HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-06/22/2011 Jill M.Doherty,President V�*OF SU(/Tyo Town Hall Annex
Bob Ghosio,Jr.,Vice-President 54375 Main Road
P.O.Box 1179 _
James F.King Southold,New York 11971-0959
Dave Bergen G
• �� Telephone(631) 765-1892
John Bredemeyer 0Cll"UNV Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECEIVED
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD A
-PI I ea
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
AUG 2 6 2011 8:t4 i ,
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Soy old Town Cled
Minutes
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
6:00 PM
Present Were: Jill Doherty, President
Bob Ghosio, Vice-President
Jim King, Trustee
Dave Bergen, Trustee
John Bredemeyer, Trustee
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, July 13, 2011, at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, July 20, 2011, at 6:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of April 20, 2011, and May 18, 2011
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Good evening everybody. Welcome to our June meeting.
Tonight we have Megan Burke from the Conservation Advisory Council here, and we
have Wayne Galante taking down all the notes, so if you do want to speak, please
come up to the microphone, state your name for the record and please keep your
comments five minutes or less so we can get through the meeting.
Lori Hulse is here, she is our attorney, and with that we'll get started. First
would like to go over the postponements. We have several applications postponed that
will not be heard tonight.
Page four, number six 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'X 16'float with hinged ramp and associated float
restraint piles, boat berthing tie-off piles, utilities and ladders all waterward of the
Board of Trustees 2 June 22;2011
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 non-invasive, salt tolerant ground cover.
Located: Equestrian Ave., Fishers Island, is postponed.
And then on page six numbers 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 will be postponed and not
heard tonight. They are:
Number 12, Robert Schroeder on behalf of EDWARD JURZENIA requests a
Wetland Permit to install a stormwater run-off drainage area; excavate shaft until well
draining soils are encountered; fill excavated area with sand and gravel; remove trees as
needed for site access and removal of all dead trees. Located: 50 Shore Rd., Greenport,
is postponed.
Number 13, Mark K. Schwartz, Architect on behalf of MARIE NG requests a
.Wetland Permit to relocate.the existing dwelling and addition approx. 28' further west
from the water; remove existing second-floor and reconstruct new second-floor addition;
install new inground swimming pool and hot tub along the east side of the dwelling; '
relocate existing shed; remove sanitary system and install new sanitary system further
from the water;.and install drywells to contain run-off from the dwelling. Located: 6325
Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue, is postponed.
Number 14, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of DAVID & LIBBY ROSS
requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and sanitary system;
construct a new two-story dwelling on pilings and install a new sanitary system with fill;.
and install new permeable driveway. Located: 170 Park Avenue Ext., Mattituck, is
postponed.
Number 15, 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, is
postponed.
Number 16, 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 square foot 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, is postponed.
So if there is anybody here for those, we won't be hearing them tonight.
MS. FARIA: Hi. Loretta Faria. I just wanted to know, is there a notice that these things
were being postponed?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The agenda is posted a couple of days before the meeting and
sometimes we don't know something will be postponed until the last minute. But you
can look at the..agenda, you can pick a copy up at the office a couple days before the
meeting or you can look at our website.
MS. FARIA: Because I just came from Garden City for this thing
that was postponed and I knew nothing about it being postponed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm sorry, which one were you --
MS. FARIA: Number 12.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that is.postponed. We determined in
reviewing last week, the application, we determined it's an
incomplete application and it's not ready for a public hearing.
Board of Trustees 3 June 22, 2011
May I suggest just next month if it's on the agenda just
call the office before you come all the way out here and double
check. Or you can look at our website a couple of days before.
All right, our next field inspection --
MR. NEILSON: I just had a question about Robert Warden. We
submitted revised plans on that last week and we are ready to
talk about that one tonight.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe -- didn't we postpone it because we
needed to inspect it again? We wanted revised plans, then do an
inspection also. Am I remembering that correctly?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is that the one in Hay Harbor?
MR. NEILSON: Yes, I believe it was, yes. -
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe we want to see that again.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Unfortunately we have not gone out there yet.
It looks like we won't get out there before August. July is
just, we are trying to get a date but it's just not working, so
it probably won't be until August. If it is before, we'll definitely let you know.
MR. NEILSON: If I could let help get you out there. .
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's just a matter of getting our schedules
where we have time to go. That's the problem. But we'll
definitely be out there for the Town Board meeting in the middle
of August.
MR. NEILSON: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our next field inspection is scheduled for
Wednesday, July 13, at 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Next Trustee meeting Wednesday, July 20, 6:00 PM, with
a worksession at 5:30 PM.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Second:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Approve the minutes of April 20, 2011, and
May 18, 2011, meetings.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve, and I have a
request for one minor correction. Actually, I won't call it a
correction because it probably was, I couldn't have been heard
on a particular.item. I think on page 21, 1 believe it was a
Land Use Ecological Services application of William Turnbull.
It was one next to Sound Beach we were discussing they wanted to
put up, leave a snow fence up to protect the children, and
might have been slightly inarticulate or someone didn't hear me
use the word "uncomfortable." I think I said "I guess I'm not
uncomfortable with trying to find a way to protect the safety of
children." And the Minutes came through and made it sound like
I had a blatant disregard for the children. I really didn't
want that to stand on the public record, and it shows up in two
places. It also runs counter to my training as a fireman, so.
Board of Trustees 4 June 22, 2011
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, I know your kids all call you a big fat
meany.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They already do that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, do we have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report'for May, 2011. A check for
$9,354.08 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., June 22, 2011, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant
to SEQRA.Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to.further review under SEQRA:
Those applications are listed below.
Nicholas Noyes — SCTM#3-2-1
Edward Jurzenia — SCTM#47-2-1
Catherine Marangas— SCTM#107-7-8
Michael Confusione — SCTM#107-7-9
Margaret Molloy SCTM#59-1-1
Joanne Burr—SCTM#10-4-7.2
Joint Board of Electrical Industries & Cultural Holdings —SCTM#83-2-17.3
Marie Ng —SCTM#111-13-10
David & Libby Ross—SCTM#123-8-24.1
Evan Giniger— SCTM#137-4-14.1
Cutchogue 6213, LLC -SCTM#82-2-3.1
Cutchogue 6291, LLC— SCTM#82-2-3.2 .
Harold Schwerdt& Patricia Oster— SCTM#77-2-1
Marc Sokol —SCTM#90-3-15&1 6
Joyce Sampieri —SCTM#1 18-2-12
New Suffolk Fishing Station, Inc. —SCTM#117-8-17
Michael & Ellen Carbone—S6TM#70-12-34
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a second on that?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under Resolutions; Administrative Permits, the Board reviewed
the following three permits and we have --they are all simple administrative permits and
Board of Trustees 5 June 22, 2011
we have no problem with any of them, after reviewing the applications., so therefore I'll
make a motion to approve numbers one, two and three, as submitted:
Number one, ROBERT KUHNE & VIRGINIA HARMS request an Administrative Permit
to trim the phragmites to 12" by hand, as needed. Located: 1455 Grathwohl Rd., New
Suffolk.
Number two, ALBERT PALUMBO requests an Administrative Permit to cut down a
dead tree on the bluff to waist height. Located: 1095 Aquaview Ave., East Marion.
Number three, GreenLogic LLC on behalf of ANTHONY & LYNDA LOMANGINO
requests an Administrative Permit to install roof mounted photovoltaic solar system onto
the southerly roof of the dwelling. Located: 9205 Bay Ave., Cutchogue.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any questions on that resolution?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just note number three is exempt under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Applications for Extensions, Transfers and
Administrative Amendments. Again, the whole Board reviewed
• all of them and we can lump several of them together. So I'll
make a motion we approve numbers one, two, three, four, five,
six seven, ten, 11, 12, and 13 as submitted. They are listed as
follows:
Number one, ARTHUR R. TORELL requests a One-Year Extension to
.Wetland Permit#7143, as issued on July 22, 2009 and Amended on
May 21, 2010. Located: 365 Westwood Lane, Greenport.
Number two, Mark Schwartz on behalf of RICHARD & JOANN SAVERESE
requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7146, as issued
on July 22, 2009. Located: 2575 Old Orchard Lane, East Marion.
Number three, John Guido on behalf of MARY MANZI requests a
One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7161, as issued on August
19, 2009. Located: 405 Cedar Point Dr. West, Southold.
Number four, John Guido on behalf of JOSEPH G. MANZI, JR.
Requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7160, as issued
on August 19, 2009. Located: 355 Midway Rd., Southold.
Number five, En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of SCHNOOR/VANDYKE
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#4017 and Coastal Erosion
Permit#2, from Fred Eber to Robert G. Schnoor,Cristing E.
VanDyke, Gregory Schnoor and Marie Clair Schnoor. Located: 335
Soundview Rd., Southold.
Number six, MARY BURNHAM requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit
#7109 and Coastal Erosion Permit#7109C to increase the size of
the proposed two-story addition from 425 square feet to 522
square feet; increase the size of the stand-alone garage from
436.4 square.feet to 514 square feet; and increase the size of
the deck from 241.8 sf. To 518 sf.; and the outdoor deck/wooden
ramp at the garage to be 118.5. Located: Peninsula Rd., Fishers Island.
.Number seven, Frank W. Uellendahl, RA on behalf of JAMES G.
ANDERSON & ROSEMARY ELLIS requests an Amendment to Wetland
Board of Trustees 6 June 22, 2011
Permit#7259 to include an as-built brick patio.
Located: 2875 Bay Shore Rd., Greenport.
Number ten, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf of PAUL
KEBER requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7145 and
Coastal Erosion Permit#7145C, as issued on July 22, 2009 and an
Amendment to the permits to allow the construction of an 18'
return on the east side of the property. Located: 14345-14349
Oregon Rd., Cutchogue.
Number 11, R.J. Russell Enterprises, Inc. On behalf of BARRY
ROOT requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7510 to move the
bottom third stringer out of water and use as a back clamp for
strength of bulkhead. Located: 6315 Indian Neck Lane, Southold.
Number 12, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of DOUG.&
ELLEN CIAMPA requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7479 to
move the proposed dwelling 10' landward and for new
configuration of the proposed swimming pool and terrace.
Located: 4380 Paradise Point Rd., Southold.
Number 13, John McNamara on behalf of MARGARET MCNAMARA requests
an Amendment to Wetland Permit#6642 to install '/" high density
polyethylene sheathing to the front face of existing 120'.
bulkhead section and 20' east return. Located: 640 Takaposha
Rd., Southold.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any questions on the resolution by the Board?
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number eight, B. Laing Associates on behalf of
GEORGE BALDWIN requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7245 to
extend the previously approved ramp from 9' to 12', reduce the
width from 2.5' to 2.1', and add railings to the ramp and fixed
dock. Located: 1045 Island View Lane, Greenport.
The Board has been out to the site several times and we
have reviewed this, and we are okay with extending the ramp as
long as the total length of the structure does not exceed five
feet off the property line.
MR. BONTJE: Michael Bontje here on behalf of Mr. Baldwin. If I
might have a moment.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure.
MR. BONTJE: I received a call from the Trustees earlier this
week, so what I did was took the CAD and I kind of blew up the
southern end of the dock. This is a blowup sheet two. I have
the dimension of th&dock from the property line. The reason
being the property line extends sort of in a diagonal to the
bottom of the dock. In other words the bottom of the dock is
obviously square and the property line kind of goes diagonally
off. And there are two dimensions, so it results in two
different dimensions. The interior portion of the dock is the
dimension at 2'9" and about a.quarter of an inch. I went out
and measured it, too, and it turns out to about two feet
ten-and-a-half, so it's close enough to what we are dealing with
Board of Trustees 7 June 22, 2011
here in terms of precision. And the outer part of the dock
where any boat would be is 4'3", three-and-a-quarter inches,
three-and-a-half inches.
What I'm wondering is which of those two dimensions could
be five feet. The reason is we have a piling we have to attach
to, and obviously the more we move it to.the north, the closer
it is to the end of the dock. So I would like to make the more
easterly dimension, the right dimension, the five foot, if I could.
This is, the property line kind of goes diagonally out.
What I did was I just extend that line with the CAD. And
dimensioned perpendicular, extending out to the front of the
dock to the property line is what the perpendicular is. So I
get, basically I get two different dimensions because of the
angle. But the outer dimension is where the boat will be. The
other is basically against the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BERGEN': I thought the proposal was to move the dock
closer to the property line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This was what was approved originally.
MR. BONTJE: Yes, the 12 foot ramp pushed it about a
foot-and-a-half further south.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And what we discussed was to pull the dock in
about a foot-and-a-half so the ramp just extends further on to
the dock, so you don't have the dock going to the property line.
MR. BONTJE: Well, right now it is off the property line but if I
could, where you might have a potential for conflict would be
the boat, which is on the outside. The inside is basically
right next to the bulkhead. It's like three or four inches,
then you have your pilings and the dock is right up against
that. Obviously it's the end of the creek, so you are fairly
tight for space, and I'm used to dealing with a foot-and-a-half.
I have inches here. Which is one of the reasons the ramp is
narrower, too.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Was the neighbor notified of this amendment to
the application?
MR. BONTJE: No, it said administrative amendment as proposed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm not comfortable with moving the dock closer
to the property line. I think it's really close to the property
line as it is. It's only a couple of feet, and I would rather
leave the dock a couple feet off the property line than move it
closer to the property line. That's just myself. I'm just
thinking of the neighbors; our code plus the neighbors.
MR. BONTJE: That has a second part to the question. Which of
these dimensions would be the five feet.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It would be the one that is closest.
MR. BONTJE: The inner dimension.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
MR. BONTJE: Again, my only point was we use the outer dimension
because it's much easier for the piling, the second piling for
attachment, but also there is the potential for any future
conflict, which is what I understand you are after, is the outer
part of the dock is really a foot forward. The inner part of
Board of Trustees 8 June 22, 2011
the dock is.so close to the bulkhead, you know, there is really
no function to it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't remember-what the neighbor was doing.
MR. BONTJE: 20 feet to the south, he has a lower sill bulkhead
than.what you guys approved. But the low sill bulkhead begins
20 feet to the south and then he has kind of a regular bulkhead
that is being replaced above the high tide, that's 40, 50-years
old. But that's 20 feet from the southerly property line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: His property--
MR. BONTJE: Which we show on the main drawing. In other words
if you see on the sheet, the original drawing approved, his
bulkhead starts here. His bulkhead is 20 feet down, and you
guys approved, I don't have the plans, obviously, but he has a
low sill bulkhead kind of comes up.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If I remember, there was kind of.a little dip
down there.
