HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-09/21/2011 II\
g
�
Jill M.Doherty,President � OF S�Ury� Town Hall Annex
Bob Ghosio,Jr.,Vice-President �O lQ 54375 Main Road
l l P.O.Box 1179
James F.King
Southold,New York 11971-0959
Dave Bergen CA Q
John Bredemeyer �O Telephone(631) 765-1892
IyCOU '� Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECEIVED q-6a_
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
NOV 18 2011
Minutes
Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Southold Town Clerk
6:00 PM
Present Were: Jill Doherty, President
Robert 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, October 12, 2011, at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, October 19, 2011, at 6:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of July 20, 2011
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Welcome to our September meeting. Before we get
started, there are a couple of applications on here that are
postponed and will not be heard tonight. The first one is on
page three, number two, SUSAN MAGG &JAMES ORIOLI request an
Amendment to Wetland'Permit#4559 to include the as-built 3'X 6'
ramp and 6'X 30' floating dock with two (2) 6" pilings to secure
dock. Located: 495 Halls Creek Dr., Mattituck, will not be heard tonight.
Page five, number eleven, En-Consultants on behalf of
CHRISTOPHER & MAIRI YOUNG requests a Wetland Permit to construct
a 4'X 18' extension to the existing 4'wide fixed catwalk with a
4'X 12'fixed "T" section at the terminal end thereof; construct
a 16'X 32' in-ground, raised swimming pool, raised masonry
patio, and an outdoor shower; construct masonry retaining walls
around the west and south sides of the pool to contain the pool
and approx. 55 cubic yards earthen material to be obtained from
pool excavation; install a drywell to contain pool backwash and
Board of Trustees 2 September 21, 2011
a pool enclosure fence; and establish an 8' wide non-turf
buffer and a variable width (+/-32' - +/-71'), approx. 11,699
square foot non-disturbance buffer.
Located: 470 Willis Creek Dr., Mattituck, will not be heard tonight.
And number 18 on page six, Group for the East End on behalf of
GARDINERS BAY ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC, requests a Wetland
Permit to modify the existing boat ramp to mitigate stormwater
run-off by installing proper drainage and replacing impervious
surface with pervious surface; restore habitat of a reclaimed
portion of boat ramp to include naturally vegetated swales; and
permanent placement of educational signage.
Located: Dogwood Lane road end accessing Spring Pond, East
Marion, is postponed.
If have you have something to say when an application
comes up, please come up to the mic, state your name for the
record. Wayne Galante is here to take dictation, and please try
and keep your comments brief, five minutes or less, as we have a
long agenda we want to get through. With that, we'll get started.
Our next field inspection is Wednesday, October 12, at 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our next Trustee meeting will be Wednesday,
October 19, 6:00 PM, with a worksession at 5:30.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY- All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Would anyone like to make a motion for the
-Minutes of July 20, 2011?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I read the minutes. There were just minor
changes that I forwarded to Lauren and the office, so I'll make
a motion to approve the Minutes of July 20, 2011.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for August 2011. A check for
$9,000.67 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
Board of Trustees 3 September 21, 2011
following applications more fully described in Section VI Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wed., September 21, 2011, are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
S EQ RA:
These are listed as follows:
Susan Magg & James Orioli — SCTM#11.6-7-4.1
Gardiners Bay Estates Homeowners Assoc. —SCTM#37-1-23
Eileen '& Vincent J. Flaherty— SCTM#92-1-8
Stephen & Cornelia Burnham — SCTM#6-7-12
Michael & Corrine Slade — SCTM#110-7-26
Michael Phillips —SCTM#33-4-3
Mill Creek Partners, LLC— SCTM#56-7-2
Deborah Penney:—SCTM#144-5-26
Nick Cutrone— SCTM#99-3-7
Theodore & Maria Petikas—SCTM#1'35-1-27
Arthur & Ruth Ventura — SCTM#15-3-46
Christopher& Maid Young — SCTM#115-17-17.11
Ellen F. Emery— SCTM#111-13-6
Susan Norris— SCTM#115-9-4
Steven H. Kram —SCTM#88-6-12
Ryan Stork — SCTM#128-6-8
Bernard Cosimano— SCTM#88-5-63
Joan Kuchner—SCTM#66-2-44
Bruno &Alma Ilibassi — SCTM#66-2-45
Thomas & Barbara Ball — SCTM#6-2-46
Pat lavarone— SCTM#110-7-3
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under Resolutions and Administrative Permits, we have one,
John Foster on behalf of ANGEL SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC., INC., requests
an Administrative Permit to replace approx. 200 cubic yards of sand on the path way to
the beach, and to replace as needed as a 10-Year Maintenance Permit. Located: End of
Sunset Lane, Southold.
Do we have a picture? We all looked at this and unfortunately this has happened
before and hopefully won't happen again but we'll, I'll make a motion to approve as
applied for, with a ten-year maintenance.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Applications for Extensions, Transfers and Administrative
Amendments. We have several of them. We reviewed them all and they are basically
just straightforward amendments. In order to get the meeting moving faster, I'll lump one
through ten together and I'll make a motion to approve one through ten, as applied for.
They are listed as follows:
Board of Trustees 4 September 21, 2011
Number one, Garrett A. Strang, Architect on behalf of PAUL BETANCOURT
requests the last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#6972 and Coastal
Erosion Permit#6972C, as issued on October 15, 2008, and Amended on
April 21, 2010.
Located: 1825 Aquaview Ave., East Marion.
Number two, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. On behalf of JOHN & EMILY
BREESE requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7200, as
issued on October 21, 2009. Located: 3689 Pine Neck Rd., Southold.
Number three, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of
GOLDSMITH BOAT SHOP, INC., requests the last One-Year Extension
to Wetland Permit#6983, as issued on October 15, 2008. Located:
2620 Hobart Rd., Southold.
Number four, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of
ALVAH & ALLAN GOLDSMITH requests the last One-Year Extension to
Wetland Permit#6985, as issued on October 15, 2008. Located:
2550 Hobart Rd., Southold.
Number five, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of JONATHAN
ZANG requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7176 as
issued on September 23, 2009. Located: 370 Takaposha Rd., Southold.
Number six, BARRETT KATZ requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit#7538 to include the as-built bench on the catwalk of the
newly constructed docking facility. Located: 625 Wood Lane, Peconic.
Number seven, AVERIL WERTZ requests an Administrative Amendment
to Wetland Permit#5218 to restore the soil level and beach .
grass near the bulkhead with approx. 250 cubic yards of fill.
Located: 1080 West Lane, Southold.
Number eight, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on behalf of
MARIA STANISIC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit#7549 and Coastal Erosion Permit#7549C to include the
reconstruction of an existing retaining wall in front of the
existing wall. Located: 19725 Soundview Ave., Southold.
Number nine, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf
of WALTER GAIPA requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit#7473 to construct 57 linear feet of vinyl retaining wall
with a 6' return at approximately 7' landward of the toe of the
bluff; install native plantings; and install gutters, leaders
and drywells for the existing dwelling. Located: 360 Lake View
Terrace, East Marion.
Number ten, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of
DONNA SALMINEN requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit#7469 to construct 57 linear feet of vinyl retaining wall
.with a 6' return at approximately 7' landward of the toe of the
bluff;`install native plantings; and install gutters, leaders
and drywells for the existing dwelling. Located: 320 Lake View
Terrace, East Marion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any discussion on that motion from the Board?
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eleven, SSK Enterprises on behalf of
Board of Trustees 5 September 21, 2011
NICHOLAS PALLANTE requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit#7451 to construct a 10'X 30' untreated wood deck
along the landward side of the bulkhead. Located: 4302 Wunneweta
Rd., Cutchogue.
I did go out and looked at this. Is there anybody here on behalf of the applicant?
MS. SYREWICZ: I am. Good evening. I am Susan Syrewicz, SSK Enterprises, I'm
representing Nicholas Pallante.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, very much. There was no problem with
the application but when I went out there on field inspection
what I noted was there was a boat davit that has been installed
on the dock, as well as a swim ladder, that looks like it's an
emergency swim ladder, for safety reasons, and what I was going
to suggest is for you as the applicant to add them to this
application tonight, and in doing so we would permit those in also.
MS. SYREWICZ: I hadn't realized that. I appreciate that very
much. If I could do that, I would appreciate that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, what we'll need is,.if it's approved, I
don't want to jump ahead of time, but if it's approved, receipt
of new plans that will show those on there.
MS. SYREWICZ: Will I get that in writing from you?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, it's -- it's a boat hoist. Excuse me, it's
not a boat hoist. It's a davit, like a dinghy, that's off the dock.
MS. SYREWICZ: A davit?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. And an emergency swim ladder, which is very
simple, that I would just draw in on the plans here tonight. But
we need to have the.davit on there also.
MS. SYREWICZ: All right, that should be simple. And how long
will it be that, what time do I have, limit, as far as giving it to you?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We can't release the permit-- again, if we go
ahead and approve this, we can't release the permit until we
receive that plan.
MS. SYREWICZ: All right, so there is just two things that has to
be added to the survey.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MS. SYREWICZ: And how many surveys would you like, sir?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We need two. We stamp two surveys.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We need two copies of the same survey.
MS. SYREWICZ: Okay. Anything else, sir?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's it.
MS. SYREWICZ: Thank you, kindly.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I'll make a motion to approve the application
of SSK Enterprises on behalf of Nicholas Pallante as described
with the addition of a boat davit and emergency swim ladder that
will be shown on plans to be received
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. SYREWICZ: Thank you, very much. This was my.first experience
and I was very well pleased with you guys. I deal with
Riverhead. I worked in Riverhead for 38 years. Now I retired
and now I have this business. So this is very pleasurable.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to go off our regular agenda
Board of Trustees 6 September 21, 2011
and on to public hearings.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll start with amendments.
TRUSTEE KING: Number one, STEPHEN BURNHAM requests an Amendment
to Wetland Permit#5900 for the as-built rock retaining wall and
drywell. Located: Madeline Ave., Fishers Island.
This was an amendment for a permit that was originally for
a house addition, if I remember right. The original permit was
for additions to the house with the condition of drywells and
gutters and what happened was they bought some fill in the
backyard and built a stone retaining wall without the benefit of
a permit. so that's what they are here for. We have been out
there a couple of times. The CAC did not make an inspection,
therefore no recommendation was made. The LWRP coordinator found
it inconsistent.
We have all been out there. I really, other than the fact
it was built without a permit, I don't have a huge issue with
it. It was just a matter of some minor landscaping and the
addition of the rock wall. And they did put their drywells in
for roof runoff and everything, so. I don't know how the Board
feels about it. I really don't have a huge issue with this. Why
it was inconsistent, I think it was only because it was built
without a permit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What does the report say?
TRUSTEE KING: Rock retaining wall was built without benefit of a
Board of Trustee review and the issuance of a permit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. I reviewed the file and I don't see any
problems.
TRUSTEE KING: It was not a huge thing. It's having no impact on
the freshwater wetlands behind the property. I would make a
motion to approve this and find it consistent with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion?
TRUSTEE KING:'Is there anybody here from Fishers Island to
discuss this?
(No response).
I didn't think so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Costello Marine Contracting Corp.,
on behalf of SUSAN NORRIS requests an Amendment to Wetland
Permit#7501 to remove remains of 180'+/- of existing bulkhead;
construct 18'+/- of new bulkhead in-place; construct 4-16'
Board of Trustees 7 September 21, 2011
bulkhead return walls; re-align (straighten) 40'+/- existing
retaining wall at covered deck area; repair existing stairway
as needed; re-install existing gate and replace missing aluminum
stairway to beach; fill all eroded areas landward of bulkhead
and retaining wall with clean trucked-in soil and reconstruct
post-rail-wire fence in-place; and revegetate disturbed areas
with approved vegetation. Located: 2790 New Suffolk Ave., Mattituck.
The Board did go out and looked at this.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry, Dave, can you just hold off
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking at these pictures from Burnham. I
would like to reopen this hearing on the Burnham application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to stipulate on this that there be a
five-foot no-mow area landward of the rock retaining wall. He
has turf right down to the stone, so if he puts a little buffer
in there that won't be mowed, I think it will be beneficial to
the wetland.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The wetland is just in front of the rock
retaining wall.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, and I think that will help bring it into
consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We mentioned that when we reviewed this and just
forgot to do it, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Now you can close the hearing and do the
resolution.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing again.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion to approve this with the
stipulation of a five-foot no-mowing area landward of the stone
wall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can go now, Dave.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, back to number three, Costello Marine
Contracting behalf of Susan Norris, as described, located at
2790 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck.
The Board did go out and looked at this. The Conservation
Advisory Council resolved to support the application however
they recommend the applicant consider replacing the bulkhead
with the irregular surface revetment. It was reviewed and found
to be consistent under the LWRP. The Board didn't have any issue
with this. I would like to make a recommendation though, of a
non-turf buffer to be placed landward of this bulkhead. This is
a very wide lawn. Hopefully there is a picture up here. And as
you can see, there was a tremendous amount of damage done from
that storm, from Tropical Storm Irene. And so as I recall here,
Board of Trustees 8 September 21, 2011
there is actually --just stand by for a second -- there is
currently a bulkhead and a retaining wall landward of the
bulkhead and what I would recommend to the Board is the area
between this bulkhead and this previous, this retaining wall
that had been there previously, that all be a non-turf buffer.
Is there anybody here who wanted to speak on behalf of this
application from Costello Marine?
(No response).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, he just called before.
TRUSTEE KING: How wide is this? It looks like a little cement
boathouse and canopy there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because here is the retaining wall there.
TRUSTEE KING: Sure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other suggestions from anybody on the Board?
If we have a ruler, just so I could --
TRUSTEE KING: The whole area will be disturbed anyway. It
already is disturbed..
TRUSTEE KING: Looks like approximately ten foot. If there are no
other comments, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve Costello Marine
Contracting on behalf of Susan Norris as described, at 2790 New
Suffolk Avenue, with the inclusion of a ten-foot non-turf
buffer, and that was found consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion?
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, under Coastal Erosion
Permits, Peter Gerace on behalf of NICK CUTRONE requests a
Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a 15'X
18'3" second-story addition to the existing one-family
dwelling; add wood deck at first floor 297 X 8'8"; and maintain
existing 9'8"X 24'9" wood deck at rear of residence..Located:
786 Bailie Beach Rd., Mattituck.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
(No response).
The Trustees performed a field inspection. Trustee King is
more familiar with the site than I am, individually, and also
the Conservation Advisory Council performed an inspection and we
have the report from the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
coordinator. The LWRP indicated they felt the application was
inconsistent with LWRP standards citing the deck construction
specifically in that it was located within the Coastal Erosion
Board of Trustees 9 September 21, 2011
Hazard Area. The Conservation Advisory Council supported the
application with the condition that there might be a ten-foot
non-turf buffer installed along the top of the bluff. The CAC
was questioning a structure on the beach as well as a sign, but
it's my understanding from Trustee King those were actually on
the neighboring property so that issue of the CAC I think was
addressed through the Trustee field inspection. Okay, those"are
the facts surrounding the inspection and I'll open it up now to
any comments in favor of the application or against, or any
concerns.
MR. GERACE: Peter Gerace, I'm the applicant for the owner, to
answer any questions, if there are any. I think you are
familiar with the application. We feel it's a very sensitive,
new addition to the residence.
TRUSTEE KING: I think basically it's all on the eastward side of
the house and landward side of the house. As far as the deck
goes, the deck is already there. It's been there for years. It's
attached to the house. It's not a deck out on the bluff.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This land survey really has only a portion
of the deck within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area and is it an
open constructed sort of deck?
TRUSTEE KING: It's just an open deck in front of the house.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So the area, it would only be inconsistent
if it exceeded the threshold of the 200-square feet. To my mind
I think it's already consistent because structures that only.
exceeds 200-square feet would be regulated.
TRUSTEE KING: That's why they are applying for coastal erosion
permit because it does exceed the 200-square.feet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In its entirety. But the portion landward
is not regulated
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's less than 200-square feet in the Coastal
Erosion Hazard Area.
TRUSTEE KING: I understand.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In other words we only regulate seaward of
the coastal erosion line, so actually I think the application by
virtue of the fact that the licensed land survey depicts it more
accurately than the aerial map, that the application may
actually be consistent because it's the 200-square foot open
deck/dock exemption. So I think --
TRUSTEE KING: It's not new construction. It's there. It's been
there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And it's below the threshold within the
coastal erosion area. So I think'that addresses that issue, that
the application is in fact consistent.
TRUSTEE KING: As far as the buffer, I think I wrote in there, I
would like to see a five-foot area where they don't mow. What
they are doing is they are mowing just over the lip of the
bluff. If they can back it up about five feet and leave it alone
and not mow it, it's beneficial to them. The bluff is still very
stable. There is no problem with erosion. Because it's not a
very big stretch of land there, by any means, so I think five
Board of Trustees 10 September 21, 2011
feet would be sufficient.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comments?
(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 the
application noting it is consistent with the LWRP since the
structure is smaller than the threshold for permitting where it
exists seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line, with the
requirement that mowing not be taking place within five feet of
the point of inflection of the bluff. So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion?
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. GERACE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, En-Consultants on behalf of THEODORE
& MARIA PETIKAS requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion
Permit to construct approx. 50 linear feet of retaining wall and
(2) +/- 12' returns; install +/-1 ton stone toe armor along
retaining wall; and backfill with approx. 50 cubic yards of
clean-sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Located:
52755 North Rd., Southold.
As you can see, we have pictures up there. The LWRP
coordinator found this to be consistent and makes this
recommendation with the consideration of the physical location
of the residential structure and the high rate of erosion from
storm surge in this area. The Town's Conservation Advisory
Council resolved not to support the application because the
proposed retaining wall is actually a bulkhead and they believe
the code does not allow for new bulkheads, and that the bulkhead
will shuffle the wave energy to town beach. CAC suggests
armoring the shoreline and planting. Is there anyone here who
would like to speak on this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants. Good evening,
everybody. This site is one of the many that I looked at with
Jim and the DEC many, many months ago, after the nor'easters of
last winter. It is immediately adjacent to the Poligeorgis site
for which a permit was recently issued for the retaining wall or
bulkhead,whichever you want call it, that was in that, I think
is in that photo. Almost in that photo. And again, that was the
Poligeorgis job that had replaced the previously approved job.
On the other side of town beach is the Turnbull site for which
the Board recently approved an armored bulkhead at the toe of
the bluff. So this is the only parcel in this stretch here
between what is immediately east of Town Beach and then
Poligeorgis and then Padovan who is next, the one next after
Poligeorgis.
Board of Tnistees 11 September 21, 2011
The project is proposed consistent with my original
conversations with Jim and with Alexa from the New York State
DEC and I expect to get DEC approval for the project also. If
you have any other questions, I'm happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, I think when we were out there, we just did
the measurements to make sure everything was consistent with the
plan. This was, as I recall, this was the property that had a
bunch of sinks kind of holding the place together.
MR. HERMAN: Everything that was out there, was out there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Including the kitchen sink.
MR. HERMAN.: Including the kitchen sink.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And lots of them.
MR. HERMAN: I think there was quite a bit more there immediately
at that time. I don't know, Jim, if you remember, but it looks
like a lot of that has been cleaned up.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, if I could clarify the CAC's concerns,
under 275-11(b), bulkheads, number one: New bulkheads in creeks
and bays are not allowed. Bulkheads on The Sound shall be
permitted when there is an example of extreme erosion is
demonstrated, which I think has obviously been demonstrated in
this case. So that will address the CAC's concern.
MR. HERMAN: And we addressed those criteria in the application
and the LWRP application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any further comments from the audience or the
Board? Any questions?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. Any further discussion on the motion?
(No response).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And it's deemed consistent under LWRP.
.TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It already was..
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I mean putting that in the motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERMAN: Thank you
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under Wetland Permits, the first three are
properties that are connected, so I'll open all three of the
hearings at once:
Number'one, JOAN KUCHNER requests a Wetland Permit to replace
100' of existing timber bulkhead using vinyl sheathing 1' higher
than existing, construct a 16' return on the west side, and
construct 4'X 8' beach stairs with a 4' platform. Located: 1726
Arshamomaque Ave., Southold.
