HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-11/16/2011 Jill M.Doherty,President so Town Hall Annex
01
Bob Ghosio,Jr.,Vice-President ,`O l0 54375 Main Road
P.O.Box 1179
James F.King Southold,New York 11971-0959
Dave Bergen G Q
John Bredemeyer �� Telephone(631) 765-1892
ly`,oU '� Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED
Minutes d
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 � e 11:yob'"1
JAN 2 0 2012
6:00 PM Q
Sou�wn. 0 e.rk_
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: Wed., December 7, 2011 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wed., December 14, 2011 at 6:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of September 21, 2011
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Welcome to our November meeting. Happy
Thanksgiving, everybody. I can't believe it's next week already.
Before we get started, there are some postponements on the
agenda that I want to go over.
Page two, under Applications, number two, Suffolk
Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of RENATO & CARLA
STARCIC request an Amendment to Wetland Permit#3926 to extend
underground water and electric to the existing dock, install a
light at the end of the dock, and install trees between the
shoreline and the northern edge of the existing right-of-way.
Located: 205 Private Road #3, Southold, was just postponed by
the consultant.
Page three, Amendments, number one DONNA WEXLER requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit#5046 to add a 4'X 15' extension to
the existing catwalk; add a 4'X 12' dock in an "L" configuration; relocate
stairs to southwest side of dock; and add two swim ladders at northeast and
southwest ends of"L" section. Located: 1775 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic,
has been postponed.
And number two, HERNAN OTANO requests an Amendment to
Board of Trustees 2 November 16, 2011
Wetland Permit#7400 to replace the existing exterior walls and
framing with no expansion to footprint construction of front
and rear entry steps. Located: Unit 5 Sage Blvd., Southold, has
been postponed.
Page five, number six, Proper-T Permit.Services on behalf
of COVE CONDOMINIUMS OWNERS ASSOC, requests a Wetland Permit to
Maintenance dredge to 3' below mean low water approx. 82 cubic
yards from channel at entrance to Association docking area as
needed, within the docking area itself; dredge as necessary in
the same areas to maintain width, depth and full accessibility
of entrance channel and docking area on a maximum of four
additional occasions during the next ten (10) years. Spoil will
be removed to an approved upland location for deposition.
Located: Main Bayview Rd., Southold, has been postponed.
Page six, number nine, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc.,
on behalf of FRANK & MINDY MARTORANA requests a Wetland Permit
to construct a 6'X 16' walkway along the south side of the
house connected to the previously approved deck and fixed pier;
install a 4'X 44' fixed dock with a set of 4' stairs in the
middle; proposed dock to be elevated 2.5' above the wetlands and
constructed using an open grate decking; dock to terminate in a
"T" shape and have a ladder at the seaward end. Install
additional 524 square feet of new buffer areas on the north and
south sides of the approved new dwelling.
Located: 3450 Deep Hole Dr., Mattituck, has been postponed.
Number ten, KPC Planning Service, Inc., on behalf of FHV LLC
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 39' dock with a
3'X 12' ramp, 6'X 20' floating dock, three (3) two-pile (12" dia.)
float securing dolphins and two (2)two-pile (12" dia.) boat securing
dolphins. Located: 1500 Mason Dr., Cutchogue, has been postponed.
And number eleven, Catherine Mesiano, Inc., on behalf of
BEE HIVE DEVELOPMENT CORP. requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 44'X 41' two-story frame dwelling, septic system and
associated site improvements; install a 4'X 27' walkway @ 3'
above grade on six 8" X 15' piles @ 9' on center, 30" X 15'
seasonal ramp and seasonal 5'X 18' floating dock secured to two
8" X 15' anchor piles. Located: 400 Old Cove Blvd., Southold,
has been postponed. Those won't be heard tonight.
Before we get started, if you have anything to say, please
come up to the microphone and introduce yourself for the record.
Wayne Galante is here taking the Minutes, so we need to have it
said clearly. And please speak five minutes or less so we can
get through the agenda.
With that, we'll get started. Our next field inspections
are Wednesday, December 7, at 8:00 AM. Do I have a motion?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The next meeting will be December 14, 6:00 PM,
with a worksession at 5:30.
Board of Trustees 3 November 16, 2011
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Minutes.of September 21, did everybody get
through those? It was entertaining.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Move to approve.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, do we have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for October 2011. A check for
$11,534.10 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the
General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
hereby finds that the following applications more fully
described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wed., November 16, 2011, are classified as
Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are
not subject to further review under SEQRA.
Those are listed as follows:
Donna Wexler—SCTM#86-5-9.1
FHV, LLC—SCTM#104-7-9.1
John & Jeanette Collins— SCTM#88-5-60
John P., Eunice P. & Eunice P. Benfield Trust—SCTM#56-7-19
Mill Creek Partners, LLC— SCTM#56-7-2
US Dept. Of Homeland Security,
Plum Island Disease.Center—SCTM#132-1-30
Frank & Mindy Martorana —SCTM#115-17-9&10
Michael McAllister& Barbara Jones— SCTM#51-1-3
Katie Nickolaus —SCTM#51-1-2
James D. Fry—SCTM#118-4-8
Laurel Hill Limited Partnership — SCTM#145-4-18
Grace Properties— SCTM#26-2-6.1
Barbara DeFina — SCTM#26-2-7.1
Ferucio Frankola —SCTM#78-2-35
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
Board of Trustees 4 . November 16,2011
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under Resolutions and Administrative permits,
the Board has reviewed the following and to just move things
along, these are just simple administrative permits so I'll --
we all inspected them -- I'll make a motion to approve numbers
one, two and three as applied for. They are listed as follows:
Number one, MURIEL JOHNSON requests an Administrative Permit to
cut down a tree located on the bank, with the stump to remain.
Located: 1540 Glenn Rd., Southold.
Number two, JULIA &JOSEPH VERGARI request an Administrative
Permit to replace the existing deck in-kind using untreated
lumber on the decking and railings and remove existing 6'X
20.7' section. Located: 5855 New Suffolk Ave., Mattituck.
Number three, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of DOUGAL
FRASER requests an Administrative Permit to install a 35'X 8'
wooden deck along the landward side of the existing dwelling.
Located: 7555 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under Applications for Extensions, Transfers
and Administrative Amendments, number one, JAMES KING requests a
One-Year Extension to Administrative.Permit#7214A, as issued on
December 16, 2009. Located: 200 & 220 East Mill Rd., Mattituck.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm abstaining from this. I'm the applicant.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve as submitted.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye.
Trustee Bredemeyer, aye). (Trustee King, abstained).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Note that Jim has abstained.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two is postponed. Numbers three, four
and five were reviewed by the entire Board and finding no.
problems with them, I'll make a motion to approve all three of
them as applied for. They are listed as follows:
Number three, JOSEPH & NICOLE ARETZ request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#4851 from Richard Correia to Joseph & Nicole
Aretz, as issued on January 28, 1998. Located: 855 Knollwood
Lane, Mattituck.
Number four, Jason T. Poremba, RA on behalf of DAVID PAGE &
BARBARA SHINN requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7247 to
revise the previously approved single-family dwelling footprint,
decrease the size of the sanitary system, and relocate the shed
Board of Trustees 5 November 16, 2011
to a more conforming location, and a One-Year Extension as
issued on February 24, 2010. Located: 1854 North Bayview Rd., Southold.
And number five, Garrett A. Strang on behalf of KENNETH HEIDT
requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7594 to reduce the
width of the proposed dwelling by 5' thereby increasing the
East side yard set back to 10' from the 5' that was previously
approved. Located: 8530 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY- All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. RESOLUTIONS: - OTHER
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under Resolutions, the following two
resolutions were adopted at the September meeting and there has
been a more accurate survey submitted, so I would like to make a
resolution to rescind the two -- I want to do, I guess we can do
them together-- or maybe do them one at a time. I'll do them one
at a time. I'll make a resolution to rescind number one, Amend
Resolution dated October 19, 2011 granting PHILIP G. MILOT a
Wetland Permit to replace the existing 50 linear feet of
bulkhead in-place with vinyl sheathing and armored with stone,
and backfill with 140 cubic yards of clean fill, with the
Condition of a 5' non-turf buffer along the landward.side of the
bulkhead, and all subject to revised plans. Located: 4185 Camp
Mineola Rd., Mattituck, and I'll make a motion as follows:
A wetland permit to replace existing 50-linear feet
bulkhead inplace with vinyl sheathing and backfill with 140
cubic yards clean fill with a condition of installation of
five-foot wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the
bulkhead, which is to be maintained and as depicted on the site
plan by Philip Milot, received on September 8, 2011, and stamped
approved on November 1.6, 2011.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, I make a motion to rescind the
resolution of the October meeting to Amend Resolution dated
October 19, 2011 granting EUGENE & GEORGENE BOZZO a
Wetland Permit to replace the existing 52 linear feet of
bulkhead in-place with vinyl sheathing and armored with stone,
and backfill with 140 cubic yards of clean fill, with the
Condition of a 5' non-turf buffer along the landward side of the
bulkhead, and all subject to revised plans. Located: 4135 Camp
Mineola Rd., Mattituck, and I'll make a motion to approve as
follows: Wetland permit to.replace existing 52 linear feet
bulkhead inplace with vinyl sheathing and backfill with 140
cubic yards clean fill, with the condition of the installation
of a five-foot wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of
the bulkhead which is to be maintained and as depicted on the
site plan prepared by Eugene and Georgene Bozzo, received
Board of Trustees 6 November 16, 2011
November 2, 2011 and stamp approved November 16, 2011.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to go off the regular
meeting and on to public hearings.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
COASTAL EROSION PERMITS
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number one, En-Consultants on behalf of GRACE PROPERTIES
requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct approx. 87 linear
feet of 1,500-3,000 pound stone armor, incorporating existing row of previously
permitted stone armor; construct immediately landward of stone armor approx. 84 linear
feet of vinyl retaining wall; remove portion of existing southerly stone return to allow for
continuous structure with adjacent property and rework and fortify with additional stone
existing +6X +14 northern stone return; renourish upland area eroded away with approx.
