2) 5'X 20' floats to be linear adjacent
to the bulkhead and attached to the existing piling and to the
bulkhead; and install a jet-ski float 11.5'X 4.8' on the north
side of the existing platform. Located: 85 Mesrobian Dr., Laurel.
MR. HALL: Good evening. Dan Hall, Land Use Ecological Services.
I have the posting and affidavit.
TRUSTEE KING: This is found consistent under LWRP and the
Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application. As written, I don't see any stipulations on it.
They have supported this application. There is also a letter in
the file, we just received today. I'll just read through it and
summarize it. Go ahead and start I just want to look through
this letter. You can get going on this
MR. HALL: Okay. The application made was to -- I'll start with
off with reconstructing the bulkhead, reface it landward of the
existing with vinyl sheathing. It entails replacing the wood
walkway back there, and ten cubic yards of fill as required for
any lower areas behind the bulkhead, and an addition of 10x10
timber walk extension on the, I think it's the south end of the
site. Then in the water is an existing platform and with stairs
46 April 20, 2011
off that will be a 3x10 ramp with two 5x20 floats, and on the
north side of that platform a jet-ski float. That's the
application that was made. I'll address any questions the Board
may have on that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Currently under our code it says there is no
jet-ski floats allowed. We are in the process of making some
changes to our code, and that's one of them. So if it's okay
with you, to remove that from this description at this time and
later on when the code is changed you come back for an amendment
to the permit.
MR. HALL: We are aware of that. Actually I have plans here that
show it not there.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, there is a letter in the file from Allen
Schlesinger opposing this project. They went into the jet-ski
situation, which we don't have to address now. The 10x10
platform they want to see moved to the north end of the
property. And they feel that the floats are excessive. That's a
quick review of this letter. They have a policy of not allowing
jet-skis. We'll make a complete copy of the letter available for
the record. I don't want to read the whole thing.
I guess evidently some of this stuff is unpermitted, so
don't know.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is this private bottom here?
MR. HALL: I don't know. The tax lot goes into the water. No.
TRUSTEE KING: They claim the walkway was built without permits,
so we'll have to dig into it a little bit, I guess.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that in the description right now?
MR. HALL: Proposed to be replaced inplace.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So they are applying for that now.
TRUSTEE KING: In our field notes, we suggest making this a 4x30
float. One 430 float, because what is there is so much beyond
the code
MR. HALL: Right. You get that with the square footage as 6x20.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. HALL: We have revised plan actually with us tonight that
does not show the jet-ski float. It shows a 5x24 float, which
is the same square footage as 6x20. Essentially, I could present
it to the Board. Do you want to take a look at it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure.
TRUSTEE KING: There seems to be some concern about this
platform, it's going to be a 10x10 platform.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It seems to fit within the code (Perusing).
TRUSTEE KING: This is what the neighbor is complaining about,
that addition. The 10x10 platform at the end of the walkway.
What is the need. They would rather see it on the north end.
guess they must be the adjacent property owner there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are they proposing a platform? What is the
reasoning for the 1 0x1 0 platform at the far end?
MR. HALL: The reason is they would like to put that back further
on the property, somewhere else. But there is a row of
evergreen trees there, arborvitaes, something similar, you can
see in the picture and it obstructs the view from anywhere in
the backyard, except for that spot. So they wanted a spot for a
couple of chairs. I don't think that's excessive, 10x10. It's
47. April 20, 2011
like a small shed. I know it's right next to the bulkhead, but
it's not an excessive deck or structure that will impede upon
the esthetics of the backyard. And you can could see the exact
view there, the location of the platform is in the far corner,
and you got a nice view into Peconic Bay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have any problem with moving it further
in to the property and off the property line, say 15 feet?
MS. PALMER: Basically, the reason that we are proposing to do
that is because my neighbor, Mr. Schlesinger, has blocked the
view with a whole line of evergreens, and it impedes our view
from many, many sites. And one of the beauties of living on the
water and seeing Peconic Bay is to see the bay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We understand why you want to do it. Dan
explained it. But I'm asking if you could just move it off the
property line in to your property more. Not upland, just over,
away from --
MS. PALMER: In other words in the middle? I can see --yes,
don't see that that's a problem.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In keeping with our policy of keeping
structures, we have a policy of trying to keep docks and
structures 15 feet off the property line. Just to keep the
privacy from the neighbors a little bit. So do you have of a
problem with moving it into your property more?
MS. PALMER: I have no problem with that. It's just I'm going to
be closed off of my view as these evergreens grow and I don't
have the luxury-- I'm there 24/7. Mr. Schlesinger is there on
weekends.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's irrelevant.
MS. PALMER: Sorry.
MR. SCHLESINGER: I'm Allen Schlesinger. Besides the fact that
it's irrelevant, I'm not there just on weekends. That's old
news. Anyway, as you can see, from the north end, the view she
is talking about that she doesn't have because of the trees, she
has a perfectly, actually best view on her property is from the
north end, approximately where this picture was taken. What view
would she get by having the platform right next to the trees,
that she says are blocking her? Besides the fact that, my
privacy is a big issue for me, and I don't want an entertainment
center that close to where I sit on the.my dock and, you know, I
enjoy the quiet. From there you could see the view she would
have. And I don't see anything, I think people would love to
have that type of view. And I respect their right to upgrade
and repair, so on. That's why my letter, I didn't object in the
sense of saying no, I tried to offer, you know, I didn't think
that the jet-ski, you know, and even though it was an unofficial
rule, I thought, I was ready to say okay on that. A floating
dock, okay, but for a household that only has one boat and the
jet-ski, which now they couldn't use, seems to be like a bit of
overkill.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's why we asked them to reduce it, so now
it's reduced to the confines of the boat.
MR. SCHLESINGER: You know, 'I mean we've had a rocky
relationship, ups and downs. That's why I came here trying to
compromise on the thing and not just say I'm against everything.
48 April 20, 2011
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So she is amenable to moving it away from the
property line.
MR. SCHLESINGER: And what will that be used for?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: A sitting area.
MR. SCHLESINGER: And away from the property line meaning --
TRUSTEE KING: 15 feet north.
MR. SCHLESINGER: 15 feet north of my property. Can I ask what
would be wrong with her putting it on the north end? I know she
gets along very well with her neighbors.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's her property.
MR. SCHLESINGER: As long as she is here and we can discuss it.
I'm not here to argue. We can discuss it.
MR. HALL: Just of a quick note here, from a visual standpoint,
you can see the mouth of the canal is at an angle. The further
north you go, the less view you have. So the ideal location
would be on the south property line. We understand his concerns
and we'll move it 15 feet, and that will still give them an
optimum view and that will pacify the neighbor.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that's fits within our policy.
MR. SCHLESINGER: Why wouldn't that be the view?
MS. HULSE: I'm sorry, all comments must be directed to the
Board.
MR. SCHLESINGER: I'm sorry. Why wouldn't that be the view?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because that's their personal preference. As
long as it fits within hour policies and codes. They are saying
that they would rather have it toward the middle and toward that
side of the property and as long as they move it away from the
property line, I don't think it will be a problem?