Board of Trustees 12 September 21, 2011
Number two, BRUNO & ALMA ILIBASSI request a Wetland Permit to
replace 100' of existing timber bulkhead using vinyl sheathing
1' higher than existing and construct 4'X 8' beach stairs with a
4' platform. Located: 1728 Arshamomaque Ave., Southold.
And number three, THOMAS & BARBARA BALL request a Wetland Permit
to replace 125' of existing timber bulkhead using vinyl
sheathing and 1' higher than existing, construct a 30' return on
the east side, and construct 4'X 8' beach stairs with a 4'
platform: Located: 1890 Arshamomaque Ave., Southold.
And they are requesting timber bulkheads with vinyl
sheathing and the associated stairs on all of these. One has a
16-foot return, another has a 30-foot return. They all came in,
they are all consistent under the LWRP. The Conservation
Advisory Council reluctantly supports the application however
recommends the applicants consider rock revetment with a three
to one slope to absorb the wave energy and cut the back into the
property. The CAC has sympathy for the applicant, however
replacing the bulkhead will not solve the problem.
I believe in one of the applications there is a letter
requesting -- did they decide to do the rock, Lauren? Did they
submit a letter for that?
MS. STANDISH: Yes, they did.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Here we go. These are all applications
that we have approved in the,past, and Hurricane Irene has come
and did some damage and now we are taking the opportunity to
have them each do a separate application, so we would be
combining the previous permits with these permits, which
incorporates stone in front.of. With all that being said, is
there anyone here to speak to behalf of these applications?
MS. BALL: Hi, I'm Barbara.Ball. I'm one of the property owners.
just wanted to read a letter from our Beixedon Estate
Association president who wanted to come to the meeting.but was
unable to attend, Would you like me to read it or would you just
like a copy of it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is it a long letter?
MS. BALL: I could give you copies.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would like a copy for the files. That would
be great. Thank you.
MS. BALL: This is -- do you want me to read it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY:You can summarize it, if you could.
MS. BALL: Basically he says the.officers and board of directors
are in favor and voted to replace the community bulkhead damaged
by Hurricane Irene. We strongly support the Beixedon bayfront
bulkhead owners Ball, Ilibassi and Kuchner's efforts to replace
their damaged bulkhead. The stone armor will help to minimize
toe erosion and help stabilize the shoreline immediately in
front of the bulkhead. The board of directors and officers are
working very closely with all the bulkhead owners to reestablish
our shoreline and beach. The bulkhead owners' sand permit will
help restore our shoreline to the 2008 levels. We hope to come
to a longterm solution to the shoreline erosion problem with
Board of Trustees 13 September 21, 2011
careful applications and monitoring of the sand while working
with the regulating agencies. I recently addressed the community
informing the Beixedon community of the Trustees meeting tonight
and the meeting in October for the community bulkhead. We
strongly support the one to two foot height increase of the
bulkhead because it will add stability and a safe access point
to the beach for all the community residents. This access helps
preserve a significant asset to our community, has and it would
be a shame to lose.
In my recent letter to the community I also addressed
correspondence and communication with government agencies.
would like to state that only I and members of our board have
the authority to communicate and make decisions on behalf of our
association. I understand every member is entitled to their own
opinion and vote within our association, but one individual
cannot make representations to the thoughts of the community.
Please retain my contact information for future reference
should you need any clarity or have any questions relating to
the Beixedon. A appreciate your help and consideration given to
our current situations. That's from Michael Warland, the
president of the association.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
MS. BALL: There was one other thing that we had requested on the
Ball permit, and that was we wish to change some specifications
on that, that was submitted. The adjoining property to the east,
Beixedon Estates Association is now also applying for
replacement bulkhead, so the 30-foot return on the east side,
um, and the additional 25 feet on the south side, which was on
the Ball half of the right-of-way will no longer be necessary to
be included in that permit. And I believe I sent a copy of that
to you. It should be in your files.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we have that. So just to clarify, you say
you'll replace 125 foot existing timber bulkhead. That's still 125 feet?
MS. BALL: No, it's 100 feet now. And no return.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And no return, okay. And on all three of these,
the previous permits, once we approve something here tonight,
the previous permits will be null and void, but we'll
incorporate all of the approvals from the previous permits and
the conditions, which include the rock in front of, even though
it's not described on this agenda here. So the resolution will
include the letter and the permit will include all those conditions.
MS. BALL: All right, because we wrote a letter requesting --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we did an amendment last month to bring
sand in, so that will also be incorporated into this.
MS. BALL: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do we recall what the amount of sand is there;
how many cubic yards?
MS. BALL: I have the permit here. It was four-hundred cubic
yards, as recommended by the DEC. They had asked us to try to
replenish the beach back to the 2008 level.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have it here. On the Ball property it is
Board of Trustees 14 September 21, 2011
approximately four-hundred cubic yards of sand. Each property
was pretty much about the same.
MS. BALL: I believe it was, the only one that was different was
the Kuchner's.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, they had, I think five-hundred. I remember
-- yes, the Kuchner's have five-hundred and the other,two have
four-hundred cubic yards of sand. So that will be included in .
that as well. Are there any other comments from anybody?
TRUSTEE KING: Didn't we talk about possibly raising the bulkhead
two feet?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It should all be in the field notes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, you have in the application request
to raise it a foot higher and we are thinking two feet higher
would be better. And also no fences along the bulkheads. And we
want a buffer. What was the buffer behind the bulkheads?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ten feet in the worksession, I believe.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just seeing what we had previously approved.
Bear with me. It's a lot of files. (Perusing).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: While she is looking at that, is the applicant
okay with raising the bulkhead two feet?
MS. BALL: Yes, that's fine. I request have a question about the
fence. You don't want it right next to the bulkhead. I'm
concerned about anybody falling because there is rocks there.
That's fine. So is there a place we could put something up to
protect against falling off?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In the past we have allowed like a split rail
fence further up. We are concerned with the wildlife corridor as
well, not just the safety of humans, but the wildlife corridor
you are blocking right now. So that could be applied for at
another time. But we generally don't like it right on top of the
bulkhead. We like it a little further back. It could be, if the
Board feels comfortable in including that tonight, we can
include a split-rail fence on the landward side of the ten-foot
non-turf buffer, post and rail.
MS: BALL: Okay.
MR. BALL: The reason we were going to put it to begin with was
because there would be a significant drop. If we have the fence
that we have, then little kids won't be able to get through it.
Like five year olds. You have to constantly watch them with a
split-rail fence. You have to do something so they don't
accidentally get through and fall off this thing. It's kind of
dangerous. I'm thinking if you go maybe past the buffer and then
put it in. Or maybe not go as high. I'm talking about the little
kids, that they cross over it and get hurt. The split-rail they
just go right through it, you know.
TRUSTEE KING: We did chainlink in Greenport.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought it was split-rail.
TRUSTEE KING: No, we have a chainlink in Greenport. It doesn't
have to be split-rail, if it's --
MS. BALL: Okay. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: It's an established yard area. It's not like it's
Board of Tnistees 15 September 21, 2011
out in the boondocks someplace.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. And that would conform with code. All
right. Are there any other comments from the audience?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: Are we going to allow them to go up two feet if
they want?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought that's what we were suggesting, yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what the association was advocating as
well.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. And the purpose of that is to decrease
the amount of the slope so it will decrease the runoff going
into the bay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, if there is no other comments I'll
make a motion to close these three hearings.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll do three separate resolutions, though.
Number one, Joan Kuchner, I'll make a resolution to approve as
applied for with the exception of the bulkhead to be two feet
higher than existing bulkhead. And also a ten-foot non-turf
buffer and a fence will be allowed, if they choose to, landward
of that ten-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KING: Any armor of the stone?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And this will include the previous permit, I
don't have a permit number, armored with stone and also
five-hundred cubic yards of fill on top of that. And the
previous permits will be incorporated with this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further'discussion on that motion?
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Bruno and Alma Ilibassi, I'll make a motion to
approve as submitted with the addition of two-foot higher
bulkhead and a ten-foot non-turf buffer, and a fence, if they
wish to, on the landward side of that buffer, and to incorporate
the previous permits which includes armoring and four-hundred
cubic yards of fill on top of that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on that motion?
(No response).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That is found consistent with LWRP, as the
previous one was. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Thomas and Barbara Ball, I'll make a motion to approve 100 feet
of existing timber bulkhead using vinyl sheathing, two feet
higher than the existing, and construct a 4x8 beach stairs with
four-foot platform, ten-foot non-turf buffer and a fence
landward of the ten-foot non-turf buffer. And to incorporate the
Board of Trustees 16 September 21, 2011
previous permit which included the stone.and four-hundred cubic
yards of fill.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on that motion?
(No response). All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we would request revised plans on all these
showing the ten-foot buffer and the fence. And the two feet higher.
TRUSTEE KING: Number four, Patricia Moore, Esq., on behalf of
TOM & MAE MAURI request a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X134"
wood ramp, 4'X 53'8" catwalk with Thru-Flow decking, 3'X 10'
seasonal ramp, and 6'X 20' seasonal floating dock. Located: 1135
Calves Neck Rd., Southold.
This is an application of an extension of the dock, if I
remember right. Also construction of a dock, but I think it's
longer than the first go around. It was found inconsistent with
the LWRP. I think this was for the first.
MS. MOORE: The first draft because it was not out of water depth.
TRUSTEE KING: Because he questions the depth of water. What is
the expected draft of the vessel. Insufficient water depth could
result in bottom scarring, turbidity and loss of native species.
And also there is a high probability of commercially valuable
shellfish species occurring in proposed location of dock
structure. This intercession of a dock structure will result in
a net loss of shellfish species.
MS. MOORE: May I speak?
TRUSTEE KING: Go ahead, Pat. The other was just on construction
methods.
MS. MOORE: Just to recap, the proposal, I submitted, actually
September 9, a drawing prepared by Bob Fox. This is a drawing
for a fixed dock, but it is open decking, fixed dock, to a ramp
and then the float. The float was repositioned and the dock
structure itself, I believe, was kept to the minimal length
possible, with the ramp providing the extension that we needed
to make it consistent with both the LWRP and also the DEC. The
original structure when it was sent to the DEC, their objection ,
was that we needed to reach two-and-a-half feet of water. At the
last hearing there were concerns about where the channel was,
which this drawing actually provides, Bob Fox has provided water
depth and the location of the channel. It's on the drawing. We
also, out in the field, confirmed that the placement of the boat
on this dock will not interfere with navigation and it is
actually significantly south of a mooring that, a sailboat
mooring that is on the north side of the channel.
What I did, I had done, was to compare the lengths of the
docks surrounding. This is a piece of property that did have a
dock previously. There is evidence of the dock still in the
water and there are floats that are there on shore. Those docks,
they have deteriorated, and this is essentially a new structure.
So conforming with current regulations. So that is the
application that is being submitted today.
Board of Trustees 17 September 21, 2011
The dock that is to the east, or when you are facing the
water on the right-hand side, actually has 106 feet out into the
water. And further east there is a dock structure that is 96
feet out from the edge, but it is actually protruding into the
water further.
What you find here is the shoreline that is a mixture of
bulkheads and changing shorelines. So the average length, I
came up with the average length of the dock that is to our west
just directly on the left-hand side, that's a shorter dock but
extending further out because it's at the end of a bulkhead. The
average length of the dock to our east and to our west, the
average distance is 98 feet, and that is actually, we are a foot
less. When I added up all the structures here, including the
float, we are at 97. So we have maintained the average length of
the structures surrounding but, obviously with an undulating
shoreline and changed conditions on the shore front it's very
difficult to maintain just an even pier line. Depends on which
boat --which dock you are next to and which property you are
next to, because the pier line there kind of zig-zags along the
shore. We have given you what we think is an acceptable drawing
that the DEC will accept and we can meet the two-and-a-half feet
of water.
The docks to the east and to the west of us are actually
going out to three-and-a-half to 3.7 feet of water. So we are at
the minimum depth that is acceptable by the DEC and LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: I forgot to mention, the CAC recommends supporting
this application. They want to see a non-disturbance buffer from
the top of the bank to the high water mark. That's part of their
recommendation.
MS. MOORE: I think it already is.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's basically beautiful native vegetation
there; blueberries --
MS. MOORE: It's a little hill, yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Point of information, I went back to the
site today armed with a tape and I was concerned about the fact
there was some larger vessels there and thinking in my mind if I
was going up through, and actually the two docks to the east, in
other words as you face the property, in fact those lengths
comport with what I found. And the shoreline tends to lead a
prudent mariner who would be going up there watching shoreline
because it does undulate a bit. It does tend to.sweep a little
further toward the north so someone going up there in a vessel,
the dock that is two to the right will already probably have,
anyone who is traversing it in a large boat, because there is
several large vessels further, upstream, if you will, would tend
have a course that would naturally go out into the channel. And
I know there were concerns that if we grant this dock going a
little further out that maybe neighbors would want to go further
out, but actually depths, at dead low tide today, neighboring
docks have between three-and-a-half and four feet of depth
already, so there would be no reason they would,-- they would
Board of Trustees 18 September 21, 2011
not need additional depth. They could pretty much have whatever
size vessel they want and could be able to navigate.
MS. MOORE: When I pulled all the permits from everyone along the
shoreline, I found at least on the permit even there was
confirmation that most of these docks, to the extent they have
been rebuilt and been brought out and replaced, they essentially
are all three-and-a-half feet to 3.7, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You said there had been a dock there previously.
Do we have any history as to how long that dock was there?
MS. MOORE: It was a shorter dock, because it didn't have to
reach the depth of water. You know, I think the original
application was actually matching the size of the previous size,
but it would not pass muster with the DEC or LWRP. That's the
problem, to conform with current regulations.
TRUSTEE KING: It's been a consistent problem with the DEC and
Trustees. We try and keep the catwalk short so they don't go out
in the public domain. They don't care how far they go out as
long as they to the water depth that they want.
MS. MOORE: There a positive here, which is that we do have an
open decking. So to the extent that we are using all the best
materials and all the current materials that provide for an
environmental benefit, you know, there is a little bit of offset
there. So we do try to provide a dock that is minimally invasive.
TRUSTEE KING: As far as the shellfish issue goes, I don't know.
I don't know what is there, if people are actively clamming
there or not. I don't know. I have no information on that.
MS. MOORE: We maintained in within the same general area of the
original dock, and it's obvious there are floats and boats
there. So it is a compromised area.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This particular shoreline is hard sand. You
can walk it at lower tide, so this dock structure should
accommodate a means of riparian usage walking along the
foreshore and walking over so it, so it should have a set of
stairs incorporated into it. Based on what I saw today at low tide.
MS. MOORE: That's not a problem.
TRUSTEE KING: It might help on the consistency.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You know, in terms of fishing, it's a crab
area. There is plenty of crabs, but I don't know about clams.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't either.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only thing I would point out, we were
talking about pier lines and such. This one here, which is the
second dock over, if you drew the pier line to this, basically
bypassing this one, it would be much more inconformity with what
they are looking to do. And you could also do it using an arc
from a center point, it would fit within an arc.
TRUSTEE KING: I know the Board has kind of historically taken a
pretty hard line on maintaining these pier lines. But I know in
reviewing the code if you take the average length --
MS. MOORE: Yes, but you have a changing shoreline and you have
Board of Trustees 19 September 21, 2011
to be somewhat flexible with that. I think in fairness, we are
talking about a very, not much of a difference between what is
proposed and the pier line, so. Also it is the portion of the
dock that is the seasonal portion of the dock is what goes out a
little further. The fixed portion is inside, so when the
structures are seasonally removed, everybody is pretty much
consistent.
TRUSTEE KING: Any comments?
(No response).
Any comment from anybody in the audience?
(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 for a seasonal ramp and float and open-grate decking.
And we'll have a set of stairs so people can walk across the
dock; walk on the foreshore.
MS. MOORE: From one side to the other.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that will bring it into consistency.
TRUSTEE KING: And those two issues I thin, will bring it into
consistency with LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE.DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion?
TRUSTEE KING: Just a seasonal, I.believe is the 1st of November
out, and not in before April 1. 1 think that's consistent with the DEC.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They'll need revised plans, right?
TRUSTEE KING: Showing the stairs, yes. And open-grate decking.
MS. MOORE: We have the open-grate deck.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, Lark & Folts, Esqs, on
behalf of ELLEN F. EMERY requests a Wetland Permit to repair
and replace existing stairs and platform with in-kind material
in the same location;.trim and remove dead and overgrown vines
and non-native vegetation on bluff; build terracing and install
erosion control mats at top of the bluff; and replant bluff with
native plant material. Located: 5925 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could interrupt just for a second. I'm
recusing myself from this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone who wishes to speak on
behalf of this application?
MS. FOLTS: Yes, I'm Mary Lou Folts from Lark & Folts Esqs., on
behalf of the applicant Ellen Emery. I think Ms. Emery's
application is self explanatory so I'm sure you'll be pleased if
I just don't repeat everything that is in it. But I did just
want to reiterate that Ms. Emery's only intent when she started
to do anything on her property was to preserve and restore the
Board of Trustees 20 September 21, 2011
bluff on her property and she had no clue at that time that a
permit was required from the town Trustees. She had hired a
contractor Ned Harroun of Island Tree and Landscapes to do other
work at her home and he happens to be a New York certified
arborist, and he made recommendations when he saw her property
of how the bluff was overgrown with invasive growth and
non-native plants and said he could clean that up for her. But
due to the incline and slope of the bluff he couldn't do this
without utilizing the existing stairs and platform. However, the
stairs had been built and rebuilt back in the 1990s and they
were decayed and rotten and unsafe, so he proceeded to go ahead
and replace those stairs and platform inkind in order to do his
restoration work. Unfortunately he didn't have a permit and Ms.
Emery, as property owner, was cited by the bay constable, and
work immediately halted, and that matter has now been, nothing
has happened since the issuance of the violation and that has
now been cured with Lori Hulse, the prosecutor.
MS. HULSE: That's correct.
MS. FOLTS: So criminal charges or any violation charges are off
the table. We are here tonight for the application. Obviously
Mr. Harroun has not been able to finalize his work on the bluff
with the stop work order on it and what I would like to do is
introduce him now because he would like to address the Board and
explain what he would like to do to continue to restore the
bluff and do his plantings. So at this time I would like to
induce Ned Harroun
MR. HARROUN: Good evening. How are you. Ned Harroun. I guess
you were there the other day and you saw the stairs. And, um,
they basically have been rebuilt the way they were built. Size,
- basically what I did, when I replaced them, is I traced, I took
them out and I traced them and I re-made them by tracing. Just
take this piece of paper and trace them off and rebuild them. I
put them back exactly in the same spot. Each post that came out,
went back in. Each post that went out came back in. As far as
the vegetation, what is happening there is, if you didn't look,
the vines, the bittersweet, the wild grapes, the different vine
material is just ruining and interrupting the photo process on
all the good things underneath. So when I started working on
it, it was engulfed with vines. And you couldn't remove
material. So the swath that I cut is basically about 20 feet
wide and the area of work is about 15 feet wide. So to get up a
hill with what was coming out of there, the weight of it and
everything, that is why, basically why I cut, and as I was
cutting, I saw that the vines, as the wind and everything is
happening, the vines switch, and they switch back and forth on
that cliff. And that cliff, probably 45 degrees would be fair.
To stand on it is almost impossible. I had to build little boxes
to stand in. And what we propose is to keep the pollard
material, which will flush this spring. There is a phenomenon
when cut something back it sends an'auxin signal and that auxin
signal flushes the material for the spring. It will just
Board of Trustees 21 September 21, 2011
explode and there will be twice as many, twice as much foliage
there in the spring as before I started. Because it's been
pollarded. To get the rest of the vines out and pollard possibly
some smaller stuff, and keep some larger stuff, it's basically
being ruined from lack of photo. The good material can't
photosize. The vines are blanketing its ability to photosize. So
the vines will win. They will be the winner. And what we'll
have is a bunch of vines, and the cliff will look like the
neighbor. Just barren. And something needs to hold it. So what
we are proposing is to build a little -- I have drawing here. I
think I have to bring it up to give it to you. I drew it and I
don't understand it, so. Let's see, you would look at it, here.
is the bottom. This is the water line. Here is the two
bulkheads. And we propose to build little terraces to hold the
new material and use the pollard as part of the post for the
terraces, and put in, you know, bayberry, Russian olive, some
more of the native oaks. The oak seems to do well there. Wild
cherry does well. And they all have a pretty good root system.
