HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-01/18/2012 James F.King,President ��0� SOUry� Town Hall Annex
Bob Ghosio,Jr.,Vice-President �� l0 54375 Main Road
P.O.Box 1179
Dave Bergen Southold,New York 11971-0959
John Bredemeyer G Q
Telephone(631) 765-1892
Michael J.Domino CoU Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED
Minutes
APR 2 0 2012 0- IV-1k am
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
qkw 50 oid Town erk
6:00 PM
Present Were: Jim King, President
Robert Ghosio, Vice-President
Dave Bergen, Trustee
John Bredemeyer, Trustee
Michael J. Domino, Trustee
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, February 15, 2012, at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, February 22, 2012, at 6:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 5:30
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of October 19, 2011 and November 16, 2011
TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to our January meeting. Just a
little bit of housekeeping to go on. I would like to welcome our new Trustee Mike
Domino. Mike was appointed by the Town Board to fill in the spot Jill Doherty vacated
when she was elected to the Town Board. We have Wayne Galante here taking
Minutes. If during the public comment periods, if anybody comes up to the microphone,
please identify yourself so he can get it on the record. And try and limit your comments
to five minutes or less. We appreciate it. We like to keep the meeting going.
We have Jack McGreevey sitting here from the Conservation Advisory Council.
They go out and do inspections and give us their opinion on what should be done with
the project.
We'll set the date for the next field inspection, February 15, at eight o'clock in the
morning.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Next meeting will be Wednesday, February 22, at
Board of Trustees 2 January 18, 2012
6:00 and we'll start our worksession at 5:30.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve the Minutes of October and
November. I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll vote yes on the October. I don't recall
November. I think I read them quite early on.
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for December 2011. A check for
$10,547.95 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 VI Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, January 18, 2012, are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA:
TRUSTEE KING: They are listed as follows:
David Scott Ketner— SCTM#4-5-18
Fishers Island Development Corp.
Doug & Kathlene Folts — SCTM#136-1-54
Edward Jurzenia — SCTM#47-2-1
Daniel & Jackie Bingham —SCTM#116-6-24.1
Stephen G. Latham —SCTM#66-2-40
William & Janice Claudio —SCTM#35-3-12.10&12.11
Philip & Jennifer Stanton — SCTM#64-1-29
Dai W. Moy— SCTM#90-2-2
Sim H. Moy & 106 Mulberry Corp. — SCTM#90-2-1
Joseph &Alexandra Ciampa — SCTM#37-5-12
Nicholas Aliano—SCTM#83-1-11&12
Frederick DeLaVega & Lawrence Higgins—SCTM#23-1-6.1
Avelno, LLC, as Contract Vendee—SCTM#116-6-10.2
Leigh Allocca & Stacy Sheppard — SCTM#123-8-28.5
Ellen F. Emery— SCTM#111-13-6
Robert Horvath —SCTM#81-3-5
John O'Grady—SCTM#1 11-2-11
Board of Trustees 3 January 18, 2012
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under resolutions and administrative permits,
number one, JULIA & JOSEPH VERGARI request an Administrative
Permit to replace the existing 20'X 24'front stoop and
retaining wall against the house; add pillars on bottom of
stoop; install pervious cobblestone driveway; define entrance
with two (2) pillars on each side and add an apron; remove
asphalt and re-grade dirt back onto property at same grade.
Located: 5855 New Suffolk Ave., Mattituck.
This is an as-built application, which means some work was
already done before a Trustee permit was requested. We are just
reviewing the plans here.
I'll make a motion to approve this application and I would
like to stipulate that there will be no further activity seaward
of the line that is on this survey as elevation six. This is the
survey that was surveyed June 15, 2011, and was revised on June
21, 2011. Like I said, there has been some activity without a
permit. And I'm a little concerned there might be more activity
possibly done seaward of this line. So we don't want to see any
activity seaward of elevation six, as this line is shown on the
survey. Any activity that takes place beyond that area they have
to come back to us for a permit to do any work there. That's my
motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: And that was found consistent with LWRP.
We try and lump these together if we can, if they are simple
with no problems. Number two and three are very straightforward
with no outstanding issues. They read as follows:
Number two, Walter J. Krupski, Jr., on behalf of PEQUASH
RECREATION CLUB, INC., requests an Administrative Permit to
install nine (9) concrete piers (12" dia.) Under existing 6"X 6"
posts to stabilize the foundation of the existing building.