100 cubic yards of sand; establish 8' non-turf buffer on landward side of stone to be
planted with Cape American beach grass (12" on center); and remove and replace
(in-kind/in-place) existing 4' wide platform and stairs as necessary to allow for stone
work. Located: 190 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient.
MR. HERMAN: Bob, did you want to open Defina as well, since they are adjacent and
we would probably discuss them all as one contiguous piece?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I suppose that's not a bad idea. They are right
next to each other and it is just one continuous piece. Is that okay with the Board?
(AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE).
We'll also open number two, En-Consultants on behalf of BARBARA DEFINA
requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct approx. 108 linear
feet of 1,500-3,000 pound stone armor, incorporating existing, previously permitted
stone armor(a portion of which is to be relocated landward to proposed location of
finished structure); construct immediately landward of stone armor approx. 107 linear
feet of vinyl retaining wall; renourish.upland area eroded away with approx. 200 cubic
yards of.sand; re-establish previously required 8' non-turf buffer on landward side of
stone to be planted with Cape American beach grass (12" on center); and construct
4'X 6' wood platform and 4'X 6' wood stairs over stone to beach.
Located: 192 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient.
LWRP has found both of these applications to be consistent
with LWRP, and in the case of Grace Properties, the CAC has
resolved to support the application to construct the 87 linear
feet of fifteen-hundred to three-thousand pound stone armor but
not support the construction of the vinyl retaining wall, but
does support the application to remove the portion of existing
southerly stone and the rest of the application's description.
This is basically saying the CAC supports the proposed stone armor with
the condition that proposed non-turf buffer is increased to ten
foot rather than eight foot. The CAC does not support camouflaging a
bulkhead by proposing a retaining wall. No new bulkheads are permitted in
accordance with Chapter 275, according to the CAC.
Board of Trustees 7 November 16, 2011
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The same comments are made from the CAC with
regard to the Defina application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All right, Rob, with all that being said, why
don't you give us the lowdown.
MR. HERMAN: Sure. Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of
both applicants. These are both sites that the board has seen
and permitted in the past. What you are looking at there is the
Grace Properties _ _
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I also want to see if I could get Defina here.
MR. HERMAN: Okay. That's the Grace Properties parcel where
stone had been put in place just a couple of years ago pursuant
to Wetlands and Coastal Erosion permits that had been issued by
the Board at that time. From my discussions with the applicants,
this was a situation that is not dissimilar to many others that
we have run through with the Board in the past year, or almost
two years after nor'easters, or in this case Tropical Storm
Irene, where at the time, regardless of the Trustees' position,
the DEC was of the mindset to try to use these sort of single
row of stones or double row of stone as low in profile as
possible. And what we have seen happen with a lot of these
instances is that in a more significant storm they are getting
overtopped, and you can see on both the Grace property and
Defina next door, and the Defina, I would say the impacts,
without similar structure here having been in place, are more
extreme, where almost all of the upland right up almost to the
foundation of the house were lost during the tropical storm.
Mr. Grace contacted me shortly after the storm, and just
coincidentally, I was going to be meeting with George Hamarth
and Alexa Fournier of the DEC at the couple of properties.that
we already had pending and it turned into another one of these
post-storm inspection type days. And George and Alexa met us
down here on very short notice with Ian Crowley, who is the
contractor. The idea of the retaining wall actually came up
during that discussion with the contractor, and really with the
support of the DEC, with the idea being that you have the
existing stone that is there now, and what they were trying to
accomplish was to set up a situation where we could build on the
height of that stone, in order to get the proper elevation above
beach grade to prevent this type of overtopping from happening
again. What the retaining wall allows the contractor to do is to
actually end up using a smaller footprint of stone as the crow
flies, because instead of having to build up a larger wedge of
stone that is up higher and farther landward with even higher
grade to get the proper angle, putting what is really kind of a
mid-sill retaining wall behind it, allows him to basically slope
the stone up against the wall, and it provides sort of a
permanent backdrop right behind the stone. It's not too
dissimilar from what we did with the Kramer applications on
Calves Neck. I think it was Kramer and McKalzy (sic), but here
again the wall would be placed immediately behind the stone.
With respect to the CAC comments, you know, we start to
Board of Trustees 8 November 16, 2011
parse out sometimes retaining wall versus a bulkhead versus a
stone. In principal, we are either going to harden the shoreline
or we are not. The idea of the stone being selected over a
vertically faced bulkhead or retaining wall, historically, is
the idea you would get the slope to the stone so the wave energy
dissipates up the slope rather than hitting a vertical face
where 50% of the energy is reflected immediately downward and
scours out the beach. So that's what we are doing here. It's
like the situation we have out on The Sound where the Board will
approve the retaining wall or bulkhead on the condition it's
armored. Here we are kind of working backwards. The armor has
already been approved. We are trying to enhance the armor so
it's actually effective and then we are putting the wall behind
it really as a measure to just kind of minimize the footprint as
much as we can.
Along those lines, what I had done with this design, and
think Mr. Grace saw you out there when you were there for field
inspections. I originally proposed the retaining wall to just
kind of follow the exact path of this stone. But as you do
that, in order to get back out to the right ending on Defina's
side, you had to create a bit of a W on an angle in the wall,
and on inch to 30 or inch to 40 it didn't look like much, but
once is actually got staked by the surveyor you could see it
started to create a little too much of a wedge there at the
property line. So what we have done, and I've just handed
Lauren up the plans, I don't know if this is even perceptible to
you looking at the project plan, but what we did is shifted the
north side of the Grace wall back about a foot, and the south
side seaward about two feet, without changing the footprint of
the stone, really, but just to set up a situation so that where
the walls connect at the property line you can have nearly a
straight line from one corner to the other bulkhead. It might be
the most minor angle in it. It's really hard for me to parse
that out to the inch.
I discussed the design a few days ago with George Hamarth
at the DEC and he said based on the site meeting, that they were
actually planning to write a condition into the permit to give
us a couple feet of tolerance one way or the other in terms of
where the walls connect at the property line.
But anyway, that's the idea of the project. The Defina
property had stone permitted as well. I don't know the full
history of it, but as you could see from the Defina site, the
stone never got quite put down in the same fashion as it was put
down on the Grace property. So some of the stone on Defina will
actually be moved landward and you can see that on the plans, so
that everything is kind of a straight line and ties into that
adjacent bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is essentially giving you more beach there.
MR. HERMAN: Exactly. And the Defina side, really, in terms of
the beach width, what we are trying to do with Grace is not
change it at all, sort of Work with the existing toe and work
Board of Trustees 9 November 16, 2011
backwards. And then on Defina, just because of the nature of
the way the stone was left, you can see it's, half the property
was left unprotected, and the other is just kind of a giant pile
of stone.
The DEC had talked about the fact that the stone will
probably have to be piled up a little bit higher. It's kind of
hard for me to show this in a plan, but as you get to the most
landward part of the return, where you get that real angle that
the Trustees often talk about when we have these bulkheads that
are kind of at odds with each other, they'll probably have stack
the stone up against that return a little bit, on the Defina side.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How is it going to tie into this bulkhead here?
You can see that's raised and a little different.
MR. HERMAN: The retaining wall will be quite a bit lower. But it
will tie right into the side of that return. It will have the
stone armor sloped in front of it. And then, again, as
mentioned, the DEC had talked about once they are actually doing
the construction, they may want to actually put some stone
behind it in that corner just against the face of the return.
Again, some of this stuff is hard to really pinpoint when you
are drafting it at this stage, but that would be the idea, um,
would be that by the time you get to that side, that Defina
would have some nice stone protection just against that
vertically faced wall. And then the bulkheading continues for
quite a bit of a run. I don't know if all of the-terrace is
bulkheaded as you go out that way, but it's quite a bit of it
that is up in that direction.
One of the things that Jim Grace, I don't know if he may
have spoken to you about this, I don't know when we talked.about
the non-turf buffer, I had used the eight feet because the eight
feet had been included on the prior Defina permit, and so I was
carrying that number. But Jim had brought to my attention that
that, at that time, the attempt was to completely bury the stone
and start the non-turf buffer out from that point. So that even
coming back eight feet would be, would take up more of the
little bit of yard they have than the original ten-foot buffer.
So he wanted me to ask the Board, I know Conservation Advisory
Council talked about increasing it to ten feet. He wanted me to
ask if we could actually decrease it somewhat. I don't know what
the Board's feeling is. But I think the DEC sense is it was
probably not worth it to try to bury this stone again because at
this point the interaction point here is just such that it will
not stay, it's really just going to be an offering to Orient
Harbor at some point. But we want to have some sort of sand
non-turf area with beach grass, or some other kind of native
grasses and/or native grasses behind it.
TRUSTEE KING: You are looking for what, eight feet? .
MR. HERMAN: Well, that's what we had first proposed. Jim was
wanting to get it down to five. I don't know if the Board would
agree to go somewhere in between there. But I would say the
worse case scenario, limit it to the eight, particularly because
Board of Trustees 10 November 16, 2011
that would be consistent with what was approved before and I
think we would actually end up with a bit of a bigger buffer
really than just as far as the landward extent is concerned than
what was approved previously. They are obviously starting to
work in a pretty narrow band of beach to upland transitions down
here. It's a tough spot. And you can see where that scour is,
it's getting pretty close to the house there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: On Defina, any idea what this pipe is?
MR. HERMAN: Barbara Defina is here.