But they are declining. They are seriously in decline because of
the -- I guess you can't see it
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I saw it quite well. I understand the
concept of pollarding and I know what you are talking about.
MR. HARROUN: It's an effective way of getting something started.
Then it can be removed. Once these species are developing you
can take that material out. So it's kind of a nursery, you know.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a number of items that I have to go
through as part of the hearing process to let you know the
status of what the Conservation Advisory Council and LWRP found.
The LWRP pointed to the current code requirements the Trustees
have concerning the size of decks on bluffs, which is limited to
32-square feet. And the current structure is 67 feet. And that
also decks and platforms are generally not permitted on or near
bluffs. So that is one issue from the LWRP program that we have
to bring into consistency with the requirements of the code.
The Trustees, when we performed our field inspection, noted
that also the fact that it's updating protections for the bluff,
which would also include an area that would be an area of
non-disturbance and that the fence that was installed on top is
within an area that we would ordinarily set aside as a non-turf
buffer. So that maintained lawn areas would not be degrading the
bluff and putting excess feeding possibly, you know, nutrients
that will just push vine growth, whereas the nutrient
requirements, as you are aware, of the woody shrubs are probably
somewhat less. So the Board, in discussing this, looking at it
in the field and looking at the requirements of the LWRP and
also the comments of the Conservation.Advisory Council, where
they were looking to have a 20-foot non-turf buffer,
thematically, the Boards are looking at some protection for the
bluff on the upper limit. I know the Trustees were concerned
that a fence should more properly be on maybe a landward
delimiter or landward limit for the non-turf area that would be
Board of Trustees 22 September 21, 2011
allowed to either go back to native vegetation or would be a
maintained non-turf area where you would have native plants
before the point of inflection of the bluff. So those are all
the things that, the requirements.
MR. HARROUN: So you could have something like a group of Rosa
Rugosa, like a little bedding of shrubbery on top.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Precisely. Native plants of the owner's
choice is certainly suitable. But the soil types, there again,
you are the plant guy. So if your soil types there are suitable
for Rosa Rugosa, first I think might work, that would be the
sort of selection you would want to make, definitely.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we talked about potential line with the
original one over.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We thought--
TRUSTEE KING: Move the new fence back to that and then have a
non-turf buffer seaward of the fence.
MR. HARROUN: And basically have the seaside material behind
that. That sounds good.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It looks like it lines up with the flag pole, so
chances are you can incorporate that.
MR. HARROUN: Yes, yes. I probably had one eye shut when I did
that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Was there a question of the decking
material? It probably had a be some alteration.
TRUSTEE KING: By code you can't use treated material on decking.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It is supposed to be untreated lumber.
MR. HARROUN: That is called a weather shield. And on the
weather shield, when I purchased it, I have a copy of it, it
says environmentally preferred. Not "accepted." Preferred.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we saw that. Our code is pretty black and
white with that. It says untreated lumber. So it's treated with
something, so it's not acceptable under the code, the way it is written.
MR. HARROUN: So that would have to come up and replace it with
what, cedar?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Whatever untreated lumber you want to. You can
even use grading.
MR. HARROUN: Trex.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, Trex.
MR. HARROUN: So re-face the deck.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Downsize the deck to code.
MR. HARROUN: Make the deck into what size?
TRUSTEE KING: Maximum to 32-square feet. So whatever
configuration you want. What is it now?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 8x8 point something.
'TRUSTEE KING: You can just about cut that deck in half.
MR. HARROUN: It don't get a grandpa?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we don't do grandpa's anymore.
TRUSTEE KING: It has to meet the current code. Are we right,
Lori? It has to meet current code, right?
MS. HULSE: It does.
MR. HARROUN: You can't grandpa that a little bit?
Board of Trustees 23 September 21, 2011
MS. LARK: Even a pre-existing platform that has been there prior
to code? This has been there since the property has been there.
MR. HARROUN: She's had it since she was a little girl like that.
They rebuilt it what, three times. It's storms and hurricanes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We do take that into consideration but we feel
in this location and the steepness of the bluff it really should
be to code. It would benefit.
MS. LARK: So you are saying it is 67 square feet and you are
looking to cut it in half to 32 square feet?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct, the current code allows no larger than
32-square feet. So whatever configuration you want, as long as
it doesn't go over 32-square feet.
MR. HARROUN: So it could be 4x8?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right.
MR. HARROUN: So the width can stay, we you just have to chop the
front off.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: However you want to that.
MS. LARK: If you chop the front off, you are chopping the view.
Part of the value of the platform is the view from the platform.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: However you want do that, you can decide that
later and submit plans to us. We don't care how it is, as long
as it's no larger than 32-square feet. So you can go back to the
client and confer, and once we get the plans, we can --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is a letter from the owner.
MS. LARK: The owner is here if you would like to speak with her.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And in the letter they spoke about this being a,
they used to call it Cardiac Rest. It's just a place to rest on
the way down the stairs.
MS. LARK: But it does add to the value of the property. And
do have someone here to speak as to the value it adds to the
property of having a platform and observations, a place to stop
and gather the view. So I would like her to speak also. But
only if Ned is through with his presentation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I just have one quick question for Ned.
Before the Spring comes, with the prevailing
easterly-northeasterly that comes through the winter, do you
have any plans or recommendations for stabilization either with,
you know, annual rye grass or some plantings on the slopes?
MR. HARROUN: We could seed it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Or, if approved, to plant in total this
Fall?
MR. HARROUN: We could. This is an excellent time to seed. I
mean, we have our cool nights.
MS. LARK: It's a good time for planting, Ned, seeding, but is it
a good time for planting all you want to plant. I think that's
what he's asking.
MR. HARROUN: Yes, certainly. And the other thing I think we
failed to put in there, was the, as you go in the backyard on
the right side, there is a lot of deterioration from the
neighbor where he lost a lot of land. And did you look at that?
Where there is just--
Board of Trustees 24 September 2.1, 2011
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We saw that on the right.
MR. HARROUN: We had wanted to build a little retainer there,
with six-by's. Not sheathing or anything, just a small retainer
to hold that corner.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the top of the bluff, you are saying?
MR. HARROUN: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That probably could be incorporated by
reference if the Board moves to approve a permit, and that would
require an amendment to the plans along with changes in the deck.
MR. HARROUN: Okay. Thank you, very much.
MS. LARK: How far are you asking the fence be moved back?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Approximately to the flagpole.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: See where this post is. That was the existing
fence.
Ms. Lark: So that's not very far.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it was like six or seven feet.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think it was even that much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else who wishes to speak?
MS. LARK: I would like to have Erica McKenzie of Andrew Stype
Realty. She just wanted to address the Board on how preserving
the existing stairs and platform enables access to the beach and
how it does, how not to allow it will affect the value of the
property.
(Trustee Doherty exits the meeting).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Can I ask for a point of order.We were told
to hold the meeting for a couple of minutes. The Chairman had to
leave unexpectedly and I don't want to have comments put forward
without her hearing them. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. But
for sake of orderliness of the public hearing, apparently she
got an emergency call and had to leave for a minute.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Why don't we take a five minute recess,
everybody.
(After a short recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll go back on the agenda. One note before
we go, I do have to leave. I got a text my son is being taken
to the hospital but I don't know which one, so I have to wait to
find out if I have to go east or west. So I'll be leaving the meeting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are continuing the hearing in the matter
of Ellen Emery, and I guess you want speak to the issue.
MS. MCKENZIE: Good evening, my name is Erica Stype-McKenzie. I
am the sales manager and licensed sales associate at Andrew
Stype Real Estate. My father Andrew Stype, who is a real estate
general appraiser, could not be here today. He has studied this
property and has found sales of waterfront properties that have
similar unobstructed views as this property, with platforms and
stairs to the beach. He then compared them to recent sales of
waterfront properties that do not have or have limited views
with no access to the water. These homes range from Greenport
Laurel. The findings have been a value difference between
$200,000 and $250,000. This is between waterfront properties
with observation platforms as compared to waterfront properties
Board of Trustees 25 September 21, 2011
that do not have waterfront properties. A formal report will be
submitted to you later this week.
Now, speaking from a salesperson's point of view who has
shown numerous waterfront properties in this neighborhood, I can
say the difference between showing waterfront properties with a
180 degree views versus no views is basically incomparable.
Buyers are not willing to pay waterfront prices or waterfront
taxes if there are no water views. Stabilization is needed to
keep this bluff an observation platform as is. If the necessary
repairs can't be made and the bluff happens to erode, the value
of the entire property will significantly decrease. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes
to speak on behalf of this application?
MS. LARK: I would like to have Ms. Emery, the applicant and
owner, come forward to address the Board.
MS. EMERY: Good evening, my name is Ellen Emery, I live at the
property we are discussing right now. Those stairs and that deck
have been in existence since 1969. They have been replaced, I
think the phrase:is in situ, as they were, twice. No one has
ever raised any objections whatsoever. So from what I'm
gathering from listening to what you are saying, is that you
want take away property of mine and not enhance the property in
any way, which is what the intent was when it was first built.
You are also saying that I have to have six feet back from the
top of the bluff to put a fence in. There is only 50 feet from
the foundation of my house to the top of the bluff. So you are
now taking six to ten or what did you say, six to eight feet?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe we measured it about six to seven
feet.
MS. EMERY: Of my property.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It is right where the fence used to be.
MS. EMERY: The flagpole is there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, there is a fence post right there that shows
where the old fence was.
MS. EMERY: So you are saying it's.from the tip -- I thought you
were saying from where the fence is now it has to go back.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, we were suggesting it go back to where the
old fence used to be.
MS. EMERY: Okay. But it's the stairs and the observation deck,
Board of Trustees 26 September 21, 2011
or Cardiac Rest, that I really don't understand why you are
taking this from me since it has been there since 1969. With no
objection from anybody. This is what I don't understand. It's
like stealing property from somebody. That's all I have to say
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to this
application?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Before we close, I want you to know that I do
sympathize, and I understand what you are saying, and I have this is a quandary for me every time this issue comes up. We've
had this issue come up several times, and it's almost, it comes
up even -- particularly disturbing is when it comes up when
there are catastrophic situations that would, you know, sweep
this away, perhaps. But what happens, as a Board, we are bound
by the code. We don't create the code. The code is created by
the Town Board. And that is where the quandary really lies. And
we have to, our roll is to, I guess to administer the code to
the best of our ability, taking all things into consideration.
And I just wanted to say that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. So I put the motion forward to
close the hearing. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application with some modification. I would move to approve the
application subject to the following requirements: That the
treated deck surfacing material be non-treated lumber; that the
platform, observation platform, be limited to 32-square foot
total; that a non-turf buffer which would also allow, just allow
the existing grass to simply exist unmaintained. That would be
seaward of a point that connects the flagpole to the old fence.
And that a fence be moved landward of that six to seven foot
non-turf buffer; that the applicant perform some form of
stabilization and provide a planting plan for the bluff face
where it has been cut; that the applicant may submit amended
plans to include the construction of that smaller observation
deck; also with a small retaining structure for the, along the
property line to the south, to incorporate soil-keeping features
there, to prevent erosion at that the side of the property. I
would move that, I believe that incorporates, and by doing so,
this application will be brought into consistency with the
town's LWRP program, by having the structure comport with the
requirements of our code.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do we have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any further discussion on this motion?
(No response).
All in favor?
(Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer,
Board of Trustees 27 September 21, 2011
aye. Trustee Bergen, recused).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, note for the record I recuse myself from
that vote.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Also note for the record Jill Doherty stepped
away. 3-0-1 is the final vote. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number six, Ed Goodwin on behalf of BERNARD
COSIMANO requests a Wetland Permit to replace 100' of existing
bulkhead with new navy style bulkhead, in-place and with vinyl
sheathing, construct two (2) 20' returns, backfill with approx.
50 cy. Clean fill from an upland source, and install a 5'
non-turf buffer landward of the new bulkhead. Located:
845 Waters Edge Way, Southold.
The Board did go out and looked-at this. The CAC resolved to
support the application with the_ condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer
along the landward side of the bulkhead. And it was found exempt
under the LWRP. Is there anybody here to speak for or against this
application?
MR. GOODWIN: I'm for it. I'm Ed Goodwin. If there are any
questions, I'm here to answer them.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know in the description it includes
constructing two 20-foot returns, and when we went out and
looked at this, this is a bulkhead that meets contiguously with
bulkheads on either side.
MR. GOODWIN: There is a return wall on the north side.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: North is pointing landward, so let's go with
east side or west side.
MR. GOODWIN: The association side.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's west, okay.
MR. GOODWIN: That one is there right now, connecting to the
association bulkhead. Now, the neighbor on the east, his
bulkhead is ready to blow out, probably in the next storm. So to
protect the bulkhead I'm going to put in, I'm putting a 20-foot
return right down the property line, to protect him in case the
neighbor's blows out in the next storm.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We just questioned the need for the returns. You
had in your applications asked for a five-foot non-turf buffer.
As you heard, the Conservation Advisory Council recommended 15,
and our field notes we had suggested a ten-foot non-turf buffer
since the area will be disturbed anyhow, so we would like to see
a ten-foot non-turf.buffer there.
MR. GOODWIN! Ten foot is fine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think that covered all of our questions. So is
there anybody else who wanted to speak for or against this
application?
(No response).
Not seeing anybody, any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close the application of Ed
Goodwin on behalf of Bernard Cosimano, at 845 Waters Edge Way,
Southold.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
Board of Trustees 28 September 21, 2011
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Ed Goodwin on behalf of Bernard Cosimano as described with the
addition of amending the requested five-foot non-turf to make it
a ten-foot,non-turf buffer landward of the new bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And this has been found exempt under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any further discussion?
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number seven, Janet Moses on behalf of PAT
IAVARONE requests a Wetland Permit to replace approx. 111 linear
feet of existing bulkhead with a 6' inland vinyl sheathing
return and 14' return in same place; existing CCA timber inland
retaining wall proposed to be repaired as needed; backfill
bulkhead with approx. 100 cubic yards clean sand; and replace
existing 28'X 15' inland boardwalk inkind/inplace. Located: 995
West Rd., Cutchogue.
MR. IAVARONE: I'm Pat lavarone. I'm the owner.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Before you go any further, I need some things to
do. This application is found to be consistent with the LWRP
review. It does suggest we have a silt boom installed on any.
intertidal construction. The Conservation Advisory Council
resolved to support the application with a condition that a
20-foot non-turf buffer be installed along the landward side of
the bulkhead; the retaining wall continue to the left side of
the staircase with returns to stabilize the steep slope; and
construction materials are consistent with best management
practices. is there anybody here who would like to address the
application?
MR. IAVARONE:. I'm Pat lavarone, I'm the owner. I would first
like to note there is an amendment to the paperwork you have in
front of you. I believe you have new paperwork would advise to
show the removal and putting back of both the cabana that is
existing and I have a permit for, and the staircase, and upping
the amount of fill to 200 yards.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When did you submit that?
MR. IAVARONE: That should have been mailed in the end of the
week. I have a copy of it here. ['didn't make all of you copies.
I was advised by my expediter it was submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, I have this. This is showing the existing
shed and overhang which was removed. This is a project that we
issued an emergency wetland permit on. Is there a permit on the
on the shed?
MR. IAVARONE: Yes. 1996 that was approved.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Does it include the cabana?
MR. IAVARONE: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any questions from the Board? Any commends?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe,in the field, in the report of the
Board of Trustees 29 September 21, 2011
field notes we had a couple of suggestions regarding the
possibility of pulling in the bulkhead and then also with regard
to the replacing of that deck that is 28x15. We have been
downsizing those decks as they have been replaced in that
immediate area.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In the notes here, suggesting downsizing the
deck, pulling the bulkhead back to match the neighbor to the south.
MS. IAVARONE: That extension has been there for over 40 years.
You are basically taking property away from me, that I paid hard
money for.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was just a suggestion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When we were out there we noticed yours steps
out further than the neighbor.
MS. IAVARONE: It does. I think at one point, from what I could
tell, from the remnants, there was a cement or concrete bulkhead
that was at one point built in front of it and that's what
created this situation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was just a recommendation, but the
thought was also you might avoid the cost associated with having
that two large retaining structures as far as overall cost and
maintenance expenses associated with the property.
MS. IAVARONE: What was'happening, I had applied for DEC
approval, I was doing this project in the Fall. And Irene
prompted me to try and expedite this now. The paperwork for the
DEC, I do have in my possession. I do have approvals for. I
have material on my property. I was starting this project
thinking that I have received a letter from a friend of.mine
that the governor had allowed emergency operations without
permit. So I started. I got stopped by the bay constable and
that's what brought me here. I stopped immediately. I still have
an excavator on the property. I have all my material there and
I'm ready to go.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, it was just a suggestion to save a little
cost, plus it would have resulted in a contiguous line of
bulkheading. But you are absolutely right. The survey shows you
own that property there. We have, when there has been
catastrophic loss, allowed people to replace bulkheads out
there. So it was just an option for you. It was not something
this Board is mandating.
MS. IAVARONE: Again, at this point, I sort of contracted to do
the bulkhead and what is happening now, I contracted to do
retaining wall also, so I had not counted on that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What about reducing the size of the deck, is
that something you would consider?
MS. IAVARONE: Again, I have a permit for that. I have to abide
by what you say, but the cabana itself takes up a part of that
deck so it only allows me a small area to put some chairs out
there. And what I have done in the past and will do again, in
front of retaining wall, I use pea gravel as my buffered area.
And I could replace that with the silt clothe underneath it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, I know there was a neighbor two doors, I
Board of Trustees 30 September 21, 2011
believe to the north, who was in two years ago for, I don't
know, maybe a year ago, two years ago, for a bulkhead that had a
large deck and cabana, and that deck was reduce. I'm sorry, I
don't remember exactly how much it was reduced, but I know that
was reduced also. So it's, I think it's a matter of going by the
code, 32-square feet, and work from there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Like I said before, I have.a hard time,
particularly when something catastrophic occurs like this. Any
other comments'on what to do with the deck? From the Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry, but that other property, that was a
catastrophic loss of their bulkhead. So it was really an
identical situation to this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The only question I have is the decking on
what is considered a bluff. That was -- is it considered a bluff?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It doesn't say the size. It just says deck on it.
MS. IAVARONE: The survey shows the size from that 1996, plus I
also have current survey.
TRUSTEE KING: It says deck and 8x12 cabana.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It does, I know. But it doesn't say what size
deck. My assumption is that it would be the same deck that is on
here. That's why I'm saying -- and I have a tough time --
TRUSTEE KING: It looks like, to me, it's a structure with a
valid permit on it.
MR. IAVARONE: I have the -- it's not scaled. It shows the
diagram from,this is from 1968, actually, showing the cabana.and
showing where the stairs are, if you just measure off that area,
that's the extent of the deck.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It basically shows the same thing this shows.
Anybody want to see this from '69? Can I keep this?
MS. IAVARONE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's on there. I don't have a problem with it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It certainly is a catastrophic loss. It's
not a deck on a bluff face. And it's a permitted structure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, and again, it was a permitted structure.
We just had two on Nassau Point a couple of months ago that we
reduced, on the east side, and the property two doors to the north.
TRUSTEE KING: Were there valid permits on them?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: One there was. I can speak to one. One there
was. And then the one just two doors to the north. I'm just
thinking of consistency with what we have done with others.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted, knowing that it is consistent with LWRP and that the
owner brought in valid permits. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor
Board of Trustees 31 September 21, 2011
(Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee King, aye. Trustee. Bredemeyer,
aye)(Trustee Bergen, nay).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, have I no problem with this entire
project. I have no problem with the deck. But I'm going to vote
nay only because I feel we are now being inconsistent and we are
not, with what a property, excuse me, we are being inconsistent
with a property that has suffered a catastrophic loss two doors
away where we forced them to reduce their deck. So I vote nay,
with that explanation.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, Richard Boyd on behalf of DEBORAH
PENNEY requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing 1,817 square
foot dwelling, attached garage and enclosed porch; remove-
existing wood platform, driveway, brick walk and septic system;
construct new 2,631 square foot two-story dwelling with 1.5
story attached garage and roofed-over porches; new 538.8 square
foot on-grade stone patio; new paver on sand driveway and
walkways; new septic system; and new leeching pools for roof
run-off. Located: 160 Sailor's Needle Rd., Mattituck.