Located: 205 West Rd., Cutchogue.
And number three, Petracca Design and Engineering, PC on behalf
of PATRICIA COADY AND DEBRA COADY requests an Administrative
Permit to restore the fire damaged interior of the existing
single-family dwelling and repair damaged roof shingles,
sheathing, exterior wall siding, sheathing, doors and windows.
Located: 2625 Cedar Dr., Southold.
So I would like to make a motion to approve both of them,
Board of Trustees 4 January 18, 2012
Petracca was consistent with LWRP and the next one was exempt
from LWRP. I would make a motion to approve those two.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under applications for extensions, transfers and administrative
amendments, number one, ARTHUR CODY requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland
Permit#7252, as issued on February 24, 2010 and Amended on March 23, 2011.
Located: 630 Dean Dr., Cutchogue. This is a one-year extension to a permit that was
issued. There has been no changes to that. I would move to approve that one.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc., on behalf of RENATO & CARLA STARCIC requests 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 Rd. #3, Southold.
This is another case, there was approval, there was a question
on a right-of-way, whether they can put some lights through it,
and we have a letter in the file that indicates there is no
problem with that. So I make a motion to approve that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Patricia Moore, Esq., on behalf of
MAIN ROAD, INC., requests a One-Year Extension to Administrative
Permit#7232A, as issued on February 24, 2010. Located: 64755
Main Rd., Southold.
This is the old Hollister's Restaurant just east of Mill
Creek. I would make a motion to approve the extension. It's for
minor repairs to the building. I believe it's new shingles and
some siding.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, I would like to suggest a condition to your
motion, conditioned upon the review of the file by the Building
Department to determine whether this is a demolition or in fact--
TRUSTEE KING: The building, we stopped there and looked at it.
The building is really getting deteriorated. I don't know-- I
would make that motion with that stipulation that the file go to
the Building Department, to make a determination as to whether
it's a demo or not. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 5 January 18, 2012
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That was conditioned on the first go around it
could not be demolished. But it's still not a bad idea to send
it over because the building really has gone down hill.
TRUSTEE KING: Number four and number five were simple
transfers. They read as follows:
Number four, Ed Viola on behalf of BAY AVENUE HOLDINGS, LLC
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#4526 from Broadwaters
Cove Marina to Bay Avenue Holdings, LLC, as issued on September
28, 1995 and Amended on April 19, 2000. Located: 8000 Skunk
Lane, Cutchogue.
Number five, Ed Viola on behalf of BAY AVENUE HOLDINGS, LLC
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#5934 from Broadwaters
Cove Marina to Bay Avenue Holdings, LLC, as issued on May 26,
2004. Located: 8000 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue.
We went out and looked at it. Everything is consistent with
the permits that were issued. So I'll make a motion to approve
those two.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off regular meeting and
on to public hearing section.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 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.
This has been found to be inconsistent for the LWRP under policy 6.3, about
protecting and restoring tidal and freshwater wetlands. They note that Richmond Creek
is a significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat. The Conservation Advisory Council did
not make inspection, therefore no recommendation was made.
The Trustees were out in the field and they took a look at it. It was staked when it
was seen. It's a little blurry but you can see it nonetheless. And out in the field we did
note one consideration would be to limit the extension of the "L," to 12-foot total length.
And with that is there anybody here who would like to address this application?
MS. WEXLER: Good evening, Donna Wexler, I'm the owner of 1775 Indian Neck Lane,
and I have a letter from the DEC and the rest of the mailings.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How do you feel about making it 12-feet total
length, the "L" shape?
TRUSTEE KING: It's basically the way you have it staked is that size.
MS. WEXLER: It is?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. And it's pretty consistent. There was a
neighbor across the creek that did almost the identical thing. I
believe his is ten feet. So it's pretty consistent with what he has.
Board of Trustees 6 January 18, 2012
MS. WEXLER: Okay. Instead of 14?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MS. WEXLER: That's fine. Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: No. Like I said it's pretty consistent with what
is across the creek.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All right. With that I'll make a motion to close
the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with the stipulation that the overall length of the "L" section
is 12 feet.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And in doing so addresses the inconsistency and
is now consistent with LWRP.