MS. DEFINA: Barbara Defina. It was a pipe I used to roll my boat
out to the water, because I couldn't move it myself, so I put
the pipe under the boat and rolled it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it's not in the ground?
MS. DEFINA: No, no.
MR. HERMAN: It's not a drainage pipe, is what they're after.
MS. DEFINA: No.
MR. HERMAN: We didn't notate it on the plan, but obviously all
of the various debris, the concrete, the blocks, would be
cleaned up when the project is implemented.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I saw it coming out of the ground.
MS. DEFINA: That's because it got moved around during the storm.
It's not where it originally was sitting.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Please come on up to the microphone.
MR. HERMAN: I think the bottom line, as we've indicated, it will
be removed.
MS. DEFINA: It's not attached to anything. It never was. I
should have moved it from there to show you, but it's not
attached to anything, it never was.
MR. HERMAN: It looks like it may have been speared into the side
there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a point of information, I'm a property
owner with a beneficial property from my mom and dad who lived
just down the land of Orient Harbor. And I got out there after
responding to some fire calls with the fire department and I
witnessed the latter half of the storm, and it's conceivable that
the pipe speared into the -- there were sections of dock and
catwalks and all manner of debris working their way to the north
and west and it ended up in the yacht club. It's interesting the
property I oversee for my mom and dad has an historic concrete
retaining wall with a slope to it. And although it's somewhat
protected by a neighboring property, the benefits of having a
sloped surface was such that they lost no beach. They picked up
a few fairly large cobbles and things that got tossed on to the
upland side, but with no real damage. So that comports well with
what you are asking for, what would work there, and it was just
an amazing thing to see such a sustained southerly blast with
almost due south, that occurred.
MS. DEFINA: This is the third time I'm fixing this, by the way.
And each time I had a permit. First time it was just beach grass
that they said I could put, standing beach grass, is all they
would allow. All washed out. Then they allowed these other
Board of Trustees 11 November 16, 2011
rocks, and I just looked and went, washed out again. So it
really needs to be done properly this time.
MR. HERMAN: The DEC was notably responsive to a more permanent
solution here. And that is sometimes just the way it goes with
them. They want the homeowners, you know, as does the Board,
often, to try these sort of smaller steps to see what the
minimum response can be that will work. But this was a pretty
telling post storm condition here.
So, if the Board will act favorably tonight, which is of
course what we are hoping, George Hamarth has indicated they
will probably process it through Marine Habitat Protection
pretty quickly at this point so they co.uld get moving on the
project. That's the hope anyway.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could add on to what the applicant just
stated, I think it's frustrating when the applicant, and this
Board has looked at this previously and to see previous'attempts
that they were asked to do failed, and all those cost money, I
think there has been every attempt made to try to minimize the
hardening of the shoreline here, yet being realistic in trying
to protect the property owner. I appreciate what they have done
here. I also appreciate the fact that some of that stone on
Defina is being pulled back a little bit, so that will in
essence create a passable area at high tide so that people can
transverse the beach for public access, so there is no public
access issue there.
The only question I have, from an engineering perspective,
I notice there is batter piles being used to support this
retaining wall rather than deadmen or helical screws. I'm just
hoping those batter piles will be sufficient to hold this wall
up against some of the storms like we have had. Because I would
hate to see the applicants, their retaining walls get blown out
by.a bad storm.
MR. HERMAN: That was Ian's approach to this is that the two were
actually punishing against each other in the same spot. So you
have the batter piles actually working from behind to sort of
force the retaining wall from behind up against the stone, which
is forcing itself back against the wall. So you really have
almost both sides of the retaining wall working to keep that,
whereas otherwise we would almost be relying on just the fill
behind it. Because a lot of times you are trying-to keep the
retaining wall from falling seaward. Here you are trying to keep
it from pushing back. That's the reason for his doing it the
opposite way.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. And I'm also concerned that, God forbid,
another really bad storm, where the water gets up above even
this retaining wall, but again, the retaining wall will hold so
afterwards maybe the repair can be as simple as trucking in some
fill to put in what's been scoured out rather than a whole
retaining wall going down and starting from scratch.
MR. HERMAN: That's the whole idea. This wall will have pretty
significant subsoil penetration relative to how much of that
Board of Trustees 12 November 16, 20.11
will really be exposed. That's one of the things we were talking
about with the height of the wall. You know, you are talking
about something that is a few feet above grade, you know, with
ten-foot sheathing. So, you'll have more than a two to one
ratio in terms of what is below grade versus what is above.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And with that, if there is no other questions
from the Board?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve both the
applications for the Grace Properties and Barbara Defina, as
applied for.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's consistent with LWRP. Is there any other
comment on the motion?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: You are staying with the eight foot.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, with the condition of the eight foot--
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I figure they want five, we want ten, so eight
is in the middle.
TRUSTEE KING: They have eight on the plans, too.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, all in favor.
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of KATIE
NICKOLAUS requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit
to construct,approx. 300 linear feet of stone revetment along
eroding toe of bluff with westerly angled return; restore bluff
face with terrace retaining walls, approx. 2,400 cubic yards of
_. sand re-nourishment, and native plantings; establish vegetated
15' non-turf buffer with berm on landward side of bluff crest;
remove existing swimming pool and patio; relocate existing
sanitary system located near bluff more than 100' from bluff
crest; and install drainage system at least 100' from bluff.
Located: 17555 Soundview Ave.
This is found consistent with LWRP. One of the recommendations
recommended that the Board require survival and maintenance
terms for all revegetated areas. It is further recommended that
the non-turf buffer be extended to°the landward limit of the
Coastal Erosion Hazard Area west of the parcel.
The CAC supports application with the condition of well
engineered remediation of the erosion problems be measured
against best management practices for bluff stabilization. There
is a concern with the stability of the top of the bluff as well
as concern with the clay drainage pipe on the bluff. The project
should include a provision for public access.
Is there anyone here to comment for or against this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants, and Jeff Butler of
Butler Engineering is here, as Jeff did the plan design. This is
a site that I had been looking at for a couple of years. It was
Board of Trustees 13 November 16, 2011
all together with the adjacent McAllister property, which is the
next on the Board's agenda. And this is a site that, as
indicated by the comments that Jim was just reading, have a lot
of issues to contend with. And I have actually had a couple of
meetings here with various folks from the DEC ranging from
Dominic Reynolds, Alexa Fournier, Karen Grolick, George Hamarth
and Eric Starr, the department's coastal erosion group.
I don't know, Jim, did you and I, 1 think you and I looked
at this one after the blizzard from 2010.
TRUSTEE KING: We might have been out there, yes.
MR. HERMAN: When we went up and down Soundview. This is a
property that has development which by consequence of the
landward transgression of the bluff, got much closer to the
bluff than it ever was. The McAllister site next door has
already gone through a Trustee and Zoning Board and Building
permit process where there was some retreat of the structures
that used to be there in the way of a re-constructed dwelling
and pool. On the Nicholas site here, the house that is there,
the pool that is there, are much, much older structures,
pre-existing structures.
One of the suggestions that the DEC had, even though part
of, you know, the work that is landward of the top of the bluff
is really out of their jurisdiction, one of the things that the
DEC had impressed upon us was the idea of doing like a
comprehensive remediation plan here, that would include some
landward retreat of the structures up above, dealing with the
sanitary system, drainage features, in addition to the proposal
to stabilize the toe of the bluff and then try and renourish and
revegetate and restore it.
So that is the approach that we have taken, and with that
I'll ask Jeff to go over the plan, because he's put together a
very comprehensive plan for how to address not only the toe
stabilization and the bluff re-nourishment, but also some of the
issues Jim just alluded to relating to the top of the bluff, the
non-turf buffer, the plantings, the removal of the swimming pool
and also the removal and relocation of the sanitary system and
some of those drainage features.
So, Jeff, if you want to just give a brief overview and try
to cover all those topics and see if the Board has questions.
MR. BUTLER: Jeffrey T. Butler, Professional Engineer. As Rob
pointed out, we took a hard look at this property pause of some of
the soil conditions we found up at the top, the top 20 feet of the bluff,
which we found some clay ledges and, um, as was pointed out, some
pipes sticking out of the bluff face. Then we took a look at the site
drainage and sanitary systems and realized probably all of the runoff from
the roof and also any leaching in the sanitary systems was going
down to one of those clay ledges and then blowing out the bluff
face. And we saw some evidence of that, um, early in the spring.
So what we did is we are going to abandon the existing
sanitary systems which are up close to the bluff and on the east
side of the house, and also we are going to push them back to
Board of Trustees 14 November 16, 2011
100 foot, as you see on the plan. We'll also, the applicant has
to also now put in a new well to do that because he interferes
with his existing well. We'll also provide roof drainage and
again push those drywells back to 100 feet, and in the process
of installing both of the new sanitary system and the roof
drainage, we want to make sure we punch through those clay
ledges, if we find them that far landward, so we have
communication down to decent sand rather than again seeing this
migrate out to the bluff face.
As Robert pointed out, part of this is also to remove the
existing inground pool, and the patio around it, which is a hard
surface, which will help with the runoff as well. And then we
are providing a 15-foot non-turf buffer up at the top.
From the top on down, we are going to be terracing and
filling this with clean sand to get a slope that is manageable
for some plantings that are shown on the plan. And then also at
the bottom we'll'be armoring the base, which you can see on the
cross-section, on sheet two, and at the base we are trying to
stay with the, put the armor stone basically where the bluff toe
head bends, so that we have distance between high water and the
toe of the bluff. And that dimension varies with the property as
we did a couple of different cross-sections. But what I show
there is probably the worst case condition in terms of high tide
and the toe of the bluff. So that is basically it. And I'm here
for'questions.
TRUSTEE KING: Looks like you have done a lot of work here.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Nice set of plans.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: How will access be gained for all the material
that will come in?