This was found consistent with LWRP and also a notation
here from Zoning Board. I guess they to go to Zoning for this
also. The applicant will install a 20-foot wide landscaped
buffer landward of the bulkhead. And the Conservation Advisory
Council moved to support the application with the condition of a
10-foot non-turf buffer. There were variances granted by the
Zoning Board on this property. Is there anyone here to speak on
behalf of or against this application?
MR. CHRISTIANSON: Yes. Good evening. My name is Steve
Christianson, I'm with Richard Boyd Architects. We are located
at 206 Richmond Avenue, Massapequa, New York. I'm here for the
Penney residence at 160 Sailor's Needle Road in Mattituck. You
can see that's the location of the rear of the home. There is an
existing home on the site. We are looking to construct a
two-bedroom home on the site.We had to go through zoning.
Everything was approved. The back of the existing home is 40,
it's actually on the drawings, 43.79 feet from the rear yard
property line. Sorry, that's what we are proposing. And the
existing is 40.73. So we are actually pushing the house back
from the rear property line. It's pretty self-explanatory. It's
just a two-bedroom home. That's about it.
TRUSTEE KING: There are some letters in here but they are all
for the Zoning Board of Appeals. They are not for us. There is a
letter here addressed to the applicant, evidently in support,
from a neighbor.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: There were eight letters submitted to the
Zoning Board, all neighbors.
TRUSTEE KING: They are in here.
TRUSTEE KING: We all went out and looked at it. It's a small
piece of property. The whole area pretty is well developed. I
don't think we had any real issues.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Not that I remember.
Board of Trustees 32 September 21, 2011
TRUSTEE KING: It's a 20-foot buffer takes up a good piece of
that property.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It isn't very much.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: You can see currently on the photo to the left
is where they are looking for the buffer. Once again, you were
out there, so you did see the big buffer that is currently existing. It's
about 15, 20 feet in along the whole side of the property.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You can't see the buffer on this one.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: If you go back one photo. That's it on the
left, behind the trailer.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, that's the side yard.
TRUSTEE KING: The buffer is behind the bulkhead, on the seaward
side. I don't know if we have a shot of that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't. Where I was, I was standing at the
bulkhead taking this picture. You can see there was not very
much space to begin with.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments from anybody for or
against this application?
(No response).
Board comments?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on, there might be other comments from the
audience.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: The homeowner is here.
MS. PENNEY: I'm confused, maybe you can clarify something for
me. I'm aware the Zoning Board did approve our application with
a provision for a landscape buffer, but they didn't specifically
tell me, I thought it was for a side yard, because I had a
neighbor complaining. I had no idea that the buffer was on the
water side.
TRUSTEE KING: No, it says applicant will install and maintain a
20-foot wide landscaped buffer landward of the bulkhead.
MS. PENNEY: Can you just explain what that means?
MS. HULSE: She is going to have to get that from the ZBA. You
can't interpret that for her.
TRUSTEE KING: We would require a non-turf buffer right along the
bulkhead there.
MS. PENNEY: What does that mean?
TRUSTEE KING: It means no sod, no grass to the bulkhead. You can
have gravel, you can have plantings. We have sometimes a
boardwalk along there. Anything to prevent fertilizer and stuff
from going over the bulkhead and into the water. That's the
whole idea of the buffer.
MR. ZALUSKI: I'm Steve Zaluski. I'm another owner.
MS. PENNEY: We are just trying to understand so we know we are
doing the right thing.
MR. ZALUSKI: We have the one bulkhead and then there is five or
six feet--
Board of Trustees 33 September 21, 2011
TRUSTEE KING: Is there like a lower walkway there?
MS. PENNEY: Yes, there already is a buffer.
MR. ZALUSKI: Yes, and there is sand under.that and everything.
MR: CHRISTIANSON: There is actual back-to-back bulkheads.
TRUSTEE KING: I think what you need to do -- I would recommend
-- I know it's a very small yard, in my mind. I would like to
see at least a five-foot buffer along that second bulkhead in.
But I think you need to go back to these folks and ask them
exactly, have them show you on a survey where they want that
buffer. Because in my mind, with all the buffers we put in
landward of the bulkhead, it's adjacent to the bulkhead.
MS, PENNEY: We didn't'understand. Because we thought it was a
side yard. When they said to us that it was a buffer, we assumed
side yard, because we had a neighbor complaining. We had no
idea. Because we did not get anything in writing yet. So we had
no idea they were talking about a buffer the length of the water
side. It's:just there is not that much land there anyway.
TRUSTEE KING: I know it's a small yard. We are well aware of
that.
MS. PENNEY: And we already have two bulkheads. We have one and
another. It's double-bulkheaded, which was approved, so --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Either way we can't supercede the ZBA
TRUSTEE KING: This was evidently a recommendation from the LWRP
coordinator to the Zoning Board, to have a 20-foot buffer.
MS. PENNEY: So we should talk to them about that.
TRUSTEE KING: I would, yes.
MR. ZALUSKI: Because that was a recommendation, though, right?
TRUSTEE KING: No, this is a condition.
MR.'CHRISTIANSON: We'll go back to them.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So I guess that means we can't supercede that.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: Once again, because we were all under the
assumption it was the side yard. And she just mentioned it.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you want us to table it until you find out?
MS. PENNEY: No, I need to get this moving. It's already been put
back 60 days.
TRUSTEE KING: How about this. We approve it with a 20-foot
buffer along the bulkhead. If you go to ZBA and they so no, no,
we went meant that on the side yard.
MS. HULSE: No, you can't do that. Just say consistent with the
ZBA decision. You have the decision on that.
MS. PENNEY: Okay, so stick with them, and ask them what they
are expecting. Is that what I should do?
MS. HULSE: You should go back to them if you have any questions.
TRUSTEE KING: To me, like I said, and I think the rest of the
Board, landward of the bulkhead means adjacent to the bulkhead
on the.landward side.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: Again, we just want to clarify because there
is the two bulkheads, it's a fully decked area, so their
property is actually back further from that. So.
TRUSTEE KING: I understand.
MS. PENNEY: Okay, so we won't take up anymore of your time. We
Board of Trustees 34 September 21, 2011
didn't understand. That's why we are asking.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: What would be the minimum that you would state
at this time?
MS. HULSE: They are making it consistent with the ZBA decision
of 20.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: So after, from tonight, if we go back to the
zoning, then we just go back to your office?
MS. HULSE: It can be discussed in the office if he has any
further questions.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: Just because we don't want to grant something
tonight and then --
TRUSTEE KING: Any change would be an amendment to the permit.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: Okay,.that's fine.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with
the provision of a 20-foot wide, non-turf buffer landward of the
bulkhead. And we'll probably need a row of staked hay bales
during construction.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: It's on the plans. Full erosion control is
around it.
TRUSTEE KING: And I'm looking for drywells for the roof runoff.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: Yes, it's in the back. There are two rings in
the back.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I remember seeing them on the plan.
MR. CHRISTIANSON: It's on the plot plan, if you look at the plot
plan.
TRUSTEE KING: You mean the overflow --
MR. CHRISTIANSON: Yes, there are two of them.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Also maybe revised plans from the buffer, right?
TRUSTEE KING: We'll need a survey showing the 20-foot buffer
along the bulkhead. And 1 think that's it. Second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other discussion on the motion?
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number nine, En-Consultants on behalf of MICHAEL
PHILLIPS requests a Wetland Permit to demolish and remove the
existing single-family dwelling, swimming pool and
appurtenances, and construct farther from the bluff a new
two-story, single-family dwelling and swimming pool, each with a
smaller footprint; install a drainage system of leaders,
gutters, and drywells; establish in place of existing lawn along
the top of bluff a 15' wide approx. 1,500 square foot non-turf
buffer to be planted with native vegetation; remove existing
sanitary system and install an upgraded sanitary system located
entirely landward of the 100' setback; and install a new.
driveway beyond Chapter 275 jurisdiction. Located: 1000 Sound
Board of Trustees 35 September 21, 2011
Dr., Greenport.
This has come before this Board previously and we had asked
it to be tabled pending going before ZBA. Do we know if this is
a received approval from the ZBA?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. We were heard by the ZBA and I was advised verbally
it was approved as submitted and presented in front of you
today. I don't have a written resolution on that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Lori, would that suffice that we can move
forward or do we need in writing from ZBA their approval?
MR. HERMAN: We were told specifically by of course the
chairwoman, who is not here, that we did not need a written
decision. That we were asked to go and appear before the Zoning
Board, which is what we did. I spoke with Jill again since that
time and she said that she would verify also, independently,
what the Board, what the decision was. But I can only represent
to you under oath what I was told
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I'm comfortable with moving forward
with this. Obviously the applicant won't be able to move forward
with the project unless he has ZBA approval, so.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there anything in the ZBA approval that is
different than what is being applied for?
MR. HERMAN: The one thing that was discussed in this was the
LWRP coordinator's recommendation was that the landward limit of
the buffer be equal to the coastal erosion hazard area boundary,
which would widen the buffer a bit from what is in front of you
tonight. And we agreed to that and we would agree to that
independently with your Board anyway. So that was not a
problem.
We were actually not sure why the Board had deferred
reviewing our application to be heard by the ZBA in the first
place. We have an application for a wetland permit before this
Board and I assume that you can review the application on its
merits under Chapter 275.
MS. HULSE: They are reviewing it now.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to review for the record, the Conservation
Advisory Council did go out and looked at this and they did
support the application with the condition of fences removed
along the top of bluff. And has been mentioned LWRP did review
this. They found this consistent with the recommendation the
buffer be extended landward of the coastal erosion hazard line.
And the only thing in-the notes that I see here from our first
visit is to make sure the flagpole is included in this, on this
survey. That is within our jurisdiction.
So now as is there anybody here who would like to speak on
behalf of this application?
MR. HERMAN: Yes, I know the Board has been out there. The
existing site is characterized by a swimming pool located
approximately 37 feet from the top of the bluff, and a dwelling
located about 65 feet from the top of the bluff. The lawn
currently extends to the bluff crest. There is on the property
Board of Trustees 36 September 21, 2011
an antiquated sanitary system located a little more than 100
feet from the top of bluff,,and no drainage system present on
the property. The proposed project seeks to remove these
existing structures and to construct a new, smaller swimming
pool, located 65 feet from the top of the bluff, and a new
dwelling also with a smaller footprint than what exists, located
82 feet from the crest of the bluff. To install a drainage
system of leaders, gutters and drywells, to collect and recharge
roof runoff, to install an upgraded Health Department approved
sanitary system located more than 150 feet from the top of
bluff, and to establish as originally proposed a 15-foot wide
planted buffer along the top of the bluff in place of exiting
lawn but would agree to extend that farther pursuant to the LWRP
coordinator's recommendation.
Although the newly-proposed structures don't meet a
100-foot setback from crest of bluff, in which case we would not
be here for the construction, the project design and
incorporated mitigation measures produce actually a significant
net benefit to the environmental conditions of the property and
to the adjacent natural resources, including, one, lot coverage
by structures will be decreased by 735 square feet, or
approximately 3% of buildable land.
Number two, wetland setbacks will be increased and a
minimum structural setback to the crest of bluff will increase
by approximately 28 feet or 75%.
Number three, onsite septic treatment will be improved and
located farther from surface waters through upgrade and
relocation of the sanitary system.
Four, the proposed drainage system will capture and
recharge roof runoff to reduce surface water runoff.
Five, the quantity and quality of surface.water runoff that
does reach the bluff will be mitigated through establishment of
what would now be more than fifteen-hundred square feet of
naturally vegetated buffer to be established in place of
existing lawn. Which serves both as a sink and filter for storm
water runoff and contaminants contained therein. And finally,
the area of property treated with fertilizers, pesticides and
insecticides will be reduced and set farther from surface waters
by this proposed buffer.
This is why we had argued that the project would be
consistent, most relevantly to policy six under the LWRP, and I
understand the recommendation by the LWRP coordinator was that
it be deemed consistent, and I believe that the Zoning Board
followed that recommendation, and we would ask you to do the
same.
This is a spot where actually the existing swimming pool,
as you probably saw, does not really have to be replaced or
removed. It is functional. It is in fine condition. But in order
to create the best possible site plan on the property- the
applicant is willing to remove the swimming pool and increase
the bluff setback by almost 30 feet, with a new, smaller pool,
Board of Trustees 37 September 21, 2011
as part of the redevelopment of the dwelling on the property,
which also will be moved substantially farther back and will
have a smaller footprint.
Again it's a little bit of an unusual project probably
because the, as I just mentioned, the lot coverage will actually
be decreasing by an order of more than seven-hundred square
feet. As a result of project wetland setbacks are increased,
bluff setbacks are increased. So we certainly hope the Board
would consider all of these design initiatives a favorable thing
for the property and grant us the wetlands approval.
If you have any other questions, I'm here, and Michael
Phillips, the owner, is also here in the audience.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Given what you told us tonight, Rob, would you
be willing to amend the application before the Trustees to
reflect that the non-turf buffer would follow the contour line
of the coastal erosion hazard?
MR. HERMAN: Yes. And we would have to do that anyway.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Here it is, by the way. I found it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else here in the audience who
wants to speak for or against this application?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only thing I can say, I'm very familiar with
the property, it's up in my neighborhood. Your plans look great.
It will be an improvement.
MR. HERMAN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN_ : No other comments I'll make a motion to close
this hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
En-Consultants on behalf of Michael Phillips, at 1000 Sound
Drive, with the one condition the non-turf buffer be created
seaward, starting at the coastal erosion hazard line, as
depicted on these plans.
MR. HERMAN: We would have to give you a --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But if it goes along, in the Minutes, with the
coastal erosion hazard line, I feel that the plans will depict that.
MR. HERMAN: That's great
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The plans that are dated here February 2, 2010.
MR. HERMAN: The most recent date is the March 29, 2011.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
MR. HERMAN: Which, for the record, was the same site plan that
was reviewed by the Zoning Board.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are right. Down at the bottom, March 29,
2011. That is on these plans. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any further discussion on the motion?
(No response).
Board of Trustees 38 September 21, 2011
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing is En-Consultants on behalf
of ARTHUR & RUTH VENTURA request a Wetland Permit to legalize
the existing bluff stairway with landings and an on-grade 8'X
13' wood patio. Located: 125 Sound View Rd., Orient.
The LWRP indicates that the 8x13 platform makes the project
inconsistent since it was constructed without a permit. And
Chapter 275 would limit the decks or platforms associated with
stairs and they can be no larger than 32-square feet.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not support the
application because it was an as-built stairs as a violation,
and there are buffer issues.
I inspected the site. The only issue I believe for the
Board of Trustees was the discussion concerning the platform at
the top of the steps. There is a, essentially, in the file,
photos indicate, there is essentially a five-foot and somewhat
variable non-turf or native vegetation buffer that is somewhat
being cut and maintained. I don't know if there is additional
interpretive information on the buffer issues that Conservation
Advisory Council member Derek has for us or not.
MR. BOSSEN: Derek Bossen, Conservation Advisory Council. I have
to recuse myself from discussion of this because when the
Venturas originally built the house I was the landscape designer
for the project. And I was --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry to put you on the spot like that.
MR. BOSSEN: What I know of that project at the time was that I
don't believe stairs were allowed to be build. And that's what
I'm aware of.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone here who can speak on behalf
of this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants. There is two, a couple
of issues that you raised; one more easily explained than the
other. John, there is, as part of this structure of the
stairway, there is a top platform that is integrated
structurally to the stairway, which is not the deck that you are
talking about or that is in the LWRP report. That is less than
32-square feet. Separate from that, on the ground, what I would
almost call like a wood patio, it's not really a proper deck --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The description is it's in the ground.
MR. HERMAN: Yes. So I would argue it's not really having any
impact on anything, but if it's the Board's disposition we need
to remove that as part of this 32-square foot rule, the
applicant has no issue removing that. Which would leave just the
stairway proper, with all of its landings and steps.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The stairway proper has no excessive
landings. I've walked it, measured it. Everything is conformity
with the current requirements of the code.
MR. HERMAN: Right. So we have to legalize that and get rid of
that wood patio, however you want to describe that, that's not a
problem.
Board of Trustees 39 September 21, 2011
With respect to the buffer, it is a little bit, this
project, I think when this property was developed, was caught in
a little bit of sort of a Twilight Zone between when before the
Board had jurisdiction up to 100 feet from the top of bluff, so
as I discussed with Mr. Ventura --who is also here, in case you
have any questions of him --this Board actually issued in 2003,
and I think in 2004, again, letters of non-jurisdiction for the
development of the property. Of course noting if there were
going to be any structures or activities within the coastal
erosion area, within the wetlands jurisdiction, they would have
to come back to the Board. The problem was, at that time,
because the dwelling is less than 100 feet from a bluff on Long
Island Sound, they also had to go to the ZBA. Now, as you know,
the ZBA, by routine, references these projects on the bluff to
the Soil and Conservation Service, at the time the Soil and
Water Conservation District. And the ZBA was given a letter from
Soil and Conservation describing all sorts of things that should
be done in your jurisdiction to control storm water, et cetera.
In the ZBA file, and I could give you a copy of this, if it's
important enough for you to have it, a letter to ZBA dated March
12, 2004, and the comments are as follows: The shape of the
bluff should be stabilized to a natural angle of repose, which
is no more than a one-to-one slope. This may be done by cutting
back the vertical of the overhanging lip. This will also
affectively shorten the distance between the bluff top edge and
the proposed house. Surface water runoff should be directed
away from the bluff face. This may be done by adding a low berm
along the bluff top edge, planted to a permanent cover. Any bear
area should be planted with Cape American beach grass and so
forth and so on.
So at the time the Ventura's took this letter, took the
recommendation from the ZBA and put in this low lying berm and
planted it with ground coverage and things that you saw, not
having any idea that in following the recommendations of the ZBA
and the Conservation Service that he would have had to come back
to this Board for permission to do that. Now that would not be
an issue because in all likelihood you would have a permit that
would have impacted that area, you would probably have required
your own buffer area or whatever conditions you would normally
apply for the development of a previously vacant lot on the
Sound.
So-all of this is a longwinded way of just saying the
Ventura's were basically just following what each agency in the
town told them to do, without really being fully aware there
turned out to be some conflict in terms of the placement of this
berm and so forth. But I think it's still consistent, probably,
what this Board would recommend.
So we would ask for forgiveness for that, and again, as an
action that probably would not have that Twilight zone between
the two boards occurring anymore because you now have
jurisdiction over that area, that you didn't have in 2003-2004.
Board of Trustees 40 September 21, 2011
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think we'll just blame Derek.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you for the relevant history.
Actually, it was very beneficial for myself because I sort of
fell through the cracks during that period. It was very helpful.
I did not see any evidence of erosion. The bluff looks really
great. So as far as adoption of Soil and Conservation practices,
whoever.the developer of the site was, it looked fine. And it
didn't appear they were fertilizing right to the edge or
anything so I don't think from my site inspection report to the
Trustees, I don't think there is an issue with that.
MR. HERMAN: I didn't either.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments from the Board or
otherwise?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application subject to limitation of the platform to be no more
than 32-square feet, with plans comporting with the reduced size
submitted to the Office of Trustees.
TRUSTEE KING: The platform will be removed, right?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: He'll have it down to 32-square feet.
MR. HERMAN: I was just asking Mr. Ventura. If the condition is
that it has to be reduced to no more than 32-square feet, that's
fine, because either he can do that or he can just remove it. I
think most importantly he does want this process to extend any
longer. So if it's the most expeditious thing just to remove
it, he'll remove it. So that's sort of your pleasure.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll withdraw my motion to reduce the size
and make a motion to remove the inground patio as we are calling
it, and that will bring the application into consistency with
the LWRP. That's my motion.
MR. HERMAN: If they want to add a proper deck there, they can
always come back and seek your approval for a 32-square•foot or
smaller deck.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any further discussion on the motion?
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES). -•
MR. HERMAN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 12, Samuels & Steelman Architects on
behalf of EILEEN & VINCENT J. FLAHERTY requests a Wetland Permit
to construct an addition to the existing dwelling with
renovations and reconstruction of portions of the existing .
dwelling and addition of a subsurface drainage system for,rain
water run-off for the dwelling and existing driveway.
Located: 470 Inlet Way, Southold.