MR. BONTJE: There is, yes. I think it might be shown on the
pictures. Yes, it's this area of phragmites right here
(indicating). That's the southern end of the dock. We pretty
well.know where the property line is because before he put the
bulkhead extension in, I made sure he had it on the survey. So
we had a couple of stakes sitting there to make sure we didn't
go over the property line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just so everybody is clear, the bulkhead here
is not the property line. It's over more. .
MR. BONTJE: It's a couple of feet down. Well, afoot.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because that was our confusion when we first
looked at it. We said, wait a minute, but then we realized this
was the property line.
MR. BONTJE: Yes, it has a slight angle to the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have to say, our discussion was to really
keep it five feet off. We've really been consistent with that
and I think, if I may speak for the whole Board, we really feel
we want to stick with that and stay five feet off the property line.
MR. BONTJE: The dimension you want to apply that to is the one
closer to the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. BONTJE: So what I'll do is have revised plans for you
tomorrow. I just wanted to clarify that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the
amendment to Wetland Permit 7245 to extend the previously
approved ramp from nine foot to 12 foot with the condition that
the float does not extend any further southeast as originally
approved, making sure that the float is no more than -- it's
five feet off the property line.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what's on the original?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what is on the original.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any questions on that resolution?
(No response).
All in favor?
Board of Trustees 9 June 22, 2011
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we'll get new drawings.
MR. BONTJE: Yes, I'll have them for you tomorrow. Thank you,
very much.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number nine, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf
of G.EORGE & MARIA YATRAKIS requests a One-Year Extension to
Wetland Permit#7712, as issued on June 24, 2009, and Amended on
August 19, 2009, and, requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit
#7712 for the redesign of the swimming pool, to plant the berm
with grass, and the revised location of the pool fence.
Located: 18805 Soundview Ave., Southold.
MS. MOORE: Good evening. How are you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Good evening.
MS. MOORE: That pretty much speaks for itself. I know Dr.
Yatrakis met with the Board at the site on June 15, 1 think, and
I sent you a letter, I delivered it June 16, kind of going over
what he reported back to me were some of the things that you
guys discussed. So, well, I guess first is we are asking to
extend the permit, just as a matter of course. We have an
original permit from June 24, 2009, and that permit was amended
when the beach stairs, walkway, the remains of the building, the
drainage and the regrading to pitch the property away from the
top of the bluff was all included in the amendment. So one is
we need the extension.
Secondly we are, they -- he finished the house and pool and
patio. The building that was close to the bank was removed from
the site. And, well, you have the picture. The property is,
for the most part, has a heavy band of vegetation, which,
unusual for me is to have a client that wants to keep it that
way. Usually I'm fighting with the Board and asking for removal
of all the invasive plants and doing a lot more, but he's
actually happy with that and wants to keep it that way.
The issue that he had discussed with the Board at the
meeting was he has not yet planted the disturbed area from where
the building was. And he wants to plant it. And I don't think
you guys realize that the permit had that provision in it
already because at the hearing he told me you wanted a planting
plan and a permit. And I was like, no, I know the permit had
it. So in my letter to you I pointed that out that the original
plan had the notes; Dave Chicanowicz did a nice job of showing
the area that he would have the right to remove invasive plants
and plant. He actually kept it that the way it is and just
wants to add the vegetation; in any area that has been
disturbed, he wants to revegetate.
If you recall, Dr. Yatrakis was concerned about the
stability of the bluff long before he built the house, and I
actually came, before I got any permits, and we sent a letter to
the Board, and he actually planted with beach grass, the bank.
So he has been very aggressive here trying to keep the place
vegetated and keeping it planted. So he just wants keep in line
Board of Trustees 10 June 22, 2011
with his ultimate goal of keeping the area as natural as
possible and with the vegetation.
Let's see what else I have. The rest of the items seem to
me that had been worked out at the field inspection. Please
correct me if I'm wrong, but the angle of the pool and patio was
revised prior to construction, and all of those were, the.pool
and the patio, were actually landward of the permits that you
guys granted. And for whatever reason, I don't know if I came
to you guys or not, quite frankly, because it's too long ago,
but the Building Department felt that it was an insignificant
change and not one that necessitated an amendment of the permit
prior to doing the construction. But I know how the Board feels
about having permits that are, you know, that match what is
there on site, and so we are amending that as well, making sure
that all the paperwork is done and future owners don't have
problems by seeing a permit that doesn't match what is there.
I think that's it and I would be happy to hear what you
have to say, and I'm here to listen, so.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, we did indeed go out and take a look at
it, noting that the berm as we understood it was going to be
built, wasn't. We do note that essentially they re-graded the
backyard and, you know, it rises up, and certainly there is a
rise where the hay bale line was of about a foot or so.
MS. MOORE: Oh, I'm sure you saw, and I think he tried to explain
it to you. The pool, the grade of the pool and the patio is at
a certain grade, and the soil tapers off from there, and when
they built the drainage -- the important thing here was having
the drainage landward of the bluff. That's, that really, the
whole thing is geared for that, is maintaining the drainage. So
the drainage system is there and it's exactly as it was designed
and it's not -- you know, berms are an interesting thing. In
our own mind a berm can be four-feet high or it can be a couple
inches. The way this berm is designed, it's really a very
subtle gradation that it pitches up; the high point is where the
vegetation is and the low point is where the drainage is, so.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We did -- Lori just reminded me, this is not a
hearing, so I'm not supposed to be even taking that kind of
comments. The Board was out there, we did discuss it. You
know, the berm was not quite what we expected or what we felt
was on the plans. We did note that the house was taken out.
There was no damage done. There is a non-disturbance buffer
area that was established in the course of the hearing and as
part of the permit. Mr. Yatrakis has asked us to be permitted
to remove a bunch of vegetation, to replant the whole area going
from one edge of the property to the other. We did discuss the
the possibility of allowing for a 30-foot area in width to be
replanted. But I think -- I don't know how the Board felt. I
felt that, you know, aside from replanting the plants in that
section where the small cabin was removed, we established these
buffers, you know, deliberately and it was all part of the
original discussion. And I'm not so moved to allow for the
Board of Trustees 11 June 22, 2011
amendments, myself.
MS. MOORE: But I actually, if you read the permit that you
issued, it has remove invasive species and plant. And it gives
you all the list of plants. So he's actually did less than what
he was permitted to do, and all he's asking --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What the permit does say is there will be no
disturbance seaward of the line of staked hay bales without
further review by the Board of Trustees. And is depicted on the
site plan of that date. And that's what we are talking about.
We are talking about being in a no-disturbance area seaward of
.the line of staked hay bales.
MS. MOORE: This is his son. Mr. Yatrakis is at a wedding --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm sorry, I'm not predisposed to accept
testimony.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is not a public hearing.
MS. MOORE:.1 think you are misunderstanding. He's not removing
anything. He wants to plant.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. And you are saying that--
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, he specifically said out in the field he
wanted to remove a bunch of stuff.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He was very specific.
MS. MOORE: I thought it was to take out the weeds that had
generated in the area of disturbance.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, it's in the area of non-disturbance.
MS. MOORE: No, no, no. Disturbance being --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, I'm going to move --
MS. MOORE: Excuse me. I think you are being extremely rude --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is not a public hearing.
MS. MOORE: (Continuing)when we are trying to discuss an
application that there seems to be a misunderstanding.
MS. HULSE: The problem is, Pat, is this is not scheduled for a
public hearing. If you want to apply for a full permit, that's another story.
We are accepting testimony now on something that is not a
public hearing.
MS. MOORE: It's not testimony. I'm trying to understand it
because what he talked about removing, and there may have been a
miscommunication --
MS. HULSE: It does not sound like a miscommunication. It sounds
like you are advocating a position and it sounds like you are testifying.
MS. MOORE: No, I'm trying to explain -- I have a letter from him
and I'll be happy to present it. You have the area that was
disturbed when the shed was removed, okay. That's the area I'm
talking about. Not the entire property. Just the area, and
it's the box where the foundation was.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You see those stakes (indicating). That is the
area. That is it.
MS. MOORE: All right, but do you see the weeds that are
propagated there?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I see what is growing in what was a
non=disturbance zone, yes.
Board of Trustees 12 June 22, 2011
MS. MOORE: Okay, what he's saying is instead of leaving those
weeds, which will die in the winter, and not'create a
deep-rooted, stabilized condition, he wants to do what his
permit told him to do, which is plant the perennials from the
list, the approved, deep-rooted, self-propagating perennials.
That was it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's not what the permit says.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know where you are reading from, but
that's not what the permit said.
MS. MOORE: I'm reading the --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, but that was not part of the permit.
That's in our file but that's not what the permit said.
MS. MOORE: Yes, it is. The language that I quoted is on the
plan that you accepted, and you said you have to do this project
in accordance with this plan. And that's what he's trying to
do. It's hard for me to understand why a person is not allowed
to plant to maintain the stability of his property.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are reviewing this plan. This is the plan
that was stamped.
MS. MOORE: Yes. And it's right there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That little square that we talked about here.
This is the plan that is signed. That is approved.
MS. MOORE: No, there is another one. The blue paper. That's
why. I think that's the problem. There are two plans that are approved.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: (Perusing).
MS. MOORE: There was one prepared by Dave Chicanowicz. That's
where I took all the language from that I quoted. And it's right there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have it now. We had a different planting
plan. That's what the confusion is here. We have a planting
plan in the file that shows re-planting of the whole entire area.
MS. MOORE: I,had that, too. That's not the one that got
stamped. There is another one, but it says pretty much the same
thing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It doesn't.
MS. MOORE: I took the language right from that particular plan.
even took it out of-- here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Give us a minute to review.
MS. MOORE: I'm just going to highlight because, the language is here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have the plan in front of us. Just let us read it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The hay bale line is in the right spot. The
berm was never built the way we assumed it was going to be built
and the way the plan shows. So that was one issue. The issue
where the existing shed was supposed to be removed is fine.
Now, there was an area which was, which is really the area, not
the whole hatched area, just the area where the shed was to be
removed, we were going to allow to be replanted. The area of
non-disturbance, which we state in the resolution, is not to be
re-planted without coming to Board.first.
MS. MOORE: I'm looking at this drawing. It's Dave Chicanowicz's
drawing. He has highlighted this area, which is area to be
removed of invasive vegetation and replant with native
Board of Trustees 13 June 22, 2011
plants. He has a list of native plants. This is where.the shed
is removed from the small area there, which is specific because
we came into the Board and asked, included in the permit because
we knew there was going to be disturbance in there. So that
came out. As far as the berm, well, I mean, it's graded. To
add more dirt to that berm seems like it's not necessary. But
he would have to bring in fill to make that berm more
pronounced. Right now the grade is pitched in order to bring
the water back into the drainage. So you have to decide if you
want us to bring more soil in to make that berm larger, so be
it. But right now it's designed to bring all the water in and
pitch it into the drainage.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We measured in the field a 25x30 foot area,
_which was inclusive of the area that the pre-existing shed was.
And I don't have a problem letting him remove the invasive
plants and re-planting that in that specific area. And then
making it non -- and not disturbing it after that. Making it a
-- keeping it as a non-turf area.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Non-disturbed area or non-turf.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I struggle using the word "non-disturbed"
because it's disturbed already. That's why I'm quibbling on that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I don't have a problem removing those
invasive species and putting the native species there, according
to the plants specified in the planting plan, but not according
to this whole planting plant. Not the whole area. Just the
25x30 area that we discussed in the field. I would like to see
new plans. It would have to be on the survey. It would have to
be on the survey. And also I know they mentioned they wanted to
gate the stairs. I don't have a problem with them putting a
gate across the stairs going down to the beach.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And we haven't discussed the pool fence
relocation yet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The pool fence relocation, I think we decided
to keep it at 25.
MS. MOORE: But instead of going the perimeter around the pool,
because of the way the patio is designed, go diagonally across
the property, parallel to the top of the bank. So it's going,
the fence, I think there is fence along the property line, both
property lines, so you are actually taking the fence and
connecting it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We mentioned the fence on the current hay bale
line.
MS. MOORE: Yes, but the current hay bale line is not quite right
at 25. It was actually landward. So a new hay bale line, if
one was necessary, was going to be at the 25 feet. In either ,
case you said 25 feet, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 25 feet from the patio. Which is now not a
straight line across. It's a diagonal line.
MS. MOORE: It was 25 from the bluff, not the patio, wasn't it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: According to the approved plan, the line of
Board of Trustees 14 June 22, 2011
staked hay bales --
MS. MOORE: Sorry, you're right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: From the patio.
MS. MOORE: I apologize, you're right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I think we are okay with the fence being on
that new diagonal line instead of straight across, but at 25
feet from the existing patio.
MS. MOORE: Right.
TRUSTEE KING: I agree with you. I don't have a huge issue with
that small area to be replanted and revegetated.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It will be a little bigger than where the four
stakes are.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 30x30.
TRUSTEE KING: 30X30 is what we measured. --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 25x30 is in the notes. 25 out toward the water.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We were talking about maybe going 30x30.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think this has to be specifically staked out
so we are all in agreement exactly what the area is we are
talking about.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not only staked out,.but put on the survey.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Staked out and put on the survey so both the
applicant and the Trustees are very clear so we don't have
problem afterwards with a misinterpretation of what was decided.
MS. MOORE: I guess my only question on that is when I come in
for a permit and ask for a permit and get one, why are we now
taking away what the person has? That's what I don't understand.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's a permit, I'll be honest with you. The
permit that you'have makes absolutely no reference to that
planting plan that just brought up here.
MS. MOORE: It absolutely does. You have to follow Creative
Environmental Designs drawings from August 18, 2009. That's the
one that I actually, I mean it's in the town's --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our permit says April, 2009. And that's this
plan. It doesn't say --
MS. MOORE: No, it said August. It said August 18, 2009. Or
August 19.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: (Perusing). That's the beach, that's June.
MS. MOORE: Here it is. Let me look. It's your August 19, 2009,
Trustees Permit, and it says install drainage, re-grade, do all
that in accordance with Creative Environmental Designs plan,
last dated August 18, 2009, stamped approved August 19, 2009.
So I mean -- and the plan, it's funny, I had the same thing, I
had another plan, but the one that the computer picked up in the
town records is the one I'm showing you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So what you are reading is from the amendment
that was submitted.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are reading the original permit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So it's approve the amendment to the Wetland
Permit 7712 to construct stairs to beach, bluestone on sand
walkway to the top of the beach stairs, remove remains of
existing building, install drainage structure and regrade pitch
Board of Trustees 15 June 22, 2011
properly away from the top of the bank, as depicted on the plan.