MR. SCHLESINGER: Will they be submitting new plans that I could
have can have an opportunity to look at?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They don't have to. It's just a matter of
drawing two lines. We can ask for new plans showing 15 feet off
the property line.
MR. SCHLESINGER: So if I understand, instead of the two docks
that they were asking, two floating docks, it will be one larger
one?
TRUSTEE KING: It will be one 5x24 float, which meets our code.
Square footage.
MR. SCHLESINGER: And the ramp will stay in effect?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. SCHLESINGER: And there won't be any jet-ski?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not at this time.
MR. SCHLESINGER: Now, will everything get moved over?
TRUSTEE KING: The 10x10 platform --
MR. SCHLESINGER: I mean the floating docks.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The decking and the ramp are in the same spot
as the original. And the floating dock is attached.
TRUSTEE KING: It's approximately centered in the property.
MR. SCHLESINGER: Okay.
MR. HALL: Here is the plans, if you want to take a look on it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can move on it.
MR. PALMER: William Palmer. We are allowed to bring the jet-ski
in, we just can't have a jet-ski dock. We have to tie it off if
we need to.
49 April 20, 2011
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. The code allows for that.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, 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 these new plans that show a proposed 5x24 float,
bulkhead is to be refaced on the landward side of the existing.
And the 10x10 platform at the southern end of the property will
be moved 15 feet north.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want them to revise that on the plans?
TRUSTEE KING: If we can just see a revised set of plans
indicating the little platform is 15 feet north of its present
location, off the property line.
MR. HALL: That's fine. Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Did I miss anything?
(No response).
MR. MCGREEVEY: Is there any problem with the present planting as
far as fertilizing goes, being that close to the bulkhead?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's anything exotic that they are
fertilizing there.
MR. PALMER: It's a buffer.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. HULSE: Jill, which one was the other one, do you remember?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: At this time we'll take a two-minute break.
(After a brief recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are back on the record. We'll start with
number eight.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. On
behalf of MICHAEL & SUSAN JEFFRIES requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a garage addition, driveway retaining wall, and
drainage for driveway. Located: Private Rd., Fishers Island.
Jim, myself and Jill looked at this application. The voluminous
and beautiful plans depict a garage addition, and the drainage
for the roof runoff to leaders and to drywells show a retaining
wall which is adjacent to the freshwater wetlands, shows a
proposed stake line of hay bales and silt fence so that is meets
all the general criteria that we would have in the project. It
is considered consistent with the LWRP. Is there anyone who
wishes to speak behalf of this application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of the Jeffries'. I'm here
to answer any questions. The plans were really detailed and I
think it's clearly described for you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess the only concern we have is that
careful attention would be drawn to getting a silt fence in and
hay bales up well in advance of any construction so there is no
hoops to that, and the ability for us to do a hay bale
inspection is probably extremely limited, but that's a high
quality freshwater wetland and there is a quite a tumble home
going down from the proposed retaining wall to that wetland. So
50 April 20, 2011
that would be really a premium, we would not want to have a
situation where there was inspection by town official where they
didn't have hay bales up.
MS. MOORE: They have been actually very good. The house was done
last year and they were very diligent about the hay bale line.
But I'll pass on the word.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You know, local rumors and scuttlebutt of
the islanders when I was on the peninsula myself was that hay
bales popped up prior to the Trustees inspection this last
Monday, so I just want to let you know.
MS. MOORE: On our project?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
MS. MOORE: The house was done, could be they were just
refreshing them.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I know there were some issues, apparently,
from runoff from the construction site down the driveway and
they put new silt fence and hay bales down at the road side. Are
there any additional concerns or comments?
TRUSTEE KING: I think you covered it, Jay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve the
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number ten, JMO Environmental Consulting on
behalf of JAMES P. MARTIN requests a Wetland Permit to legalize
and modify an existing docking facility which consists of a 3'X
7' landward ramp leading to a 3'X 27' catwalk, 2.5'X 8' ramp and
a 4'X 11' float secured by (2) batter piles. The proposed
modification is to remove the 3'X 7' landward ramp and to
construct 3'X 3' steps leading to a 4'X 20' landward extension
to the catwalk utilizing open grate decking, to replace the
2.5'X 8 'ramp with a 3'X 20' ramp and to replace the 4'X 11'
float with a 6'X 20' float to be secured by (2) batter piles and
one tie-off pile. Located: 2740 Deep Hole Dr., Mattituck.
This application was reviewed under the LWRP and found to
be inconsistent, for several reasons, which I'll go into in a
minute. It was reviewed by the CAC and Conservation.Advisory
Council sports the application with the condition the mowing of
the wetlands is-stopped.
Now, what we have here is a letter dated April 12, received
by our office April 12, basically from the agent of the
applicant stating that the project as originally applied for at
that dock, they wish to abandon or remove that dock, build a new
docking structure approximately 45 feet to the east, and it's
described and it's depicted on a new set of plans that have been
submitted with that letter, I'm assuming with that letter on
April 12. And it's stamped received April 12.
Now just before we open up the public hearing, understand
that the original structure was reviewed under LWRP and found to
51 April 20, 2011
be inconsistent. We are now changing, the applicant has applied
to change this project to a new docking structure, which means
the new docking structure will have to be reviewed under the
LWRP. So in essence we don't have an LWRP review on this new
docking structure yet. What that means is while tonight we can
take comments related to this application and discuss it, we are
not going to be able to move on this application because it has
to be reviewed, the new structure has to be reviewed under the
LWRP.
Now, given that, I'll mention the inconsistency comments
that came up with the first review, since it could very well be
some of those could be addressed so that next time around we
could move along with this application.
One was that the current structure was constructed without
a wetlands permit. Well, that will be addressed because you are
proposing to abandon that structure and start a new one.
The other concerns from LWRP, is there an assessment of
navigational impairments being made; that the dimensions of the
vessel are not included in the length of the dock, because under
Chapter 275, the determination of the length of the dock must
include the dimensions of the vessel. An assessment cannot be
made to see if it's consistent with the existing dock line. In
other words, pier line. An assessment as to whether the
expansion would interfere with the use of the waterways. And
then last one was the applicant does not show current water
depth on the plans. Well, on your new set of plans you do have
water depth there, so that should not be an issue.
So given the comments I have made, is there anybody here to
speak on behalf of this application?
MR. JUST: Glenn Just, JMO Environmental Consulting. I have a
few comments. It's a little bit of a shock to me what you just
read off, but there was indeed a permit for the original dock
issued to James and Ruth Barr for two-foot by eight inch by 50'
elevated walk; 3x22.5' semi-floating dock that was permit number
120 issued on April 27, 1983.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, it's in the record.
MR. JUST: So that should check off the first thing on the LWRP.