This application was found consistent with LWRP, with the
Board of Trustees 41 September 21, 2011
recommendation we recognize and preserve the existing buffers
landward of the bulkhead. And it was.resolved by the
Conservation Advisory Council to support the application, with
no stipulations.
The-Board was out there and.we took a look at the project
and we reviewed the plans. And the field notes didn't find
anything irregular or anything that we really wanted to change
to the application.
Is there anybody here who would like to address this
application?
MR. SAMUELS: Tom Samuels, Samuels and Steelman Architects,
Cutchogue.
It's a very unique site, there is no doubt, in my experience. I
think we are trying to keep it as it is, to the maximum extent
possible, and yet still find a way to improve an old house which
is simply in need of more than a simple project would give it.
That's why we are in to recreate part of it in situ. So I'm here
to answer any other questions, as is my client. And Mr. and
Mrs. Flaherty are here to answer your questions. .
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Does anybody want to seethe plans?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't think we had any issues.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, no other comments or questions, I'll make
a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. .
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the applicationas
submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any further discussion?
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number 13, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf
of MICHAEL & CORRINE SLADE requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a one-story addition to the existing dwelling;
one-story addition to attached garage; new basement access door;
and remove.and replace the existing decking and railing at pool
enclosure. Located: 1435 West Rd., Cutchogue.
This was found to be consistent with the LWRP, with the
recommendation the Board require creation of a landscape buffer
incorporating existing vegetation landward from the edge of the
wetlands adjacent to the residential structure. In addition, it
is recommended a pool de-watering drywell be installed and
specified.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with the condition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer
installed along the landward side of the entire bulkhead;
gutters, leaders and drywells are installed to contain runoff.
Is there anyone here to speak for or•against this application?
MS. STEELMAN: My name is Nancy Steelman, Samuels & Steelman
Board of Trustees 42 September 21, 2011
Architects, from Cutchogue. I think you understand what the
project is. I don't think we have a problem with the ten-foot
buffer, and my drawings do show we have a drywell for runoff on
the survey, on the site plan.
TRUSTEE KING: Does the Board have any questions?
(No response).
This whole area here looks pretty natural the way it is..It's
not'manicured by any means. Is there anybody else here want to
comment on this application?
(No response).
And we have drywells for roof runoff. Did you get approval for--
MS. STEELMAN: For the garage, no, I don't think there is one
actually on there. There is one on for the living room addition,
but we'll put that on our drawings.
TRUSTEE KING: Other than that, I don't have any questions. Is
there is nothing further, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any further discussion on the motion?
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES)..
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 14, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc., on behalf of LISA GRATTAN requests a Wetland
Permit to remove the existing 2,465 sf. Single-family dwelling,
porches, brick patio and sanitary system; construct new 3,250
sf. Single-family dwelling, rear terrace containing a
swimming pool and spa, screened rec-room/cabana, screened
terrace, and upgraded sanitary system surrounded by a 120' .
retaining wall. Located: 11860 New Suffolk Ave., Cutchogue.
This was a permit application which the Board addressed
last month. Just to review, it was found inconsistent under the
LWRP. It was found inconsistent with the recommendation for the
complete removal of the current structure and have the applicant
specify the restoration of the area. It further recommends the
Board preserve large oak tree east of the current structure to
the greatest extent possible.
It was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council. They
supported the application with the condition that they save as
many mature trees as possible.
Now, at the last Board meeting we had brought up several
concerns that this Board had based on the first visit that the
Board performed at this site. And we made some suggestions at
the August meeting to address those concerns. The Board did go
back out there this month, and at that time we reviewed it, and
we reviewed it for purposes, a couple of things. First off, we
wanted to look at the wetland boundary again, and specifically
the location of the wetland boundary as relates to the current
Board of Trustees 43 September 21, 2011
structure that was there, and second, we wanted to look at what
we thought would be a.possible footprint for the construction of
this, of a house there. In our recommendations to the applicant
last month, we had indicated we were concerned about any
structure going forward of the line between the homes or the
adjacent property to the east, and to have the Agent go back to
the applicant and discuss with the applicant all of those
concerns. I do have in front of me a survey that the Board used
when they were out in the field where Trustee Doherty had drawn
in or sketched in what we would consider for a possible location
.of the house, and the one other matter that came up last month
was the fact that I believe it was talked about last month, that
the septic system, majority of the septic system was outside our
jurisdiction, when in fact it really was because it was noted
the last month there was a freshwater wetland across New Suffolk
Avenue to the north which brings the entire septic system into
Trustee jurisdiction.
I think I covered the items from last month. I know since
then we received a faxed letter yesterday, and we had received
some new plans that are stamped received September 20, 2011.
And so with that, I would ask if there is anybody here who
would like to speak on behalf of this application.
MR. CORCORAN: There certainly is. My name is Kiernan Corcoran,
I'm from Lackey Hershman LLP, on behalf of the applicant. I have
with me Bruce Anderson from Suffolk Environmental. I also have
some fine architects from Barnes Coy in Bridgehampton. And I
have the applicants here as well.
As painful as it was for the applicants to hear the
concerns raised by the Trustees at the last meeting, they did
listen. And they took them to heart. And in fact they engaged
their architects to do a substantial modification of the plan
based on those concerns. And that included collapsing the
program as far away from the wetland as possible, on the road
side, on the eastern side away from the wetland; moving the pool
and related structures beyond the minimum setback of the
Trustees. Well beyond, such that they are between 65 and 85 and
the pool at all times is 75 feet away from the wetlands.
Forfeiting several features of the program, including screened
rec-room and cabana and screened terrace; acceding to the
Trustees' suggestion that the house be built on piles; depicting
the erosion control measures that were suggested by the LWRP
coordinator; incorporating a planting and buffer plan that was
also suggested by the LWRP coordinator, and essentially redoing
the project.
Now, as to the concerns about the location of the wetlands,
it was actually delineated by Mr. Herman and En-Consultants, who
appeared here tonight and regularly appears before this Board
and whose,work the Board regularly relies upon. And in fact the
believe the Board retains his services to delineate wetlands
from time to time. It is an official survey wetland delineation,
and it's on record. Now, that being said, whether the wetlands
Board of Trustees 44 September 21, 2011
are as Mr. Herman delineated them or if they are some number of
feet, closer landward, we are faced with a situation where there
is a house existing right there. A large, substantial
residential house, and septic system, right up against the
wetland. And this applicant proposes to move the house, though
yes a nice house and a house of their choosing, but to move it
.to the far corner of the property-That this the house is, I .
believe, in front of all the neighbors' houses already. So when
we are talking about concerns about how far in front the house
will extend beyond neighbors' homes, we've got to do take into
account there is an existing house out on the edge of the
wetland. And this project will move the sanitary system, remove
an ancient septic system that could be 80-years old, and replace
it with a state of the art sanitary system as far away from the
wetland as possible. There could be no dispute that this project
in all ways is an incredible improvement to the environmental
situation present on this property.
That being said, the applicants designed their original
plan with the intent of co-existing with the environment and
improving the situation on the wetland. They spent a lot of time
and money coming up with that plan. They heard the Board's
concerns and they spent a lot more time and money coming up what
they think is a solution to those concerns. If the Board
continues to have concerns, I have lots of people here that are
willing to talk about that,,willing to talk about their approach
in addressing those occurrence, and making for a home that is
co-existing with the environment here, that is much better for
the wetlands, much better for the beach, much better for the
neighbors than the situation that exists at present. May I hear
the Board's thoughts?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. Thank you. Again, the Board did go out and
looked at this. And we walked all the way around this structure
and we do disagree with the wetland boundary as indicated by Mr.
Herman. Now, just telling you.that we do. And we feel the
wetland boundary goes much farther landward than what is
indicated here. In fact it goes probably close to what is
stated on this survey as the limit of moderate wave action. Not
quite. In other words, to the north it probably is a little
seaward of what is stated there. But the majority of it is, in
fact probably about a third to maybe a little more of this
current structure is within the wetlands. Whatever happened
over the years since that house was built, has happened, and the
wetlands boundary we feel is up there. So in fact, the entire
piece of property is within our jurisdiction. So we agree with,
in principal, of what you are saying. And I think we even
mentioned this last month that the construction of a house, a
new facility, and the abandonment of this old house is an
improvement to the wetland. No doubt about it. We agree with you
on that. It's just what we are concerned about the footprint of
the house. Now, we appreciate, I can only speak for myself,.I do
appreciate everything your clients have done here since the
Board of Trustees 45 September 21, 2011
meeting last month. I also, as I stated, and you are welcome to
come up and take a look at the sketch that Trustee Doherty
sketched out in the field, showing where we thought a footprint
for the house could be. And what you propose here does exceed
what is on the sketch. And like I said, you are welcome to come
up and take a look at this sketch if you would like to. When
exceeds it, it exceeded it too far toward the west. Again,
going very close, we feel, to the wetlands. With that, if you
would like to come up and take a look at this, you may. If not,
that's okay. And I open it up to other comments.
MR. CORCORAN: Well, we would be happy to take a look at it but
with all due respect to sketch made onsite, the applicants have
a scientific evaluation of the wetland as plotted on the survey.
There is no other wetland delineation in the record here today.
You say you disagree with that, that's fine. We have an expert
delineation of the wetlands. And it begs the question, what is
the better solution, okay. If the wetlands are closer, then you
have a big house on top of the wetland. We disagree with your .
premise that that would be the situation. What is the
alternative for the applicant? They have a right to that
existing house. They have a right to build back from that
existing house. They have a right to put a pool in the side
yard. This is their project design: Architectural, footprint
size. They are a bit more than half of the zoning lot coverage
allowed. This code is designed to protect the wetlands, but
taking due consideration of reasonable social and economic
development within the town, okay. What is reasonable economic
and social development of this property, given the amount of
money invested in this purchase, the amount of money spent
designing an appropriate project, to the applicant's desires.
Well, by zoning anyone can walk off the street and get 20% lot
coverage without having to talk to any review board. They are
requesting 14%. That is eminently reasonable by any standard.
That being said, I'll ask Mr. Anderson to talk about some of the
more scientific aspects of the application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I had a couple of questions that might be
appropriate to'ask Mr. Anderson if he's going to be bringing the
science portion forward, I guess. I'll wait until you make the
presentation.
MR. ANDERSON: I want to add a couple of items. We were advised
to take look at the size of this structure. And this structure
overall has been reduced by 28% over what you saw last month. To
say it's a substantial modification is really an understatement.
It's a complete and total redesign. The Board should take note
of that, because there is a lot of time, a lot of expense, a lot
of willingness to work with this Board already evident in this
record. We can talk about where we think the wetland boundary
is. It certainly is not the limit of moderate wave action. It
certainly does not go through a house. It certainly must go
around the house. And what we are proposing here is on the
other side of the house. So any discussion we want to have'on
Board of Trustees 46 September 21, 2011
wetlands, the conclusion has to be that this is a far superior
design from an environmental standpoint over what we had. What I
have not heard thus far, but I want to point out is, we also
have a house that does not comply in any respect with the town's
storm water controls, and I think we can all agree that the
septic system that serves the house is consistent with the
cesspool approximately 18 feet from where we believe the wetland
boundary is. If it's the town's position that the wetland
boundary is closer, all the better reason for relocating it.
This house is substantially closer to the street than the
house that presently exists. It was designed that way because
when the clients came to me, what I advised them, which I think
is good advice, is start with a compliant septic system, and
that compliant septic system must be located on the northwest
corner of the house. So what you see is a septic system profile
that consists of a septic tank-and a clustered leaching pool
system which minimizes its area. You will seethat there is a
retaining wall that surrounds the septic system. You'll see that
the setback between the leaching pool and the retaining wall is
ten feet because that's the minimum setback accepted by the
Health Department. Then, if you then calculate the distance
between the existing house and the road, you come up with 50
feet at its closest point. In other words, this house is located
as close to the road as can be located, given the required
septic system. You should know, you have not heard yet, but we
did make an application to the Health Department. This septic
system complies with the Health Department regulations in all
respects. And we received a notice back from the-Health
Department. That request that we provide them with copies of
wetland permits. So that's where we are with the Health
Department.
So there is no redesign of the septic system that is
required in that application. And that's important to note. So
the important thing is we start with a septic, and we started
with the point of impact, which is the septic system. And we
dealt with that first. And we said that area of the property
must be reserved for the septic system. So that you know, the
existing house -- one second here -- is 102 feet from the road..
We are at 50 feet from the road. So this house is entirely
landward of the existing house. You also note that the seaward
reach of this house has been substantially reduced. So if you
look at the survey before you, you'll see a proposed pool,
you'll see stairways, and if you come across the property,
you'll'see that we have encroached no closer to the bay than.
what is already there.And I think that's an important point
that needs to be stated. Because the proximity of the house
relative to the shoreline appears to be a concern of this Board.
It is addressed in this amended application.
So we are farther from the wetland, closer to the street,
and no closer to the shoreline than what we have today. And
those are all important points.
Board of Trustees 47 September 21, 2011
I don't think anyone.would argue that I couldn't renovate,
restore, rebuild, the house in its present location. This is a
lawfully existing house. But it's not a good house. And it has
problems with it. And we spoke about that the last time we were
here. And to do that would cost a great deal of money, would be
contrary to the purpose of this regulation that we are operating
under, and would not fully serve the needs of the clients who
have invested a lot of money and a lot of time and a lot of
energy into the house that they propose. Now, I have a project
architects here if you want to get into the design issues. But I
before this Board very regularly, and it's not usually an area
that-this Board gets into. They are interested in footprints,
they are interested in layout, they are interested in runoff
controls, they are interested in septic upgrades. And this plan
accomplishes all that.
The earlier comments relative to the LWRP were actually
addressed in last month's meeting, namely, the revegetation
plan, which is in your record now, and we did propose a
revegetation plan that would encompass-that area of the house
now removed, leaving scarred earth with plantings. Now, I should
probably, and I'm agreeable to adjusting that to reflect the new
building. But you have before you the revegetation plan. You
have an amendment of the survey before you today that shows a
line of hay bales and silt fence that controls the construction
related and potential impacts relating to the demolition of
existing house and the construction of the new house. So that
is before you as well.
. When we pull the house back further from the shoreline, so
that it would be no closer to the shoreline than is the existing
house, that resulted in maximizing preservation of trees that
otherwise would have been cleared under the previous plan. Which .
I believe addresses the LWRP concerns and also the concern of
the Conservation Advisory Council, which otherwise is
supportive, suggesting we attempt to preserve as many trees as
possible. It may be important to note that there are a number of
trees that would be west of the proposed house and north of the
existing house, that we would preserve, because we have no need
to clear them. That further bolsters the argument that the trees
would be preserved as much as possible.
Finally, there is a matter of concern regarding the quote,
fresh water wetlands across the street. And I think there is a
little bit of confusion here. And I'll hand up to you a copy of
the New York State DEC Freshwater Wetland map, and on this map I
have located the existing property and you'll see that there are
no freshwater wetlands across the street. I think what is
referred to here are tidal wetlands across the street and west
of Linden Lane. And that may be what the concern is. But that
distance relevant to the septic system is well beyond 100 feet.
So I don't think there is an issue, regulatory issue with
respect to the tidal wetlands that would be north of New Suffolk
Avenue and west of Linden Avenue or Moore's Lane. You should also
Board of Trustees 48 September 21, 2011
note, and I have not heard -- yes?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I was referring to is actually east of
Moors Lane.
MR. ANDERSON: There is are no wetlands east of Moors Lane.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We saw them. They are there. We could disagree,
but we saw them.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a small amount of formerly
connected wetland in a spot there that has Baccharus and --
MR. ANDERSON: That's not a freshwater wetland.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, I think the typification of freshwater
.may have been mistaken. It's a wetland.
MR. ANDERSON: You find a cluster of Baccharus on the other side.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: But it's damp and it also has some
phragmites in it as well.
TRUSTEE KING: Excuse me, at one time that tidal wetland extended
through, either through a culvert or maybe before the road was
there, I don't know. There is a fringe of tidal wetlands up in
there. Some indicators.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry, I interrupted you. Please finish
your presentation.
MR. CORCORAN: I think if we can, we would like to have the
applicant homeowner speak.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: They can. I want to make sure Bruce is through
with his presentation first.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. Well, in conclusion, you could see the
changes we have made. You can see that it's greatly scaled down.
You can see it is no further seaward than the existing house.
You can see it's more distant from the wetlands, wherever you
may think the wetlands are on the property. You can see it
would comply with the town's storm water controls. You can see
that the construction-related impacts would be controlled by a
line of hay bales. You will note that a vegetation plan has been
provided. One another thing I have not heard is the curb cut
entering the property would remain the same, and it's designed
to take advantage of that existing curb cut. So there is no
additional clearing related to the driveway, as it connects to
the road.
So this is a project that is, although nicer than what is
there, for sure, is designed in all respects to increase
compliance, regulatory compliance, in every respect, in every
manner, I can think of. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Can I just ask a question here. Will you bring in
any fill for the raised sanitary system?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, we have to.
TRUSTEE KING: How much are you bringing in? I see nothing
indicated as far as the amount of fill goes. The top of the wall
I believe is eight-and-a-half feet.
MR. ANDERSON: Finish grade is nine. And we are dealing with
that area just in the septic system. I don't see it here but I
could certainly provide that for you. I think the important
thing to understand is the amount of fill, and I'll certainly
Board of Trustees 49 September 21, 2011
provide that for you, is only that amount necessary to create a
septic system that complies with the Health Department
regulations. This is a house that is on piles.
TRUSTEE KING: I understand. We've looked at these in the field
where they are staked out and when we go back and look, we.have
no conception of how high or how huge they are. You are going
from six foot of elevation here to nine or ten?
MR. ANDERSON: The wall is 8'5". The.grade at the wall is six
feet. So you are talking about a two-and-a-half foot wall. Okay?
The grade will increase to nine feet as it travels toward the
house, but will be limited to the northwest corner of the site.
You should also note that the grades on top of the septic
system, as it grades toward the wetland, to the west, would be
graded at a slope of 5%, because that's the current Health
Department regulations. So it would gently slope toward the
west. And I would be happy to provide you with-an estimate of
that. It may even be in here, maybe I'm not seeing it. But I'll
look.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think also what could help is if we could
receive a cross-section showing that wall and that sanitary area.
MR. ANDERSON: It's on there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry. I apologize.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The question I have, Mr. Anderson is --
MR. ANDERSON: In fact I could calculate it right now, maybe I
will when I sit down. I could do that quickly for you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The question I have. Your revegetation plan,
would that-- and you have an area that you, on the original
revegetation plan, area of passive revegetation. What
specifically would your plans be for the passive area?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, what you are seeing today is you are seeing
46me incursion of Baccharus landward. And I think that's what
people are talking about when they see, you know, a disputed
wetland line. The way wetlands are typically flagged is that you
look for an area where there is a 50/50 competitive advantage
between wetlands and upland plants. So if you had an area that
had grasses, and intermixed in these grasses were individual
Baccharus, you would not hang a flag at the most landward
Baccharus, because that would be over-approximating the wetland
boundary. Having said that, you can see that there is Baccharus
that is colonizing upland areas, or areas let's call them
landward of where the wetland boundary was flagged. So in a
passive situation, what you can expect is more of that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because we noted the lawn cutting there
had inhibited the recolonization of the site with the Baccharus and
think there was a some iva fruitescens, there was a couple of
other indicators there.
MR. ANDERSON: No doubt, over the years, maintenance of lawns
have restricted natural adjacent areas and high marsh.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The question I have is would there be value
to something in the project that would allow for greater
flourishing of the wetland but that would limit impacts from the
Board of Trustees 50 September 21, 2011
house, such as a low retaining wall or railroad ties or similar
construction that would be located fairly close to the house so
that this area, without-arguing the wetland line as it is or as
it might be, but allow for as much flourishing of that wetland
up to the new structure, and to limit activity, you know,
seaward of that or to the wetland side of that very strictly so
that it would allow for a very full flourishing of that wetland
and also that would maybe address some of the concerns of the
grading back off the sanitary toward the wetland area so we
would not have a continuation of let's say a developed lawn area
over the sanitary in the front of the house, continuing to be
cut and mowed into this area that would probably like to go back
to a typical Baccharus wetland.