MS. HULSE: And by consent of the owner.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And by consent of the owner.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Before we go any further, I apologize, there were
some postponements. I should have gone over them right from the
get go. On the agenda, number 17, number 18, 16, 19, and 20,
have been postponed and we won't be addressing those tonight:
Those are listed as follows:
Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of JOSEPH & ALEXANDRA CIAMPA
requests a Wetland Permit to remove 92' of existing bulkhead and construct 92' of new
bulkhead in-place raising new bulkhead height V; existing 5' wide non-turf buffer area
landward of new bulkhead to be replaced; dredge an area 25'X 60' to a depth of-3'
below mean low water removing 15 cy. of spoil; dredge spoil to be placed landward of
new bulkhead as backfill; regrade area; construct a 4'X 4' cantilevered platform off
bulkhead; install a 3'X 12' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 5'X 24' seasonal float
secured by two 8" dia. anchor pilings. Located: 330 Knoll Circle, East Marion.
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 cy. 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.
Mark K. Schwartz, Architect on behalf of DOUG & KATHLENE FOLTS requests a
Wetland Permit to re-frame the existing first-floor with attached garage, wrap around
porch and new second-floor; existing septic system to be removed and new one to be
installed further from the water; and install drywells to control water run-off from
dwelling. Located: 90 Oak St., Cutchogue.
Cramer Consulting Group on behalf of NICHOLAS ALIANO requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a single-family dwelling 25'X 40' with associated sanitary system,
driveway and retaining walls. Located: 3705 Duck Pond Rd., Cutchogue.
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
Board of Trustees 7 January 18, 2012
(12" dia.)float securing dolphins and two (2) two-pile (12" dia.) boat securing dolphins.
Located: 1500 Mason Dr., Cutchogue.
Those are postponed and won't be heard tonight.
Number two, Chuck Thomas on behalf of ROBERT HORVATH requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit#7487 to include first and second
floor additions; replace rotted floor structure on first floor
deck; construct new porch; and relocate the sanitary system.
Located: 4550 Paradise Point Rd., Southold.
This was a case where an amendment was to be applied for,
somehow it fell through the cracks and was not done correctly.
The work was done, the work that has been done is consistent
with the amendment. So it's kind of just a mix up. This is what
is there. This was the amendment. To me it was a very minor
mistake somebody made. So it's exactly what is there,
it's exactly what the amendment was for. So I don't have a
problem with it. It's found consistent with LWRP. I would make a
motion to approve.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under Wetland Permits, number one, EDWARD
JURZENIA requests a Wetland Permit to install a stormwater
run-off drainage area; excavate shaft until well-draining soils
are encountered; fill excavated area with sand and gravel;
remove trees as needed for site access; and removal of all
dead trees. Located: 50 Shore Rd., Greenport.
This was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council.
The CAC resolved to support the application. This was not
reviewed under the LWRP, and given the timeframe between when
this was submitted to the Town for review by the LWRP
coordinator and this date, it's to move forward even though it
was not reviewed under the LWRP. The Trustees have been out to
review this site. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. SCHROEDER: I'm Robert Schroeder, 1100 Manhasset Avenue,
Greenport. I'm here to represent the Jurzenia family, and
will also be doing the work. Basically that lot, five years
ago, was dry. 23 years ago I did the four sewer mains from
Silver Sands down to the railroad tracks and down to 9th Street.
That lot was always dry. So the trees that are on there don't
support wetland growth, and the test hole that would be done
would basically be, I think it's marked on the survey that you
guys have, would be, the materials would remain onsite and
basically dig a hole maybe 14 to 16 feet in diameter, 20 feet
deep, and then there would be the depth of the clamshell of the
bucket until 53 feet. I did four or five jobs in that area, 53
feet, and in that area is actually where the sand is
encountered. And basically the shaft and the hole would be
Board of Trustees 8 January 18, 2012
backfilled with sand and gravel, and that would eliminate the
drainage on that property. That's pretty much straightforward.
And would also relieve the water issues to the neighbors, you
know, to the west and also to the south. And I believe they are
both here tonight.