MR. 'BUTLER: Well, we had spoken to John Costello who may or may
not be doing the work, but he said that he can, with the pool
being removed, he can access through the top. Um, he as a
contractor would also have the added advantage of barging in
things, you know, the armor stone and things like that. But he
said he could do it from the top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE KING: I think they've done a good job. That's my
personal feeling.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, we've also seen when you do this kind of
terracing and replanting, based on some of the photos we saw
from the aerial video, it really works out pretty well.
TRUSTEE KING: I have no more questions.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Nor do I.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? Sir?
MR. BOOTH: Good evening. My name's Ed Booth, I live next door. A couple of things.
Could you put a stake in where you are actually going to --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sir, if you could direct your question to the Board.
MR. BOOTH: Sorry. I was hoping they would put a stake in to
show how far out this revetment would go. I mean, I go to this
beach every day and I've watched it for seven years. I watch
erosion. It used to be one foot a year, now it's picked up
speed. Anyway, since I'm just to the west, I'm sort of concerned
Board of Trustees 15 November 16, 2011
about how far out this revetment will project into the beach. So
could you answer that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have that information?
MR. BUTLER: Um, the armor stone will be basically where the toe
is now, on the west side.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I thought.
MR. BOOTH: There is no toe. That toe disappeared about two years
ago. There is a cliff there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The bottom of the cliff is the toe.
MR. BOOTH: That's what you call that. I'm sorry, I thought you
meant the old toe that was first there. Okay, so it will be
close. It will be apparently just projecting out what, five or
ten feet from the toe?
TRUSTEE KING: Not even that. Not according to the plans.
MR. HERMAN: Not even that. The idea, sir, is to build the
revetment so there is no seaward encroachment on the existing
beach.
MR. BOOTH: Cool. Sounds good. Now, on the westernmost side of
this, I notice that the revetment bends in a little bit. And if
you assume that you have say two foot a year erosion, what
happens after say 20 or 30 years there, at that point? It will
-- I know what happens. It goes around. And that will be your
problem eventually. I don't care, but the people who live there
might.
MR. HERMAN: I mean, the gentleman raises a valid point and that's
a normal coastal process with a toe stabilization both on The
Sound and on the ocean. Eventually if you have enough landward
movement, it will eventually make its way around the return and
you'll typically see, and that process usually see one of three
things happen: Either the neighboring parcel will try to armor
or the subject, the permittee will have to propose to lengthen
the return. But the return has to be put in, it has to be put in
at an-angle. You don't want to have a right-angle return. So
unfortunately there is really no more of a sophisticated design
you can come up with, at the end points of the property
boundaries, which are just artificially created boundaries
relative to a natural shoreline. And that's what you have. But
there is really no way around that. You have to return it and
you have to put in an angled return, and you can only go so far
back into the bluff, based on the current condition, because you
don't want to artificially undermine the adjacent property.
MR. BOOTH: The littoral flow is to the east, right? The
movement of sand is from west to east. You can see it up at Mill
Road, for example. And what that presumably means is that as
this erosion goes on over the years, there will be actually sand
moving in the right direction, in my point of view, to build up
my beach. That's great. Well, okay, lots of luck. I don't have
any further questions. Sorry I opposed the McAllister's putting
in a revetment five years ago when he put his house there and I
called him up about two years later and I said, hey, I know,
let's do it now. And he said forget it. So anyway, I hope it
Board of Trustees 16 November 16, 2011
works. I'm for it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Any comments from anybody else?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion?
(No response).
It was found consistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to add any sort of survival for the
revegetated areas?
MR. HERMAN: I have no objection to it. That's the idea.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sure.
TRUSTEE KING: Two growing seasons.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sure.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll add that to the resolution of approval.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of MICHAEL
MCALL1STER & BARBARA JONES requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal
Erosion Permit to construct approx. 150 linear feet of stone
revetment along eroding toe of bluff with easterly angled
return; restore bluff face with terrace retaining walls, approx.
1,000 cubic yards of sand re-nourishment, and native plantings;
and establish vegetated 15' non-turf buffer with berm on
landward side of bluff crest. Located: 17665 Soundview Ave., Southold.
This was reviewed under LWRP and found to be consistent. It
was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council and they
support it with the condition of well-engineered remediation of
erosion problem to be measured against best management practices
for bluff stabilization; concern with the stability of the top
of the bluff; and the project should include provisions for
public access.
The Board went out and looked at this property. It is
immediately adjacent to the Katie Nicholaus property that we
just looked at. And is there anybody theory speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the
McAllister's. And again, Jeff Butler of Butler Engineering is
here as well. Again, we made some references to this site during
the prior hearing on Nicholaus. This is a slightly similar
version. Nicholaus, the overall elevation of the bluff is not as
high, and about ten years ago or so the McAllister's went
through a process of reconstructing their home and their
swimming pool, and as part of a process what the Zoning Board
and Building Department have already relocated those structures
farther landward. They had been approved by this Board at that
Board of Trustees 17 November 16, 2011
time to install the revetment that Mr. Booth had alluded to, he
objected to. And from speaking to Mrs. McAllister I think the
sense was there was some objections, I don't know what exactly
panned out through DEC at the time, and I think they were hoping
that the erosional trend there would be ephemeral, or at least
cyclical, to the extent they would not have to do another
project. Now they have continued to lose bluff, and it has
continued to get steeper at its heel and its lost virtually all
its vegetation. Again, I have been following this site for
probably a year-and-a-half as we have been going through this
with both homeowners and with Jeff Butler. And even this year's
lawn at the top that was coming in in the Spring was later.
sloughing down during the summer. So it is a dynamic erosion
process that is occurring here. The stairway that had been
there was completely lost and so what the McAllister's are now
seeking to do is basically a continuation of the Nicholaus
project to the west, and basically what they had gotten a permit
from the Board to do years ago but never did.
Again, here there is some additional engineering work up at
the top relating to the recessed steps that are there, the
proposal of the same 15-foot buffer with a small berm rolled on
to the landward side to try reduce the velocity of toe of steep
toe.runoff coming from the top toward the bluff, and again a
fairly complex terracing plan to stabilize the soils as much as
possible and revegetate. We didn't really mention during the
Nicholaus hearings, and the same concept that would apply here
is with a face that has gone this,steep, I think what -- and
Jeff, you can correct me if I'm wrong -- I think what Jeff tried
to do here is really just try to work with the bluff as much as
you can. Because to really cut back this kind of a bluff to a
more natural angle of repose, I mean you would be moving half
-the bluff, a very, very substantial distance landward.And so
the goal here is to try retain the soils with the terraces, get
the renourishment material in and get it stabilized with the
combination of those terraces and the vegetation. And the idea
is to keep the revetment at the existing toe, and then work
backward from there. Basically it's the same part and parcel
with the Nicholaus project but a few less difficulties up top.
If the Board has any questions relating to this design specific
to this site, again, I'll just ask Jeff to come back up.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, one question, as with the previous
property, access, for this project, will access be gained from
below, above, a combination of both?
MR. HERMAN: Again, what is noted on the.plan is that the
proposed location is actually going to come from Nicholaus.
Again, I think we would be in a situation where if the access
was going to change substantially, if they to get access from up
along another beach access point, particularly a town landing,
we would have to come back before the Board to get approval for
that. But I do know, and I have met with John Costello on this
site, too. I asked John to come out, probably at some point
Board of Trustees 18 November 16, 2011
within the past year, and that was one of the practical benefits
of relocating the pool on the Nicholaus site, was it did give
John a place to work. So I think his idea would be to also
access McAllister from the same point, because if Costello
Marine ends up doing the job, obviously they would do both sites
as one continuous project.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I noticed on these plans there is no set of
stairs to the beach. Is that something the applicant wants to
wait so see how this project works and then come back after?
MR. HERMAN: I think so. Because think it's come to the point
where the access stairs have become secondary and I think we
would like to see how the entire project sets, and if it seems
stable, come in and propose a stairway based on how the .
condition has established itself, rather than guessing, you
know, where the most sensible location would be.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think that makes sense. And also just to
address a couple of concerns of the CAC. With that berm up on
the top of the bluff, and the additional stabilization,
hopefully that will address that concern,'and on the, just to
reiterate what the applicant has already stated on the plans, it
shows there is room between normal high tide, seasonal high tide
and the revetment for public access.
MR. HERMAN: And that condition should improve marginally if
that beach would ever get some time just for some natural
recovery. I mean we all saw that down on the Leeton Drive
properties-after the blizzard where it was not quite.what it
was, but there was some natural recovery. The problem was here,
this beach never really had a chance for proper summer beach
recovery because you had the storm surge. I mean The Sound was
mostly spared during Irene but you still had storm surge pushing
up on these beaches and really creating a difficult situation
just to have two really landmark storms within about nine months
of each other. So, we are actually hoping bythe time this is
all said and done you actually have even more dry beach down
there just through some natural recovery, if it gets a chance to
do that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: How would the applicant feel about a condition
of, similar to the one that was just put on the previous
application, of survival of two years for the vegetation and any
vegetation that has died to be replaced.
MR. HERMAN: There is no objection to it. Again, that's the
entire idea behind the project and that way that can also be
worked into the coastal erosion management permit maintenance
agreement, so that if they did have loss they could simply just
let the Trustees know they are working out there and go back out
and renourish and revegetate.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Beside that, this looks good to me.
Any other questions from anybody in the audience pertaining to
this project?
(No response).
Any questions from the Board?
Board of Trustees 19 November 16, 2011
(No response).
If not I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland permit
and coastal erosion permit of McAllister and Jones as described
with the condition that they will be reviewed for survival of
the plantings after two years and those plantings, they will be
able to revegetate any plantings that had not survived. And this
was found consistent under LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application under Wetland Permits
is number one, 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.