MR. ANDERSON: Well,I would say this. That certainly the area
where the septic system, you'll want to stabilize the top of
that with some sort of turf. It would grade down: There is an
area between, let's call it the most westerly leaching pool and
the existing curb cut that runs approximately 80 feet. In that
area we are intending to obviously preserve all the large trees
in there. But you would never see that incursion in the septic
system area because it would be bifurcated by the gravel -- the
driveway.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I guess I'm talking about --
MR. ANDERSON: Now, as we go seaward of that, to the south, it's
a question of what reasonable buffer this Board wants to impose.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A walkway around the house with, you know, a
fairly narrow constraining walkway with some kind of a retaining
structure just on the other side of it and the rest has to go,
would seem to me, should go natural. That's my view of the
project. I think this site wants to be wetland all the way up to -
where the house proposal is.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, the owners are here, the architects are
here. Maybe they can speak to that, what their willingness might be.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Before we get to that, we can certainly get to that
question, I have another question for Mr. Anderson. Last month
when you were here, we gave you the suggestion to eliminate some
of the structure seaward, which you have done. Obviously. We
also gave you suggestion to downsize the footprint of the house.
And I'm looking at what we had last month and what we have this
month. And while you have a small section of the footprint
listed as cantilevered above, essentially, it looks to me,
unless I'm wrong here, the footprint of the house as proposed
Y` last month is identical to the footprint of the house this
month. So you reduced structure for the overall project,
absolutely. I don't disagree with that. Because I heard that
argument made. But I don't see where you reduced, as we
suggested, the footprint of the house..
MR. ANDERSON: I would defer the square foot numbers of the house
to the project architects who are here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm talking about the footprint. Not the house
itself, but the footprint. Because what was alluded to earlier, that
Board of Trustees 51 September 21, 2011
is what we are most concerned with, the Trustees, is not the
architectural design of the house but the footprint and its
affect on the wetlands.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. I'm sure the architect can speak to that.
MR. CORCORAN: I think the footprint is close if not equivalent
to that of the previous proposal. The design has been collapsed
into that footprint. Okay. And you have to recall that there is
an existing footprint of a 2,500-square foot house on the
Wetland. So there is, you know, a 3,000 and change square foot
footprint of a home moved all the way to the corner of the
property. I don't see how the Trustees could have any concerns
about the impact of the environment on that beneficial change.
It's hard to imagine what the expressed concern is, and if there
is one, I would like an articulation of it. How is that a
problem? It's a much greater solution.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, because I want to allow others to have
comments, including other Board members, but I'll repeat what I
said earlier. We are not saying,.or I'm not saying as one
Trustee, that to abandon this whole house and to build a new one
is not better for the wetlands. It is. It is better. I'm
agreeing with that.
MR. CORCORAN: That's going to be one of the alternatives that is
left for the applicant.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But what I'm saying is we had suggested last
month that the footprint of the house be reduced. And I haven't
seen where that happened.
MR. CORCORAN: Okay, but I'm saying the Trustees should not be in
the business of designing houses.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, I'm not designing the house --
MR. CORCORAN: Or drawing footprints of houses on site
inspections and in telling people how big their house should be,
when they push it to the far corner of the property, which is
what the.code is designed to suggest, and what they have done.
So to tell somebody you can't have as big a house as you want
without any articulation of why not is prima facia arbitrary and
capricious, and perhaps a regulatory taking. They have come
here, hat in hand, asking for permission, changed their project
completely, spent a lot of their hard earned money, okay, and
done just about everything one can ask of them. And now you are
saying we want more. You don't need as big a house as you think
you do
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sorry, have we said no yet? We haven't said no
yet.
MR. CORCORAN: Of course you haven't. But I'm allowed to make my
argument.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So let's not approach it like we have denied
the application.
MR. CORCORAN: We have been asked again why haven't you scaled
down the footprint of the house.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I didn't hear that. I heard just to address it.
I will tell you, based upon what I'm looking at here, and I just
Board of Trustees 52 September 21, 2011.
folded up the paper to incorporate your new plan on to the
drawing of what we did out in the field, kind of indicating what
we thought we would like to have for a building envelope,and
based on what I'm doing here, the only thing that is not inside
that envelope is the stairs coming off the deck by the pool.
Aside from that, it fits into that. We,were out in the field, we did
that. It's kind of.•what we were looking at for a building envelope.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think it's pretty close.
MR. ANDERSON: We are in agreement, then.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I'm trying to say. We are in --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As an individual Trustee I don't have a
problem with the building envelope, I just want to allow for a
maximum flourishing of the wetlands.
MR. ANDERSON: I understand what you are saying completely.
MR. BARNES: Good evening, Chris Barnes, Barnes Coy Architects.
There is a very simple comparison we can make. There is a
southernmost wall of the existing house --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sorry. One moment.
MR. BARNES: I have to point something out here.
MS. HULSE: You just need to wait. They can't take testimony
right now.
MR. BARNES: Gentlemen, this is the current application. Now
you'll see, here is the southernmost wall of the existing house
and you'll see the terrace, the footprint, the actual footprint,
is now aligned with this southernmost wall. Last month when we
were here., there is the southernmost limit of the footprint. So
we have reduced the footprint substantially, and by the numbers,
it's over 2,000 square feet. This one --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we are not disagreeing,
MR. BARNES: This is 8,145. This one is 5,949. So about 2,300
square feet less of actual footprint. So somewhere it was just
mentioned we didn't reduce the terrace or the footprint.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let me clarify:What I was alluding to.--we
agree. You have reduced the footprint of the total project.
Absolutely you have. What I'm saying is the footprint of the
house, we had suggested last time go back to the client and talk
about reducing the footprint of the house. And the footprint of,
the house looks to be approximately the same.
MR. BARNES: No, it's no way near the name. The footprint of the
house is drastically reduced. May I approach again. I want to
explain something.
The survey is not that easy to read in terms of what the
house is.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, help me.
MR. BARNES: These structures here were actually attached to the
house. This was part of the house. But because part of it was on
the second floor above the pool, it doesn't show as something
touching the terrace. So the house actually came down to there.
We have now reduced it back to here. And the house itself is 700
square feet less than last month. So the house has been
substantially reduced and in fact the part that we did reduce is
Board of Trustees 53 September 21, 2011
a two-story wing that proceeded south way past the southern most
wall of the existing house, right in the possible view of the
neighbor to the east. That two-story wing has been totally
removed. And that contained important things. That contained
the master bedroom, the master study, the master bathroom. That
was like a major part of the design. So when we went back to
address your concerns, and we were all here last month, we did a
total redesign. The house is a different shape. It looks
different. Everything is in a different place. The master
bedroom is back by the road now because the entire house is back
by the road. And I would submit that this is substantially
reduced, in its shape and in its approach toward the beach than
the one we came here with last month.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I hear what you say. But I'm sorry, I disagree.
I'm looking at the two plans that are identical to the two plans
you just had.
MR. BARNES: You can't disagree, we designed it--
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sir, I'm looking at those very plans right here.
MR. BARNES: Doesn't that look closer to the beach than that?
This is the extent of the house. That's a substantial
difference.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we are not disagreeing with that. Here's
the footprint of the house.
MR. BARNES: No, here too.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, maybe this will help out. Maybe there was
a misunderstanding. My understanding last month was this was
the footprint of the house.
MR. BARNES: That's incorrect. It goes all the way to here,
because these are real parts of the house that were connected by
a second-floor wing. So this wing was actually two-stories
tall. Of course you can't tell that from"the survey.
TRUSTEE KING: This is my big concern was all this stuff. That
was my concern.
-MR. BARNES: Which has been removed.
TRUSTEE KING: I see that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN:.And we appreciate that.
MR. BARNES: But also the footprint of the house, I know it's
hard by just looking at the survey, that doesn't give you
elevations. We could come here with elevations, which we have.
We even have a computer generated image. And you would see that
that two-story wing, which was of a big deal before, and
something that of course the clients love because it places
their master bedroom with that view. In our redesign, we lopped
it off. It's totally gone. So I think that's a pretty
significant redesign.
MR. ANDERSON: I would like to make a further point, if I may.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure.
MR. ANDERSON: Trustee Bredemeyer asked about creating some
barrier. I'm going to say something in order, like a curve of
sorts, that would separate your sort of usable land from land
that would recover. And we were discussing that earlier, in
Board of Trustees 54 September 21, 2011
relation to Baccharus, which was migrating in parts landward of
where we marked the wetland boundary. There is a line on the map
known as limit of moderate wave action, okay. Now, what that
means is, it's a creature of the flood plain. And what it does,
it says, if you are seaward of that line, you must build on
piles. You can not have a conventional concrete foundation with
the flood vents because we are in an "A" Zone. What I would
suggest is we take that line and make that our barrier. And
think this would address your concern.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think some of the discussion that we had
in the field.was along the lines that that point seaward should
have the protection of a non-disturbance zone. Then the question
would be a suitable barrier that also does not impede or
endanger wildlife, if you are going to make it along those
lines. My prior thinking about a boardwalk or walk closer to the
house was to, something that would limit and provide usefulness
for human activity in the immediate area of the house, and let
the rest of it go. I'm not sure a curve at that point is really
necessarily what we would say is the best environmental. But
certainly the protection from that limit of moderate wave action
line is something the Board has come up during the discussion
where we were not looking to split hairs over wetland line, when
we were in the field to say, yes, this line looks to where the
wetlands want to be.
MR. ANDERSON: Now, one caveat to that. This is a beach front
home, so we would want to maintain our path to the beach.
TRUSTEE KING: Sure.
MR. ANDERSON: Maybe the survey should be reflected to show that.
But I don't know that a boardwalk is necessary. I'll defer that
to the clients. But I understand what you are saying.
TRUSTEE KING: Could be a split-rail fence, anything just
delineate that line.
MR. ANDERSON: Maybe a split-rail fence. We'll come up with
something. But we are agreeable to that concession.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bruce, on this plan that we got tonight, excuse
me, got yesterday, what is the square-footage of that footprint
-for the house? Just the house. Not the pool, not the terrace.
Just the house.
MR. ANDERSON: I'll defer to the architect on that.
MR. BARNES: We didn't calculate it that way. We calculated the
house, terrace and pool because that constitutes the footprint.
So the house by itself we could provide for you but I don't have
that number right now. That was not seen as a significant
number, but we could get it for you.
It's 700-square feet less than the previous house last
month.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What's the square footage of the current house,
do we know?
TRUSTEE KING: 2,600, something like that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So that would be 1,300 a floor?
MR. ANDERSON: No, the footprint-- is 2,465 by our calculations.
Board of Trustees 55 September 21, 2011
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 2,465. That's the footprint of the existing
house.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. The footprint.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was 2,600.
MR. BARNES: You could see on the satellite photos, it's not a
small house.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's not a small house, but I didn't think it
was 5,000-square feet, both floors.
MR. ANDERSON: Our description is inclusive of the patio. The
patio measures -- that patio is eight feet deep and 51-feet long.
TRUSTEE KING: Are those houses going to be on piles? Is there a
garage under it.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, there will be parking underneath.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As I said at the last hearing, we have had this
kind of instance happen just down the street, where we downsized
a planned home, much in the same way, and moved it as far away
from the wetlands as we could. And again, that had a cottage on
it that was there forever. This is the same kind of situation
except you are dealing with a larger structure and a bigger.
piece of property. My concern generally is I'm not a big
proponent of raised septics. However, in this particular case we
are taking the septic way out of where it's really in a bad spot
and bringing it a lot further away from what is existing.
MR. ANDERSON: One other thing, Trustee Ghosio, the last meeting
you asked that I would discuss the septic system and
alternatives to the septic system with the Health Department.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What did they say?
MR. ANDERSON: I want you to know I discussed this specifically
with Ed Lyons, who regulates most of the residential
construction, and he tells me that this is the system. You
cannot, there are no alternative systems available to my client
other than what he is proposing.
TRUSTEE KING: So you'll have this raised system, I take it will
be graded flat within the contained area and then tapered down
to the west
MR. ANDERSON: At a.5% slope.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And unlike some other systems I've seen it's
only two feet above ground.
MR. ANDERSON: And as a second, I think very undesirable
alternative, you can take the top of your septic system, you can
grade down 5% for 20 feet and add another retaining wall. If I
do that, I may wind up knocking down more trees. But that is an
alternative. I thought it would be nicer if we sort of graded it
back toward the driveway.
TRUSTEE KING: I agree.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think, I mean it's a reasonable, in my
opinion, I'm only one person on the Board, I think it's a
reasonable alternative to what was there. It may not fit exactly
into what we thought we would have hoped for out in the field.
But I think a lot of effort went into it, and I see it as being
a lot better than what is there. I don't have a whole heck of a
Board of Trustees 56 September 21, 2011
lot of trouble with this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Likewise, I feel the same way at this point.
I think water quality wise it will probably improve surface
water quality discharge, either under MS-4 or through the
sanitary, it will be improved by at least 100%, and it's the
best can you hope for at this time.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know you mentioned, I know there were others
that wanted to speak. I want to give them a chance.
MR. CORCORAN: If you can let us know if the Board has other
concerns you would like to address. I can't imagine that there
are. But we are all here, so let us know.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think the only other thing on the field notes
,that I saw, and Trustee Bredemeyer already alluded to, was
wherever the footprint of the house ends up here, if we do go.
with approval of a new structure here, there will be a
requirement of a non-disturbance buffer between some reasonable
distance near the house to the current wetlands. Particularly to
the west there, is what we are talking about.
MR. CORCORAN: Yes. Absolutely.
MR. CORCORAN: Is the Board prepared to vote?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, again, is there any other comment from the
audience on this application?
MR. CORCORAN: The applicant, Lisa Grattan.
MS. GRATTAN: Thank you, Kieran. My name is Lisa Grattan. I
appreciate all of the time both last month and this month that
the Trustees put into reviewing this application. I'm here with
my husband Bob Moriarti. As you can imagine, we appreciate that
you take your job seriously, that you have an obligation, and
certain authority that is given to you of course by statute and
regulations. And as I sat here for the first part of the
meeting and observed other applicants; you have reiterated and I
think tried faithfully to stick to the guidelines which is that
you are here, you don't write the codes, you don't write the
laws, and you enforce them. And I watched that happen with
numerous applications, including approvals of properties which
are acknowledged to cause substantial environmental mitigation
and to generally speaking, in your view, better the property.
I'm hopeful that this is a situation where'we perhaps at long
last, from our perspective., we bought this home about
ten-and-a-half months ago. We are in violent agreement about
the fact that what we have proposed first, and certainly now,
with the benefit of all of the comments that each of you has
made, and to which one by one we have responded to, and complied
with, that there will not be an applicant and more importantly,
there isn't another applicant, who will take as seriously the
responsibility to develop this property as we have. I want to
put this into some context for you, if I may. Some of you may
know I was born and raised in Mattituck. My father's family came
here in the 1800's. I have dozens of first cousins who I
socialize with, who are not able to visit out here. I have four
children of my own. They have 20 first cousins. We didn't set
Board of Trustees 57 September 21, 2011
out to build a house that is larger than some people's and
smaller than another just because we wanted to. We set out, on
the one hand, to design a house that would accommodate the needs
of our families. We have certain members, I have certain members
of my family who have chronic conditions. They benefit from the
use of a swimming pool. That access is very important to them.
We didn't designed a deck and a pool for no good reason
whatsoever. And I realize that is not an issue but I'm trying to
give some context to the application. At the same time, when we
bought this property, we knew there were approximate wetlands.
We thought it was a very special place. We bought it because of
our appreciation for the wetlands and the beach, and not in
particular because of the condition of the house that exists
there today. I think you have all been there, you can
appreciate that. We had it, as a matter of right, as a matter of
law, an opportunity to rehab the existing structure. It would
have been instant gratification. It would have been, in the
near term, less expensive. And we thought that was
unconscionable. So we didn't do it. There have been times,
confess, during this process, including earlier on this evening,
but I'm confident we are past it, that this has felt for us like
an example of no good deed goes unpunished. What we did is we
did our homework. Bob and I both went to law school. Some habits
die hard. We searched for the finest architects we could find,
who specialize in the development of waterfront property. We
found them, we paid them what they are worth. We found not just
one but two experts to help us to get right where are the
wetlands. What do we do to protect them. We had Rob Herman,
pre-purchase. We have Bruce Anderson, currently.. And there has
been discussion here tonight, which has been concerning to me,
about other people's view about where something should be,
whether there is or isn't a dispute about something which is
documented by two experts. I understand that neighbors have
issues. I understand that you each have your own sensibilities.
I also understand that we are all trying to do the same thing.
And we have not taken this lightly. And we would ask that you
take that into consideration in making your final determination.
This is a very, very, very thoughtful project. And to be -
candid, what you have before you tonight is not the project we
wanted. Last month's was. We took a 30% hit. We have already
adapted and conceded to something that was just raised here
tonight, without giving it a whole lot of thought. And that will
be our stewardship of this property, once we do it justice, but
removing what is there and taking a responsible approach. Is it
a house of a certain size with certain features? Yes, it is.
And we are not apologetic about that. We worked very, very hard.
We have a very large family. And the reason we bought the
property is to accommodate all of those interests. I think
people make mistakes, and governing bodies do, and they assume
that the developmental interests of a property owner are
automatically inconsistent with the preservation of the
Board of Trustees 58 September 21, 2011
environment. It may be rare, but this is an instance where
collectively we can do both well, and. right.
It is late. You're tired, I'm tired. You spent a lot of
time. We spent a lot of time. And, a lot of money. So I'll let
you get on with your business, but I hope can you with
appreciate the posturing from which we come Nefore you tonight
with this application. And I do thank you very much for your
time. I'm very grateful for it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else in the audience who wishes to
speak to this application?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I think it's a nice project. That's my opinion. We
have to do some things here with the non-disturbance.area, limit
the fill to the septic system, and I think it's, in my mind,
personally, I think it's a nice project.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any suggestions as far as non-disturbance
buffers go?
TRUSTEE KING: I would say this limited wave action line,
everything seaward of that would be non-disturbance and give
them a four-foot path down to the beach.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You have to have some disturbance for knocking
down the house.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: But side from that, after the project is done.
TRUSTEE KING: And that area where the house was would be
re-vegetated, I suppose.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And access to the knocking down of the house,
you know, could take place through the current, with the
proposed footprint of the new building. So that would help limit.
the amount of clearing that has to be done to take down that
house. Do you follow what I'm saying, Bruce? Would you agree to
access to the old structure to be torn down would go through
where the proposed new structure footprint is so we are
disturbing as little other areas of the property as possible
with the destruction of the old house?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, and that would include the existing driveway.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure.
MR. ANDERSON: I want to mention something else. I want to take
this plan and change it slightly to show, list the actual fill
required for septic system because that needs to be there and
it's not there. And I apologize for that. We are going to have
to put in, redirect the power lines to the house. See the
overhead line running from the pole at the corner of the
property. That will come down. It's my understanding it will be
routed underground to the house.So you should be aware of that.
And we'll plot some area for that to take place.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: As that is overhead, it will be very little
disturbance to the ground.
TRUSTEE KING: He's putting it underground.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Oh, sorry.
Board of Trustees 59 September 21, 2011
MR. ANDERSON: The way to do this is take the riser down to grade
and trench it from there into the house. That's the best way to
do this.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's only 18 inches down, so it's a small
trench.
MR. ANDERSON: The other thing is we should probably show where
the path to the beach is, so that's understood. And we'll come
up with some sort of barrier delineating that limit of moderate
wave action. Whether it be a curb, fence, we'll show something.
So it can be distinguished now and in the future, and we'll
integrate that into the existing path, so that it makes sense.
Those are the plan changes I would recommend. And obviously the
re-vegetation plan will be adjusted so the footprint shown on
that plan agree with the footprints that hopefully you'll be
approving.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: How does the Board feel? These are a lot of
conditions here. Do we want to move on this upon receipt of new
plans depicting all this or do we want to wait until we get
receipt of new plans as well as a landscape plan.
TRUSTEE KING: I would be comfortable moving ahead on condition
we get new plans.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The language is clear and the offerings are
clear and what we are dealing with at limit of moderate wave
action is already a given on the plan.
MR. CORCORAN: We would request a vote tonight, if at all
possible. We'd hate to have to start over: I know how these
things go. You have a lot of applications, a lot of work to do.
1-think we flushed it all out here tonight. So the applicants
here really would like some closure.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm amenable.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: With regard to the line of hay bales and silt
fence that is proposed on here, what I want to consider here is
initially words depicted on the plans, putting it there, because
that will help protect the environment for the destruction of
the house, then how would you feel about them moving it to,
after the house, after the old house is.gone and taken away, and
that area is revegetated, and moving that hay bale line and silt
fence for the construction of the new house and pool, et cetera,
to the limit of the wave action line.