A lot of that water is runoff right now from the Town that
runs off from both sides, from the east and from the north, on
the roads, and also the private road also. The road is a little
bit lower. It's always been a building lot. Over the last five
years, it's holding the water right now, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could just ask a procedural question. Do
you have anything in writing that has been submitted to us for
tonight where you can speak on behalf of the Jurzenia's?
MR. SCHROEDER: I believe so. Right, Lauren?
MS. STANDISH: It's in the file.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, very much. I just wanted to make
sure that's cleared up. Now, we do have a copy of a test hole
data sheet stamped dated received January 13, 2012, from
McDonald Geoscience.
MR. SCHROEDER: It should indicate 53 feet to suitable soil,
right?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it does.
MR. SCHROEDER: I told them that before they dug it. So it's kind
of funny that it's 53.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, we will take other comments from people.
MR. SCHROEDER: Sure. I spoke to John. Do I need to be present
now? I kind of have an emergency.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's your choice to stay present. But
ordinarily all comments are directed to the Chair.
TRUSTEE KING: I have a couple of questions.
MR. SCHROEDER: No, I would entertain questions on behalf--
TRUSTEE KING: There probably will be a lot of questions.
MR. SCHROEDER: Right.
TRUSTEE KING: That hole you say is 15, 16 feet in diameter?
MR. SCHROEDER: Well, normal test hole, yes. It would be as if a
precast ring would go in, just so the hole would be wide enough
to support being able to dig that deep.
TRUSTEE KING: That's my question, why doesn't it cave in?
MR. SCHROEDER: Well, because of the quality of the soil in that
area is so dense with clay, it would not cave in. And the first
part would be to use an excavator the first day to get 20, 25
feet right away, and hope, hopefully the second or third day,
hit sand. You know. Then it's just the width of the clamshell
bucket that would go down and dig in the center of that shaft.
So it's like drilling a hole until we hit sand.
TRUSTEE KING: That's pretty much all water in there now. How
will you de-water that?
MR. SCHROEDER: We'll make a dike with the material onsite to
stop the water from encroaching into the hole we would dig. You
follow me? And the material that comes out would continue to
also berm that diked area off. Which would stop the water from
Board of Trustees 9 January 18, 2012
running from north to south. And as a hole, once we reach sand,
then it would be backfilled, and at a slower rate, all the water
on the lot that is existing now would slowly drain naturally.
Right now water can't drain through. It's like putting water
out in the parking lot. It's just not going to go anywhere. But
that's really the physics and mechanics of it.
TRUSTEE KING: All the material you remove from the hole remains
onsite?
MR. SCHROEDER: Everything remains onsite. And the material
that comes out of the hole stays onsite. It will be graded off
to look natural, and then sand and gravel bank will be brought
in as backfill material for the hole. So it's pretty much cut
and dry, straightforward.
TRUSTEE KING: How much would that raise the grade of the lot?
MR. SCHROEDER: It wouldn't raise the grade. It would be the same
grade as the private road on the side. To build a pad for the
crane and, you know, I think it's probably a two foot difference
between the private road and the elevation, the lowest elevation
at the southern point. I'm not sure, I didn't shoot any grades
myself, but just being familiar with the piece of property. So
at that point you want that a little higher because you don't
want the silt, the smaller material to collect over time and
stop that from draining, you know.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a procedural question. Have you used
cutting rings before or would you have a set onsite in case you
encounter ground conditions?
MR. SCHROEDER: If cutting rings had to be used it would be
something that would be determined in a few days, we would know
the quality of the soil.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As you started excavating.
MR. SCHROEDER: Some of the holes in that area there, the water
will stay in the hole to existing ground level for the entire
time of the excavation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because test hole data did indicate some
intermittent layers might be somewhat softer and inclined to
cave. So I ask that question.
MR. SCHROEDER: Right. Normally, like I said, the first day, you
hit 25 feet in four hours and get the crane in to set up, and
the faster that's done --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In a related question. Do you envision using
this particular shaft excavation as an ultimate location for a
sanitary system?
MR. SCHROEDER: It would be for future use if that were to ever
to go for permit to build or anything. Really, it's a test hole.