So in that amendment, it does not address any of that planting.
MS. MOORE: Of course it does. You are following a plan that you,
that says it all. The only issue was whether or not to plant
the needed plants on the graded, on that berm, because since he
has such a thick, natural, buffer there,.it seemed crazy to
plant on top of that grade. He wanted to plant grass there.
That's it.
TRUSTEE KING: Pat, I think some of the problem here, this Board
is very gun shy of what is going on with these we are going to
just take a few invasive species out and all of a sudden we go
back out there and the whole place is clearcut. That's why we
are being very cautious with this application.
MS. MOORE: And I was privy and involved with many of the
applications that have caused problems in the past.. I came in
after the fact, obviously. And this particular applicant, we
had the plans show it specifically so that there would be no
question that we are only touching --we even identified the
trees that had to stay. And that's what -- and he has not
touched anything, obviously, there. So he's actually following
all your rules but he's being penalized in the same way that--
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He didn't do the berm as per this plan.
MS. MOORE: It's pitched.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's pitched, but he didn't do it as per this plan.
MS. MOORE: It hasn't been planted yet, that's it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But there is no berm there. He hasn't done the
berm yet.
MS. MOORE: We keep going back and forth. It's the pitching of
the water, not on abundance of soil that is necessary there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I suggest we table this because I have
further-- now that we had some further discussion on it. The
reason being, as I recall from the testimony when we did the
original on this, that berm was specifically discussed and it
was set up to be a certain height, certain width. There was testimony --
MS. MOORE: If you want more soil, he'll give it to you. He's
trying to live in a house that--
MS. HULSE: Pat, just let him finish.
MS. MOORE: I think he's trying to penalizing the applicant for--
MS. HULSE: You are totally muddying up the record. He's trying
to make a record. Just let him finish.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have a case where the permit and the
amendment that we approved -- the intent was one thing, the
drawing that was approved did have something on there about the
plan, but it was never discussed. It's not even, those
plantings were not part of that amendment. Though we did stamp
the plan approved. I just want to be diligent in how we
approach this. Because the last time we went down this primrose
path we ended up with a bluff that was completely wiped out. In
this particular case when we were out in the field, the
applicant was specifically asking us to clear part of what we
thought was supposed to be a non-disturbance buffer. I just
Board of Trustees 16 June 22, 2011
want to be very clear on this.
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, that is not true.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Hang on. Excuse me. Excuse me. What Bob is
saying --
MS. MOORE: There is a misunderstanding.
TRUSTEE_DOHERTY: What Bob is saying is let's table this for
further discussion.
MS. MOORE: You are penalizing the applicant who is waiting for a.CO.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I haven't finished. What Bob is suggesting is
we table this application now for further discussion so we can
work this out at the proper place. This is only an amendment--
MS. MOORE: But you are tabling one month of a person who is
waiting for a CO for a summer home that if you separated it from
this project so he could get a CO, no problem, you can talk this
until you are blue in the face, he won't do anything until you
bless it. But the problem you have is when you do those kind of
things, you delay a person's ability to live in their house for
a full month.
MS. HULSE: You know, Pat, this is actually outrageous that you
are continuing this conversation.
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I have --
MS. HULSE: This is -- Pat, I understand you are advocating very
strongly for your client.
MS. MOORE: I'm advocating for my client because --
MS. HULSE: This is not appropriate for this particular
application that they are hearing. They have stated what their
intention is to do. You can argue it after the fact. You can't
do this. This is not a public hearing. You have no right to be
heard right now. Do you understand that?
MS. MOORE: I do have a right to be heard.
MS. HULSE: They've given you a full 20 minutes, probably more.
MS. MOORE: Because there was a misunderstanding.
MS. HULSE: I understand that, but it's not going to be rectified
right now. That's what they are saying. So let them made their
decision.
MS. MOORE: Can we clear up the record?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion that we table
this.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, if.I may. I would like to separate this
out so that we are granting the one-year extension that they are
asking for, and to table the requested amendment. That way they
get the extension for one year because, what, in a matter of a
week that permit runs out. So what I would like to do is grant
the one-year extension for them, so that that is done. And then
table the amendment.
MS. MOORE: May I just clear one issue? .
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll withdraw the original motion.
MS. MOORE, Just one issue. Because I think you misunderstand
his intention. He doesn't want to clear the area, he wants to leave it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll work that out when we discuss it at a
later date.
Board of Trustees 17 June 22, 2011
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): We are willing to make a-concession.
MS. HULSE:.You are not being recognized to speak. Please.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We need to move on.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): We are willing to make a concession.
MS. HULSE: Please stop, sir. You are not helping your cause here, sir.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is --we need to discuss this at the
proper time. This is not the proper place.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): It's been three years.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to approve the
extension of the permit.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Arbitrary and capricious. Completely
arbitrary and.capricious.
MS. MOORE: I would file my objection to this.,
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Bob is in the middle of a motion. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion we extend the permit as
requested. We'II do two separate motions.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion we.table the
amendment that has been applied for so we can do further
research on this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any opposed?
(No response).
MS. MOORE: I would state my objection to how you treat people
when they are looking for a CO. And I have the --
MS. HULSE: Pat, it's closed. It's not even on the record. It's
closed.
VI. MOORINGS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Numbersix, Moorings.
Number one, SANDRA SINCLAIR requests an Onshore/Offshore Stake
in Narrow River for a boat no larger than 18', replacing Stake
#6. Access: Public.
That was reviewed by the Board and there was no problem with
getting that boat in there. I'll make a motion.to approve this
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion to go off regular hearing and go on to
public hearings.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
Board of Trustees 18 June 22, 2011
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Public hearing portion of the agenda. If you do want to speak,
please come to the mic and state your name and speak clearly in five minutes or less,
please. Under coastal erosion permits, number one, Tom Quarty on behalf of
MARGARET MALLOY requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to repair
the existing deck framing, decking, and handrails, and install new stairs. Located: 1200
Leeton Dr., Southold.
This is consistent under LWRP and the Conservation Advisory Council supports
the application with the condition the area seaward of the deck is left as a
non-disturbance area: The whole area is a non-turf area. It's a beach area. So I
assume the Conservation Advisory Council means to just leave it as it is.
MR. QUARTY: Excuse me, Jill, I have some return receipts.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. Thank you.
MR. QUARTY: And the CAC --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's just a CAC recommendation. They support it with the
condition everything is just left, the property is left as it is, as far as the plantings. If you
could step back to the mic, I'll recognize you.
The Board felt this was pretty much a straightforward
application and it meets the requirements under Coastal Erosion
of 111-9. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. QUARTY: Tom Quarty.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any questions from the Board on this?
(No response).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's basically a rebuild of what is there
TRUSTEE KING: What's the square footage of the deck; do you know?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Tom, do you know the square footage of the deck?
MR. QUARTY: Offhand, I don't. No. It should be in the application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The deck is surrounding the whole house, so.
1,650 it says. No that's area wetland. Sorry. I don't know if he
has the square footage. While Jay is looking that over, is
there any other questions?
(No response).
Do you want to do this one? Here is the survey. If you would
rather do that. One inch equals 30.
MR. QUARTY: I'm guessing it's probably around eight or nine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry, Tom, what did you say?
MR. QUARTY: I'm guessing it's probably around eight-hundred
square feet. If that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, there are no questions. Hearing no
further questions, is there anybody from the audience who has
any questions on this application?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. It was found consistent,
mentioned that. And it meets Chapter 111-9 requirements of the Coastal Erosion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application
of Tom Quarty on behalf of Margaret Malloy as submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any questions on the motion?
Board of Trustees 19 June 22, 2011
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Docko, Inc., on behalf of NICHOLAS
NOYES requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to
rebuild 600+/- square foot of wood patio deck including existing
perimeter bench and new post supported cable rail.
Located: Private Rd., Fishers Island.
This was found to be inconsistent with the LWRP. The structure
is not water dependent and does not meet criteria A and B above,
which was listed.
The Conservation Advisory Council, I don't think they made an
inspection. It's on Fishers Island. Wait a minute, hang on.
They did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf or against this application?
MR. NIELSON: I'm here to speak on behalf of the applicant and
the application. I'm Keith Nielson from Docko, Inc.
Before I make my opening comments I would just like to hand in the
receipts that have been received. I have prepared sketch plans and the
application documents following the LWRP and the Tidal Wetlands regulations
and the Coastal Erosion plan for the town, and basically what the Noyes
family would like to do is rebuild a deck that has existed at this site for
approximately 30 years, which preexisted the Coastal Management Act.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry, I'm just pointing something out to Jim.
TRUSTEE KING: Go ahead.
MR. NIELSON: The deck system-will be rebuilt using similar
timbers to the existing post-supported framing, and although
substituting augured posts for the concrete blocks that the deck
sits on. Same sort of timber framing, same decking, same
perimeter bench that the deck supports at this point. One
difference is the International Building Code requires railings
for any type of structure that exceeds 30 inches of drop off,
and so I have explained to the Noyes family that in my opinion I
believe they should have a rail around the outer edge of the
deck. In order to minimize esthetic impacts, although no one
from the adjacent properties can really see this structure, the
esthetic impact from their own perspective was a consideration.
So it would be cable rails. Just enough as a safety precaution.
And other than that it would be the same exact structure that is
out there now. I have prepared a sketch which shows a section
and two profiles and I would be happy to answer any questions
you may have.
TRUSTEE KING: Those cable rails meet the requirements as necessary?
MR. NIELSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Keith, are there any existing permits on this deck?
MR. NIELSON: It was my understanding this was built with a
building permit with the house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Approximately when was that?
MR. NIELSON: 30 years ago. The house was actually built in the
late '60s, I believe.
TRUSTEE KING: We have all been out there, been to the residence,
Board of Trustees 20 June 22, 2011
if I remember right. Because we did some things out front,
placing stones. Is there anybody else here to comment on this application?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Keith, do you have a record of that building permit?
MR. NIELSON: I do not.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because we do not have a record of that in the
file. And it's just, this is something under Coastal Erosion
that is not permitted. And if you could prove to us that you had
a pre-existing permit from the Building Department prior to
Trustees jurisdiction, that might, you know, that would change
the way we can review this. However, with no proof that there
was any kind of permit, under our Coastal Erosion Code'we cannot
permit a deck like that.
MR. NIELSON: Given the continued operation of--
TRUSTEE KING: With the other one, we didn't ask to see any --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, because that was not as large as this.
TRUSTEE KING: That was the reason I asked, because I'm a little
confused. This has been found inconsistent under Coastal
Erosion. The previous application was found consistent. This is
a smaller deck than the previous application. I don't understand it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was consistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't understand the inconsistency, if the
previous one we just reviewed was found consistent. The previous
one was right on the beach. It's a much larger deck than this.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought.the difference was one was being
totally reconstructed and one was being repaired, and that's
what Mark was reviewing. I thought that was the difference. Is
that how -- Lori, do you know?
MS. HULSE: I don't know the other one you are talking about. I'm
not sure specifically, but this is considered new construction
if he doesn't have a permit for it. It's an unpermitted structure.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The previous one we just approved, I don't
think we had permits either. They were applying to repair.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just trying to be consistent with the way we
are handling the applications.
MS. HULSE: I don't know if it has permits or not. Does that no
have permits; is that what you are saying?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. And Mark found this consistent.
MS. HULSE: I can't speculate on what Mark -- I can't speculate
on that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just going by what this report says.
TRUSTEE KING: It's confusing to me. This is, this is 600-square
feet. The previous one was around eight, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm only speculating one is repair and one is
replace. And that's the difference.
MS. HULSE: You could be right about that, Jill.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I interpreted. One is.a repair and
this is replace. And I think we need to limit our conversations
to this particular application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree. But I understand where Jim is coming
from. He's just trying to understand where Mark is coming from,
and I believe where Mark is coming from is one is repair-and one
Board of Trustees 21 June 22, 2011
is replace.
MS. HULSE: Aside from LWRP there is no new.construction allowed,
so when you are assessing this situation I don't know how you
.would approve something that is not permitted with new construction.
TRUSTEE KING: Is this deck going to be completely removed and
then completely replaced?
'MR. NIELSON: The part of the structure that needs to be tended
to is about--well,some of the framing supporting the deck.
The decking is good. The benches are good.
TRUSTEE KING: You might be further ahead to apply for this as
repair rather than complete removal.
MR. NIELSON: Does that mean I need to withdraw this application
here tonight or can I modify it here with you?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lori?
MS. HULSE: What exactly does he want to modify?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would need a new review-- he wants to
change this to a repair and not a full reconstruction.
TRUSTEE KING: It doesn't have to be completely removed. It's
being like reconstructed, so --
MR. NIELSON: It could be repaired, the supports
MS. HULSE: I'm not looking at the plans, I'm just looking at the
wording. It says "rebuild six-hundred square feet." That to me
is no. Right out of the gate.
TRUSTEE KING: He's asking now if I he could modify now at this
hearing.
MS. HULSE: No, he can't modify it right now and change the
wording and say it's okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So he has to'withdraw this application and
reapply.
MS. HULSE: I'm assuming the plans will change somewhat; am
correct?
MR. NIELSON: The plans will change somewhat, yes.
MS. HULSE: Okay, then I guess we have to wait for new plans and
re-evaluate it. And maybe get a new LWRP in and clarify it.
TRUSTEE KING: It would make me feel better.
MR. NIELSON: Do I withdraw or it or do we table it?
MS. HULSE: You'll want to withdraw it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Withdraw it is the recommendation I would make.
MR. NIELSON: Okay. We respectfully request we withdraw this
application, and I'll see you in a month.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
MS. HULSE: Do you want to request that the fees be applied to
--the new application?
MR. NIELSON: Yes, thank you
TRUSTEE GHOS10: Just to answer the question, I looked back at
the Malloy file just to see what the difference was, and he does
point out on the plans, removing this post, removing that post, .
rebuilding this part of the deck. So it was a rebuild- or repair, actually.
TRUSTEE KING: You understand my confusion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So it was a repair.
Board of Trustees 22 June 22, 2011
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can we move on?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, 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.
This is an application that was found consistent under the
LWRP. This is an application with the Conservation Advisory
Council reviewed it, resolved to support the application with
the condition the vegetation is native and the angle of repose
of the bluff edge is corrected. This is an application that has
come before this Board the last couple of months, and what we
can do here, if the president wishes, as we did last month, open
this one and open the second one and consider them
simultaneously, or would you prefer we do them separately?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's fine. We can open them both together.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, so we are opening the Gilda Principi
application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the next application which we are
opening simultaneously is for 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. .