MR. CORCORAN: Of course.
MR. ANDERSON: So we'll show a second hay bale line.
MR: CORCORAN: Phase one and phase two.
MR. ANDERSON: To be installed after removal of the old house.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, that will work.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How far away are you from having all your
permits in line?
MR. ANDERSON: Health Department, I can tell you is a lot. And I
have not heard from DEC.
MR. CORCORAN: This is designed to be fully compliant with zoning
so there should be no requirement to go to ZBA. It meets all
setbacks and zone requirements. The thought was to come to this
Board of Tnistees 60 September 21, 2011
Board first since this Board has the most sensitive jurisdiction
over this piece of property. I think, given what we have been,
the road we have been down.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, if there is no other comments I'll make a
motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of Lisa Grattan at
11860 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue, as in accordance with the
plans stamped received September 20, 2011, in our office, with
the following conditions that will be.shown on a new set of
plans that will be submitted: That the house will be on stilts.
It will be a non-disturbance zone indicated from starting at
limit of moderate wave action line seaward. There will be a
four-foot path allowed for from the construction project to the
beach. That access for the removal of the whole house to the
extent possible we limited through the footprint of the new
house so as to not disturb as much area as possible. And that it
will be a two phases to the line of hay bales and silt fence;
phase one as depicted on the plans during the removal,
destruction and removal of the current structure and
revegetation of that area, and phase two, prior to construction
of the new phase, that hay bale line and silt fence line will
run along what is listed as limit of moderate wave action.
Obviously this will have to comply with 236 of the Town Code.
That's the storm water runoff code.
MR. ANDERSON: Do you want to see fill calculation?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: Re-vegetation plan adjusted. Underground electric
shown.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. And we have to address the inconsistency.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: With the establishment of this non-disturbance
buffer, that we have found -- and the removal of the old
-structure and revegetation of that area, that'we have found this
consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any further discussion on the motion?
(No response).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Everything is covered, right?
TRUSTEE KING: Just the amount of fill to be brought in.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, Bruce had mentioned that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting, Inc., on behalf of STEVEN H. KRAM requests a
Wetland Permit to excavate and remove entire bulkhead and
install new bulkhead inplace utilizing vinyl sheathing; remove
and replace timber platform and stairs to be serviced
Board of Trustees 61 September 21, 2011
seasonally; in-place replacement of return on east side
termination to be armored with 10 yards core stone; proposed 26'
replacement in-place return termination to be armored with 10
yards core stone; fill void areas with 60 yards clean sand; and
install a 10' non-turf buffer along the landward side of the
bulkhead. Located: 2 Sunset Lane, Southold.
The project is deemed consistent with LWRP with the
recommendation of a silt boom during construction because of the
proximity of intertidal wetlands in the area.
The Trustees went out to the site. It's pretty
straightforward. I don't think there was any Board issues;
possibly concern that the core stone might be on neighboring
properties as far as the issues for the core stone, was the
possible question we had. Is there anyone here wishes to speak
on behalf of the application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Excuse me, Bruce, I neglected, the
Conservation Advisory Council did not support the application
because of the practice permitting returning bulkheads causes
the property to become a peninsula. The Conservation Advisory
Council recommends the entire bulkhead is moved landward
approximately 20 feet to the average mean high water mark with
minimal returns..The Conservation Advisory Council was
questioning how far the Trustees are willing to allow a property
to extend into the bay.
MR. ANDERSON: I would like to respond to that. Just so you know,
the mean high water mark is seaward of the existing bulkhead.
So it does not extend into the bay. And you have before you a.
survey that those that the beach seaward of the bulkhead is also
owned by the applicant. You should know that the bulkhead would
be replaced inkind and inplace, so there would be no further
encroachment anywhere. I do agree with the core stone argument
that if it does need to be installed, it needs to be installed
with the permission of the adjacent property owner. And you
should know there is contemplation of using some of the existing
structures, some of the piles, perhaps, some of the stringers,
and so forth. That decision really has not been made now. But
in no event would this structure further encroach out closer to
the bays. This is a fully functional bulkhead that experienced
some very serious failure to the sheathing directly as a result
of Hurricane Irene.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Any members of the Board, any
additional comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion on close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve the application
as submitted contingent upon submission of a letter of
permission from the adjoining property owners granting approval
Board of Trustees 62 September 21, 2011
for any core stone which may be placed offsite. I so move.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. Any further discussion?
(No response).
And it's found to be consistent with LWRP?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, it was.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 16, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc., on behalf of MILL CREEK PARTNERS, LLC, request a Wetland
Permit to legalize the existing wood decking and steps located
off the eastern side of the existing restaurant, containing
1,050 sf.; legalize the existing stone paver patio and steps
located off the southeastern corner of the existing restaurant,
containing 475 sf.; legalize/reconstruct the existing wood
decking and steps located between the southern side of the
existing restaurant and the boat basin, containing 690
sf.; reconstruct the existing bulkheading located along the
north side of the boat basin measuring 153 linear feet, relocate
3' further south and elevate to match the existing surrounding
grade; clarify/legalize all existing 50 slips, main floating
dock 6'X 98'; secondary floating docks, 24 total, 4'-5'X 15'; .
wood walkways 685'X 5'; and various wood ramps/platforms,
all within the existing boat basin. Located: 64300 Main Rd.,
Southold.
As I understand it, I think this application was put in, I
guess essentially to legitimize a permit that was already there,
yes?
MR. ANDERSON: In part
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. The LWRP coordinator found it to be
inconsistent. In his report he does discuss that it is
inconsistent. The decking, in particular on the eastern side,
the stone patio, of the southeastern corner of the restaurant,
and the deck located south of the restaurant, are inconsistent
with Policy 6.3 Protecting and Restoring Tidal and Freshwater
Wetlands. He does note that the proposed above described actions
were built without the benefit of the Board of Trustees review.
And all other proper reviews. Building Department, Zoning Board
of Appeals, DEC. The proposal of reconstructing the existing
bulkhead located along the north side of the boat basin is
consistent, however, with LWRP and therefore is consistent with
LWRP.
MR. ANDERSON: Say that again? What was that last sentence?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The proposal to reconstruct the existing
bulkhead located along the north side of the boat basin,
measuring 153 linear feet, is consistent with LWRP policy. So
you have a consistent and inconsistent. Part of it is
consistent, another part is not. The Southold Conservation
Advisory Council did resolve to support the application but did
note that the deck and patio were not depicted in the plans that
they have.
That being said, I know we all went out there and took a
Board of Trustees 63 September 21, 2011
look at it. I have some pictures. We didn't have any comments
at the time, so is there anybody here who would like to address
this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicants Mill Creek Partners, LLC.
As a housekeeping matter, I want to make note that the
notice omitted the westerly decking which consists of 990 square
feet which was shown on the plans submitted by the applicant
prepared by Samuels & Steelman. There was a lot going on there,
but that westerly deck is part of this application, and you
should be aware of that.
The second point that is worth while noting, that these
improvements, including the decking and so forth, benefited
from a previous building permit. This has always been a very
difficult application because at that time I had a client who
would do certain things and tell me, and do other things and not
tell me. He would do this and do that. It was very hard to get a
sort of overall control of this property. And it caused me some
angst. I know it caused the town some angst as well. We are
fortunate now to have clients who are serious about the
redevelopment of this property and who will do an excellent job
in doing so, I believe.
You'll note that when you look at the bulkheads, they were
installed by my previous client. You may have noticed they were
installed backwards and you may have noticed they are already
cracking. And yet that bulkhead is only a couple of years old.
We need to install a proper bulkhead. It's noted as consistent
with your LWRP. And you'll note that there is a small decking
area that already exists on top of the bulkhead, which is shown
in the photo we are looking at right now. That area is merely
expanded to cover the top of the bulkhead. So there really is
not an inclusion or excursion or impact to tidal wetlands
whatsoever. Here the tidal wetlands consist only of surface
waters and it's worthwhile further noting that the entire
bottom land is privately owned. We have a deed and that deed
goes out to the mouth of the basin. This is a complete manmade
basin constructed many decades ago.
As to the docks, they were originally put in by Dean
Blakey. I believe was in the 80s. He had purchased this about
1984 or so and just proceeded to sort of fix up the docks. So we
ask you for your forgiveness for that, with the knowledge that
my current client has no involvement whatsoever in the docks .
that exist today. They certainly serve a useful function, an
important amenity for the community, so we would like to keep
those.
So we had a building permit. We have had all these items .
included or most of these items included in that building
permit. We have a deck that I want you to take notice of and we
have a new bulkhead. That's what we are asking to do. And a
stone paver patio, which is really just a landing at the base of
the stairs. That's all it is. It's a commercial property. It's
Board of Tnistees 64 September 21, 2011
an important property. It needs some gussying up and I'm sure it
will be gussied up and I think ultimately it will serve as just
a great commercial property that all the town will be very proud
of, and I think it will be done correctly.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm understanding this needs to go for site plan
approval?
MR. ANDERSON: No, it does not. Mr. Berger, who is involved with
the Mill Creek Partners, met with Heather Lanza ofthe town and
was told that we did not and were not going to go to the
Planning Board for site plan approval. And that is consistent
with the prior findings of this town that allowed me to obtain a
building permit for the decks and the restaurant that you see
today.
MS. HULSE: Do you have anything in writing, Bruce, from
Planning? Because there were numerous meetings regarding this
property that indicate that there would be the need for site
plan for the marina. So that's in direct contradiction to what
the department's information that we received told us.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I am looking at a notice of disapproval that we
received on September 21, dated March 25, that the application
was, a notice of disapproval, that site plan approval from the
Town, Southold Town Planning Board, is required.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What's the year of that? March 25 of what?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: March 25, 2011. This Spring.
MR. BURGER: Eugene Burger, part owner of the property. That
notice of disapproval, what is it attached to? What does that
dis-approve?
MS. HULSE: I'm sorry, just to get back to this, do we have
anything in writing from Planning indicating they are not going
to review it?
MR. BURGER: No, but before I purchased the property, I went to
see Mike Verity and he told me to go speak with Heather. I went
up and spoke with Heather and she said to me absolutely not.
There is nothing there that needs site plan approval at this
point. Now, I have here with me the building permit plans that
show both of those decks. They have ZBA approval on them.
MS. HULSE: They don't have ZBA as depicted. They are larger.
What you have planned for that, the decking is larger than what
the variance allowed for, because I actually mapped it out.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You mean what I just proposed.
MS. HULSE: Yes. Bigger.
MR. BURGER: Correct, that shows a staircase going down to the
extended bulkhead being that three feet further. We discussed
that at the meeting on the job site. So --
MS. HULSE: You are going to need a ZBA variance for that. For
those decks.
MR. ANDERSON: Excuse me for a second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The notice of disapproval that I have, to answer
your question, is for the part of the permit to alter the number
of marina slips.
MR. ANDERSON: I have a question here. We do notice approval
Board of Trustees 65 September 21, 2011.
applications. They consist of filling out a building permit and
paying a $50 fee. I filled out no building,permit. I paid no
fee. I don't know-how in the world you could have something like
this.
MR. BURGER: That's what I'm confused about. That's why I'm
asking why did they disapprove it? Who asked for that? What
does it say?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When did you take over the property?
MR. BURGER: I want to say July, August.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Because this goes back to March.
MR. BURGER: Right. I'm very confused about that. What are you
disapproving, first of all? That needs to be answered.
MS. HULSE: That was the application of the previous attorney
then. It was --
MR. BURGER: Maybe. As far as I'm concerned that has nothing to
do with us.
MS. HULSE: It's still an issue you'll have to address. You still
have to make an application.
MR. BURGER: Lori, I'll address every issue the town asks me to
address.
MS. HULSE: I'm saying before the Trustees can render a decision
on this. I'm not saying that you won't.
MR. BURGER: I don't agree with that at all. First you have to
tell me --
MR. ANDERSON: Whoa, wait a minute. We are not asking the
Trustees to hold our property in abeyance,while we chase down
some notice of disapproval that we didn't even apply for.
MS. HULSE: I know you are not asking. I'm recommending --
MR. ANDERSON: Excuse me, our request is that the Trustees rule
on the application before them.
MS. HULSE: Okay, and what I'm saying to you, Bruce, is that from
the town's perspective at this point there is a site plan that
is necessary for the marina. That's what we are saying.
Regardless or whether or not that you've made that application.
That's why I asked if you had something in writing from Planning
MR. ANDERSON: It is common practice.for us to obtain wetland
permits and then go to the Planning Board, if required. An
example would be the project we handled for Ratsey Construction.
Another example is the project you approved for Port of Egypt.
MS. HULSE: Totally irrelevant that you are citing these
examples.
MR. ANDERSON: No, these are examples of where this Board is not
barred from issuing a permit based on an application which is
submitted, and we don't want, we are here to obtain a permit for
something that I don't think anyone has a'problem with.
MR. BURGER: Lori, you have a point about that deck that goes
along the front of the structure. That was not approved by the
ZBA. You know, at that point, that was not even part of the
program. Now, just to bring you guys up to speed, we are
proposing to extend the new bulkhead three feet out further. So
it's already like two-and-a-half feet, and what we want to do is
Board.of Trustees 66 September 21, 2011
cover the top of that bulkhead. You'll have these two bulkheads,
we want.to cover the top, creating this deck. If that's an issue
to have that deck on there, then we won't do that and I'll go in
front of the ZBA for that, if you are very concerned about that.
I mean, we cover the top of bulkheads all the time.
MS. HULSE: That's not my call to make. I'm just saying from my
review of this, the point of this is, is that site plan does
take into account the rest of the agencies that are involved
.here. So the Trustees would be able to weigh in on that if they
chose, because Planning would request them to do so. Too bad you
didn't get something in writing from them because I think that
would alleviate a lot of this problem..
MR. BURGER: The deal with that deck, they don't even know about.
MS. HULSE: Right. I'm just talking about the marina issue.
MR. BURGER: I think maybe part of what Heather's point, you
already have the permit. It's already a permit. You have the
ZBA, what the town building department did is issue a permit
without the Trustees' approval, which is a mistake on their part.
MS. HULSE: No, what you don't have is you don't have a permit
for the docks that are out there. You don't have that. You are
asking the Trustees to legalize, basically double of what is
permitted out there. That's the point of what we are talking
about.here. That's why the Trustees to do that would be very
inadvisable.
MR. ANDERSON: The procedural point is that the Trustees are not
stopped from making a regulatory decision today.
MS. HULSE: I'm just saying that obviously the better practice
would be for them to allow site plan. Because their
recommendations would factor into that.
MR. ANDERSON: It would be a much better practice for us to
resolve this tonight.
MS. HULSE: I'm sure that's your position. I can understand that.
MR. ANDERSON: Particularly for something that was built in the
'80s. And particularly because we never made an application for
a notice of disapproval. We have to do whatever the Building
Department tells us to do, or appeal to the Zoning Board of
Appeals. But we would certainly like to get through this leg of it.
MS. HULSE: That's what was just referenced when Bob brought up
the fact that there was disapproval here. The previous attorney
did do exactly that and got a disapproval and was sent to the
Planning Board.
MR. BURGER: There is no paperwork --
MS. HULSE: There is. There is. There is a disapproval in the
file.
MR. BURGER: What does it say?
MS. HULSE: Bob will show it to you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: My dilemma here is that I recall the previous
owner coming in with a plan before the Trustees to do a lot of
work on this marina, and included permitting in everything that
there was at the time. And that this Board, also part of that
permit, and this is going, obviously it's not in front of me, so
Board of Trustees 67 September 21, 2011
I'm going by recollection from a couple of years ago also
included in that was some issues with the restaurant. So it was
the building and basin. It was a permit for issues addressed in
the building and for the basin. And the basin itself I thought
the Trustees approved, including all the slips at the time. But
apparently the permit was never given out or picked up or, you
know, it was never given to the applicant. So the applicant
never got the permit. So, you know, I would like to go back and
see what is in the record.
MS. HULSE: I don't think that's accurate, Dave.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Like I said, I don't have it in front of me. I'm
going by memory. And you can be absolutely right, Lori. I'm just
going by memory.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The permit from June, 2006, was to construct a
restaurant over the existing foundation of what was a
restaurant, with the condition of gutters and drywells to
contain roof runoff. A pump out facility was included. A
non-turf buffer to the east, landward of the bulkhead. And all
as depicted on the plans for the restaurant only. And not for
the marina. On the survey by Hands on survey last July 24,
2006. Which -- so that's this plan.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. Thank you. That clarifies it for me.
So we did not approve the marina. Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: There is a larger issue here and that is that your
Trustees and those of you know me know how supportive I am of
the Trustees. And I can't imagine a process where-you are
prevented from executing your authority based upon the action of
some other board. I don't think that exists anywhere in the
statute. And should not exist any anywhere in practice.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that's well put. Personally, I agree
with that and appreciate the support, for sure. So I'm speaking
as just one Trustee, though, there would be concerns that
because this got a little more complicated post our meeting with
Mr. Burger--
MR. BURGER: How did it get more complicated?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER:.Because there is apparently prior history
that, myself, coming back in public service on the Trustees, was
not aware of these discussions in prior permits. So for myself
it's more complicated, for sure. But certainly there was
apparently in files, in the Minutes that I saw earlier today
during the course of stopping by the office, there was some
discussion concerning the.deck and whether or not that was a
legal structure, what was previously not part of the permit. And
I'm greatly concerned, as a member of the Board, that I would
move ahead in a process that would give you approval for such
things as large decks that might impact on seating, it would
back into uses in the building and sanitary quality. I have my
own experience with the site going back with the Public Health
Department and its repeat and persistent failure of an
overflowing sanitary into the waters of Mill Creek such that raw
sewage was going into Mill Creek on every incoming tide. So I
Board of Trustees 68 September 21, 2011
have a different perspective. But, again, I would be very
reluctant to participate in a vote here where it would seem to
give approval for something that still might need more parking
spaces, might have severe limitations to use to comport with
existing gallonage capacity and sanitary. It's one of those
cases where it's a chicken or egg thing, but I have my own
issues.
MR. ANDERSON: Consider this, procedurally, and consider this in
itself. The Building Inspector presumably may or may not require
us to go to different places, okay. As a person who does this
for a living, I can tell you that if I was required to get four
different regulatory approvals for the same thing, and I was
only able to get three of them, that doesn't equal a project. So
the regulatory process that exists today is self-policing. And
what I'm saying to you is, if we can't act tonight, then you are
kicking us down the road to perhaps a site plan approval. That
could take many, many months to complete. Only to return here
afterwards and look at a fate accompli. I would rather know, and
since I made an application, what the opinion of this Board is,
even if a subsequent board causes me to change a design, forcing
me to come back with an amendment. Because if I do it the way I
described doing it, there is regulatory efficiency. And that's
good for all kinds of things. It's good for the economy, it's
good for the town's tax base, it's good for town's business
base, it's good for its people.
MR. BURGER: John, if I may. Getting back to the existing decks.
You are afraid to approve the existing decks. You just said
that. I have here a stamped building -- set of plans stamped by
the Building Department that has both decks on it, that were
approved by the ZBA and approved by the Building Department.
True, mistakenly, because they didn't have the Trustee approval.
But the other aspect was it was already approved by them. Lori
is right about the lower deck on top of the bulkhead. That
wasn't. And if that's a concern, we'll take that off. But these
decks were approved by the town and the restaurant already has
certification for 182 seats. And we are not trying to change
that at this point or anything like that. The septic has been
inspected, approved. So that's not where we are going with this.
MR. ANDERSON: I also want to add to that. I have a letter in my
possession from Walter Hubert to Jim King, October 24, 2006,
which says that our septic system is compliant. It says: We have
reviewed the documentation of Mill Creek Restaurant existing
sanitary and find it acceptable for use without upgrade. Please
be advised while the Office of Waste Water Management will no
longer be involved in this project, the Food Unit of the Health
Department must still issue a permit for the use of the kitchen.
Which is reasonable. So we don't anticipate, we don't have a
septic problem and we don't anticipate going to the Health
Department for this.