I mean there was a test hole mechanically done by McDonald
Geoscience, but that was really more on the private road. They
couldn't do it onsite because it was flooded. You know. So it
would be done on that lot. And basically that test hole would
prove the depth of quality soil and also then relieve the
pressure of the water. And also relieve the problems of the
residential houses next door.
Board of Trustees 10 January 18, 2012
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You indicated you did do other test holes in
that area?
MR. SCHROEDER: I did four or five. I forget the name of the
road. Shore Road. I also did Sunrise, you know--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I did a couple in my former job in another
life when I was with the county Health Department. So I'm
familiar with the ground conditions. The question is have you
done excavations, of those prior excavations, were any on
flooded properties?
MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, I did. I did one that was right near there
on Port of Egypt that was -- and actually, like I said, the
whole duration of the excavation, stayed full of water. And once
I hit sand, the water slowly, like I said, dissipated as we
backfilled it with sand.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I did, very close by in the same clay area,
I did witness one that flowed, almost like an artesian well, for
a little more than 24 hours until it subsided. Which is not
uncommon in other places in Suffolk County.
Have you ever encountered any there that also flowed, so it
would block the road or inhibited transportation?
MR. SCHROEDER: No, the hole wouldn't, it would not play or
interfere with the private road or the town road. You know, I
talked to Jamie Richter in the beginning, they were looking to
do two drainage rings on the side of the road, which would be
almost impossible because of the utilities on the side of the
road where the rings would go. But they would not work, you
know. So this solution is the only way to resolve the issue, you
know.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, I have a couple of questions also. What
has happened now from the conditions presently is we've created
a wetland in this area. I know there was a meeting held a
few years ago out there onsite with different representatives of
the town, including the Highway Department, the Town Board and
Trustees and other elected officials, and what was looked at was
to develop a project basin, drainage basin, something like what
you described here. Across the street from this area and what
is on this, I see here on the schematic site plan, upland wooded
area, would not be in a wetland area. And so my question is, has
the applicant considered what was proposed out there in the
field, which was a drainage plan in this upland wooded area that
would resolve the drainage issue, plus it would allow us to
maintain a natural wetland that has developed here.
MR. SCHROEDER: Well, that lot is not a natural wetland and it
never was.To be honest with you. It was never a.wetland. Only
until the last four or five years. Whatever the cause is, I'm
sure everybody else can tell you the reason. But I can tell you
it's not a wetland and never was.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll accept that.
MR. SCHROEDER: And the reason to do it at the most southern
point is that is the lowest point on the property. Water doesn't
drain uphill. So all the water that does drain, whether it comes
Board of Trustees 11 January 18, 2012
from the town roads, from the northern road, along the railroad
tracks and also the road heading south toward the hotel, all
those waters that would end up collecting in that lot, as a
result of this test hole, if it's done, that water would drain.
Where right now it's holding water in that lot.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know on the application it talks about the
removal of dead trees. We were also concerned about what trees
they are proposing to remove there, because right now, obviously
it's in the wintertime, there is no foliage on the trees.
MR. SCHROEDER: That's something, that really would not have to
take place until the spring time. And that's not the immediate
thing right now. Right now we really need to do the test hole
and de-water the lot. And I think that would be determined by
you guys, or the application, you know, dead trees; deciduous
that don't grow leaves would be considered dead, you know.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. All right, we might have further questions
for you. But I want to give others an opportunity. Is there
anybody who would like to speak for or against this application,
feel free.
MR. SHEARIN: How are you doing. I'm Tom Shearin, an adjacent
homeowner I'm here with the other adjacent homeowner Erma Lekis.
We are both in agreement that we would love to have something
done with the water, and we are in-support of doing something.
I'm not an engineer and I'm not a Trustee and I don't pretend to
be. The only concerns I really have is the re-grading and will
it adversely affect our property when it's done. You know, I
mean, once again, I'm not an engineer so I can't really say
that. We would love something to be done. And, you know, all I
can tell you is maybe you can talk to the town engineer and get
his input because, once again, I don't have the credentials to
really say what is going to happen or not going to happen. And
without knowing how much of the grade will be changed or raised,
you know. And that's really it. We would love to have something
done. I just don't know, we'll leave it up to you guys to decide
what is the best route to take.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
MR. SHEARIN: And thanks for serving.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else who wishes to
speak for or against this application?
(No response).