And when we met with the Trustees on site last month, there was
concerns with (a), the dock was nonconforming because it
straddles the property line. It was not 15 feet off the property
line. The concerns about the navigable channel and concerns
about depth. What we did after meeting with you folks is we
hired Bob Fox of Sea Level Mapping, that does a lot of the local
depth work for a lot of people, and it showed the existing dock
as we saw it during inspection was about in six inches of water,
the float. It sits on the bottom. So trying to, the reason we
came back with the new dock plan is to re-align the dock,
keeping it greater than 15 feet off the property line. We've
shown the dock in between two-and-a-half to three feet of water,
the float. And we have also relocated the dock a little further
to the east to keep it further away from those four docks that
are shown on the opposite shoreline. There was questions from
the Board as far as the width of the waterway. I think it comes
out to 165 feet from mean low to mean low. We are well less than
52 April 20, 2011
that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It says on your plan 160 plus or minus.
MR. JUST: Okay. So the length of the pier seaward of the
proposed dock, seaward of the mean low water is less than 1/3 of
the 160 figure. So what we have done in redesigning and
modifying the dock application, we are trying to put everything
into compliance with current existing regulations, as far as
water depth, width of the waterway, proximity to the channel,
um, and in keeping off the property line.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. And I was just informed that there is
a clarification has been made and that this does not have to go
back for another review under the LWRP, as long as we can
address the inconsistencies on the original one, which you have
already addressed several of them. Okay?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There was a question about it being moved,
whether it was a totally new application or new construction. So
there is a fine line there. That's where the confusion is.
MR. JUST: Yup. And as far as the mowing of the wetland, I don't,
CAC -- as we discussed on site, patens is a grass, it will come
back fine. You know, since we stopped mowing. Some areas we
actually show improved growth of Spartina patens when you mow
it. But I won't go into that tonight. It does help sometimes,
because it is a grass. But there is no problem letting the
buffer grow back.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Glenn, do you know the approximate beam of the
boat, if there is a proposed boat to go there, just so we can
have that as part of the record?
MR. JUST: I could ask Mr. Burger here. I would be guessing.
could probably make a quick phone call
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think it's that important.
TRUSTEE KING: What kind of boat?
MR. BURGER: 42' Down East. Custom built. It will be here
next weekend.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You better hurry up with that dock.
MR. BURGER: We are trying.
MR. JUST: I think I included, separately, the hydrographic
survey that Bob Fox has done that shows the contours of the
channel.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking at the hydrographics on the survey
that Bob Fox did and it shows the floating dock is anywhere
from, looks like the landward side, approximately two foot of
water, and the outer edge approximately four feet of water, at
low tide.
MR. JUST: We try keep it in the two-and-a-half to three foot
range.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just wondering if there is any opportunity
to pull that back slightly. Because when we were out in the
field our concern, the primary concern we had with this was is
this going to interfere with navigation in the channel.
MR. JUST: Was my stake still there when you went?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, thank you, it was. There is, there really
are no docks there to determine a pier line. And I know that
came up in the LWRP inconsistency report and there is really
nothing that you, as the applicant, can do, because there are no
53 April 20, 2011
docks there to compare it to others for a pier line.
MR. JUST: The only thing I put, I did a Google Earth drawing and
printout, and who knows how old that thing is. When we were back
there staking it out, I don't know if you noticed quite a few of
the docks to the west had been installed. They were not there
during our original inspection.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But is there an opportunity to pull the dock
back slightly so that it's not resting on the bottom, obviously,
at low tide, so the seaward end is closer to three feet of
water. Because it looks like then we could pull the dock back,
it looks like approximately the width of the float, which is six
foot.
MR. JUST: The landward end is laying almost on the, right on the
two-foot contour of the float there. And the seaward end is
straddling the three-foot contour. If we pull it in a little bit
it will be in 18 inches of water. That would be my only concern
about that, is it's sitting on the bottom. That's the reason for
moving it in the first place.
You could see the shoaling there to the east. After Bob did
the bottom contours, we thought that would be the ideal place to
relocate the dock. Remember, the boat is 12 feet. Just giving
the additional 12 feet still keeps it less than the one-third
rule mean low to mean low water across the creek.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, from my observations, it was not a matter
of the one-third rule, it was a matter of would the vessel '
interfere with navigation in the main channel. That was the
concern I had out there. I can't speak for the other Board
members, but that was my main concern.
How do other Board members feel about that? Do you feel
looking at this, hearing the information tonight as well as
looking at this aerial, that this would or would not affect the
navigability of that channel?
MR. MCGREEVEY: What creek is that, Dave?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Deep Hole Creek.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Looking at the aerial, it shows the stakes.
MR. JUST: If I may, the new dock would be right in here.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Makes sense to me.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think it will be in the way of
navigation of the channel.
MR. JUST: It would be a -- we knew that would be a concern at
the outset, that's why we worked hard to keep it as short as
possible.
TRUSTEE KING: I see, keeping it here, going out here, you have
six foot here. Looking at it, the deepest part should be right
about in the center. If you have a boat with a 15-foot beam, you
still have 40 feet or more to the center of the channel. So I
would say it's doable.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In the original description, for the original
structure, you were going to replace it with open-grate decking.
Is that also the plans for the new structure?
MR. JUST: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: The only thing I would suggest is that little bump
out, to do the same as the last application, make it 2x4 instead
54 April 20, 2011
of 3x5.
MR. JUST: We can do that. I don't know if the Board understands
rationale for that. In reducing the length of the fixed dock for
catwalk and going to a larger ramp, these aluminum ramps are
quite heavy, and that's just to support the weight of the ramp
so the dock doesn't pitch all the time.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Is there anybody else in the audience who
wanted to comment on this application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: Make sure the tie up is on the inside.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Well inside the float.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it will work there
TRUSTEE BERGEN: 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
James Martin with a new dock being built as depicted on the
plans dated April 11, 2011, stamped received April 12, 2011. The
new dock consists of a 482' catwalk utilizing open grating, 3x3
steps, 3x20 ramp, 2x4 float and one 6x20 float secured by two
batter piles and a tie off pile. And given the fact that the
applicant has shown water depth on the plans and has proven to
the Board that this will not interfere with navigation, and in
using open-grate decking, we would then find it consistent under
the LWRP. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments from the Board on this?
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, Costello Marine
Contracting Corp. on behalf of SOUTH BROWN LIMITED LIABILITY
CO. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 110' fixed
catwalk with a 4'X 10' seasonal ramp onto three (3) 8'X 30'
seasonal floating docks secured by 6-8" diameter anchor pilings.
Located: 8070 Narrow River Rd., Orient.
The project was deemed to be inconsistent under the LWRP.
I'll go through the details of that. It's a fairly lengthy
return from LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council did not
support it in their initial review of the project. There is in
the file a letter from our attorney Lori Hulse concerning a
review of the record to see if there was an inherent right going
forward based on the history of the structures, previous
permitting history here. There are also three letters to the
record that I will substantially give information on, and there
is also in the file new proposed plans for this project. So I'll
send the plans down amongst the Board members. And I'll start
with the notice of inconsistency and go through that, then the
comments from individuals that sent letters to the record and
then I'll open it up for comments, as to try to be orderly in
this process.