MR. BURGER: Would you just like to take a peek at this?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this point I don't really know what use
Board of Trustees 69 September 21, 2011
it serves for me individually and --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because if I have a ZBA and I have a Building
Department, and I don't have Trustees, then the only thing I
need is the Trustees.
.TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Let me see what you have.
TRUSTEE KING: I have the Minutes from 2006, where we talked
about rebuilding the restaurant. Then there was talk, John
Holzaphel was one of the Trustees, and he asked about a pump out
station. And he was addressing Mr. Anderson, that there should
be a pump out station, because this is an expansion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's in the permit, Jim.
TRUSTEE KING: And the discussion goes on a little bit, and they
get into the docks.
MR. ANDERSON: You know what, Jim --
TRUSTEE KING: Let me just quote you. You are talking to Mr.
Holzaphel and you are saying, let me be clear, we are going to
completely re-do the docks. In '92, your last record, goes back
to when Dean Blakie operated it, and there were, I don't
remember the numbers, but for the sake of argument there were is
20 slips, and now there is more like 40. So this thing went
from 20 to 40 over 15 or 14-year period with apparently no paper
approval record. So one of the things I have to do is come in
and fix that.
When did you fix it? You never did.
MR. ANDERSON: The problem is --
TRUSTEE KING: Nobody ever came back.
MR. ANDERSON: Here is the problem. This is why I tried to say
this earlier. I had problems with the applicant. You understand.
And the applicant went broke. And this property was repossessed
by the bank and eventually purchased.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe Bob can make heads or tails out of
this for me because he's been through this before, for me. I'm
at,a total loss as to what is happening here.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's kind of interesting, this has gone on so
long there is only two people up here that have any prior
knowledge to the history prior to 2006. Those approvals were
done even before I was on the Board. I do note after that
approval there was things that had occurred along the way, I
think four amendments that were involved as well. But my feeling
was, when we were out in the field and we were looking at this,
there was not a whole heck of a lot that we saw as an issue. In
fact, we had some discussion, I don't remember who it was,
noting that it's a private basin. It's also a commercial entity.
And that there really was not an issue for us as to how many
slips were there. Now, I understand that if there are parts of
this that he's got to get, that the owner has to get permits and
Zoning Board approval and site plan approval, okay, I mean, you
know, a lot of times we do like to get the ZBA taken care of
before we vote, but it's not, we have done it the other way,
too, so.
MR. BURGER: Bob, if I may. At the first meeting we had, we went
Board of Trustees 70 September 21, 2011
through this, there was two stages to this whole process. I
would like to get the decks done and covered, just so they are
safe. Because of a liability issue. Right now. But the game
plan was we were going to do this bulkhead so the building is
secure, because that's one of my concerns. Then I'll put in an
application, which I'll try get going on right away, to redo the
bulkhead. We'll do low profile, low sill bulkhead, we talked
about all that, and rock revetment on the beach there. There is
a whole big application. We'll be coming back in front of you
for. And that was, I laid that all out on the table to you guys.
That was our intention. We wanted to dredge the boat basin. So
what I'm really looking for now is to just get the bulkhead, get
the decks. I think Lori has a point about the lower decks not
on the ZBA to cover that bulkhead. I don't have an issue going
in front of the ZBA for that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do we have any issue on this, what is labeled on
this plan on the new deck?
MR. BURGER: It is a little different than what is on this plan.
If you look at this, Lori, I don't know if you looked at the
existing plan that was approved --
MS. HULSE: Yes, I have it there.
MR, BURGER: This one shows the staircase going down, when we
create this knew bulkhead, there will be a space roughly
five-and-a-half, six feet from the edge of the building. It was
my intention to cover that with decking. Basically I'll have two
bulkheads side to side. I wanted to cover that and bring a set
of stairs from this upper deck, I'm not changing the upper deck.
I want to bring a set of stairs from that down to, on both
sides.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So your approval is that. This is what you have
approved. And this is what we are looking at.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The ZBA and Building Department, without the
Trustees' approval.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Let me just do a quick comparison. (Perusing).
All right, so essentially what is happening here is that this
section, which is the lower deck, to this corner, is not .
approved. And because of that, you are going to have to go to
the ZBA for that. Is that the gist of it?
MS. HULSE: Not from the scaling that I did today in the office.
The map that you are putting the pen on now, the way it's
depicted in terms of measuring it out, the two decks on either
side are not the same size as was authorized by the ZBA.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, so --
MR. BURGER: I think this might even be bigger, Lori. You guys
can see it better than me.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's different scales.
MR. BURGER: I was thinking this deck is bigger, with the
exception the staircase, the lower part of it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Now, as I'm looking at it--
MR. BERGER: You are looking at the other side. This side here.
And I'm comparing this one.
Board of Trustees 71 September 21, 2011
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What these are showing, based upon this line
here, which is the easterly section of the wall, all right, on
this plan he's showing roughly--
MR. BURGER: This is already there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is here. Okay. It comes down to here, comes
back in, comes down to here, and comes across. Now, I'm not
standing here, but based upon what I'm looking at here, and
again, doing plans as much as I do, it looks like it. The only
difference is that he's got this section here, the lower part,
is not --
MR. BURGER: Which I'll hold off on that. I'll go to the ZBA for
that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Now this side, this is bigger.
MR. ANDERSON: One way of doing this is to, if you are inclined
to grant the permit, is grant the permit subject to any other
permits that may be necessary. That's an easy way of doing it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think what we are trying to avoid is we say,
okay, under the impression you folks said you didn't have to go
to the ZBA, then have you go out and build it, then get
violated, then boom, we find out, well, the Trustees said. We
are trying to avoid that.
MR. BURGER: You know what you could do, too, Bob. If you give
approval to do this or even approval to do this, but not do the
lower without the ZBA approval, contingent to. And I won't do
that lower part until I get ZBA. If I don't get it, then I
don't do it. And if I get it, then I don't have to come back in
front of you guys for it, or we can try and do it as part of the
boat basin application and put it in front of you do re-do it
with the docks.
MR. ANDERSON: We'll be coming back here again.
MR. BURGER: The thing that is sitting there is a very dangerous
situation right now and I would kind of like to clean it up.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a problem.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just uncomfortable if he needs site plan for
the marina. That's my problem.
MR. ANDERSON: Why not just simply say subject to any other
permits that may be required.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I thought I heard being said here, was what
we are considering here right now is these two decks, taking out
the proposed new deck that is on the eastern side, taking out
the new deck, six foot wide that is adjacent to the bulkhead, so
all we are talking about here possibly tonight is just approval
of those two decks and the bulkhead. Because also the bulkhead
is a safety issue. That way we are not addressing the boat
basin, other than the bulkhead, we are not addressing the boat
basin marina at all. That all has to go through the approval
process, and any additional deck has to go through other
agencies approval.
MR. BURGER: So you want the approval, Lori, you want the
approval of the slips to go through the Planning Department.
MS. HULSE: My understanding is that was the recommendation, that
Board of Trustees 72 September 21, 2011
there was disapproval, and this was not yours, it was prior
attorney's, that it would definitely require site plan, and I
would always advise them, regardless of whether it's this
application or any other, with this kind of global site plan
that would be obviously advisable in this kind of scenario, why
you would not want to do that first when you obviously will have
the opportunity to weigh in on that process. It makes sense.
It's just the way things should typically go, given the best
case scenario.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Overall, I don't think it will change your
results.
MR. BURGER: It shouldn't. I'm not going to do anything
immediately with that floats. And honestly, it was a suggestion
of you guys at the meeting, let's clean up what's here.
TRUSTEE KING: It should be cleaned up. Right now you have a
permit for 20 floats. That's the bottom line.
MR. BERGER: And there is 48, 50 slips there now.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why I'm saying, I'm agreeing with Lori as
far as the marina goes, except for that bulkhead, because that's
a dangerous situation. I'm also understanding the realty of site
plan approval is that could take some time. We could argue back
and forth if it's one month, ten months, whatever it is, we have
seen from past.practice that could take some time. So that's
why, I'm thinking to myself, look at it as two separate things.
The marina is one.project, and the building, the restaurant
building, is another project. And if we could address those two
decks, taking out the other decks as I alluded to before, then
what's there is the new deck and deck landward of the bulkhead,
and then address that bulkhead. Because it's a dangerous
situation. That should take care of cleaning up of the safety
hazard. And it's not affecting what has been previously approved
by Building. So I don't understand where that would need site
plan approval, that is what I'm limiting this to.
MR. BURGER: I think her thing is about the two different slips.
MS. HULSE: That's right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Leave that out.
MR. BURGER: Let's just run through this, then, Lori. If these
guys approve two decks and the bulkhead tonight; and that would
be it, as part of this. Then I'm going to re-do a plan for the
whole entire boat basin, as per what we discussed the day we
were on the job site, and I would submit that to the Planning
Department.
MS. HULSE: To the Building Department. I guess you have to go
to Building first.
TRUSTEE KING: There is some mixed messages here. Because Heather
told me way back when, when the other guy had it, he needed site
plan approval for that marina.
MS. HULSE: That's always been.the discussion I've had, because I
was involved with the violation. That's always been the
discussion I had.
MR. BURGER: One person that was very concerned about this, it
Board of Trustees 73 September 21, 2011
was actually by Mike Verity's recommendation, I went. upstairs and
spoke to her. She told me no.
TRUSTEE KING: We are getting mixed messages here.
MR. BURGER: What she said to me, you are going to need Trustee
approval. So I knew that. And I'm going to need that. And that
made perfect sense to me. .
MS. HULSE: That's why if we had that in writing, we would not
have a problem.
MR. BURGER: Actually, it doesn't matter: Like you said, it
really not going to affect, any work or anything out there, can
only happen as part of the second phase of this thing anyway.
Which I plan on getting going on. I'll make that, I'll take that .
stuff to Lori. If it just takes a letter, then it will be a
letter. If it takes full site plan, then that's what it takes.
Also you're saying to cover that bulkhead, I have to go to ZBA?
MS. HULSE: I'm just saying --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: For the lower deck.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For the lower deck
MS. HULSE: And --
MR. BURGER: And it stays in M-1 zoning.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is that what is it, M-1?
TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was M-2
MR. BURGER: Bruce, what am 1, M-1?
MR. ANDERSON: It's permitted --
TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was M-2.
MR. ANDERSON: Sorry, M-2.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A portable pump out, given the length of
time, if you do get involved with other agency approval, since
there was a prior requirement for a pump out, a portable pump
out, would seem to comport well with the appropriate thing for
us. I mean regardless of whether we are viewing it-- we are
not viewing the marina now, but there was prior approval that
required a pump out.
TRUSTEE KING: There was discussion of it.
MR. BURGER: But that changed afterwards.
MR. ANDERSON: No, he just went out of business. He was --
TRUSTEE KING: It just fell apart after that. Everything fell
apart after that.
MR. BURGER: I thought it was re-inspected.
MR. ANDERSON: He started doing stuff and he ultimately just ran
out of money and never finished what he was supposed to do.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's going to be an operating marina
presumably next Spring,.but if you are still going through site --
MR. BERGER: I would love that. I don't think that's going to
happen.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If it's an operating marina and you are
still going through site plan or ZBA or something else, you
really, in the interim --
MR. BURGER: You are right about that, there is people in there.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, for sure, if Heather is saying you don't
need site plan and a prior document that says you do, you either
Board ofTnistees 74 September 21, 2011
do or you don't. You know. That's -- so we have to get to the
bottom of that.
(Trustees reviewing documents).
MS. HULSE: I just did my homework before, just as a courtesy to
try to help the Trustees, but it's their decision. It's not my
decision.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the approach is to continue --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If we were to table this for a month, how much
does that hurt you?
MR. BURGER: I would like to be able to get the deck that is
there covered and safe. You know, I would like to be able to put
the deck down and feel like I'm not wasting my time, and rip
that up.
I can't finish the lower deck until the bulkhead is done.
That will take a couple of months for sure. The upper deck is
already framed by the previous owner. I would like to get my
railing post in, get the decking down. I can do that
simultaneously.
MR. ANDERSON: Could we authorize the bulkhead and upper deck and
table the remainder of the application?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Or we would just give you the permit for that,
and then subject to other permits. That's the best I think I can
come up with. Because I'm worried, based upon what Lori
presented, and that the deck as proposed, and even on the plan,
may not be the deck that was approved by ZBA. So I'm worried
about that.
MR. BURGER: Have you looked into the ZBA stuff at all?
MS. HULSE: I saw the ZBA decision today. It's not in the file.
MR. BURGER: Did you compare it to the plan?
MS. HULSE: That's the only reason I brought it up.
MR. BURGER: What plan did you compare it to, the new plan we
.submitted or to the one that --this was the plan that the
Building Department approved, the Mark Schwartz plan. This other
plan was done by Samuels & Steelman after we decided we were
going to extend the bulkhead. So the one that I was looking for
approval tonight, was the one from Samuels & Steelman,
initially, until you pointed out that I may need ZBA to cover
that bulkhead.
What I'm saying, if you guys were to approve this one, at
least I could get the upper deck done. That's the one the
Building Department and the ZBA had already approved. Assuming
the Building Department did their homework, and the ZBA, but I
imagine it would have went to the Building Department first for
this approval, then to the ZBA, so this should be the approved
plan, right? Because that's the way the process is supposed to
work.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is the Board comfortable with that?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm comfortable with it. I think there is a
clear understanding and discussion on the record that other
governmental agencies permits are required.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions?
Board of Trustees 75 September 21, 2011
MR. BERGER: So the boat basin stuff, the slips will be part of
the --
MR. ANDERSON: Or maybe not. If-they'll decline to require a
site plan, we'll be right back here.
TRUSTEE KING: I think you will need to go to Planning with the
existing permit, from '92, the survey of what is there now, and
say, look, here is what I have a Trustee permit for, here is
what is there, do I need to go to you, Planning. If they say,
no, get it in writing and back to us.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The only thing I would like to stipulate is
we require a pump out before the 2012 boating season. Portable
pump out.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They have a permit for that as part of the
existing permit. So the pump, you want the pump out facilities
done before the next boating season? Can we stipulate that?
You are good with that?
MR. BURGER: I think so, yes.
MR. ANDERSON: It's a portable pump out.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I said portable because I didn't want to
hook it up and get it involved with other plans.at this time.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If it's something that is connected with a
previous permit I would rather leave it like that and leave this
clean. The reason is now we are getting into approving something
connected to that marina. The pump out is not connected at all
to the use of a restaurant.
MR. BURGER: There is port-a-potties there now, you saw that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So if it's already been addressed previously, I
would rather keep it clean with of the previous permit approval,
and just stick to --
MR. BURGER: I like that, too.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So you still intend on coming back with the
low sill bulkhead and the revetment, so that maybe is the place
for that. Ideally, that will move quickly.
MR. BURGER: Let me ask your opinion. What would you like to see?
Should I be thinking about putting in a little bathroom
structure?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the Board's requirement with the
pump out goes along with marina expansions. It's in the code.
And it's unspecified. It's probably a degree of engineering
latitude that you have. We don't have -- the code requires it
but there is no set of engineering specifications based on
gallonage and use, so it's your bailiwick as far as what you
propose. Most operators put in fairly small tank-based systems
on wheels, depending on the site considerations.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's true. Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we'll hold off on the pump out and
keep it clean.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's something you know that we need to put in
there, so. I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
Board of Trustees 76 September 21, 2011
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have to figure out how to word this.
MR. BURGER: Bob, if I could make a suggestion. Maybe do, as per
the approved building permit and ZBA, and I'll go back to double
check to make sure things are in order.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And submit another set of plans.
MR. BURGER: No, these are the plans.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I mean for our file.
MR. BURGER: I have some copies of these. You can have this one
right here and now. Why don't you take this.
MS. HULSE: I think the hearing was closed, wasn't it?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, it was.
MS. HULSE: So you need to reopen it if you are accepting
documentary evidence, and additional testimony. Otherwise this
is not part of the record.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to reopen the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So we'll use this set of plans instead.
TRUSTEE KING: These are the plans that were approved by ZBA,
correct?
MR. BURGER: We believe so, yes, because they have the Building
Department stamp on them.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They have the Building Department stamp on them.
MR. BURGER: I'll follow up on the ZBA.and check if it's those
plans, just to make sure. If there is any discrepancy, I'll
bring it to your attention.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, I'll make a motion to close the public
hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application
noting there is a change on the plans and that we are actually
approving the plans stamped by the Building Department as
approved, and these plans are dated 7/27/06, drawn by Mark
Schwartz, architect, making a note that there is to be no
movement on the marina or any further movement on decking, aside
from what has been already approved. And the bulkhead that has
been incorporated in this is to reconstruct the existing
bulkhead located along the north side of the boat basin,
measuring 153 linear feet to be located three foot further south
and elevated to match the existing surrounding grade. And with
those changes we find it to be consistent with LWRP. We also
request any further action or plans on this property go before
the proper permits from all other agencies. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any further discussion on the motion?
(No response).
Board ofTnistees 77 September 21, 2011
It's clear to everybody? All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 17, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf RYAN STORK requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the
existing timber bulkhead along the southern shoreline of
subject property with a new vinyl bulkhead in-place of the
original bulkhead. Located: 3270 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel.
This was found consistent with the LWRP with the
recommendation of a silt boom on all intertidal construction. I
believe the high water mark was offshore, so I don't see the
need for a silt boom. The CAC resolved to support the
application with the condition native vegetation is planted on
the terrace and the ramp is seasonal. Is there anybody here to
comment on this application, for or against,
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
for the applicant. Pretty standard application, the request to
do the planting, we already have the lower level planted with
beach grass. To the extent it is disturbed we'll replant the
beach grass.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, it's heavily vegetated between there already.
So just maintain that. Replant it after it's been damaged.
What ramp are you talking about with CAC
MR. ANDERSON: I think they may be talking about, this thing has
a 3x3 platform and it has an aluminum hinge ramp that runs
parallel to the bulkhead that is lowered down so you can access
the shoreline and they pull it up during the winter time
otherwise they just keep losing the stairway. Is that right?
MR. Bossen: I think that's what the issue was. It was brought
up by one of the members of the Conservation Advisory Council
that the aluminum ramp is a seasonal ramp. I didn't inspect the
property.
MR. ANDERSON: But it's a nice, sort of a nice solution to a
problem rather than constantly re-building the stairs.
TRUSTEE KING: I went out and looked at it. It's just of a
straightforward bulkhead replacement. I have no issues with it.
Any other comments? Board? Anybody?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted, with the area between the bulkhead and retaining wall
be replanted with American beach grass after the bulkhead has
been built.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any further discussion?
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 78 September 21, 2011
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much, for your patience. I
appreciate it.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Under Resolutions, are we doing anything with
this?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I had a question for Lori. I read the
stipulation of agreement, or settlement, I should say, in
discontinuance. And it's obviously very brief. I mean there is
only one paragraph. It's one sentence long, that really is the
meat of the issue. Or two sentences, anyhow. And I just want
to make sure that, again, I know you and I had the discussion
privately, that with what we are agreeing to here, that there is
a fish registration,process, that is going to.be done
through the DEC electronically and not be the responsibility of
the Town to take on.
MS. HULSE: It will be done both ways. You can do it either way.
A person can opt to do it online or to come in and do it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is the Town Board aware of that?
MS. HULSE: Yes, they are.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's all I need to know. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: My question is how will it be enforced? If you
register and you are out there fishing and DEC comes over and
says what are you doing. Well, I'm registered. How does he .
know?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It should be interesting.
TRUSTEE KING: I mean you have no physical piece of paper to show
him, yes, I'm licensed.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Let me make this resolution then. The Board of
Trustees, being a party to the action herein, hereby resolves to
support authorization of the stipulation of settlement and
discontinuance in the case of the Trustees et al, versus Pete
Grannis, Commissioner and the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, index number 09-38761. So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second it and would like to offer just
a brief bit of discussion. We have the hearts and minds of the
people. This resolution effectively wipes the slate clean. So
to continue to have the hearts and minds of people we'll
probably have to continue discussion with other Boards of
Trustees and may have to meet occasionally at boat ramps or
docks or other facilities in the years to come. That's all.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You are probably right. Any other discussion?
(No response).
AIIJn favor?
(ALL AYES).
Any opposed?
(No response).
Resolution passes. I'll make a motion to adjourn.-
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 79 September 21, 2011
Respectfully submitted by,
Jill Doherty, President
Boa d of Trustees
RECEIVED
NOV 18 2011
Southold Town Clerk