Any other comments from members of the Board regarding this
application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: We just got one letter in just recently, I would
like time to review that and just look at everything, give it a
good hard look.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. I don't, I'm not an engineer either. I
just, myself, personally, I think we identified an area a couple
years ago across the street--when I say across the street, I
mean across Silvermere Road, to be more specific --that I think
would be a better location. And I think a drainage system could
Board of Trustees 12 January 18, 2012
be engineered in that location to serve the purpose. In other
words get that water over there. You are right, water doesn't
run uphill, but I think a drainage system could be engineered to
address that and bring it over to that area, that way this lot
can be maintained as a viable wetland area. That's just my own
feeling.
If there are no other comments from any Board members or
anybody else in the audience --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I guess the only thing, I should comment on it,
I guess, because having been involved with it from the
beginning. I agree that it's a little different than what we
had looked at. Not a little bit, actually a lot of bit different
that what we looked at when we all got out in the field a couple
of years ago. I think what the intent on the other side of the
street was to be able to bring the water over there and then
have, you know, sift through, as it approached the wetland, at
least it would be filtered going through into the wetlands. At
that time, this lot was not as filled as this is now. I see this
as being a pretty good compromise based upon the problems,
looking at the overall problems that are there. Not just the
wetlands, not just the drainage, what has accumulated over the
last few years. So I'm not necessarily against doing this as
opposed to going across the street. But I would agree that, you
know, at this p&nfseeing as how we just got all this
information in the last few days, really, and got the report
from the town engineer, we ought to take some time to at least
review it. And we don't have an LWRP either. Just to make sure
all our ducks are in a row before we make a motion on it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, sir?
MR. SCHROEDER: Just one more thing. Like I said, however you
guys approach it, five years ago and today, that lot is really
not a wetland. And even talks, I knew about talks to take a
pipe. The reason that was caused is probably just from disturbed
pipes. I have maps that go back, and I think the Trustees have
them, there is pipes that were prior to the county Board of
Health or any rules or any zoning or any codes, there were pipes
running into 55 gallon drums that absolutely run under some of
the residences that are here tonight. So to go across the
street you are actually going into wetlands that the Jurzenia
family did donate to the town, to the Land Trust. So that area,
that's a buildable lot. I think he has the right to do the test
hole. And not only that, it relieves an expense to the Town to
go, if you are looking to go forth with a road, a pipe from his
property, which is holding water to de-water it out into a
wetland. So this is actually, by relieving the pressure and
digging a hole and filling it with sand, it's the physics and
the engineering part, will relieve the pressure of that water in
the lot and any other future runoff that will be encountered,
whether it's by Mother Nature dropping water there or water from
the town roads. And that's really the easiest and most
inexpensive way to resolve this problem, for the residents, for
Board of Trustees 13 January 18, 2012
the Jurzenia's and for the Town.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I also would just remind everybody, the initial
reason we even had approached this and closed the pipe was to
keep runoff from getting into the wetlands. So this happens to
be, whether you consider it negative or positive, the result of
having accomplished that. So if we need to do something to
alleviate a problem that was created by fixing another problem,
I don't necessarily have an issue with that at all.
MR. SCHROEDER: Right. And there is pipes that run all over that
probably are not disturbed today that could be future potential
problems. But that one hole in that area would certainly
relieve the pressure for the surrounding neighbors and that lot.
Without interfering with what you have in the natural area to
the east, which is all the wetlands.
I mean, you know, the only other part where we put the pump
station, I think that was a fill area near the, where you see
the fenced area where you cross the tracks, that was an area we
filled I think probably through a Trustee permit way back when
that pump station was put in. You know. And again, you know, you
guys wanted it there, that's why the pump station was there. But
that lot was a vacant lot with no water. You know. So.
TRUSTEE KING: We see similar problems all through town. There's
old subdivisions, drainage systems into the creek and now we are
paying the consequences for what we did 50, 60 years ago, and we
are trying to alleviate it and trying to fix some of it. It's
very difficult.
MR. SCHROEDER: Right. I think for the dollar and what the town,
the residents and the owners are looking to do is probably the
most common sense way to go about it.
MR. SHEARIN: If I could add one other thing. The road runoff
presently now is going out of that lot and running down the road
and dumping into the wetlands, on a daily basis. So it is
somewhat of a pressing issue right now, and has been for quite
some time. So, and you probably know that. Thanks.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments?