The facts in this application are the same as just outlined in
the Principi. There is a CAC report recommending the application
with the support based on a planting plan of native vegetation
and the angle of the repose of the bluff edge is corrected. The
application has been deemed consistent with the town's LWRP and
the Trustees have been out there a number of times for site
inspections.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Prior to getting to testimony, I would also like
the applicant and the Board to know we received a letter since
last month, dated June 15, from a Diana Van Buren. And I'll read
in part the letter. Sorry. It was not from a Diana Van Buren.
It's hard to read the signature. It,looks like Rose L-E-A-T-E-R.
And it says while visiting Peconic I was shown a number of cliff
swallow nests on the bluffs of Long Island Sound. Are cliff
swallows a protected species. My friend tells me the properties
at 4730 and 4690 Horizon Bluff are heavily regraded and
defoliated in an attempt to build new dwellings without
permission. So the question is because this application
includes work on the bluff, are cliff swallows a protected
species. And while the Board was out there we did notice a
large number of cliff swallows in the immediate area.
Now, last month when this was before us, we had a question
Board of Trustees 23 June 22, 2011
regarding what was stated as top of bluff on the plans, and from
the discussion where the actual top of bluff was going to end
up. So we asked the applicant to please stake the top of bluff,
previous top of bluff and new proposed top of bluff. The Board
did go out and looked at this and has seen it now. And our
understanding is that there was going to be a revised set of
plans possibly submitted tonight to reflect that. Do we have a
copy of that?
MR. JILNICKI: John Jilnicki, for the applicant. Yes, we have
sets of the revised plans for you tonight.
Basically, as you know, this is just a plan for a bluff
regrading and stabilization and revegetation, and you'll see
from the plans it's a proposal to install hay bales and silt
fencing both on the toe of the bluff and hundred foot setback.
from the proposed top of the bluff to limit any intrusion into
the adjoining areas.
This plan, basically the property has some vegetation on
the bluff, not much. A lot of it is invasive. This plan
involves removing the existing vegetation, regrading the bluff,
take the steep slopes off the bluff and then stabilizing it
with appropriate species of vegetation.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I interrupt you. Just fora matter of
record, do we have a permission in the file saying you can act
on behalf of Mr. Principi? Because the application is applied
Richard Principi on behalf of Gilda Principi.
MR. JILNICKI: I'm his attorney.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a note in the file?
MR. JILNICKI: No, this is my first night appearing before you.
MS. HULSE: We can accept it tonight pending authorization.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Mr. Principi is sitting right there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I didn't see him. Mr. Principi, if you could
state for the record he could act on your behalf?
MR. PRINCIPI: Sorry. Yes, John Jilnicki can speak for both
applications.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just for clarification for legalities, there is
an authorization giving John Condon and Richard Principi
permission, so with you,having permission, you have now given
permission to this gentleman to speak on your behalf.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Now we have the record straight, you can
continue.
MR. JILNICKI: To answer your questions, basically, it's best to
have.Mr. Stromski explain the details of the plans to you, if
you have any questions to the proposed plans. You should have
both the revegetation plan and regrading plan. It should be two
sheets there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you want to just give us a minute to review
this.
MR. JILNICKI: There is a profile up at the top that shows a
regrading of the bluff, the part of the bluff that would be removed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you would like to go ahead and finish up.
MR. STROMSKI: My name is Robert Stromski, I'm the principle and
Board of Trustees 24 June 22, 2011
president of Stromski Architecture PC. I was asked to be
involved with the project, basically with the discussion of the
regrading of the bluff and re-vegetation of the area. Working
with Martin Hand from Hands on Surveying, and a group of
landscape architects. Since the previous meeting Martin Hand
went out and did a retopo of the current bluff as it sits. From
that retopography it was determined that elevation, existing
elevation of 23, was basically the midpoint of the existing
bluff, and also at the point where the existing grade starts to
generally get steeper from the erosion that happened over the
last winter. So what we determined is that was going to be the
starting point of the regrading.
As our recommendations, you know, our professional
recommendation along with Martin Hand and the landscape
architects, is we felt offsetting that elevation 23 40 feet
landward basically creates a slope of 52-and-a-half percent,
which is just slightly below a normal angle of repose for the
soil that we have in that area. Buy creating that slope we feel
that we'll be able to stabilize that bluff by doing a simple
seed mixture and hand raking that in, and the seed mixture is
depicted in the planting plans. Once that seed mixture is hand
raked in, a layer of jute mesh would be placed on top of that to
help protect the seedlings and then plug plantings would be done
in a random pattern basically on a two-foot on center, and that
would be pulled from the planting schedule. Once that is done we
would also take some of the larger shrubs, which are the two to
three foot balls and plant them every 48 inches on center,
basically creating a more natural state with the native
plantings that we have. That sort of planting scheme would
happen from.the existing bottom of bluff to the new proposed top
of bluff.
Once that is done, actually before all the construction is
done, we are proposing to put a silt fence and hay bales along
the bottom of the bluff, basically to ensure that are not
allowing the bluff during the grading process to move seaward.
Also from the proposed top of bluff we are setting silt and
fence hay bales 100 foot back from the new proposed top of
'bluff, basically trying to create a work zone that we are going
to be within.
Then as for the recommendation last month, from that
proposed top of bluff we would offset a 50-foot setback. Within
that 50 foot setback we propose a non-turf buffer, basically,
again, which is a mixture of seedlings from the seed mixture
that would be hand raked in, and also what we have done is on
the planting plan you can see we have done some planting
islands. Looking to save some of the existing larger cherry
trees that are within that area, they are depicted on the site
plan. Also around that area we are looking to introduce some
larger shrubs of shadlo and also some eastern red cedars along
the property edges. And then next to some of those existing
eastern red cedars we are looking to do some native shrubs of
Board of Trustees 25 June 22, 2011
some northern bayberry and also some shining sumac.
Basically create some sort of the plantings islands that were
requested at the last meeting. Beyond that, you know, we feel
once this is done, we feel the bluff would be returned to more
of a stable state than what it is now. We feel that after this
planting is done, which is a pretty aggressive planting, that we
would pretty much.try and return that bluff to a resemblance of
a natural state..
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I have a couple of questions. First
off, thank you for doing this. This does answer many of the
questions we had last month. It helps clarify this with the fact .
that we had asked for the bluff to be pulled back. So that that
will provide some material for you for this, for what is
eventually going to be a re-grade of the bluff. We had asked
last month if you had approximately, if you knew approximately
how much fill will have to be brought in to.regrade this bluff
as per these plans. And we'll start with the Principi property
and then move to the Curto property.
MR. STROMSKI: We did an analysis, it will be end up being
almost a balance between the cut and the fill.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Between the cut and what will drop down from the
cut.
MR. STROMSKI: Correct. The only area that will be in question
will be the two foundations that will be removed, but there will
be spoil generated from the excavation from the two new
structures to kind of reclaim that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I remember that from the testimony last month
that would be the material would be retained from the new
structures to fill in what is the present basement foundation
areas for the old structures.
MR. STROMSKI: Right. The only fill that may be brought in, once
we start doing an excavation of the bluff, depending on how much
sandy soil we have, we may have to mix in some peat moss as we
do the plug plantings and maybe some sandy loam material just to
create more of a stable bluff area. Once we do an initial
watering of the soil, we don't want to have just pure sand
because that will just drain quickly and we want to be able to
have the plantings that we have stabilize themselves. So there,
may be a little.bit of peat moss and sandy loam mixture that may
be mixed in.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What is your guess of "a little bit"?
MR. STROMSKI: Again, the hope is that we'll use the soil from
the existing area, from the excavation of the homes and the work
at.the top of the bluff. So again, it's more of a cut and fill.
We are not trying to import new material. We are looking to use
the existing material on site.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, I was looking at the plans as you were
talking, but I thought I heard you say jute matting was to be
used on the bluff with the plantings.
MR. STROMSKI: Yes, jute mesh will be placed once the slope is
stabilize and the seeds are raked in.
Board of Trustees 26 June 22, 2011
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's a great idea. On the planting plan it
shows, on the Principi property, proposed path to beach stairs,
yet the beach stairs are over on the Curto property. I was
wondering, it seems like you have a proposed path to nowhere. Do
you know what I'm saying?
MR. STROMSKI: I know in the future there is going to be a
proposed beach stair for that property, so the intent was if we
are doing the planting, to basically create a path that will
eventually go to stairs, rather than have something established
and then have to go back and take it out.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought we talked in the field that the
existing stairs would be used by both properties and that you
would not have to build another set of stairs. I thought that
was a conversation in the field.
MR. PRINCIPI: No, we have the first.application for my aunt's
property you were nice enough to grant a stair permit subject to
DEC for that. And, you know, she would like it in the future.
Right now, you know, we didn't want to hold the removal of the
two structures, you know, I would come in for a second or in
this instance a third application, whatever you recommend. I
just, in the future, she would like to have her own stairs on
her own property. As my cousin Vincent, too
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, for clarity, that's the Curto property'is
the one you are proposing stairs to the beach on this plan here.
MR. PRINCIPI: No, there is kind of a failed set of stairs there
now. That would remain in that location.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
MR. PRINCIPI: With your approval. But we were going to propose,
my aunt's, pretty much where Robert called it out.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I want_to clarify. I guess,
understand is, with if there is an approval here tonight, I
don't want to jump the gun, but if there is an approval here
tonight I would not want you to suppose that there will be
approval in-the future for another set of plans. That will have
to be submitted and that application will have to be discussed
and decided on separately from this.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And I would suggest, the reason one of the other
things we had a long discussion on tonight, that if we do.
approve this set of plans, at least strike the proposed path to
the beach stairs so there can be no questions as to what our
intentions were.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with that. I was going to suggest that
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Is there anybody else who wants to speak
for or against this application?
MS. BURKE: I did not personally visit this site. I'm just
concerned about two of the points. I mean the wording in these
two, on the agenda are fairly similar. The one part says clear
vegetation between new dwelling and bluff. Is that being
re-planted in the plan?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, this is what we spent a lot of time on last
month was that the concern when we hear about clearing and what
Board of Trustees 27 June 22, 2011
will be done to revegetate. So, yes, the Board did discuss this
last month and the planting plan shows that the areas will be
re-planted as per the plan, approximately four foot on center
with native species.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that was one of our clarifications, we
wanted a new survey. On this new survey they submitted now it
shows the limits of clearing. The new construction is way beyond
the 100 feet and it doesn't show clearing all the way down. It
shows the clearing more precise.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Good pick up.
MS. BURKE: Okay. And the other point says they are removing
drainage structures. Are there new drainage structures being put
in as well?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, yes, as per the Building Department
they'll have to provide drainage for the new structures, but
since that is outside our jurisdiction, these proposed new
structures are outside our jurisdiction, so that is not within
the purview of this Board here tonight. But I'm sure the
Building Department as a condition of building will require them
to comply with Chapter 236 of the Town Code, which is drainage
MS. BURKE: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Anybody else in the audience wish to
speak for or against this application?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board? And again I'm dealing just
with the Principi application. We'll get to Curto one next.
(No.response).
Now, I do need to address this new letter that was brought up regarding the concern for
the cliff swallows because we did notice when we were out there, a large number of cliff
swallow. So what I'll propose to the Board is in the condition for the permit that the
applicant provide us with documentation from the Audubon Society or another
recognized avian specialist organization that cliff swallows are not a protected species
and if they could provide that to us then we can be satisfied we don't have to the worry
about cliff swallows as being protected species.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If I might add, conditions surrounding their
nesting sites and protections afforded them during construction.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think that would be very difficult for the -
applicant to protect individual nesting sites.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sometimes it's temporal. In other words you
don't conduct activities during the nesting season because these
areas, of course we know of the evulsion of the Sound bank,
these areas do provide a series of nesting sites during the
course of these storm events, but then subsequent activities,
just as long as they are not taking place and disrupting during
the nesting season, then the nesting can take place.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was going to suggest, why don't we subject it
to that they can't do the work on the bluff during the nesting
season. Wait until the nesting season is over.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would ask then what's an appropriate date for
the nesting season?
MR. JILNICKI: Shouldn't you have some evidence there are
Board of Trustees 28 June 22, 2011
actually nests on the property before you preclude them from
working?
They said they observed a lot of swallows. They didn't say
anything about having any nests on the property at all, frankly.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We observed the --
MR. JILNICKI: Swallow nests, specifically on the property?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We didn't go down the cliff and look in the
holes, no.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was impossible for anybody to go down that
cliff due to the condition of that bluff. Nobody could
transverse that bluff. It would be dangerous. So there is no way
we or anybody could go down that bluff.
TRUSTEE KING: I have seen these in other areas, you get the
under cut of the bluff and they build their nests.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The time we are there and the great numbers
we have and they are known as colonial nesters, the great
presumption is they actually have nests there right at this time.
MR. JILNICKI: So what would be the limitations?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think Trustee Bergen articulated the
potential that we would have to rely to some expert advice.
MR. JILNICKI: So that's something we should provide you with
information on?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Find out when they are fledged and at that
point once you provide that to us we could go with the expert's
opinion on it.
MR. JILNICKI: Subject to protocol, okay. We can do that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We might have the answer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: A Google search.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. (Perusing).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think for the record, just to make it easier,
we would need it provided by you in writing so we can have it in
the file.
MS. HULSE: Did you want to make the letter you referred to part
of the record?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, sorry. That was submitted and I would like
to make that part of the record.
MR. JILNICKI: Sorry, what was going in the record?
TRUSTEE BERGEN:The letter that I read, just to make sure the
reporter has it as part of the record.
MR. JILNICKI: Hopefully the proposed reconstruction will actually foster places for the
birds to nest, once it's done. Without that, we are hoping it doesn't slide down.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: With that, not hearing any other comments --
MR. JILNICKI: Before you close, can I just ask, since the
swallow portion is kind of an unknown factor right now. Is
there, and we don't know what the time limit would be on it, but
is there a way to kind of split the approval to take the
buildings out at least, and maybe stay away from the bluff
during a certain period of time?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, the buildings themselves are
non-jurisdictional for us.
MR. JILNICKI: The existing ones. Just thinking that if we can't
Board of Trustees 29 June 22, 2011
touch the bluff area for a period of time maybe it's possible to
do some other work outside of the nesting areas, wherever they may be.