I would just like to try to make this a little more user
friendly for both the Board and comments. I would like to note
there are basically three components to this project that the
Trustees have already reviewed, and it ended up being three
component parts to the LWRP review: They are basically things
deck, things bulkhead on the north side and things pertaining to
'the basin and the docks and slips.
The CAC supports this application, and I will go over the
LWRP consistency review. But what the Board needs to do is, is
there, I guess, a rescission of the prior--
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. A rescission of the prior
determination of the Board that was at the September meeting.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The resolution in the September meeting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The resolution from the September meeting,
Board of Trustees 20 November 16, 2011
and to enter into a new public hearing and then discuss what we
have before us. Now, for the sake of orderliness, I don't know
if our attorney or the Chair, do we want to do those resolutions
after the hearing?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can do the resolution to rescind right now.
So we have a motion. Do we have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Now you can bring into the record the new
information we have since that meeting and why we are
re-opening it again.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are reopening the hearing at this time.
We have the LWRP reports that we have a portion of the project
was not reviewed under the consistency review, and that is those
items that I said they were basically dealing with the basin and
the boat dock. And that still has to go through a Planning
Department review. There is the bulkhead on the north side which
is deemed to be consistent with the LWRP for its reconstruction,
and the various, the decks and the decking, are viewed to be
inconsistent under LWRP for the fact that they exist but don't
have a currently valid Southold Town Trustee permit. I think
that is clear now. Is there anything else to add? I didn't have
the benefit of this month's worksession.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The survey they submitted reflects the accurate
plans that we need to adopt
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. The survey that is the survey of
Nancy Steelman which was received the in the Trustees office,
excuse me, which is dated October 25, and received in the
Trustees office on October 26,,reflects the current proposal and
currently what is out there Is there anyone here who wishes to
speak on behalf of the application?,
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting.
for the applicant. It sounds like the process is self
explanatory. We have, as I understand it, we have CAC support
with the prior decision, although rescinded. We have a narrowed
scope of what we'll be dealing with tonight. And the
inconsistency relative to the decking is resolved by issuance of
the permit.
Now, just to add two things to the record. Number one, the
bulkhead that was constructed by the prior owner was constructed
incorrectly. It was installed incorrectly. It was installed
backwards. The foundation that was installed by the prior owner
was not installed properly. It is cracking. Those are evident,
would have been evident in your field inspection. I don't think
there is any debate about this. The project that is before you
seeks to remedy those poorly constructed structures. That's
really what it's all about. And it requires, it was prudent to
raise the elevation of the bulkhead and it was prudent to set it
off the foundation wall by some distance. And so the plans
reflect that.
Board of Trustees 21 November 16, 2011
The final part is that you should know that the applicant
holds fee title to the underwater land here, and this is a
constructed boat base in. And that is important because it
separates from a lot of other scenarios I know you all deal
with. As you know, I'm a big supporter of the Trustees and the
Trustees own those underwater lands, in trust to the people.
But this is not an ownership type situation.
Finally, there will be other improvements proposed here. We
intend and have consulted, the applicant has consulted with the
Planning Department and will make the appropriate applications.
We'll go to whatever agency they have to go to. But you can
expect additional applications to be filed on this project, and
that will give you a chance to see how various decking and
improvements are progressing. So I think this is something
where we'll be working together on for at least another year.
But we would like to resolve, what we have asked, what we
would like to get approved today, what we are asking, because it
enables us to --we really are operating on a building permit
that was already issued that is still there, it enables us to
basically clean up a problem inherited by the previous property
owner. I understand they went bankrupt on this property. We
want to rehabilitate this site and I think at the end of the day
everyone will be pleased with the way this facility is upgraded.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Bruce from what I understand, the conversation
from the Minutes from September, you said you would take out the
portion for the existing 50 slips from the description here tonight.
MR. ANDERSON: We are happy to leave that be, because there is a
parking issue associated with those slips and I think that's
what has caused the rub here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just wanted to clarify that for the record,
because we have not gotten that in writing.
MR. ANDERSON: I'll clarify for the record we are not here to act
upon that tonight.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good, that was going to be my next question,
otherwise we are headlong and coming up against the LWRP because
they were not able to review that because of the pending
Planning Department review. So that clarifies that issue.
TRUSTEE KING: So the 50 slips, the main float and all that is
being withdrawn from the application.
MR. ANDERSON: From this application. But be advised it is our
intention to come back.
TRUSTEE KING: Sure, we understand that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's all the questions I have.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's all I have.
MS. HULSE: Just as a matter of housekeeping, could you, in this
resolution, remove the language in the second, third and fifth
lines that say "legalize." That should not be part of the resolution.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: You mean legalize the slips; is that what you are
referring to?
Board of Trustees 22 November 16, 2011
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Use the word "permit," instead of legalize,
wherever it appears, is what the attorney is saying.
MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. The other thing, we would like to see
the plans that you are looking at to make sure they are the same
plans we are looking at. If I may. We'll hand it right back to you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: October 25. That's the one we went over in
our worksession.
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, I see. Okay, that's fine. We have the same
plan.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the same plan you are looking at.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments with respect to the
hearing?
(No response).
If not I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve the
application as submitted on the Nancy Steelman plan revision
dated October 25, received in the Trustees office October 26,
2011, noting that the applicant has voluntarily withdrawn the
language concerning the word "legalize" where it exists in the
project description, and has voluntarily withdrawn for further
consideration by the Town Planning Department that section that
reads to clarify all existing 50 slips and the main float and
those items that refer to the activities of boat slips and docks
in the marina basin. And that the project has been noted to be
consistent with the LWRP for the construction of the bulkhead on
the north side. And that the Board, in considering this motion,
it does grant a permit--
MR. ANDERSON: Sorry, bulkhead on the south side.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: North side of the basin.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay, fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the Board, in consideration of this
motion, if passed, will address the inconsistency with respect
to the lack of permitting for some of the prior deck
construction, construction associated with the deck. So I would
move that.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion?
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR: ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Under Wetland Permits, number two, Docko, Inc.,
on behalf of US DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY, PLUM ISLAND DISEASE
CENTER requests a Wetland Permit to restore the east face of the
central wharf by replacing the existing anchor/tie-back system
for the southerly 100 linear feet and installing steel sheet
piling behind the existing bulkhead for the northerly 120 linear
Board of Trustees 23 November 16, 2011
feet with a new tie-back system; existing fill (approx. 3,000
cy.)Will be removed to make way for new anchor system and
replaced upon completion of the anchors; and scour walls will
be approx. 20 linear feet each and installed immediately in
front of the two ramps used by Plum Island.
Located: Ferry terminal at Plum Island.
LWRP finds this to be exempt from LWRP. CAC has no comment
because they did not make an inspection. And in fact this is
really pretty much nothing more than a housekeeping event here.
The folks over at Plumb Island need a bulkhead. We reviewed the
file. As I recall, there were not any changes that we were
suggesting. I have the plans right here. Is there anybody in
the audience here to address this application?
(No response).
Any comments or questions from the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we figured it was pretty straightforward,
and it's the federal government, just maintaining their property.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of JAMES
D. FRY requests a Wetland Permit to construct approx. 101 linear
feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing timber bulkhead;
construct +/-10' and ,+/-7' vinyl returns in place of existing
returns; remove existing deck; construct 3' extension to
existing 3'X 22' stairway (to be replaced as necessary);
construct 4'X 7' steps to beach; and backfill with approx. 20
cubic yards clean sand from an upland source.
Located: 8045 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue.
LWRP.finds this consistent. And the Conservation Advisory
Council supports the application with the condition of a
ten-foot non-turf buffer along the landward side of the
bulkhead. CAC recommends the returns are extended landward and
the destroyed groin is removed.
The Board went out and looked at this and we did have a
couple of questions. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. I thought you would like this one. There is a big
deck down below and there was at one point a shed, which I think
is gradually disappearing. So the deck and the shed, both of
which are pre-existing or nonconforming. We are not seeking to
replace them. They will just be removed. And the bulkhead will
be removed inplace. That's really it.
Board of Trustees 24 November 16, 2011
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, do you plan on adding stairs from
the bulkhead to the beach? Do you want to add that to your
description?
MR. HERMAN: They are on the plan. Are they not in the
description? 4x7 steps from the bulkhead to the beach.
TRUSTEE KING: They are in the description.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just reading our notes from the field
inspection. I guess it's not on the plan, that's what it is.
MR. HERMAN: It is on the plan. You might be thinking of Gannon.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you see steps from the bulkhead to the beach
here? From the bulkhead to the beach, not from the -- I don't
know.
TRUSTEE KING: You're looking at the wrong plans.
MR. HERMAN: (Indicating). Right here
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, I have the wrong plans in front of me.
So let me look at these notes. Okay, I had the wrong file in
front of me. Okay, this makes more sense. Did you want to add
any of the retaining walls that are on there? There is some
dilapidated retaining walls with this bluff.
MR. HERMAN: No.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, and we assume you'll be cleaning up all
the debris?
MR. HERMAN: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have any intention of doing any
plantings in there once all that debris is raked up and cleaned
up?
MR. HERMAN: Well, the planted slope, anything that is disturbed
there will have to be replanted, but most of the disturbance
should really be in the flat area immediately behind the
bulkhead. That's where the deck and shed were now, so we were
just going to leave that as it is. That should be pretty typical
for that situation. But the slope will remain vegetated, yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
MR. HERMAN: I think the pictures that you may have with the
application, the shed was still standing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do we have a picture that shows the groins up front
that the CAC asked about?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me read the Conservation Advisory Council.
That was the other one. This is consistent with the LWRP, and
the CAC supports the application with the condition of a
ten-foot non-turf buffer along the landward side of the bulkhead.