55 April 20, 2011
Okay, the LWRP indicates that it should comply with Trustee
regulations and recommendations that are standard to Trustee
permits. Concerns were specifically in construction and
operation standards that since it's a corporate entity, that it
indicates here that total number of vessels to the dock here
longterm should be point of discussion since presently
configured the application would be construed to only allow
three vessels; one for the corporation and two vessels for other
than the owner.
The number of individual items in construction operation
standards that the Trustees should review, whether the dock will
unduly interfere with public use of water waterways for
appropriate use of swimming, boating and fishing; whether the
dock will cause degradation to the surface water quality;
whether the dock will cause any habitat fragmentation and loss
of coastal fish and wildlife habitat; destruction of any
valuable marine growth, such as astor marina, which is eel grass or
widgeon grass maritima, and that the dock will unduly restrict
tidal flow, that the dock will adversely affect views, view
sheds, vistas important to the community, whether adequate
facilities are available for boat owners or operators for fuel
and discharge of waste, rubbish, electric services, et cetera.
And that should include a determination of length of dock must
include dimensions of vessels to be kept there. Vessel
dimensions were not specified. That's the sum total of the LWRP
comments.
The comments to be put in the record from concerned
citizens, this is a letter to the Trustees: We are writing to
you in support of the Tuthill request to place a dock on Narrow
River Road. We fell a reasonably-sized non-commercial dock
project in keeping with the Trustees'judgment is appropriate
for this area. As their nearest private neighbor we endorse an
appropriately-sized project, as they have always been good
stewards of the land. Thank you for your consideration. It's
signed Fred and Maureen Docimo of the Narrow River Marina, at
5520 Narrow River Road.
The next letter I have is to the Board of Trustees. I am
writing this letter to you in support of the Tuthill family dock
project on Narrow River Road. As president of the Oyster Ponds
Rod and Gun Club I would like to take this opportunity support
the Tuthill family as they have supported the Rod and Gun Club
to use their land for last 50 years. We are aware of the state
negotiations of wetlands with the Tuthill, Latham and other
Orient families back in the 1980s. The Oyster Pond Rod and Gun
Club supports their dock project knowing that the Tuthill family
has always been good stewards of the land and has been
interested in land conservations. Thank you, for your
consideration, signed Ed White, President of the Oyster Pond Rod
and Gun Club.
Another letter addressed to the Trustees. We are writing
this letter to you in support of the Tuthill family dock project
on Narrow River Road. We know the Tuthill family worked closely
with the state on the conservation effort along Narrow River
Road. In 1989 along with our families, the Tuthill family has
56 April 20, 2011
been good stewards of the land in Orient since the 1640's. We
are aware of the agreement made between the state and the family
in 1989 to allow them to dock, excuse me, allow them a dock to
accommodate their large family. Once again, as neighbors and
landowners in Orient, we support this dock. And signed by a
number of individuals: James and Patricia Latham, George
Latham, Kathleen Latham, Pricilla Latham and Daniel and Patricia
Latham.
Another letter to the Trustees. Given the Conservation
Advisory Council's resolution to not support this application
because it is inconsistent with the Wetlands Code, and the fact
there is as yet no determination by the New York State DOT, DOS,
Army Corps of Engineers, and given that Narrow River is a
sensitive environment as well as significant beauty spot or
sacred place for local residents I respectively encourage you to
defer decision until responses have been received from the other
agencies. I also urge you to determine what uses are expected at
these docks, what kinds of boats will be involved and whether
there is any dredging anticipated for their use, which obviously
would raise more significant environmental issues. Signed,
Frederica Waxberger.
Those are the communications to the record.
The plan that I just distributed that vary a bit from the
project description which indicated a proposal of three floats,
I believe. And at this time it might be appropriate to open up
to comments of whose who wish to speak on behalf of or against
of the application.
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine, on behalf of the
applicant. You have the new set of plans. It reduces the project
more or less in half. 720 square feet of float is initially what
the DEC had authorized 20 years ago. We drooped down the scope
of the plans to 240 square feet, two 5x24's, hoping that would
be more palatable to the Trustees, you know, backing off, hoping
to straighten this out tonight. Seeing they've given a lot up,
seems fair to me. I'm here to some answer any questions you may
have.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I like what you have done here. That's more of
what we were thinking. The only question I have, is a ten-foot
ramp long enough? Or do you think it should go with 15 foot?
Just to avoid you coming back later.
MR. COSTELLO: Well, we certainly could. I didn't want to deviate
from the original permit. I didn't want to change things. As it
comes along, we may have to amend that, just because of the
heights and elevation of the dock itself. DEC has not gotten
back to me so the elevation has to not been established yet.
Like I said, I didn't want to deviate from the first original
permit and complicate things more.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does the Board have any problem if we go with
this to say up to a 15-foot ramp, so he doesn't have to come
back to us?
TRUSTEE KING: As long as it doesn't change the overall length of
the project. Just shorten the catwalk a little bit.
MR. COSTELLO: That sounds fair enough. Like I said, once the DEC
establishes that, how high they want me to put it above the
57 April 20, 2011
marsh, I would definitely come in for an amendment, but we won't
increase the overall length.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just trying to avoid you coming back for an
amendment.
TRUSTEE KING: The only other thing I would suggest, we have been
doing this, we did this on two other applications, put a little
2x4 bump out for the float for the ramp. So it gives you a
little more walking room at the end of the ramp
MR. COSTELLO: That would be fantastic. It doesn't increase the
footprint and it makes it much better. I know ramps coming down
on a float perpendicular to them is pretty tough.
MR. COSTELLO: If we could put that in, that would be fantastic.
I would appreciate that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The concern I have is the absence of
electric power there, as far as running electric during the
winter for ice control purposes. That design incorporates
beaches that would possibly allow for an elevated float, in
other words, instead of catwalk perception but the type of float
that is constructed on those poly-boxes or whatever, so that
possibly that in the absence of power, that the dock, more of
the dock could be removed during the off season, and they don't
have the risk of frost lifting huge numbers of pilings. It's
just something that seems to be a practical issue because of the
great distance to getting power, unless they are planning on
powering it.
MR. COSTELLO: No, there is no plan for any service there, at
this point. And the floating dock itself will come out of place
for the winter, of course.
TRUSTEE KING: I would stick with this. You have the three piles
on the seaward end. That usually keeps the end down pretty good.
MR. COSTELLO: It's pretty muddy back there, but, you know.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I do recall seeing a dock getting lifted
once. If they want, it's a question, too, if it's repeatedly
lifted, that means a lot more siltation and pumping pilings in
in the spring. But if you feel this is substantial enough and
it's not an issue with them, that's fine.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Would the Board consider the vinyl grating or is
that part of it already?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Open grating.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It depends on the height. Mr. Costello is
waiting to hear from the DEC on the height of the catwalk. If
it's up higher, we really won't need that. If it's lower, we
would want it.