MR. JILNICKI: Just a thought.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.•Any other comments?
(No response).
If not, we'll move, we won't close this yet until we finish up with the Curto application.
-TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Move to the Vincent Curto application. The
letter is the one in the same that we have'entered into the
record concerning the swallows, also was addressed to this file.
Elements that we just discussed pertaining to this file as.well.
At this time I'll open this hearing to any comments.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For the record, it's the same survey in.
each file, for both properties.
MR. JILNICKI: Yes. Basically everything described for the
Principi plan will be applied to this site as well.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing any additional comments?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just a comment of the proposed path to the
beach to be taken off the survey.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: On the Principi property.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, as well. So there is no confusion as to
whether it was permitted or not.
MR. JILNICKI: I understand. No objection to that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have every right to come in and apply for a
set of stairs later on.
MR. JILNICKI: Right. Removing for the purposes of this approval
and not take anything kind of agreement that he may or may not
have rights to that existing: I'm just, with regard to this
proposal and plan, if he wants to come in at a future time and
reconstruct the staircase he'll make a separate application to
the Board.at that point, for each property.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we just want to make clear, a lot of times
when we go from approval to here, we have an understanding in
this room and then the contractor sees it and says,-oh, path to
beach, we'll build stairs.
MR. JILNICKI: Right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we are trying not to have that happen.
MR.,JILNICKI: Understood.
MR. PRINCIPI: Can I address the Board about the Curto stairs.
know they are there. They are obviously on the bluff. Would that
be included in this permit to rebuild in kind there or do I need
a separate application for my cousin?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Speaking for myself, I would say a separate
application because we don't have a set of plans, cross-section, _
anything tonight to review.
MR. PRINCIPI:.Okay, I can do that both together then, in the
Fall. Or whenever the birds are finished.
TRUSTEE KING: This is the first time we.have addressed cliff
swallows on any application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing no further comments, I take a motion
to close the hearing in both matters, the Curto and Principi
Board of Trustees 30 June 22, 2011
matters. I'll move it. So moved.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second the motion.All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll first make a motion to approve the Principi
application as per the plans submitted this evening, with the
condition that the proposed path to beach stairs not be
included, and with the condition that the applicant will provide
us with documentation to support that the construction activity
on the bluff will take place outside of the nesting and fledging
dates of the cliff swallows.
MS. HULSE: Sorry, I'll clarify that. The stairway is not a
condition.of the permit. You are actually requesting that have they applied for that?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, the Principi one does not include the
stairway, it includes the proposed path to the beach that I'm
saying the condition that that is not included in this permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, why are you saying to be removed from
this survey, subject to receipt of new survey not showing that?
Instead of making it a condition of the permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, I'm just thinking if all we have to do is
remove that and the rest of the survey is fine, why draw up a
whole new survey just for removal of a proposed path to beach.
If the applicant has agreed to it and we remove it and he signs
it or initials it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, that was the discussion that needs to be
removed from the survey.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, that's what he's saying.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what Lori is trying to clarify the
wording you use, does that make it a condition of the permit to
make the approval subject to a new survey not showing the path.
MS. HULSE: That's right. It doesn't need to be a condition of
the permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you understand the difference?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I do understand the difference. What I was
suggesting though is remove it tonight from this set, the plan,
rather than make him get a whole new survey just to show the
removal of a path. If we could do that tonight.
MS. HULSE: That's up to you. I just don't want it to be a
condition of the permit, the way it was worded. That's perfectly fine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I'll withdraw my resolution and propose a new
one. I'll -- excuse me,withdraw my motion and make a new one
here. On the Principi application, I'll move to approve the
Principi application as per a set of plans --well. Stand by.
MS. HULSE: Could we have the applicant initial it right now?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right, the motion is subject to receipt of a
new set of plans which will show the removal of the proposed
path to beach stairs, and the condition that the activity on the
bluff, that they'll provide proof that the activity on the bluff
will take place outside of the nesting season for cliff
swallows.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
Board of Trustees 31 June 22, 2011
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any questions on.that motion?
TRUSTEE KING:. I have a question. Is there language in here
about approval of removing the existing dwellings? This whole
description really is --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, there is in here remove existing dwelling
including sanitary system.
TRUSTEE KING: That wasn't part of the resolution, was it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it Was approved as per-- I believe his
motion was to approve as applied for, subject to receipt of new
plans with not showing the proposed stairs.
TRUSTEE KING: So we didn't say anything about the new buildings,
which are completely out of our jurisdiction, so they are not in
the description.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So that's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I seconded it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion from the Board?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I hate to do this but just going back to what
Jim was just talking about. Jim, you were asking whether or not
the construction of a new single-family dwelling was actually
struck from this, right? And it has been in the testimony.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. So that won't be part of the contents.
TRUSTEE KING: The two new houses are not part of anything here
because they are entirely out of our jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, all in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In the matter of the Vincent Curto
application, I move to approve the application based on the
description provided, subject to receipt of new plans that
eliminate the walkway; is that correct? We'll remove the
proposed path .on this as well.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And subject to documentation that activities
will be taking place outside of the bird nesting season.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For the specific species.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For the cliff swallows. So moved.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just have one comment. I want to clarify
these are both consistent with the LWRP and they both meet the
requirements of the Chapter 111-9. Are there any other comments
on this motion?
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number five, Twin Fork Landscape Contracting on
behalf of JOINT BOARD OF ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES EDUCATION &
CULTURAL HOLDINGS requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal.Erosion
Permit to construct a rock revetment wall extending from the
Board of Trustees 32 June 22, 2011
west property corner 330' to the east; utilize geo-textile
fabric on the foundation/seawall down 24 below existing grade
and.extend back out; re-:vegetate with American beachgrass;
place boulders at a height of approx. 12" below the present
existing seawall/foundation structure and backfill with approx.
200 cubic yards of sand; extend rock revetment wall to the
eastern property line along the bluff approx. 220' and provide
toe armor along the existing bluff; remove top of the bluff back
inland approx. 15' and regrade; install a row of approx. 2 ton
boulders at the base of the existing bluff approx. 220' in
length; backfill with approx. 800 cy. of fill; place coconut
jute geo-textile erosion control material on the entire bluff
area and re-vegetate with American beach grass and hydro-seed
with seed mixture. Located: 3800 Duck Pond Rd., Cutchogue.
This was found consistent with the LWRP. That's good news.
The CAC supports the application with the condition the wire
fence is removed from along the top of the bluff, rip rap is
installed at the base of the bluff and backward to change the
angle and revegetated. Drainage is addressed on the site plan.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against the
application?
MR. FABB: Jonathan Fabb, Twin Forks Landscape Contracting.
TRUSTEE KING: We have a letter in the file. It's a short one so
I'll just read it. From Susan London Dellacourt.
Dear sirs, as adjacent property owners of Electrical Union
property at 3800 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue, New York, we
heartily approve of their projects to construct rock revetment
wall to protect the damaged seawall and to restore the bluff.
These projects are vital to protect the fragile beach. The
electrical union is to be commended for their efforts. They are
indeed good neighbors.
That's it. That's a pleasant surprise. Jill and I went out
there, mid-May with the DEC and met with these folks. We kind of
went over everything, and it's a joint inspection with the two
agencies. I went out and looked at it again myself. I think they
have done everything we talked about. They really got beat up in
that winter storm we had, and they do need the protection of the
building, so. For me, this is pretty straightforward. I don't
have any questions about it, personally. All the work is, the
proposed work is just what we talked about.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So far everything that has been done down there
has been Top grade number one.
TRUSTEE KING: They have been spectacular. These people have been
great with the town, they did a lot of work for the town on
drainage issues for that road.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They created a wetland.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. I think they are a tremendous asset to our
community, so. I don't think anybody has any questions. It's a
good project, and a very well designed. And I think everybody is
in agreement. Is there anybody else to comment on this application?
(No response).
Board of Trustees 33 June 22, 2011
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.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GHOSIO:.Moving into wetlands permits, number one,
JOYCE SAMPIERI requests a Wetland Permit to repair the damaged
roof on the existing cottage/boathouse; repair/replace the
siding; replace windows; and replace rotted wood on the existing
deck. Located: 1380 Bayberry Rd., Cutchogue.
We all were out there on inspection and we have all seen
this. The CAC has moved to support the application. They are
asking for a condition that hay bales be installed prior to,
construction, and a ten-foot, non-turf buffer landward of the
bulkhead.
This has been found to be exempt from LWRP. And I have to
tell you, it's a pretty straightforward, you know, repair and
maintenance of an existing structure. We did note, like the
Conservation Advisory Council did, there is no non-turf buffer
along the bulkhead. But, in general, we don't address that
until the bulkhead is replaced. But we did speak to the
homeowners about it and they'll certainly do that. The bulkhead
will be getting replaced in the next few years. So we would be
happy to deal with it in that fashion.
MS. BURKE: You are saying you can't require any addition of
non-turf buffers without the requirement of bulkhead replacement?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We can require it but it is not something we
have done as rule of thumb, no.
MS. BURKE: I think it's a good time to take the opportunity to
make people put non-turf buffers. Right now the water is
sloping right down their lawn and going into the water body.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The bulkhead is raised a little higher than the
turf at that point, so. At the.time when he replaces the
bulkhead we were also discussing raising the bulkhead even
higher, plus adding the buffer, so, this is something that will
be addressed and we are pretty comfortable with that. Is there
anybody here who would like to address this application?
MS. SAMPIERI: I'm Joyce Sampieri.
TRUSTEE KING: On the buffer, to disturb the area and replant it,
and then when they come in to rebuild the bulkhead, they have to
re-disturb the whole area, to me it doesn't make a lot of sense. .
Do it when you do the bulkhead, because usually there is 15 to
20 feet where they have to put deadmen in there, so all the work
they did to put a buffer in is all being destroyed to be re-done
MS. BURKE: I understand that.
Board of Trustees 34 June 22, 2011
TRUSTEE KING: Most of these bulkheads now that don't have
buffers, they are at the age where they'll have to be replaced
in a very short time. And that's the time to get the buffer replaced.
MS. BURKE: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any comments or questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob can you check the field notes on this. I believe
there was a suggested condition on the field notes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We discussed about making sure there is no habitation in this
structure, which the homeowner has told us there is not. It's primarily used for storage.
And it does reference some drainage, including drainage off the structure at this point,
and that will help with us solving any problems that may be inducing erosion on the
seaward side of it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe discussion was a French drain instead
of bringing a drywell in that area.
TRUSTEE KING: On both sides.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, so they don't have to do gutters, leaders.
Just a French drain would suffice.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. Are you comfortable with doing French
drains there?
MS. SAMPIERI: I don't have of a problem with it. We had also
discussed instead of doing traditional French drains, which
trenching, again, and putting the piping and what have you, my
concern is which way does the water end up coming out of the
piping on the French drains?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is no piping.
MS. SAMPIERI: Otherwise we also talked about the fact that doing
additional, you know, those gravel stones that are down there
now, leveling everything and putting soil on both sides.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Basically scraping down the area, putting one
level of some kind of soil another level of stones, so it just,
it has different levels to hold.
MS. SAMPIERI: Fine. No problem.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is a letter that was received on June 13
of which I'll read part of it. It is from Jonathan Perry. Dear
sirs, I received a notice regarding the work to be done at the
boat house of Ms. Joyce Sampieri residing on Bayberry Road in
Cutchogue. I have no opposition to the proposed work, I only ask
the Trustees notify me if any work is it to be done on the
bottom of the adjacent lagoon that the property directly abuts.
I think we also discussed that out in the field as well. That's
not going to be an issue. There is no other--
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, what I wanted to see as a condition that
this not be habitable space. Unfortunately we have run into
situations like this in the past where buildings like this they
turn them into a second home. And so I know that is --we heard
you say that's not your intent so I would just like that as a
condition it not become habitable space.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I brought it up. I'll make it a condition, if
that's fine with everyone.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Fine, thank you.
MS. BURKE: Does this structure have leaders and gutters on it?
Board of Trustees 35 June 22, 2011
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, with the French drain, it could just fall
right off-- the French drain will go along the whole entire
perimeter of the building and it will just come down so it
doesn't need it.
TRUSTEE KING: That area, normally where you put the gutters on
the edge of the roof, if you don't have gutters on, the rain
comes down and falls straight down. That area under there is
called the eavesdrop. That's where the saying comes from, the
eavesdrop. People have to stand in that area to listen to what
was going to inside the house. That's where it came from. That
area is called the eavesdrop, and if they just loosen all that
up and get some gravel and sand in that area, everything comes
down and percolates back into the soil, so gutters and leaders
are not necessary.
MS. BURKE: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions?
(No response).
I'll make the motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make the motion to approve the application
as submitted with the condition that the structure cannot be
one for habitation, and that includes French drains around the
perimeter of the structure to contain any roof runoff.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other discussion on the motion?
(No response).
Seeing none, all in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank.you, very much.
TRUSTEE KING:-Number two, Outer Beach Marine, Inc., on behalf of
CATHERINE MARANGAS requests a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace (in-place) 73 linear feet of bulkhead with navy style
and vinyl bulkhead and 6 linear feet of bulkhead return.
Located: 1685 Westview Dr., Mattituck.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf or against this application?
(No response).
This was found to be consistent with the LWRP, and the
Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the
condition of phragmites are removed from behind the bulkhead,
and installation of a 20-foot non-turf buffer landward of the
bulkhead.
I have looked at this. This is on the east side of
Mattituck Creek, in the development called Browers Woods. I'm
pretty familiar with the area. It's one of the older bulkheads
there is. This place was developed, I think in the '60s, is
probably when the bulkhead was built, so it's starting to fail.
It's simply inplace replacement with vinyl. It's pretty
straightforward. The area behind the bulkhead, I notice the
north end.is filled with phragmites. When the bulkhead is put
Board of Trustees 36 June 22, 2011.
in place, there will be enough disturbance there, so all that
stuff will be removed. And what I would like to see, I think
with.the size of the yard, I think a ten-foot-non-turf buffer is
adequate. Rather than 20. And it's recommended silt fence be
used during construction to stop the sediment going into the
creek.
Other than that-- and it's actually two properties next to
each other. The next one is going to be doing the same thing.
It's just,a straight replacement of the bulkhead, with no
issues. Any other questions from anybody? Any comments?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as .
submitted, with a ten-foot non-turf buffer. It is consistent
with LWRP. And the use of a silt boom during construction.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second..