MR. HERMAN: That's fine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Which we just cleared up, we talked about, will
stay sand. All right, are there any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve the application as applied for
Board of Trustees 25 November 16, 2011
with the condition that the area behind the bulkhead stays as a
non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it's consistent with LWRP. Any further
discussion on the motion?
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The area behind the bulkhead being ten feet.
TRUSTEE KING: Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of LAUREL
HILL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP requests a Wetland Permit to construct
approx. 73 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing
timber bulkhead; construct +/-9' vinyl return in place of
existing northeasterly return; construct +/-12' vinyl return
along southwesterly property line; and backfill with up to 10
cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland
source; and establish a 5' non-turf buffer behind bulkhead.
Located: 350 MacDonald's Crossing, Laurel.
This is found to be exempt from LWRP. It's a minor action.
The CAC supports the application with the condition of a
ten-foot non-turf buffer along the landward side of the
bulkhead. CAC recommends returns are extended landward and the
destroyed groin is removed.
MR. HERMAN: The destroyed groin actually doesn't front the
subject parcel. It's just to the northeast. It's just to the that there, it's actually, if you look at the plans, it's just
on the other parcel. The one that is here is functional. I had
talked to Peggy Gannon, who is here, I had talked to Mrs. Gannon
about possibly replacing, we talked about the possibility of
replacing the groin. But she had mentioned that this whole beach
would be renourished again shortly, so we were not sure what the
_ situation would be in terms of the beach condition. If the
Trustees don't have any problem with us adding the replacement
of the groin to the permit, and she keeps the permit active, if
it turns out that the groin is exposed within the next four
years, she can do it, but we had just discussed the fact if it's
about to be buried with renourishment sand, they are not going
to dig up the beach to replace the groin.
TRUSTEE KING: It's basically acting like a low profile groin now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If there is no permit for it, we should just
add it to the description.
TRUSTEE KING: Sure.
MR. HERMAN: There is a couple of spots that probably need just
some basic repair.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So a permit that she can repair as needed.
MR. HERMAN: Why don't we just do that, Peggy. And if she wants
to come in to actually pull the whole thing out and rebuild it
as a low profile vinyl groin, we would have to come back in.
MS. GANNON: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had any questions with this, to
speak of.
Board of Tnistees 26 November 16, 2011
MR. HERMAN: Does that sound okay, Peggy?
MS. GANNON: That's fine.
TRUSTEE KING: We had written in there consider adding low
profile groin to replace existing groin and add steps to the beach.
MR. HERMAN: The steps,. I would just have to give you revised
plan to show the steps.
TRUSTEE KING: Was there a flagpole someplace? We have a flagpole
marked down here.
MR. HERMAN: There is a flagpole. So I can give you, I could
give you a revised plan that would show the flagpole and a set
of beach steps.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the one, the beach steps.
MR. HERMAN: Yes, I thought you were talking about this property.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. I read the one description and I looked
in the file.
Any questions, any comments from anybody else?
MR. HERMAN: One second. Peggy, do you understand what they are
asking with the non-turf buffer?
MS. GANNON: Yes, is it five foot or ten foot?-
MR. HERMAN: It's -- I mean, it's not--
MS. HULSE: Is this conversation on the record or just your
conversation with her? She has to be recognized or it's not on
the record.
MR. HERMAN: It's on the record.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just trying to figure out, there is not much
yard area there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have a six foot.
MS. GANNON: The vegetation that is there is voluntary. There
was the beach roses and the bayberry.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How about back to the flagpole?
MS. GANNON: What was that? Sorry.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: A non-turf buffer back to the flagpole.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's about five feet.
MR. HERMAN: Do you want to just call it five feet, flagpole or
not?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure.
TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, we were just looking at what the CAC
comment was. They wanted ten.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. The front yard is not that big, though.
TRUSTEE KING: There is not much of a yard here.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, there isn't.
MR. HERMAN: You would put back at least five foot of vegetation
anyway, right?
MS. GANNON: Sure.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The whole property back there is kind of
naturalized.
MS. GANNON: Yes, it would be the same.
TRUSTEE KING: Being no other comments, I'll make a motion to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
Board of Trustees 27 November 16, 2011
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: And I'll make a motion to approve the application,
and we want to.see new plans indicating steps to the beach, the
flagpole, and we'll also approve rebuilding that, the existing
groin can be rebuilt as a low profile groin.
MR. HERMAN: So you want me to show that on the plans?
TRUSTEE KING: I would show that on the plans, too.
MR. HERMAN: Okay. And the five-foot, non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KING: Five-foot non-turf buffer. And the flagpole.
That's it. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERMAN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf
of FERUCIO FRANKOLA requests a Wetland Permit to replace
in-place existing wood bulkhead 118' with new wood bulkhead 6"
higher than existing bulkhead, to include fender piles,
sheathing, wales, tie-rods, backer piles and lay logs. Excavate
as necessary to add a total of 244' of vinyl sheathing on the
landward side of the existing wood bulkhead; repair, replace or
add anchor structures as necessary. Provide 10' non-turf buffers
behind each bulkhead. Dredge as necessary within 10' seaward of
bulkheads to recover spillage from construction.
Located: 1900 Glenn Rd., Southold.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be
consistent, but it was noted in its consistency review that
there is a storm drainpipe associated with the catch basin that
flows into the water, and he's recommending that this be
addressed with this application. The CAC resolved to support the
application with the condition that the wood bulkhead is
actually replaced with a vinyl bulkhead, and there is
installation of a 15-foot, non-turf buffer along the entire
length of the bulkhead. And they also asked to address the
storm water runoff from the driveway on Glenn Road.
So, the Board did go out and looked at this application,
and we do have several questions for the applicant. Is there
anybody to speak on behalf of the application?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. James Fitzgerald for Mr. Frankola.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, just taking this one step at a time, is
there a reason why the applicant applied for a wood bulkhead
rather than vinyl?
MR. FITZGERALD: I'm sure there is but I couldn't tell you what
it was.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would the applicant have any objection to that
being vinyl?
MR. FITZGERALD: Probably not. Especially if you were to make it
a condition of the approval of the project.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Now, we also had asked to see, because we
did research in the office and couldn't find any permits for all
the floating docks here, and couldn't find any permits for the
Board of Trustees 28 November 16, 2011
davits that we saw along one side of this project. And I was
wondering if the applicant had any proof of previous permits for
these, any of these floats, or the davits.
MR. FITZGERALD: The background, Dave, is the existence of the
boat basin started with a finding by the 1966 ZBA which allowed
for and found for a variance. The regulations at that time
permitted a boat basin in the "A" residential area, which is
what this was at that time. And it said of up to six
non-commercial boats. So the owners at that time applied for a
variance to allow for more than six non-commercial boats. Not
specifying any upper limit. And you may have seen in the Minutes
of that meeting, and there was discussion of, I would say casual
discussion of the number of boats, and at one point the owner
said, well, there could be up to 50 boats. And one of the
members of the Board said, well, you couldn't get 50 boats in
there. And that was the end of the discussion about the number
of boats. I was not, as you were not able to find, any specific
application for a permit for floats to service six boats or 50
boats. But-- and the reason I mention it is that it should be
apparent that if it's unlimited --
MS. HULSE: Mr. Fitzgerald, would you mind just taking the
microphone and holding it close so we can get'it recorded
properly. Thank you.
MR. FITZGERALD: Obviously, if they are going to get 50 or 40 or
30 boats in there, there'll have to be floats. And this, the
birth of this thing, I think, took place before the birth of the
Trustees. Is that correct? When did the Trustees, when were the
Trustees born?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 1700's?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 1676. October 31, to be precise.
TRUSTEE KING: I think in the 1950's is when they started issuing
permits.
MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, anyhow, another interesting, I thought,
aspect of it, with regard to the davits was that the Board,
Henry Smith was president at that time, wrote a memo to the Town
Board saying that they, the Board of Trustees, had denied an
application for davits, and requested that the Town Board notify
the applicant Mr. Frankola of that fact. The thing that is
interesting about it is that Henry's letter specified
application number 185 and the letter that was written to Mr.
Frankola telling him that his application was denied specified
application number 175. So he probably thought that meant
something else and that there was probably a feature in the code
at that time that said if an application was not addressed in
some certain length of time, it would be automatically approved.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know about that. I don't think so. Good
try, though
MR. FITZGERALD: Anyway, it's a feature that might have some
bearing on this. So the short answer to your question is that I
am not aware and the owner is not aware of there ever having
been any permits issued for either the davits or the floats, as
Board of Trustees 29 November 16,2011
they are currently set up. And that's part of the reason why I'm
here tonight instead of having postponed this until we got more
information to see what the Board's feeling is going to be about
the future of the project.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You mentioned quite eloquently Minutes from
meetings in the past, going back to the '60s. Would you be able
to produce any of those Minutes for us?
MR. FITZGERALD: Sure, they are in the --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: They are not in the file here.
MR. FITZGERALD: They are on the computer. And I printed them out
and I'll be happy to give you a copy.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just as a point of helpful information,
because I was on the Henry Smith Board at that time, I believe,
that the Trustees were only advisory to the Town Board, which
made final determination under the Town Wetland Ordinance, much
like the Conservation Advisory Council is presently. So that
there may be Town Board Minutes reflecting the granting of
permits for docks or not, or davits or boat lifts or not. And my.
recollection is not clear on the discussion, on the.Trustee
Board discussion at the time concerning the davits. But I
thought ultimately there may be, if my recollection is at all
accurate, and it's not necessarily, that the Town Board did not
grant, there may be some confusion, but one of the other boards,
I don't believe there ever was a granting at that time, of the davits.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The only thing I found in the research was a
denial for the davits.
MR. FITZGERALD: As I said, the Trustee asked the Town Board --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: My recollection may be off. It's neither
here nor there. But it was not approved.