MR. COSTELLO: They are very inconsistent with the grate decking.
MR. MCGREEVEY: The DEC is inconsistent, because of the height?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
MR. MCGREEVEY: So the higher, the less need for grating?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Giving the fact the history here was to
provide docking for the Tuthill family, and we understand these
sorts of limited liability corporations are there designed to
protect families, but we also have to be mindful of the town
zoning and the regulations surrounding it.
Do you think it would be a problem with limitation that the
58 April 20, 2011
vessels there are just Tuthill family members with an allowance
for two others? It's allowed in the Zoning Code and I think
that's in keeping with how the use has been presently. Or has
been only Tuthill family members, and I know they have extended
use to a couple of local baymen.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think that goes without saying in any permit
we approve, because it's written in the code. So I don't think
we have to make that a condition because it's already codified.
That's how I feel about it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If that's the feeling of the Board, that's fine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree with what Jill says, but I think it's
good that you brought it up and it's on the record so the
applicant can fully understand that.
MR. COSTELLO: Fair enough.
TRUSTEE KING: I would just suggest there be no further expansion
of this facility in the future.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think so. This is well-tailored to the
location.
TRUSTEE KING: It exceeds the code. But under the circumstances I
don't have an issue with that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's very similar to other actions we have
taken tonight where we have requested individuals to downsize in
keeping with the nature of the waters and prior history where we
have actually had other individuals where we had that allowance
for a second 120 square foot float, so in keeping with a
consistent approach I think the Board has taken tonight towards
historic use of waters by individuals. Is there anyone else who
wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
(No response).
Hearing no ones else, I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'LL make a motion to approve the
application of Costello Marine on behalf of South Brown
Liability as submitted in the revised plans dated April 19, 2011.
MR. COSTELLO: John, if you could add in the bump out.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With the bump out. What's the feeling on
the size. 2x4? Two feet by four feet would be the allowance for
the ramp.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And to note this new drawing brings this into
consistency with LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. It brings it into consistency
with LWRP and the degree of open-grating, I guess is contingent
on the DEC determination of height over the wetland.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And sorry, I want to add that maybe the ramp
can go up to 15 feet. Do you want to add that in there so he
doesn't have to come back for an amendment?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ramp up to 15 feet. Not more than 15 feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. Any further discussion on the
motion?
TRUSTEE KING: Should we stipulate no further expansion of this
facility?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And no further expansion. Do you want to do
59 April 20, 2011
that, Jay?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, I'll amend my motion to include all the
preceding including the fact there be no further expansion of
this facility, docking facility.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. COSTELLO: Thank you, have a good night.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 12, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc. on behalf of BARRETT KATZ requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a docking facility comprised of a 4'X 72' fixed
elevated catwalk, 3'X 15' hinged ramp, and 6'X 20' floating dock
off the northern shoreline of the property. Located: 625 Wood
Lane, Peconic.
This is an extension of the hearing that we opened last
month. Just to review, the Conservation Advisory Council
supported the application with the condition of a ten-foot
non-turf buffer and it was found to be inconsistent with LWRP
for reasons that were noted at the last hearing. We had asked
that some revised plans be put in, incorporating some
suggestions that we made. And we have a letter here including
the revised plans prepared by Suffolk Environmental indicating
the relocation of the proposed dock assembly to a more central
position along the bulkhead. Which was the one question we had.
And if you would like to see these, I'll pass these down.
As I recall, we originally had the original plans to be
closer to the property line, right? And we asked that it get
moved so at least once it was extended out it would be 15 feet
from the side property line. I think that is what they have
done. Is there,anybody here who would like to address the
application?
MR. IVAN: Yes. Matt Ivan, Suffolk Environmental Consulting.
Following that meeting last month, we talked with the owner,
Barret Katz, and he seemed fine with the recommendation of the
Board. So by moving it over centrally, it will reduce the
overall dock length by about 14 feet. It will reduce the area
that the dock will cross over in terms of any kind of vegetative
wetlands over there, and I'm here to answer any additional
questions.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So now it's a 4x58' long catwalk instead of a
4x72. Floating dock stays 6x20, and the ramp is still 3x15.
Okay. Any questions or comments from the Board?
(No response).
It's what we wanted, so I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 1'11 make a motion to approve the application
made by Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of Barrett
Katz for a docking facility comprised of a 4x58 fixed elevated
catwalk with a 3x15 hinged ramp and 6x20 floating dock, as
depicted on the site plans received March 29, 2011.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. Any other comments on that from the
Board?
60 April 20, 2011
TRUSTEE KING: Do they need four pilings to hold the float in
place or just three? One on the seaward end instead of two. A
little less structure and a little less cost to the applicant.
It's not a big deal.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't know how much fetch there is. Will
it work?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Back there on Richmond Creek, back where this
is, there won't be a lot of fetch built up there. As I recall,
we had another dock application farther to the, call it the
south, where we had the same issue come up and we went with two
anchor pilings, so to speak, instead of four. So I would support
the use of two instead of four.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Or three, like Jim said.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. That would help also with the LWRP review.
MR. MCGREEVEY: What would the surface of the catwalk be, just
for my own information?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are you talking about the open grate or
decking?
MR. IVAN: So far the DEC has not gotten back to us but I'm sure,
just like the last application it's up for grabs what they'll
say, but if the elevation is high enough, they won't ask for it
and if you are not crossings over vegetated wetlands, they
usually don't ask for it. But when we get the DEC application,
if there is a change, we'll send it over.
TRUSTEE KING: For a while they were recommending open grate and
letting us put it down low. There was a surprise to me. As a
matter of fact, I have a letter somewhere from DEC saying this
is good.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right.
TRUSTEE KING: And we like it because we get the catwalks down a
little bit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So what do you want to do, do you want to make
it so it has one pole at the end instead of two?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All right. One pole. And we want to make the
catwalk open grate.
TRUSTEE KING: We have the catwalk showing four feet above grade.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think we need to specify open grate.
If they put it open grate, they can, but I don't believe we need
to make it a condition in this case.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: My attitude is it can't hurt.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Condition it if it's less than three feet,
go with open grating?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's fine.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. I'll re-do the motion then. I'll make a
motion to approve the application on behalf of Barrett Katz to
construct a docking facility comprised of 458 fixed elevated.
Catwalk; 3x15 hinged ramp; and 6x20 floating dock, with only one
pole at the end of the floating dock, at the seaward end, and an
open-grated surface on the catwalk should it be required to be
less than three feet to the water, to the wetlands.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second? Any other comment on that motion?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In making these mitigations it brings it into
consistency with LWRP.