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? '
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Outer Beach Marine, Inc., on behalf
of MICHAEL CONFUSIONE requests a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace (in-place) 75 linear feet of bulkhead with navy style
and vinyl bulkhead; remove and replace 30 linear feet of
retaining wall to line up with adjacent existing retaining wall;
and remove and replace bulkhead steps.
Located: 1605 Westview Dr., Mattituck.
This is adjacent to the previous application. This is almost an
identical application. Replacement of the bulkhead. It was found
consistent with the same requirement of a silt boom during
construction. And CAC supports the application with the
condition the area between the bulkhead and retaining wall is
revegetated with native plantings.
I looked at this. There is a second retaining wall. It's
about ten feet, eight or ten feet landward of the bulkhead, and
there is a second retaining wall to the south. It's a little
further landward. They'll realign the most seaward wall so it's
all in one straight line, so it's actually further back from the
bulkhead. Right now the area between the retaining wall and
bulkhead is very heavily vegetated. A lot of Rosa Rugosa and
everything in there. It's a shame to have to tear it out to put
the bulkhead in, but it will be re-planted: I guess there is
nothing you can do about it.
Is there anybody here to speak behalf or against this
application?
(No response).
Like I say, it's a straightforward replacement of an old bulkhead.
Any questions from the Board?
Board of Trustees 37 June 22, 2011
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application, and
the area between the bulkhead and retaining wall is to be
non-turf and to be replanted. Hopefully maybe they can save some
of the Rosa Rugosa and re plant that. It's really in nice shape.
That's my motion. And also the use of a silt boom during construction.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion?
(No response).
_ All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, Costello Marine Contracting Corp.,
on behalf of NEW SUFFOLK FISHING STATION, INC., requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 20' ramp onto a 4'X 180' fixed
dock section continuing with a 6'X 100' fixed dock section at
offshore end. Construct a 4' wide by 10' long walkway between
existing concrete deck and ramp.
Located: 800 King St., New Suffolk.
This was a project that had been previously approved in a permit
given construction had started. The permit ran out. So they had
to come back and re-apply for a new permit. They have done that.
It was originally reviewed under the LWRP and found to be
consistent. And it was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory
Council and the Conservation Advisory Council supports the
application -- sorry, this is a Conservation Advisory Council
review that was done recently, June 15, 2011. The Conservation
Advisory Council supports the.application however the present
dock construction is a violation of the condition of the permit
-- and I'll get into that in a minute -- and questions the
storage on the north side building, King Road. Conservation
Advisory Council recommends gutters and drywells on the building
and swale installed high enough to bring runoff back to the
property and the seaward end of the dock to be shortened 60 feet
to bring it in line with the existing structure to the south.
Just so the Conservation Advisory Council understands, that when
this application came in originally, this dock was shortened in
from what was originally proposed. Because we were also very
concerned about how far this dock was going to be extended at
the time, and took testimony at that time considering that, and
hence the dock was shortened slightly last time.
When the CAC has in here a violation, they are noting a
violation of conditions of the permit. What is noted is that on
the original permit it said flow-through grating would be used
for the first section of this, I believe hundred feet. And I'll
double check that. It's my understanding right now there is not
flow-through decking that is being used in the construction so
far that has been done, which would be the first part of this
Board of Trustees 38 June 22, 2011
dock. And on the permit 7100, dated May 20, 2009, specifically
states with the condition open-grate decking is used on the
first hundred feet of the fixed dock.
So given that, is there anybody here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costello, we are the agents for
the application that was submitted to the Trustees. And
everything you said so far is right, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: My first question for you, Mr. Costello, is why
is the first hundred feet that has been constructed so far, why
did they not use open-grated decking.
MR. COSTELLO: I didn't know any better and the second thing is
didn't do it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand,but you are standing here as the
agent tonight
MR. COSTELLO: I know. Evidently, I mean, the first hundred feet
of it, basically, is almost comes dry and it doesn't even have
to support any vegetation. 1 volunteered, when I originally made-
the application, to put the flow-through decking on the first
portion of that dock and as, you know, as a condition to try to
get the Conservation Advisory Council and the LWRP appeased.
What happened is the contractor on the job, evidently, did not
read that condition. Not that the•condition was -- he should
have, but he didn't.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I notice on the plans you submitted with
this new application it depicted that first hundred feet having
open-style decking.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.. So if that's the desire of the Board,
certainly 100 feet could be rectified.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I spoke to the contractor, and Mr. Costello --
MR. COSTELLO: Mr. Pollack is doing the work. I was, first of
all, too busy. Secondly, he was trying to beat the permit
deadline. And here we are. -.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Pollack did say he did not read that
condition, however he also made the comment that he felt in that
area that the open-grate decking was not necessary and he felt
the regular decking would be stronger in a storm event. So he
wanted the Trustees to reconsider that. And I explained that in
order to comply and be consistent with LWRP, I believe we need
the open-grate decking.
MR. COSTELLO: The other alternative is, if it meets the Board's
desire, is to open the spacing to alleviate, you know, get some
sunlight. But the dock is an east to west, I mean east to west
dock. The sunlight penetration and the shading is on the north
side. But, even with the open-grate decking, there will still be
shading on the north side.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think there is a lot of vegetation there,
is there? It's all sand. There is no vegetation
MR. COSTELLO: There is no vegetation. At low tide there is none,
for the first hundred feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it's consistent with LWRP:
Board of Trustees 39 June 22, 2011
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it was a recommendation by the LWRP
coordinator when we were considering the first application and
so we put it as a condition. Certainly if this Board wishes to
remove that condition, because this is a separate application,
we can do that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Dave, in the file is some of the Minutes from
that hearing that discusses that. I don't know, is there anything in
particular about it, aside from the LWRP making it a condition?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In the Minutes dated May 20, 2009, there was a
motion made to close the hearing by Trustee Ghosio and Trustee
Dickerson said: Bob, is that grated or non-grated.
Trustee King: Open-grate on the first hundred feet.
Trustee Ghosio: Open-grate on the first hundred feet makes sense.
That's how the open-grating came to be on the first permit.
MR. COSTELLO: I don't think that is going to significantly
change the cost of the job, the only trouble is should the
deterioration, that the open-grate decking occur, in a period of
time, I'm sure they'll want to replace some of the boards.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: John, do you know if the DEC permit conditions
open-grate decking?
MR. COSTELLO: The DEC permit? The same drawing was submitted to
be consistent with DEC. They didn't request it be open-grate
decking, though.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from Board members?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In this area I don't have a problem with
whether it's open-grate decking or not. From what was described,
east to west sunlight, there is no vegetation there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a pretty high-energy beach, right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Given the fact this was found consistent,
originally, under the LWRP without the flow-through decking and
it became a condition of flow-through decking happened during
the course of the discussion, and the consideration of that, I
would have no problem also with not including the condition of
flow-through on the new application that we are considering
tonight.
Just to address the other concerns from the Conservation
Advisory Council, when we are dealing with the dock, we usually
don't deal with upland structures and drainage from upland
structures, so with the recommendation of gutters and drywells
on the building, that is a recommendation we would consider if
there was work being done on the building rather than on the
dock itself.
If there are no other comments I'll make a motion to close
the public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
of Costello Marine Corporation on behalf of New Suffolk Fishing
Station, as described on the application, at 800 King Street,
New Suffolk, Leaving the original condition now an option up to
Board of Trustees 40 June 22, 2011
the applicant as to whether or not he would like to use
flow-through decking or not.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And this is found consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on that motion?
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing number five, Frank W. Uellendahl,
Architect on behalf of MICHAEL & ELLEN CARBONE requests a Wetland Permit to
convert existing attached garage into.living space within the existing building envelope
and construct a new two-car garage on the existing parking area.
Located: 1580 North Bayview Rd., Southold.
This application has been deemed consistent with LWRP. Trustees inspected the
site. The Conservation Advisory Council visited the site as well and supported the
application with a request to condition an increase in the size of the non-turf buffer. It's a
pretty straightforward application, I don't think the Trustees had any real issues with it.
The plans do show gutters, leaders and drywells for the new proposed structure. At this
time we'll take any comments with respect to this application.
MR. UELLENDAHL: My name is Frank Uellendahl. I am here on behalf of the Carbone's
I agree it's pretty straightforward. I do have the proof of mailing to submit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Actually I have the file. I guess, again,
for the information of the CAC, usually we would not condition
the size of a non-turf buffer unless the structure itself
actually got involved. In this case, it's field inspection we
didn't really think it involved it, but we do want to have a
silt fence and hay bale during construction. We would be
requesting that.
MR. UELLENDAHL: By the way, the property does have a five-foot
non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, the question came up that the
Conservation Advisory Council during the course of their
inspection of the site would have it larger at this time and I
was trying to explain that ordinarily we would not have that
disturbance take place unless it was a case that was directly
involving a new bulkhead construction.or that the structure
added a large component of runoff or problem that was not being
addressed. But in this case the drywells are going to handle
that. Any additional comment? Members of the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll 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 this
application as submitted with the condition of a silt fence and
hay bale barrier to protect runoff during the construction phase.
MR. UELLENDAHL: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further comment on the motion?
(No response).
Board of Trustees 41 June 22, 2011
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number six, Nancy Dwyer Design Consulting on behalf of
HAROLD SCHWERDT & PATRICIA OSTER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
second-story addition over the existing dwelling and rebuild existing exterior walls.
Located: 440 Oak Ave., Southold.
The Board was out there the other day on inspection. We have all seen it. The
LWRP coordinator has found this to be exempt from LWRP. And the CAC supports the
application with the condition of a drainage plan and 15-foot buffer area. The CAC
recommends the cesspool is moved landward of the dwelling.
Is there anybody here who would like to address this application?
MR. OSTER: Yes; I would. Thank you. My name is Nick Oster, I'm Harold's son-in-law.
He's out in the lobby. He's my'father-in-law sitting outside. He has a bad foot.
As far as the cesspools are concerned, they were, as far as moving them, it's not
an issue, but they were rebuilt and put back in in the '90s.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So the plan is to use the existing cesspools.
MR. OSTER: Yes. What we have is a bathroom downstairs and there
will be a smaller bathroom upstairs on the second floor, that's it.
MS. DWYER: Nancy Dwyer. Existing is a three-bedroom house that
will remain a three-bedroom house, and it will be sufficient for
what the proposed use is.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So the new drywells on the plan is specifically
for roof runoff.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When we were out in the field we noted it was a
pretty straightforward application in terms of everything is
being built within the existing building envelope, within the
existing footprint. I didn't think there was any objections to
anything. Let me see if there is any notes from the field
inspection.(Perusing). The only note we had was drywells, and
it turns out they were on the plan.
Any other comment from the Board?
(No response).
Any questions?
(No response).
Any other comments 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.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion?
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES). .
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number seven, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc., on behalf of EVAN GINIGER requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 4'X 46' fixed elevated catwalk supported by six (6)
4"X 4" pilings and six (6) 6"X 6" pilings; 3'X 15' hinged ramp;
Board of Trustees 42 June 22, 2011
and a 6'X 20' floating dock secured by two (2) 6"X 6" pilings.
Located: 315 Fleetwood Rd., Cutchogue.
The Board went out there again and saw the stakings. This
is inconsistent with the LWRP, and the CAC supports the
application with the condition the dock does not exceed
one-third across the creek, in line with neighboring docks. And
the LWRP specifically says it recommends that the Board assess
the dock length with a vessel and determine the proposed dock
complies with the one-third rule. And also LWRP.states that it
is in the New York State Critical Environmental Area, recommends
grid decking over the grass areas and construction operation
standards required.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk'Environmental Consulting
for the applicant, Evan Giniger, who is sitting next to me on my
right here. This is an application filed last Fall. There are
questions as to the length of the dock and the length of the
waterway that required us to survey both shorelines of Eugene's
Creek, actually, to code. That was done by survey dated April
15, a copy of which is submitted with this application. That
survey demonstrates that the dock will not extend beyond the
one-third, which I explained to my client what that is and we
are in agreement that it is a good rule because my client does
not wish to impede anyone else's access into or out of Fleet's
Cove. I have also prepared an aerial photograph which shows the
existing docks in the area. It shows how they are laid out and
gives you a pretty good idea of what the navigational impacts
are. We think what we are proposing here would be consistent
with what is out there and we believe we are respecting the
one-third rule.
Having said that, we are flexible with regard to any number
of ideas. The first is this notion of putting the open-grate
flow-through decking on. I explained to my client what that is.
He's agreeable to do that.
The second suggestion I have, because it is tight in there,
is I bring it-- if you look at the aerial, you'll see directly
to the west there is a new dock recently built and permitted by
this Board. That dock featured a five by, I believe 17-foot
float. And so I suggested maybe we could reduce the size of the
float slightly to address that situation, and he has indicated
he's agreeable to do that. This is not an area where you'll have
large boats in, because there are no large boats in this
particular area. It's not really deep enough to support large
boats. So whatever boats are docked here and whatever boats are
docked elsewhere, which, some of which are shown in the aerial,
you can plainly see, tend to be small sport-type craft anyway.
So we think from a navigation standpoint this dock will be
appropriate. But we do throw out those suggestions if the Board
thinks it's helpful.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We did have one discussion in the field,
possibly moving the dock over where there was less vegetation
Board of Trustees 43 June 22, 2011
and less land and you can get to the water, closer to the
neighboring basin, I guess.you would call it, to the east. And
we would consider allowing to soften our 15-foot rule being it's
a basin and that the dock would not interfere with his dock,
because you would have the retaining wall there.
MR. ANDERSON: I understand.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's just a consideration. You could shorten
the length of the catwalk. Because you would be going over less
land. You could -- it would get to a.wider point of the creek so
you would.have more of a distance between the land. It's
something we didn't see until we saw this staked. You know,
once you get out there and see something staked. And we were
there in the winter; so now we see everything is growing. It's a
little different.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, I guess the best way for me to certainly be
flexible with it, what I would suggest is this. If you want to
be flexible as to the 15 feet, it would be helpful to me, if I
knew how flexible you were willing to be. And I don't, by the
Way, want to impede access even to the basin there. In other
words I don't want someone to come out of the basin and run into
the dock. So when we say, to soften that rule, I assume you are
thing thinking of the eastern end of the L-shaped float is what
we are talking about moving.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes
MR. ANDERSON: And I would maybe suggest that if we were to do
that, maybe shorten it to like ten feet, something like that. If
we were to do that--
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim was just suggesting here to put the catwalk
on the other side and make it the opposite of the "L" and put it--
TRUSTEE KING: If you move the catwalk to the east, closer to the
that basin where you get less vegetation to go over, you could
have a shorter catwalk and make the "L" go to the west instead
of to the,east. Just flip flop the "L."