MR. FITZGERALD: The Trustees asked the Town Board to notify him
that it was denied. They just used the wrong number.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was the process back then. The Town Board
didn't give that authority to the Trustees at the time. So
that's why it went through that process. But it was a denial for
the davits. And the davits were built -- I'll let Dave finish up.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think one concern is that we need to obtain
these records that we have talked, that have been discussed
here, to try to clarify exactly what was done in the past.
Because again, we don't have any of that here tonight. Before
get to what I would consider an important issue here, also
regarding the non-turf buffer that had been suggested by the
CAC, would the applicant have any objection to a 15-foot,
non-turf buffer around, as a condition to this permit?
MR. FITZGERALD: You mean increasing the size of it?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: To 15 foot.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is none.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because there is none. We didn't see any on the
plans here. It's --
MR. FITZGERALD: Sure there is.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's not depicted on the plan here, unless I'm
missing it.
Board of Trustees 30 November 16, 2011
MR. FITZGERALD: Dave, the red crosshatched area.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, that's listed -- ten foot non-turf
buffer. You're right, Jim. I apologize. I looked at the word
"excavation." Would there be any objection to increasing that
from ten to 15 feet?
MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know. And the reason I say that is I
don't know what it would look like on the ground.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. It's something to discuss.
MR. FITZGERALD: It's.probably not a problem. But I would want to
check on it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And then also, we would, I feel, as a condition,
require this, we would not allow that drainage pipe to be
reconnected or to go through that bulkhead. That's my own feeling.
MR. FITZGERALD: I don't think that's Mr. Frankola's drainage pipe.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just saying for myself, I would not be in
favor of allowing that to be put back in.
MR. FITZGERALD: Nor would I.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now I think also a major concern is whether or
not this project as described meets our definition of marina.
And if it does meet the definition of marina, then we also have
some planning issues regarding parking, access. There is also
the question of a pump out station. Because if we -- I believe
in the code it states if we are doing work in a marina or
approving additional work at a marina that doesn't have a pump
out station, that has to be included also. And that be could be
a portable one. It doesn't have to be a permanent one.
So, for myself, I think we need to table this application
until we can address, get the information that we have talked
about here and address the issue of this being a working marina,
and then being subjected to all the requirements a working
marina would have in the Town of Southold. Which would require
planning approval.
MR. FITZGERALD: Is that something you have done in all the
situations where communities have facilities, like Broadwaters
Cove, for instance, which has docks down at the end of the road?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, all we are addressing here is this
application, tonight. Again, I'm not going to address other
sites and other marinas.
MR. FITZGERALD: It's not a marina, Dave.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what we are getting at, it has to be
determined if it fits under the marina definition or not. And if
it does, then there are other rules and regulations to follow.
Right now the application is.for the bulkheads. But you have
other structures that don't have permits. You know, one way
around all that is if, and I'm sure you would have to talk to
the applicant, is if he removes all the unpermitted structures.
And then we would just have the bulkheads, and we don't have all
the other issues, then it's not a maria and then it might not
fit under the marina code. Or you can go ahead with the
procedure that you have to, if it's determined that it's a
marina. So I think it needs to be tabled.
Board of Trustees 31 November 16, 2011
MR. FITZGERALD: Do marinas have davits?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Commercial properties are different than
residential properties. And this is residential. So it's a lot
of questions, you know, that we have to --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is rent paid by any of these boat owners to stay
in this basin?
MR. FITZGERALD: They, the initial concept, presumably --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry, go ahead.
MR. FITZGERALD: In the site plan for the subdivision, it was
intended and is intended, as far as I know, to be for the people
of that subdivision. A boat basin. It's on all the maps and all
the discussions throughout all of this history, it's been
referred to as a boat basin.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think Dave is right, we need to table this to
get more information on the application.
MR. FITZGERALD: Sure, I expected no less. Is there anything else
we should be thinking about in the meantime?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The only thing I might suggest in your
historical review, again, my recollections may not be accurate,
but I thought there was a reversal at a subsequent date on the
davit. So you might look to see if there is a subsequent
permitting for the davits. Because I recall at the time there
was a divergence of opinion on the appropriateness off the
davits. Some people thought they were ugly, some people thought
they were beautiful. And I think I heard a flip at subsequent
-point in time, but I'm not sure of that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We couldn't find it in our history and I would
ask Mr. Fitzgerald to ask the applicant if he had that. If he
comes up with it, then, you know. But that's something that has
to be addressed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was there anybody else in the audience that had
any comments with regard to this application?
(No response).
If not, I'll make a motion to table the application of Proper-T
Permits on behalf of Mr. Frankola at 1900 Glenn Road, Southold.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing, number seven, Costello
Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of JOHN P.-, EUNICE P. &
EUNICE P. BENFIELD TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove
upper retaining wall, existing stairs and remains of wood deck;
remove remains of 135' of existing bulkhead and existing stairs
to. beach; remove and relocate lower portion of existing drain
line and install new catch basin; construct 147' of new bulkhead
in-place of existing; backfill with 190 cubic yards of clean
fill; and construct 8'X 111' wood deck and new stairway to
beach. Located 50 Blue Marlin Dr., Southold.
The project has been determined to be both consistent and
inconsistent. With respect to the replacement, excuse me, with
respect to the bulkhead replacement it is consistent but it's
Board of Trustees 32 November 16, 2011
found to be inconsistent with respect to the 8x111 foot deck,
insofar as it's a large area adjacent to the wetland and it
doesn't-preserve the functions and values of adjacent areas near
tidal wetlands.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this
application on the condition of a 15-foot, non-turf buffer along
the landward side of the bulkhead.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of the
application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine, on behalf of the
applicant. The deck was put in there because you guys came to
the site and felt it was all right to put it back the way it
was. That's an existing structure. That's the reason we put it
back in the application. And I want to give you the proof of
mailings. So the application was submitted based on the meeting
with the Trustees.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We had a pre-submission out there. That
said, true to our meeting out there, the Conservation Advisory
Council is also looking for 15-foot, non-turf buffer. So
presumably that would be additional, and landward of the deck,
then, because the deck stretches largely along the front of the
property. That would be quite a commitment of property to both
deck and non-turf buffer. Is there --
MR. COSTELLO: Could the deck be considered part of the non-turf
buffer?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's a question, I guess.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think when we spoke about that out in the
field, about the pre-submission inspection, didn't we say if
you, I had mentioned rotating the boards on the, on that deck,
so it would actually drain better than going in a perpendicular
fashion toward the water. And if it did that, then I didn't
have a problem with it necessarily. Because the water would all
drain down to the sand below.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And that would essentially address'an
inconsistency because of the fact--
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It would actually be acting like a French drain.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, if it's a non-turf surface.
MR. COSTELLO: That's how it's drawn in the plans, running
parallel with the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I just wanted to state that for the record.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think what Bob was saying, have the boards
parallel.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Parallel rather than perpendicular, too.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: When we were looking at the plans on page four,
shows it running perpendicular; page five, parallel. So that was
our confusion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do we have different dates? Are those dated
plans we could refer to? The revision?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else who wishes to speak with respect
to this application?
Board of Trustees 33 November 16, 2011
(No response).
Not hearing further comment, I'll close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim has something
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hold on. Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: This bulkhead will be replaced in place of the
existing bulkhead, am I correct?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. .The confusion on page four is just showing
what is there existing. I understand what the confusion with the
decking is. The other shows how it's going to be.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Okay, I think I got it now.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I move to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application as submitted, conditioned on a set of plans showing
that the decking, the eight foot-- excuse me, 8x111 foot
decking, that the boards run parallel to the bulkhead as on page
four of the plan, be the method of construction, and this would
address the inconsistency on the LWRP -- sorry, page five.
Sorry, page five. On page five, of the sheet numbered page five
of.page eight, which shows the decking running parallel to the
bulkhead being the operant,construction. This would address the
LWRP concerns in that it would be a functional non-turf buffer
and protect the adjacent area to Shelter Island Sound. Otherwise
the application as submitted. So moved.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we do not need revised plans?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We would not need revised plans. It's just
that the plans, the permit is conditioned on the use of that
page five where the construction is parallel.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further comment on this resolution?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So it makes it consistent.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It makes it consistent with LWRP because we
do have a non-vegetated, we have a buffer that will not
discharge water over the face of the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Moving on to number eight, Costello Marine
Contracting Corp., on behalf of JOHN & JEANETTE COLLINS requests
a Wetland Permit to excavate a 60' area landward of existing
bulkhead; re-align face of 60' of existing bulkhead and install
new backing system; replace excavated material and re-vegetate
disturbed area to match existing.
Located: 515 Waters Edge Way, Southold.
This has been found to be consistent with the LWRP, with
the suggestion that a landscape buffer landward of the bulkhead
for the entire width of the parcel. The CAC supports the
Board of Trustees 34 November 16, 2011
application with a condition of 15-foot vegetated, non-turf
buffer. And further recommends that the jetty is removed.
Our field notes show when we went out to look at it, we
were also suggesting a 15-foot non-turf buffer and suggesting
that a stairs be built over the groin, so we have access up and
over the groin.
Is there anybody here who would like to address this
application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine, on behalf of the
applicant. The stairs are not necessarily an issue. I'm sure the
applicant would not be against that. The non-turf buffer is
going to be the issue. In this particular case, the.backing
system let go. They are not replacing the bulkhead. I know there
will be some disturbance there, but the non-turf buffer in the
situation will be the issue, because they want to do the least
amount of damage to their property as possible. I understand you
guys want non-turf buffers, I never had a problem with that. But
you can see it's inconsistent with what is going on down there.