61 April 20, 2011
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. IVAN: Thank you, board. I'll get the revisions to you guys
as soon as possible.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 13, Studio a/b Architects on behalf of
JANE G. WEILAND requests a Wetland Permit to construct an
on-ground boardwalk attached to the existing wood walkway, 32-square
foot storage shed and bench, both attached to the boardwalk platform,
total coverage 326 square feet. Located: 6485 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with the condition gutters, leaders and drywells are installed
for the dwelling and installation of a ten-foot non-turf buffer
planted native vegetation on top of bluff. I don't know what
they are talking about the dwelling.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is for a boardwalk, but they are attaching
-- Jack, you're attaching the drywell request to this permit
MR. MCGREEVEY: Right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the Conservation Advisory Council
comments. The LWRP is consistent with the stairs but
inconsistent with the decking. Decks and platforms: No decks or
platforms shall be permitted on or near bluffs. Platforms
associated with stairs may not larger than 32-square feet. The
application, again, prior tonight, it's on, behind the bulkhead
on a flat area. That being said, it is quite large and larger
than we would ever approve, but that being said, is there anyone
here to act on behalf of this application?
MS. WEILAND: Yes. I'm Jane Weiland, the homeowner, and my
architects are also here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We allow, we would be more comfortable with a
10x20 deck area here. We don't usually let people deck over that
whole area behind their bulkhead, and we feel a 10x20 deck area
is sufficient enough to put a few chairs and have room to
utilize. And, of course, we would want untreated lumber on that
deck. Is that something you would be amenable to?
MS. WEILAND: Well, we weren't decking the whole area.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, it was quite large what you were asking
for.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Shed, bench and deck. So you are saying just
the deck.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what our notes say, yes.
MS. SPERRY: Also part of it was the actual walkway.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you just state your name for the record.
MS. SPERRY: Sorry, Linda Sperry, Studio a/b Architects. Part of
that was the walkway. It's extending away from the steps so that
the deck part can go in between the existing vegetation, so that
does add a little bit of square footage. But it's also
protecting the existing bushes. I have a sketch that these
represent existing bushes, so it's going from the existing
stairway, which is right here, so there is a little bit of extra
decking as it sort of meanders around the bushes.
MS. WEILAND: There is actually holes opening for the bushes to
come out, so they are not--
MS. SPERRY: Instead of having one big thing, and also that way
62 April 20, 2011
the shed is not visible because there are existing plantings on
either side, so. It does add a little bit of square footage, but
I think the effect is better.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We appreciate what you are trying to do here,
but I believe the feeling of the Board is the decking is still
too excessive.
On this drawing you have a note that says 10x20. Is that what this drawing
reflects, is 10x20 square footage of deck, or?
MS. SPERRY: I just wrote that down, that was just my notes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
MS. SPERRY: What if we put stepping stones between the two
platforms; would that work?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that's been done before. People put
stepping stones between areas.
MS. SPERRY: So if we kept those two sections.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, you are not allowed two decks, by code;
two decking areas by code. So that's a problem there.
MS. SPERRY: But it's done with respect to the vegetation.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, it just comes down to it's more than we
usually approve in this area.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In fact we would not allow the little house
either, anymore.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I said, you need to address the shed
as well as the bench.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, one thing at a time.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm inclined to stick with what we normally
would do, frankly.
MS. WEILAND: There is a 30-foot bluff that comes down, so it
makes it very difficult to carry chairs or anything you would
like to sit on down there. That's why we hoped to have the shed,
just to store.
MS. SPERRY: And the adjacent property has it as well.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We understand that, but that was prior to our
code. A lot of that stuff has been there for years and years
and years. So any new construction on this area is usually not,
we have not allowed any new buildings. We allowed people to
restore what they had and try to have them reduce what they have
when they restore it, but we have not allowed any new buildings
on the bluff area.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Another consideration on that, Jill, would be
with a structure like that, runoff off the roof could possibly
cause erosion.
MS. SPERRY: We actually calculated it, and for everything you
would only have a quarter of an inch. So it's negligible.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: That's there now, that structure. They want to
box it in?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, the stairs would be coming down over here.
She doesn't have the stairs on this drawing here. Here is the
stairs and here is the shed between the two bushes. I think --
tell me if I'm wrong -- I think I could speak for the Board, I
feel we just want to have this whole area reduced to no shed and
just one deck sitting area.
MS. SPERRY: But could it be irregular? Because the whole point
63 April 20, 2011
was to not have one big expanse so it actually feels less.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you reduce the structure, I personally don't
mind --
TRUSTEE KING: If it's something that comes up with 200-square
feet--
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's 10x20. It's not much to work with. But if
you want to make it irregular.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What we are saying is we'll allow you
200-square foot of decking, however you want to draw it, you can
come back to us, but as long as it doesn't exceed 200-square feet.
MS. WEILAND: What about having to carry the furniture down the
30 foot bluff?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Most people leave their furniture down there.
I mean that's just the nature of the area.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In fact in the photo you could see next door
that's exactly what your neighbors are doing.
MS. WEILAND: That's a right-of-way, actually. But then you have
to have it all exposed and it could get stolen and rusty and
it's not a way to maintain your furniture.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do we regularly allow deck boxes, small box?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was the structure on the stairs, that is
already there.
MS. WEILAND: That's a gazebo.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You could put the furniture there.
MS. WEILAND: No, you can't because it's actually in the middle
of the staircase. You can't walk up and down. It's a pass
through.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Again, it's not something that we approve, the
structure on the bluff. It's just, it's something we just don't
approve.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: People manage to get the furniture up and down.
I have to carry mine up and down 67 steps.
MS. SPERRY: Do you have any objection to the seats?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Incorporate that into the deck.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Incorporate that into the 200-square feet, we
have no objection. And that would bring it into consistency,
reducing on the size of the deck to the LWRP report.
MS. WEILAND: Would it be a problem if the seat lifted up and
there was storage inside the seat?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. Should we table this for new drawings? Or
do you, since it's going to be odd shaped?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We could just --
TRUSTEE KING: 10x20, 200-square foot deck.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: With bench incorporated into that 200-square
foot.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Subject to revised drawings.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, that's reasonable.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, are there any other comments from anyone?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve a 200-square foot deck with a
64 April 20, 2011
bench incorporated within the 200-square foot. And is the
stairs included in this?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Stairs are pre-existing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have a permit for the stairs? Probably
not.
MS. SPERRY: There is a permit for the stairs. I made an error on
that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we don't need to include the stairs. So I'll
make a motion to approve a 200-square foot deck with benches
incorporated within the 200-square feet. Subject to new
drawings. And deny the original application to construct a
326-square foot deck area. By downsizing, it brings it into
consistency.
MS. HULSE: You are denying more than that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the shed and denying the -- do you want me
to do two separate resolutions?
MS. HULSE: No, you are good with approving the deck, but now you
have to deny the rest of the application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, so deny the 200-area foot deck with a
bench incorporated in it and thereby denying the rest of the
application which would include the shed and the 320-square foot
deck. And that brings it into consistency with the LWRP. And
untreated lumber to be used.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just want to clarify. I just heard you say
"deny a 200-square foot deck," et cetera.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, I approved the 200-square foot. Approve a
200-square foot deck area with bench included within that area,
and to deny the shed and the 326-square foot area that they
originally applied for. And that brings it into consistency
with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments from the Board on that
motion?