MR. ANDERSON: That makes total sense.
TRUSTEE KING: Wouldn't that work?
MR. ANDERSON:. Yup, that would work. It looks to me like the
depths are there, and h think, again, is it the ten feet you are
thinking of, now for the catwalk portion; is that correct? Or
do you want it on the line? Give me a sense of how close. In
other words, if I take the eastern lot line and extend it out
into the water, which is what I have done here, how close to
that line do you think is acceptable?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think the catwalk could still remain 15 feet
off that property line and again, with the flip flopping of the
"L" to the west, I don't think we have to forego the 15-foot
rule that is in the code.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think by flipping it, Trustee Bergen has it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That will fit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Here is the survey.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That was the sparsest area of vegetation:
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, the vegetation at that point would be eight
Board of Trustees 44 June 22, 2011
feet less thick. That's the difference.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think that by moving it over that eight feet,
you'll do a lot less structure and you'll go over a lot less vegetation.
MR. ANDERSON: Right, like I said, it will shorten --
TRUSTEE KING: The landward end could start further seaward.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. 'And we could terminate where it says, I
think three point nine feet, something like that. So it would be
a shorter section. So that would be fine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Being the float would be in the same area --
MR. ANDERSON: No, I think the suggestion was, I'll draw it right
now properly.
TRUSTEE KING: It's further east.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to approve this subject to new
drawings or do you want to go see it staked in the new location
and table it to have it staked, or--
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think we could approve it.
MR. ANDERSON: I want to just quickly give you a sketch. Show you
a sketch. I want to make sure I understand.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bruce, where are you with the DEC.with this?
MR. ANDERSON: We have an approval at this location. .
MR. ANDERSON: I think what Mr. King is talking about is this.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, Jim (Perusing).
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: If that's acceptable
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, I think it makes a better job of it.
MR. ANDERSON: And we can do flow-through over the marsh, if
that's important.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other questions?
TRUSTEE KING: What would the size of the float be, now?
MR. ANDERSON: We were willing to reduce it, if it helps. My
question to you is that necessary at this point.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think a foot will make a big difference
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What do you anticipate you'll have to go back
to DEC with this new plan?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, but I'm looking at the survey now. The .
important thing with the DEC is the depth, and we have it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It will put it off six weeks, probably.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So if we table it, have you stake it, show us
the new plans showing us the one-third fits there as well.
MR. ANDERSON: So you want it restaked at that location.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: I'll tell you with the staking, I'm not going to
argue with you, but it's a big expense because you have to get
two people and a boat. You have to triangulate. It's expensive
to stake out this particular location. The ground is very soft.
So I would rather--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have been here, we seen the water depth,
and the area tells it all.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think my suggestion is if everybody is happy
with the --
MR. ANDERSON: Good for me, not'so good for him.
Board of Trustees 45 June 22, 2011
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Need I remind the Board this is the same area I
think I tied a string to a rock in the winter and threw it out
on the ice. I think that was a pretty cheap way of doing it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think instead of having him go stake it, we
can maybe put a condition on the permit prior to start of
construction a Trustee goes out and looks at it. Because you'll
have to, you know, have something out there at that point.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, have a surveyor marker.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just to double check and make sure everything
is where it is supposed to be.
MR. ANDERSON: It's expensive though to mark that and it was
expensive to survey both shorelines. Just to let you know.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other comment?
(No response).
Anybody else from the audience?
(No response).
II] make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
.(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application
of Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of Evan Giniger's
application subject to receipt of new plans showing the catwalk,
ramp and float further to the east as discussed tonight and also
subject to prior to commencement of construction that a Trustee
inspect.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Address the inconsistency.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I believe making this dock shorter and
going over less vegetation will make it consistent with LWRP.
MR. ANDERSON: And we are doing flow-through as well, correct?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And flow-through decking, yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion from the
Board?
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. Have a nice evening.
TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, Mark Boeckman on behalf of MARC
SOKOL requests a Wetland Permit to install a swimming pool, spa,
patio on grade, and pool fence. Located: 350 Lakeside Dr., Southold.
This is an application for swimming pool, spa and patio.
It's found consistent with the LWRP. The CAC supports the
application with a detailed drainage plan for the pool backwash
and vegetated buffer is expanded to at least ten feet. Bob, did
you look at this?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I did. I was going to grab the file but you
already started to open it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Basically this was straightforward. It's nothing
more than --we have all been to the property. This is the one
with the deer fence down on Lakeside there, off Cedar Point
Board of Trustees 46 June 22, 2011
Drive East. And it abuts that Pleasant Inlet, which is that
little basin down there, if you remember. The pool -- and what
they are looking to do is add a pool and a pool fence. Nothing
-- it really is not a problem. It doesn't affect anything there
at all. The CAC, I think you already reviewed the CAC. They do
have drainage for the backwash on the plan. There was nothing
really there to be concerned with. It's a straightforward plan.
Originally I thought they were going to be putting a fence all
around the property as a pool fence, but they are not. It's
basically just going to contain the backyard and protect anybody
who might be able to get in and get into the pool. That's
something they need to do by code, if they are going to have a
pool. Is there anybody here like to address this application?
(No response).
Seeing none, any questions from the Board?
(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.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further questions on the motion?
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number nine, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf
of JOANNE BURR requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the
existing 4'X 58' timber dock and extend to 70' and using grated
materials on the first 25' of the fixed dock; relocate piles to
a min. 10' apart; replace existing ramp, 8'X 16' float and 12'X 12' float
in a "T" configuration. Located: Peninsula Rd., Fishers Island.
The Board had inspected this on April 18. We measured the
existing deck to be 59 feet instead of 58 feet. This is
consistent with LWRP. And the Conservation Advisory Council did
not go out there, so they do not have a recommendation.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had any issues with it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There was really, it says we have no comment on
our field notes. Is there"anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MS. MOORE: I'm here for Mrs. Burr, but there is no, if it's
straightforward, I won't belabor it. Leave while the going is good.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any questions from the Board? Does anybody
want to see the plans to refresh their memory, from April?
(Negative response).
We had an inhouse review last week. All right, hearing no
further questions, 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 as submitted.
'Board of Trustees 47 June 22, 2011
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: An it's consistent with the LWRP.
MS. MOORE: If I could just speak for a second. If it's possible
to bring the Yatrakis back up, I could do it at the end of the
calendar after Jeff. There is only Jeff Butler's application. I
was hoping we could resolve the issues that are not an issue and
then just leave open the --you guys could look at the area of
planting after you've looked at the permit that is already in
the file. So I would give you a chance to look --the one thing
that seemed to be an issue and separate out, because they have a
pool there --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, let's move on with the agenda and
discuss it afterwards. .
MS. MOORE: All right, I'll be here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll decide as a Board if we want to open it
again.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E., P.C. on behalf of
CUTCHOGUE 6213, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove
selective vegetation between 50' and 100' from the top of the
bluff and construct a single-family dwelling with detached
garage, sanitary system, well, driveway, drainage, landscaping,
patios and hot tub beyond 100' from the top of bluff. Located:
6213 Oregon Rd., Cutchogue.
The Board went and inspected the site and met with the Mr.
Butler and the owner of the property. We walked it extensively.
I think we thought it was pretty straightforward. I'll open both
together at this point if is there no objection, if the Board
has no problem. Similar to what we did before; the application
of Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E., P.C. on behalf of CUTCHOGUE 6291,
LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove selective vegetation
between 50' and 100' from the top of the bluff and construct a
single-family dwelling, swimming pool, sanitary system, well,
driveway, drainage, detached shed, patios and landscaping beyond
100' from the top of bluff. Located: 6291 Oregon Rd., Cutchogue.
The LWRP program has deemed these to be inconsistent with
the town's LWRP, specifically making reference to the Planning
Board restrictions and covenants on the property that
specifically outline three areas. And LWRP references that. The
three C&R's are removal of deck and/or noxious vegetation;
secondly, removal of dead trees and cherry trees smaller than
five inches by hand, and revegetate and clear undisturbed low
bush , blueberry, inkberry and bayberry. The applicant has not
provided a clearing plan and/or revegetation plan. The LWRP
wants to have a specific plan detailing clearing and
revegetation, as part of the LWRP. The houses, buildings are
beyond our jurisdiction.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the.application
but made specific recommendation with respect to vegetation. The
Conservation Advisory Council is requesting that -- they support
Board of Trustees 48 June 22, 2011
the application by they recommend the trees within eight-inch
diameter not be removed. I don't think that was necessarily an
issue. I don't think that was an issue.
TRUSTEE KING: We talked about that in the field.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was our understanding everything was
going to remain. I think the applicant made that fairly clear.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If the applicant puts it on the record for
tonight.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. So that's what we have as we open the
hearing. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of
applications?
MR. BUTLER: Jeffrey T. Butler here on behalf of the applicant.
As we discussed at the site visit, the applicant's intention for
developing the site are to maintain as many of the trees on the
site as possible, to develop each one of these properties, lot
one and lot two. In the process of doing that they would also
like to clear out some of the choker vines and things we saw in
the site visit, the record setting poison ivy vines that we saw
and clean up the habitat there so the trees become more healthy.
We noticed the one lot to the east had a lot of cherry trees
that were being choked out that could be preserved, that they
certainly want to preserve, and the lot to the west, a lot of
the locust species that were, again, she wanted to, she wants to
maintain as much of that as possible and clear minimally around
each around each structure that will be installed, which we
estimate to be about 15-feet around each structure.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Like we said in the field, if they do what they
say they'll do, it will be really nice. It's a nice plan on the
use of the property. If you are going to build a couple of
structures at least there is a lot of things they can take into
take into consideration in terms of the topography and ecology.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jay, I know you read the Planning Board
covenants and restrictions, but what the applicant is describing
to us, do we feel that meet the Planning Board covenants and
restrictions?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think what it says here during the
subdivision covenants, says specifically limited clearing of
vegetation within the 50-foot buffer from the top of the bluff.
So that--
TRUSTEE KING: They are outside of that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They are essentially out of it. Other than
the removal of noxious vegetation, might be choker vines, could
be conditioned in the permit for removal of those items.
Are there any additional comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing no additional comments -- -
MR. BUTLER: There might be someone who wishes to speak.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone who wishes to speak on
behalf of this application?
MS. O'DONNELL: My name is Amy O'Donnell, I'm here for Bobby
Schreiber. He has.the property directly to the west, that big
Board of Trustees 49 June 22, 2011
parcel. We were just concerned about the same exact thing you
were, was the clearing. Because it's right up against his
property line and he wanted to make sure there was enough
vegetation there. And from, I spoke to Jeffrey outside, they are
really only clearing that very small area around the house. He
said they went over that with you on the field walk, you all
seemed happy with it. You are much more stringent obviously
than I was even going to be. So if you are satisfied with it
and you are happy, then we are okay. I mean the tree line
between the two properties is a lot of dense vegetation there
already existing. And the house is not on the tree line. There
is a 21-foot buffer, so that was my only concern was a screen.
Um, but it looks fine. So, that's it. Thank you.
MS. BURKE: So just to be clear, the intentions for clearing are
documented or something that was discussed on your site visit?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They have no intention of clearing within
the 50-foot to the bluff, buffer, the possibility of removing
some vines that was discussed and we might condition that on the
permit. They have no intention of touching any of the trees on
the property, to my knowledge and what the Board viewed in the
course of walking the property.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There was also some poison ivy that four to six
inch diameter. It was crazy.
TRUSTEE KING: It was poison ivy on steroids.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I never saw a poison ivy plant that big.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, hearing no additional comments or
discussion, I make a motion to close the hearing in the matter
of these two applications.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, for your time
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I was going to go through this individually
for the record. In the matter of application of Cutchogue 6213
LLC, I would make a_motion to approve the application subject to
the restrictive covenant on the property so that it would stay
consistent with the town's LWRP and that that the applicant be
permitted to only remove the noxious vegetation, since we had
heard no discussion concerning removal of trees. So that the
permit would only allow for the removal of the noxious
vegetation on the site; excuse me, within the 50 -- sorry, not
the site. Within the 50 feet as permitted by C&R and the
Planning Board. So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion?
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In the matter of Cutchogue 6291 LLC I'll
make a motion to approve the application subject to the same
conditions; to bring the application into consistency with the
Board of Trustees 50 June 22, 2011.
LWRP that restrictive covenants be abided by and that the
activity be limited within the 50-feet to the top of the bluff
to the removal of noxious vegetation. So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion?
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That is the last--we have one more item on
the agenda. Sorry. Dave, do you want to go ahead and read the
resolution?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to propose a resolution that the
Board of Trustees forward to Suffolk County DPW a proposed town
Trustees Dredging Priority List 2011.
And I guess for the record to list the dredging list in the following priority: One, Budd
Pond; two, Schoolhouse Creek; three, Jockey Creek Spur; four, West Creek; five, Little
Creek; six, Corey Creek; seven, Cedar Creek; eight, Richmond Creek; nine, Gull Pond;
ten,-Brushes Creek.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: One more item before we go off the agenda. Pat
more requested us to go back to an item on the agenda that we
tabled. What's the feeling of the Board? Her request is to go
back to segregate the application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Which one?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yatrakis. What is the feeling of the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to get a little straightened out on it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And actually I had a recommendation I wanted to
make earlier, that given how the discussion went, we never got
to it. And that was to discuss the severe erosion condition on
the bluff. To get the applicant to address that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's not part of this.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know. I know. But it's something that needs to
be addressed.
MS. MOORE: He planted last--
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We didn't open yet. Just one minute. So the
feeling is to open up that application again? To discuss
segregating the application? It's not to segmenting it, not to
--that's what the request is. She would like for us to consider
separating the application now.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If my understanding is correct she is asking
to split it so the homeowners can get into their home and get
their C of O.
MS. MOORE: Just to clarify, they need the fence for the pool.
The pool has water.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me open the application, I'm.trying to get
an answer first before we open the application.
TRUSTEE KING: Three out of five.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we we'll go back to, we'll.go off the public
Board of Trustees 51 June 22, 2011
hearings and go back to Applications for Extensions and
Amendments. Number nine, Pat Moore on behalf of GEORGE AND MARIA
YATRAKIS. We had tabled this earlier in the meeting and we'll
reopen it right now.
MS. MOORE: Okay, do you want me to speak or do you want me to
listen?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Go ahead, Pat.