Um, they want it to go back to the way it was and they actually
took the high road by coming in for the permitting for the
backing, rather than digging up the yard and just doing it. They
wanted to take the high road and do the right thing. You know,
I'm asking the Board to maybe overlook or maybe decrease the
side size of the non-turf buffer. Considering the bulkhead is
so old -- it's a money thing -- the bulkhead is so old, but it
cannot financially be replaced at this time. It will be just
pulled back, new backing system, and I don't think, it's not a
permitted structure, it's not like we are building a 50-year
vinyl bulkhead. We are putting in a new backing system and we'll
be lucky enough to get another ten years out of this thing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is that lawn essentially obliterated by
Irene? I'm trying to remember, wasn't that a brown out area,
pretty much burned up?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, it was. Well, you could see it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You could see it's all burned up along here.
TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we have the disturbed areas revegetated
and the rest no mow zone, 15-foot, just leave it alone rather
than mow right down to the bulkhead?
MR. COSTELLO: That's the issue. The house is right there. To be
consistent with the neighbors and everything, it was, when I
undertook this job, I knew the non-turf buffer would be a major
sticking point of it. Like I said, we are not putting in a
50-year structure. We are repairing a 30-year old structure.
Just because, you know, to have the burden of putting in a large
non-turf buffer-- and it's not much backyard there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is the opportunity.that we take to put
these buffers in, as you know.
MR. COSTELLO: I understand.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is a lot more space there than there was
on a lot of the other projects today.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would be willing to go with a ten-foot
Board of Trustees 35 November 16, 2011
non-turf buffer there. I definitely think we need a non-turf
buffer there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. And I'm looking at the plan here in
the cross section, shows there is a 15-foot area of disturbance
going all the way along there. So, I'm sorry, but I don't see.
what the hardship would be of making that a non-turf buffer,
that 15 foot. Because it will be disturbed and torn up anyhow,
and I imagine backfilled where necessary here. So I don't see
where it's a hardship to require a 15-foot, non-turf buffer there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Also, I concur, I think with the selection
of the right type of low fertilizer requiring kind of a lawn,
like a fescue, something like that, that they let grow out, that
is not maintained. It would not grow so tall as to affect their
view, so if this is an area that is left as a non-maintained
turf area with a low fertilized, particularly any type of fescue
varieties, let it grow out and they would not have the place
overgrown, disturbing what is presumably there, with the idea of
having a view, and that would be essentially a non-maintained,
non-fertilized, essentially non-turf buffer, because it would be
sort of naturalized. I don't see why they couldn't do it.
MR. COSTELLO: 15 feet just seems excessive. It is a backyard and
the whole discussion was the grandchildren stay there, and the
ticks, I ran the gamut with these people. I mean, I could tell
them -- does ten foot seem reasonable? Because, you know, we
might not be doing anything there, because if they.are forced to
put in a non-turf buffer, they would rather let the bulkhead
fall on the beach.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's their prerogative.
MR. COSTELLO: I understand.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is plenty of room back there.
MR. COSTELLO: If you could see where the house is in relation to
the bulkhead, I mean, I explained this to them. Like I said, we
are not putting in a permanent structure. We are fixing a
30-year old decrepit structure.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That argument, I don't think goes with us with
the buffer. Because you know--
MR. COSTELLO: I even think 15 feet is a little excessive. I
don't think there is any need to have 15 feet of room there to
stop nitrates from going in the water
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER:-What if at the ten foot they put a
landscaping buffer as a delimiter so you don't have the buffer
diminishing, in other words have something to clearly demark it
and have ten foot.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have been pretty consistent with the 15 feet
on backyards having this kind of space. We have an eight foot
buffer we put on something that didn't even have this much room.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's true.
MR. COSTELLO: Would it be fair--the property is 100 feet wide.
We are only disturbing 60 feet of it. Is possible to take the
non-turf buffer all the way across the entire property, given
the extra square footage? Like I said, it only failed 60 feet.
Board of Tnistees 36 November 16, 2011
It's 100 feet of property. If we take that non-turf buffer all
the way across the property ten feet? I mean, that's giving you
another four-hundred feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we were looking at doing it across the
whole entire property, not just the --
MR. COSTELLO: Not just the disturbance area?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, at this time. You know what, I think this
discussion has gone on too long. This is something that we
always say a buffer, so I think we need to, you know --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We just scaled it off. It's approximately 80
feet between the top of the bulkhead and the home.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So let's move from with this discussion and
make a decision.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, any other questions or comments?
TRUSTEE KING: No, just the stairs and the groin.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: With that 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
with the addition of adding stairs up and over the existing
groin to allow continual access along the shore, and also to add
a 15-foot, non-turf buffer along the length of the property
directly behind the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KING: Just one comment. The stairs over the groin does
not say that's okay to have the groin. It's not a permitted
structure, I don't believe. It's been repaired not too long
ago, evidently, but I don't think it's a permitted structure.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So should we go back on to the public hearing
to have this discussion?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are in the middle of a motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we are having a discussion --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is a motion on the floor right now.
MS. HULSE: Does anyone want to withdraw the motion to have
discussion?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, I'll withdraw the motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So Jim, you are saying --
TRUSTEE KING: The only point, putting the stairs over, I don't
want that to legitimize the groin. It's not a permitted structure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a real catch 22.
TRUSTEE KING: It's not part of this application, but there it is.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do we want to make it part of the application?
TRUSTEE KING: No, I don't.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not at that height.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So why don't we -- so why do we address it at
all?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Because you can't traverse the shore.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are trying to address public access.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand that. What I'm saying, if it's not
even part of our--
Board of Trustees 37 November 16, 2011
TRUSTEE KING: Lori, we want stairs over that so people can walk
up and over it. Does that legitimize the groin?
MS. HULSE: I'm at a loss to ask why you are not addressing the
groin now. Because it's not part of the application? It should
be a violation issue. I mean that's part of your not recognizing
it if you say there is a violation that's been issued for it.
Now as it stands, no one has addressed it. But there has been
repair work to it, right?
TRUSTEE KING: Evidently, looking at it. We don't know when or
where.
MS. HULSE: You are not legitimizing it in fact, but--
TRUSTEE KING: See that one section has been replaced at some
time. It's kind of a catch 22.
MS. HULSE: You are not legitimizing it legally, however,
obviously, for your purposes you are.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is.not even part of the application, so
don't know why we would be making them put stairs here. Because
it's not part of the application. It should be addressed when
that groin is applied for and addressed. It's just like when we
say, okay, you'll put an addition on to a house so now you have
to put a buffer 80 feet away.
MS. HULSE: The only difference is now you are addressing the
fact there is no public access, and you have the right to do
that regardless of what they apply for. That's the only
difference with this particular one. So I would say there is a
difference there. But if you see that as a way to remedy the
situation for, specifically for the lack of public access, you
can do that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right,,that's what I wanted to make clear.
Because it's really not part of the application at all. And the
other thing that, um, is, sorry, we did -- did we have
discussion of the stairs going down from the bulkhead to the
beach? Because that's not in the description. Is it on the
plans?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's on the plans.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So,we just need to add that to the description.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So now let's get back to the groin. If we are
going to put stairs over the groin and we want to address the
groin, then why don't we. Do we want further repair being done
to a groin that has no permit and have him continually be in
violation or do we want to say if there is anything to be done
with the groin that we can give him a permit for a low profile
groin? Otherwise every time he puts a nail in it, he is
technically in violation.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is apparently-- not apparently. There is
a violation currently there. I mean, counsel has already told us
that there is a violation there that needs to be addressed by
way of a violation being issued for that repair that was done on
that bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How can we --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Groin, not bulkhead.
Board of Trustees 38 November 16, 2011
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think the easiest solution is to add the
groin to the description and, um, then we can put the condition
of access stairs and that when it needs to be replaced that this
becomes low profile.
MS. HULSE: The applicant has to request that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I hear a request coming.
MR. COSTELLO: I'll request that. That's fine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You request that we add that to this
description?
MR. COSTELLO: If it's going to expedite the whole process, I
would think that's fair. I mean the customer has no bad
intentions, they just want to move forward.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But you might as well add it to the description
so if you do need to do repairs, you can.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If cost of the stairs is an issue and the
practicality of up and over, I don't know where the property
line is, would it be possible they could just make a cut out to
allow passing of the groin. In other words a foot-and-a-half.
MR. COSTELLO: You could probably crawl through that hole in it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm thinking of the interface up at the
bulkhead.
MR. COSTELLO: However you want to address it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not trying to complicate things.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think he has.a problem with the stairs
up and over. He already said that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you are requesting to add a description of
the groin to this application --
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, please.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, so --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we have to close the public hearing again.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other ideas, comments, concerns?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
.TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with the addition of a 15-foot, non-turf buffer along the entire
length of the bulkhead, knowing that there, in the description
we'll add the stairs to the beach. We are going to also add
stairs up and over the groin, the existing groin, and we'll add
the condition that should any further repair work need to be
done to this groin, that it will become a low profile groin.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You'll approve the groin with the condition
that it, when it needs to be replaced it will be low profile and
do we want to shorten it?
TRUSTEE KING: It can't be repaired as is, it's too high.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And when a repair needs to be done, it needs to
be made a low profile groin. And again, this is consistent with
the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What about the groin, do you want that to meet
Board of Trustees. 39 November 16, 2011
the regulations of the low tide?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Then it would be brought --
TRUSTEE KING: If it's brought into low profile, it can't exceed
low tide and can't be over 12 --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are having a discussion again in the middle
of a motion. Should we table this to get drawings of this?
MS. HULSE: Yes, that's advisable.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is getting too complicated. Why don't we
table it to get the drawing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll withdraw the motion. That's it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second on withdrawing the motion?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sorry, Jay. I'll make a motion to table this
application to get other information.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
Jill e. Doherty, Presiden
Bo Trustees
RECEIVED
JAN 2 0 2012 ( la, 40 P„.,
Qy�
So ho-fd Town Nrk