(No response).
All in favor? Subject to revised plans. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. MCGREEVEY: Is there supposed to be spacing between the
planks on the decking? Is there a requirement for certain
spacing?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sometimes we say certain spacing. It's all
sand underneath so in this case it really --
MR. MCGREEVEY: There is no requirement there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, there is no growth there. So that's
subject to new drawings on that.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 14, Swim King Pools on behalf of KATHY
TSOUMAS requests a Wetland Permit to install a 16'X 32'
in-ground swimming pool, patio and surrounding fence.
Located: 500 Jackson's Landing, Mattituck.
This was reviewed and found to be consistent with LWRP, and
the Conservation Advisory Council voted to support the
application as submitted.
I went and looked at this. It's just a straightforward put
a swimming pool in, and put a fence around it. I didn't have any
issues with it whatsoever. It's a nice buffer area down by the
65 April 20, 2011
creek. They tucked the pool right in the corner there. They have
a drywell showing for the pool backwash. I thought it was
straightforward and no problem whatsoever. Any comments?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: There are no comments from anybody on this, 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.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 15, Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin &
Quartararo LLP on behalf of WARREN & NINA BERNSTEIN requests a
Wetland Permit to construct first and second floor additions to
the existing two-story dwelling; construct 13'X 8.6' and 18'X
8.6' deck additions to rear of dwelling; proposed driveway
expansion and expansion of parking area; install two 8' dia.
drywells for stormwater run-off; abandon existing sanitary
system and install new sanitary system; repair and/or replace
existing wood deck and stairs at Great Pond; construct new 4'X
20' dock; trim vegetation at existing deck and stairs; repair
and/or replace existing snow fencing; and abandon well.
Construct 3.5'X 12.2' steps on west side rear of dwelling;
construct 7'X 11.5' steps in front of dwelling; remove existing
steps in the front of dwelling on west side; and remove 3'X 7'
steps in front of the west side of dwelling and replace with
deck. Located: 2095 Lake Dr., Southold.
This was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council.
The CAC supports the application with the following conditions:
That the parking area should be permeable; installation of
gutters, leaders and drywells, and a non-turf buffer planted
with native vegetation up to the limit of the disturbance.
The LWRP review found the majority of the project
consistent. What they found inconsistent was the proposed dock.
The applicant has not demonstrated that the dock standards have
been met, and he listed all 12 dock standards that the Board
has. The use of the waterway is public. There is public access
to this area via a right-of-way on Great Pond Road. And that is
basically it under the LWRP.
The Board did go out and looked at this project, and we
have extensive plans here. So is there anybody here to speak on
behalf of this application?
MS. HOAG: Yes. I'm Karen Hoag from Twomey, Latham, Shea. As a matter of
housekeeping, I have an affidavit of posting. I know it's been a long evening so I'll try to
address the issues that you had. In regard to the parking area, that area would be
permeable. Planting a non-turf buffer is agreeable. That's fine with us. In terms of the
dock, the applicant really just wanted to have a means to go get to the pond to put
kayaks on there. So the actual length of the dock, 4x20' dock length was actually a
suggestion of the DEC when we met with them back in December. They thought this
was something we should ask for when we submit to the Trustees as well as the DEC.
So that's the reason why we asked for such a length. You know, we are agreeable to
modify it to what the Trustees would recommend. And as I said, it was really just for use
66 April 20, 2011
of kayaking, getting kayaks to the pond.
I just wanted to add, I know in terms of erosion control, we tried to address that in detail
on the plans, with hay bales and silt fencing. There is a limit lines of clearing and
non-disturbance, ran pretty much most of the property, from the Lake Drive all the way
down to the rear of the house. So we also have on the east side of the house, two
drywells which will be installed, and due to the nature of the pitch of the roof, it's pretty
much flat. We'll have gutters and leaders going down into those drywells.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Yes, just to clarify, Jack, on behalf
of the Conservation Advisory Council, yes, there are drywells
here, to address that issue. And also the limit of disturbance,
really, where you are asking for a non-turf buffer is presently
all very nice, natural state, and I think what the point is here
we are looking for it to be maintained in its natural state with
native vegetation, et cetera, which sounds like exactly what the
applicant is suggesting. So I just wanted to see if that
addressed all the Conservation Advisory Council's concerns with
regard to the three points that they put down here.
MR. MCGREEVEY: I didn't personally inspect the property, but
looking at the picture, I agree.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else who wants
to speak on behalf of this application, for or against this
application?
MR. MANOS: Good evening, my name is Charles Manos. My parents
own the property adjoining to the west. And Ms. Ball, the
neighbor adjoining to the east will speak after I do. We think
this is great, you know. We just, my parents, at least, I'll
speak to my concerns, Ms. Ball will speak to hers. We have just
one minor concern, that is if you start at the top, go down the
driveway, there are two proposed parking areas. The one toward
the back, which is dotted in, if you look at the grade lines,
there is actually about a four-foot declining grade in that
area, okay; so the point is there is like a mound that, over
here, is shown as having a 20-foot or greater elevation that
straddles the property line. Right on the other side of that
mound are my parents' property. There is like a retaining wall
holding it up. And we just had a minor concern with respect to,
it looks like four to six feet of elevation will be cut out of
the bottom of that mound. So there might be some -- if you are
familiar with the area, it's basically sand, with some scrub
pines. I don't think it's a big deal. I think it would be very
minor, as a modest maybe retaining wall there. The other end of
the mound is held up by a retaining wall. We have gone through
efforts to keep --
MS. HOAG: I have John Berg here, he is the architect, he can
address your concerns.
MR. BERG: John Berg, Berg & Son Architects, representing the
Bernstein's. I think the neighbor is correct, and a low railroad
tie retaining wall will be necessary. The reason we are
expanding the parking area is that it takes about an eight-point
turn to get a car in and out of there. It's really, really
tight, so we want to maintain a nice buffer. There is some
evergreen cedar trees there that we would like to maintain for
privacy between the neighbor and the Bernstein's, and put in a
low railroad tie retaining wall.
67 April 20, 2011
MR. MANOS: That's fine. It's reasonable. It's perfect. Because
we want to keep that vegetation.
MS. HOAG: Understood.
MR. MANOS: I'm glad we are of like mind.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was just looking to see if that was even,.that
proposed parking area, is within our jurisdiction. It is,
because it's a top of bluff there.
MS. BALL: My name is Lillian Ball, Southold. I live at 245 Lake
Drive. The Bernstein's I think made a really good effort to
comply with all the environmental things, that the requirements
that are necessary. I have a couple of minor concerns also.
Could you read,,again, what the LWRP says about the dock; or
summarize it quickly? That's it's too long?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The applicant has not identified the types of
material it will be constructed of and has not demonstrated that
the dock standards have been met. And he lists every dock
standard that we have in our code. Waterways is public, proposed
action is private. And there is access via a public right-of-way
off of Lake Court. And I'm not really sure where Lake Court is
in relation to this piece of property.