MS. MOORE: There was some very simple things that the amendment
included, which were just approve the re-design of the swimming
pool and the patio. It also, let's see, the angle of the pool
and patio at the fence, across the property at the 25-foot mark
from the patio, from the patio 25 feet. Also we are going to
put a gate and a fence at the staircase, because it's,
apparently it's dangerous on either side of the stairs. And that
is all I had. The other two issues are whether or not we bring
soil and increase the height of the berm is up to you. We came
in really to ask to not have to plant the berm because the
vegetation was already there. Just leave it as it is with grass.
Grass seed. And then, you know, take a look at your permits from
last year, the planting plan, and he was willing to go and plant
immediately that area of disturbance, but if you want him to
wait, he waits. It's really up to you guys. Is it doesn't
matter. He was ready to plant, so. Just tell me what you want me
to do.
TRUSTEE KING: For me, I would just entertain the pool fence,
inplace, 25 feet from the patio. It's just about on the hay bale line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Would that be sufficient to, if we --
MS. MOORE: I need a certificate of compliance with respect to
the pool fence. I don't know, Lauren, what, in order to get the
CO for the pool and the house, I need a certificate of
compliance.. So you tell me what you write on your certificate
of compliance, I'll work around it.
MS. MOORE: The issuance of the CO for the house and the pool,
then we'll come back next, I mean we'll just continuing
discussing the rest of the stuff, but it's up to you.
TRUSTEE KING: I heard the discussion location of the pool fence
but also I would want to include the redesign of the swimming
pool itself.
MS. MOORE: I mean, I have actually in my file an as-built survey
that shows that the angle of the patio and the pool. We don't
have a pool fence showing on here yet because it has not been
put in yet. So if you would like a survey of the as-built
conditions, I could give it to you tonight. If you would want me
to add by hand the pool fence at 25 feet, either you or I can do
it. It doesn't matter, it's the same thing. It has not been
constructed, that's why it's not shown on the survey. It was on
the original permit, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we need a revised plan showing both of
those in the appropriate locations.
MS. MOORE: I could just draw it right on here and give it to you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a question for the Board members who
Board of Trustees 52 June 22, 2011
were not here before. I thought the berming was very minimal but
possibly site specific basis was acceptable, but I really don't
have a feel because this precedes my current term on the Board.
I will say this, though. I didn't like the way this application
tracked. I think it was entirely too argumentative, and the
applicant himself got very argumentative'with the Board in the
field and this obstructed our ability to come to a more
productive conclusion. So it was not just a matter of what
happened here this evening. Just so you know.
MS. MOORE: Thank you. No, I often try to encourage clients to
pay for me to be at a meeting, but obviously every penny counts
and they thought they could handle it. But live and learn. So.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And also, what I was alluding earlier, if you
could recommend to your client, he knows he has to do something
to address the erosion under those stairs. As a matter of fact
he stated out in the field that recently he had fill brought in
and placed over the bluff because the erosion had taken away a
lot of land there, a lot of the bluff. So I had suggested in
the field to him that he consider talking to a contractor about
the installation of a couple of retaining walls to protect those
stairs from, once again, the erosion taking place and those
stairs collapsing. So I tried to --
MS. MOORE: He mentioned that-- I'm sorry, I didn't understand
when he described what he was -- I didn't understand.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I tried recommending this to him in the field
but unfortunately he was not receptive to my ideas.
- MS. MOORE: No, actually he liked your idea. He came back and
said that made a lot of sense. And I said, good.
MS. HULSE: Are we arbitrary and capricious tonight?
MS. MOORE: No, no, no. That was the son. He's a lawyer. I'll
talk about coming in with a plan for retaining walls. He has
actively wanted to do more to protect that bluff and he had
spoken to Costello several times and wanted to do tow protection
and revetment, but the DEC doesn't want to allow for that. So
that's why before he even started construction, if you recall,
he planted all, he spent quite a bit of money planting the grass
all along the bluff. I haven't seen whether it took or not. The
storms may have taken it away recently. I don't know. So he's
tried. He's really been trying.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As I sympathize with getting a CO, I feel that
we should not separate this. There are too many variables and
we need to work it all out. And I think it could be worked out
simply and be, you know, be done for the next meeting. That's
just my feeling. But whatever the majority wants.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't have a problem segmenting out the
re-design of the swimming pool and the location of pool fence so
that that way he is able to get a CO for the house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just, the reason I have a problem with
this. I don't have a problem where the fence is to be placed or
where the pool is, it's just I'm trying to be consistent. It's
just the way we do not separate all these things because it just
Board of Trustees 53 June 22, 2011
makes more confusion and makes more room for error in the
future. That's why I'm not acceptable of it or willing to
separate it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If we do move.forward with this at any point, I
know we were referring back to the approved plan that was drawn
by Creative Environmental, which we had spoken about. And it
does say on there, and this was where we really had the bone of
contention, was the area that, this hatched area here that
included the existing shed, the area was, the idea was to remove
invasive vegetation and re plant with native plants. And it
does say that and is stamped approved. But it's also noted on
the plan, which didn't come up before, that those invasive
species to be removed were only the following four things:
Adera helix, which is English ivy; Iigustrum, which is a privet;
mona sera, which is a honeysuckle; and rosa multiflora, which is
what I call wild rose. That's the only four things. That does
not include all this vegetation, which is what Dr. Yatrakis was
specifically talking about.
MS. MOORE: His sister clarified for me, because, again, I was
not there. He would like, I think maybe what he discussed with
you was"doing more, but then he was willing to do only that
which was in the disturbed area. And he was willing to accept
that. And I think that is where maybe the conversation was lost.
That he wants to plant the area. The weeds that regenerated in
the disturbed area is the only area he's planning to plant. The .
rest he's not planning to do anything. That's why when he came
back after that meeting I said but we have a permit--
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But you don't. That's what Bob just read. Are
you just talking between those four stakes? There is nothing in
there. There is no weeds. He already replanted that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: These plants here (indicating).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In that little area he was talking about all
the other plants
MS. MOORE: Just make sure we are reading the right plan. Are you
reading from --which plan are you reading from, just to make
sure, because there are two plans.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The one you brought up.
MS. MOORE: Okay, fine. And that's not a problem as far as if
he's limited to what the plan says.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The plan says he can't remove this.
MS. MOORE: I don't know what that is. Is that in the disturbed
area?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No.
MS. MOORE: That's not in the disturbed area.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He specifically asked when we were there, asked
to remove that.
MS. MOORE: He doesn't know one plant from another, quite
frankly. I'm sure if the list-- realistically --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, he doesn't. I agree. I was just pointing
out he specifically pointed out this vegetation and that's when
Board of Trustees 54 June 22, 2011
we got into the discussion of how much and where; this was a
non-disturbance area that we were going to allow only certainly
things to happen. And on this plan we were talking about, it
only includes those four items.
MS. MOORE: Okay, I'll point to that and say that's all. Get
somebody who recognizes the plants and that's all you are
allowed to do. What we told me is he's not even planning to do
that much if it's going to create a problem. He just wants to
vegetate the area of disturbance, which is where the building
was removed and some areas around it where the equipment
disturbed, you know, to get access in and out. And that was it.
He was willing to stop there, even, just so as to not delay this
process and, you know, interfere with his getting a C of O, so.
TRUSTEE KING: If we are going to approve the reconfigured pool
and the pool fence, I would just like to see that, just leave
that area as a non-disturbance area, stop nitpicking over what
kind of plants. Leave it alone. Let it naturalize.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think I tend to agree with that because
this is going to go through successional stages and they may not
be all desirable plants but it's going to be sooner or later
will be colonized by perennial plants and trees and shrubs, and
I think --
MS. MOORE: You are the expert. Isn't it jeopardizing the bluff
if, you know; he doesn't start planting roots that are more
deep-rooted vegetation?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think the Board has a problem with
the current level of vegetation on the top and the way the
drainage has been handled. Even though the_berm is minimal, it
looks like it's directing things not over the bluff face, and
this is all healthy vegetation.
MS. MOORE: I'm listening.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I mean, that's it. It's all healthy
vegetation. It's going to go.through some successional stages.
But at this point, the list on that permit doesn't match
anything that is here, so maybe it's time to let some things run
their course and then if he needs --the inkberry will be gone
in a year or two, whether it is going to go to bramble or
whatever the successional stages will be here, and then come
back with a specific list of exotics that might match was has
actually populated the property and if they want to come in with
a specific go to take this plant out, take that plant out, it's
non-indigenous, invasive, then approach it --
MS. MOORE: With much more specific.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, so things match up.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, what does the Board want to do?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: First off, I'm not sure -- I need some help,
legally, to know how to do this. We already tabled an amendment
to -- sorry, let me get it right. An amendment to wetland
permit, we tabled.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we just reopened it. So it's no longer
Board of Trustees 55 June 22, 2011
tabled.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's not a hearing, so it doesn't have to be --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I thought it was a hearing because we are
looking at the possibility here of--
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It wasn't a hearing
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, sorry, I know it was not a hearing. I
apologize. What we are looking is the possibility of approving
the wetland permit-- amendment to wetland permit 7712, right?
TRUSTEE KING: We already approved the extension.
MS. MOORE: May ! make a suggestion. If you approve what we asked
for, because everything we asked for seems to be what you are
going to approve and I will, and just make it, place a condition
that prior to any activity in this area, we have the right to
come back with a specific planting plan as Mr. Bredemeyer just
pointed out. So that way if he wants to pursue it further, I"
give him the option to say check with Chicanowicz or whomever
and go with inventory that is actually there, I guess was there
at the time we first made the application for the permit, and
take it that way. Because if you are saying to him, listen, the
weeds are fine and will regenerate, don't do anything right now,
I think he is willing to accept that even though he has a permit
to do, you know, to remove particular plants in accordance with
that plan. But I think it's more important to him to be able to
move along with his how house, put his fence up, and this
area -- he wanted to leave it natural, that's why we originally
came with the plan we came with, before he even built. So.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I would like to propose to the Board is
consideration of an amendment to permit 7712 as described, with
the condition that a non-disturbance buffer is maintained as
described in permit number 7712.
In other words we are referring back to the language of
that original permit, which had a non-disturbance buffer. We
are not referring to the plans -- that's just something I'm
suggesting.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The original permit said there should be no
disturbance seaward of the line of staked hay bales without
further review by the Board of Trustees.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I'm saying, that we consider the
approval of the amendment to the wetland permit as described,
with the condition, and the language in that condition comes
right from the permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I also make another suggestion. Change the
wording, it says "plant the berm with grass." Can we just say
plant grass up to the hay bale line, instead of calling it a
berm, because we don't even believe it's a berm. And if we feel
it's sufficient the way they have it with the drainage, we can
leave that alone.
MS. MOORE: The hay bale line being 25 feet, right?
TRUSTEE KING: According to them the hay bale line was actually
landward of the --
MS. MOORE: Exactly.
Board of Trustees 56 June 22, 2011
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We measured it out and we agreed with.that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do we want to use the existing hay bale line as
a point of reference?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we can say 25 feet from the edge of the
existing patio.
MS. MOORE: Actually that's where the fence is going. Why don't
you just say seaward of the fence, right?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Landward of the fence.
MS. MOORE: Sorry, you are making grass landward of the fence.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the fence.is 25 feet-from the patio.
MS. MOORE: Right. And then he can come back with a planting
plan, if he chooses.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sure. That works.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just clarify that motion,'Dave.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Motion to approve the amendment to wetland
permit 7712 as follows: For the redesign of the swimming pool
and patio; the revised location of the pool fence; and that the
area seaward of the pool fence to the bluff remain a
non-disturbance area as per wetland permit 7712. And we need a
set of revised plans to show that.
MS. MOORE: One thing you forgot.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Wait. We are in the middle of a motion
MS. MOORE: He's adding, the amendment, the gate at the steps at the stairs. At the fence.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm not interested in that. He can put a gate with
the pool fence. That will keep the kids in.
MS. MOORE: How about a fence on the either side of the stairs?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are in the middle of a motion.
MS. MOORE: I didn't suggest that. That's something you guys
_talked about and suggested it to --
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we should be addressing that
tonight.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think if we just remain with the pool fence.
TRUSTEE KING: The big concern is the CO. By approving the pool
and pool fence, they have it. We'll worry about the other stuff
down the road.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think that's a good --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I be a little more specific on the pool ,
fence and can we just mention it's 25 feet from the seaward edge
of the patio. And new plans showing that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I just want to double check consistency here.
Just to make sure. Because we reference the original permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we need to redo the resolution. There
was too much chatter in between that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, but the original permit was to have the
swimming pool and pool fence and patio with the condition of
line of staked hay bales that were to be installed no further
than 25 feet seaward of the proposed pool fence, prior to
construction, and there is to be no disturbance seaward of the
Board of.Trustees 57 June 22, 2011
line of staked hay bales. So in the original permit, 25 feet
seaward of the proposed fool fence was the hay bale line, and
the no-disturbance was to be seaward of the line of staked hay
bales, without further review from the Board of Trustees. What
we are doing is revising the pool fence location to be regl.ly ekt
the staked hay bales.
MS. MOORE: Right, at the 25 feet.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So we a''re adjusting a-little`bit. So we need to
make that reference.
MS. HULSE: Just don't refer back to,the.non-disturbance buffer
in the original permit. You are now establishing a _ _3
non-disturbance buffer.
TRUSTEE KING: Right. Non-disturbance seaward`of'the'pool"fence.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. So let's try it.. .-- ...___
TRUSTEE.KING: Nothing to do with'the old permit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you just re-do that motion, Dave?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would ask Bob to go ahead and propose the
resolution.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Go ahead. While he was giving it I was actually
listening to Lori.
MS. MOORE: I think you had it before.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There was too much chatter. I want to clear
the record.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to put the one-year extension in this?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was already done.
TRUSTEE KING: All right. So I'll make a motion to approve the
pool and patio and the pool fence to be located no more than
25-feet seaward of the patio. And the area seaward of the fence
is to be a non-disturbance area. And grass can be planted to
the landward side of the fence.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we are going to do.
TRUSTEE KING: That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any further discussion on the motion
from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: And we'll need to see plans showing the proper location of the fence.
MS. MOORE: I could bring that over tomorrow because I have the
as-built, as I said. That's fine. RECFAVfE®
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? {
(ALL AYES). -A 1e4
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll. make a motion to adjourn. 2 6 2MI 8:141 w.n,,
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? Id Town Clod
(ALL AYES). utho
Respe tfully submitted by,
1600
Jill M. oherty�; l' t
Boar f Trustees