MS. BALL: It's two over. It's two houses over. The Bernstein's,
then myself then Wayne Abitelli, and then Lake Court.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you.
MS. BALL: So would that mean you might suggest open, see-thru
docking or-
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Open grating. Yes.
MS. BALL: Because I do think that --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The phragmites will appreciate it.
MS. BALL: I was going to ask you to please give them a permit,
even though they didn't ask for it, for cutting their
phragmites. Because that's an area right there that I'm very
happily or very seriously cutting my phragmites every year.
But, um, that would be my, probably my only concern. The other
is that the septic is improved. So regarding the dock itself--
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could just address the Board.
MS. BALL: Regarding the dock itself, I think that would make it
probably better and less interfering. I know that the Manos',
Judge Manos and his wife Stella have complained bitterly about
how their dock gets ruined every winter during the ice storms. I
don't have of a dock at my house so, and the adjacent float is
at Wayne Abitelli's house, is in shambles. The muskrats chew on
it. So there is Styrofoam all over the lake. So I hope there
is no Styrofoam included in this dock. If it's open decking
then that would address my concern.
The only other thing that I was concerned about was the new
septic system, which I think is fantastic. I think it's great.
We should all have new septic systems. When I first bought my
house it was full of Ringenberg pipes, which is the cardboard
stuff, and I had to have that all replaced. So their house is a
little more recent, but it's a great thing. And I just assume,
I never seen my well because it's under my deck. They built the
deck and garage on top of the well. So I'm hoping that-- your
survey looks about the same as mine -- and I'm opening that
you're right, it's 100 feet, but I think it's fantastic to build
68 April 20, 2011
a new septic system. So, thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Anybody else in the audience wish to
make any comments?
MS. HOAG: If I may comment, I believe the public access to Great
Pond is a couple of lots over from where this property is
located. And in terms of dock material, and length of dock, we
would go with the Board's recommendation. As I said, the main
importance of this project was to upgrade the house, upgrade the
septic, and have access to the Great Pond. I know there is some
vegetation that is overgrown by the wood deck and stairs that
are existing. There is also a line of snow fencing which you can
see, I don't know if you noticed it from your site visits, but
in the photos I submitted you could see they've done a pretty
good job in controlling the erosion of the site. And as I said,
any replanting that needs to be done, we are more than happy to
do.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just one concern. It is a dunal. It's very
much of a dune landform, and the advisability of keeping snow
fence materials there, I'm not sure which way, whether you are
capturing sand coming from the Long Island Sound moving to that
direction or otherwise, but particularly since there is a lot of
areas are barren of vegetation and there is sand in play
constantly moving, that might be a consideration to protect your
property.
MS. BALL: I'm just curious which snow fence you are talking
about, because when I applied to have my phragmites, to cut back
my phrags, they requested that I remove all the snow -- it was
of a previous board -- but they requested I remove all the snow
fencing because it impeded the animal progress. How does the
Board feel about-- the deer have no problem getting over it, I
have to say, and I have removed as much as possible because it's
really ugly.
MS. HOAG: My guess is the snow fencing has been there since the
house has been built.
MS. BALL: My snow fencing was inherited, too.
MS. HOAG: Right. And the Bernstein's have made no improvements
to the property, and they took ownership in 2004. So even when
you see the snow fencing, it's pretty dilapidated. So it was a
question of whether we would repair it or replace it, or
whatever the Board's recommendation was in terms of that, but we
did want to address it because it is existing and I know it was
probably there since the owners originally built the house back
in the 70s.
MS. BALL: Are you talking about between their property and mine,
or is it on the other side?
MS. HOAG: No, it's in the rear of the property right along --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could address that. What is the Board's
feeling on the snow fencing? Would you like to see it remain or
would you like to see it removed?
TRUSTEE KING: Doesn't matter to me, either way.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Doesn't matter to me, either way, in this area.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Doesn't matter to me, either way.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We'll leave that up to the applicants whether or
not they want to keep the snow fencing or remove it. We don't
69 April 20, 2011
have an issue.
MS. BALL: And it's just as easy to remove. It will probably
disintegrate soon anyway.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The only other comment I have is we do not have
a cross-section of the dock in the file, and we should have that.
MS. HOAG: Is there a particular dimension of the dock the Board
would consider approving around that area?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we were going to suggest is we are fine
with 4x20, and I'll address the LWRP inconsistency in a minute.
But we'll also address the use of 4x4's for the structural
support for the 4x20. And that open-grating be used for the
material for the catwalk. We also went out and looked at it, and
just to address some of the inconsistencies within the LWRP,
since he was not specific, this is not going to impede
navigation for anybody else. It won't interfere with the public
use of the waterways. It's not going to impair the use or the
value of the adjacent property. It's not going to cause
degradation of surface water. It will not restrict tidal flow or
water circulation. It certainty won't result in boats with
fueling, discharge or waste rubbish, electrical service or water
service. And it is not interfering in any way with navigable
waters. So I think based on all that, we would find it
consistent, with the use of 4x4's and with the use of open
grating, we could deem it to be consistent under the LWRP.
What we would like to see is a, because we do require for
all docks a cross-section of the dock. So if a cross-section
diagram could be provided which would show the height of the
dock off the water, which I'm sure has to be done, I'm guessing
had to be done for DEC also. I don't want to speak on behalf of
the DEC, but I'm guessing it had to be done on behalf of DEC.
TRUSTEE KING: Any thoughts of trimming the phragmites on either
side of that dock?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Addressing the phragmites, would the applicant
like to have included in there the ability to trim the
phragmites, by hand, down no lower than 12 inches above grade or
above water.
MS. HOAG: That's acceptable.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Understand that is a two-year permit and it can
be renewed for two one-year periods.
Now, without segmenting this dock out, in other words we
can table this pending --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem with approving it
subject to receiving the cross sections.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's just, you know--
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Anybody else in the audience want to
speak?
(No response).
Any comments from the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
70 April 20, 2011
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Warren and Nina Bernstein, as described, at 2095 Lake Drive in
Southold, with the condition of the receipt of a cross section
diagram of the dock. The dock that is going to be using 4x4
for structural support, that open grating will be used with that
dock, and included in this permit will be the ability of the
applicant to trim phragmites by hand to a height no lower than
12-inches above either the surface of the water or above land,
and that a low profile retain.'ing wall..be included in the
proposed parking area. And I know-there.are two proposed
parking areas here, so more srpecifically,'the proposed parking
area that is landward ofthe dwelling. And included``in this will
also be the cuttings fro.m the phragmites will be removed off
site.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY_: Or out of our jurisdiction. 'r `
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I-believe that's everything,Thats' my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. '
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments.on this motion?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It brings it into consistency with the LWRP?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, Bob. With this modifications to the
dock, it brings it into consistency with the LWRP so the total
application will be found consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. HOAG: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Make a motion to adjourn the meeting.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
Jill . Doherty, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
/(`C/-157 rt" .
J U N 2 3 2011
Southold Town Cleric