(No response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close this hearing and reserve
decision.
MS. HULSE: Are you closing it or tabling it?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Closing the hearing.
MS. HULSE: You don't have an LWRP, though.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We don't.
MS. HULSE: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So closing it and reserving decision.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, number two, STEPHEN G. LATHAM
requests a Wetland Permit to replace, in-place, storm damaged
timber bulkhead with 150' of vinyl sheathing and approx. 2'
higher than present bulkhead; replace storm damaged 4'X 4'
platform and stairs; replenish beach with 400 cubic yards of
Board of Trustees 14 January 18, 2012
sand; and install rip-rap 1/2 to 1 ton stone armor seaward of
bulkhead. Located: 845 Rogers Rd., Southold.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. LATHAM: Hi. Steve Latham, I'm the owner of the property. I
think the application identified as the problem and the solution
I'll be happy, rather than just babble on, to answer any
questions you may have.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Yes, this application, the
Trustees have performed their field inspection on January 11,
and the site was also visited by the Conservation Advisory
Council and was reviewed by the town's LWRP. The town's Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program has found the project
consistent with the town's coastal policies. And the
Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with a recommendation that rip rap rather than the
proposed structure be considered. In other words that a
structure that, I guess whether they meant revetment or not is
unclear, but it recommends rip rap rather than the proposed
structure. I don't know if that, Jack, you are here, does that
refer to replacing the whole structure with a revetment
structure?
MR. MCGREEVEY: I think that was the intent. I personally didn't
inspect this property but that was the recommendation that was
made and we were kind of convinced it might be the way to go.
It's just another recommendation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. The Trustees visited the site and
we did note that we didn't see a detailed set of plans in the
file that so we, I think we were thinking we should have a
better set of plans. And there was a suggestion that there
might be the ability in the construction to consider the use of
helical screws that might enable saving some of the trees on the
site, that might otherwise have to be taken down during the
course of an excavation, behind the bulkhead, to set the dead
men and stringers. So those were some concerns that the Board
had on the field inspection.
Are you in a position to address any of those at this point?
MR. LATHAM: We did discuss the screws, helical screws. My
understanding is they go on horizontally and the problem is you
have a house that is not very far with a basement. If you don't
get enough pressure or the required pressure or torque on them,
you are just going to keep go until you get the torque. Well,
what happens if you keep going and go through the basement wall?
So while -- my daughter said you are not going to cut down those
trees. And I would prefer not to. But I'm not going to take out
a basement for a tree. And that's, you know, if there is a way
of getting around it, that's fine. We did discuss it. And we
would look at it again, and it could happen that way if as they
are doing the, whatever they have to do, and they find that the
soil is compact enough, I guess, to create the torque that you
need, then we would be happy to do that. But we won't know that
until the time they start digging, I guess. We are not, we would
Board of Trustees 15 January 18, 2012
love to keep the trees.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Another concern the Trustees had was the
proposed additional height of two feet, seemed to place the
bulkhead higher than that of the proposed bulkhead to the east
or existing bulkhead to the east and there was a concern whether
we were matching bulkhead lines. Can you speak to that?
MR. LATHAM: The only reason I put that--well, I thought for a
long time it would be nice to be a little higher. That bulkhead
is about, maybe, eight inches higher than the one east of it.
All the others are approximately the same height. Each of those
applications, which were approved, asked that they put up to two
feet, in fact I think they were first issued, the applications
would like to add a foot higher. Then the Board suggested would
you consider doing two feet. And my recollection was that each
of the applicants said, okay, we'll do two feet. I put in two
feet because I would like to go up a little higher. Two feet
would be at, you know, above their two feet. So we would put at
whatever would be the same as theirs. Two feet was just a number
that would be, it would be that or something less than that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't have a clear recollection, myself.
Maybe another Board member would.
TRUSTEE KING: A foot sticks in my mind.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In any case, you are saying you would be
amenable to match --
MR. LATHAM: The intention is to match theirs exactly.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, thank you. Any other additional -
questions, any concerns?
MR. LATHAM: The other question I have is whether or not you are
concerned with putting in the vinyl sheathing. The sheathing has
already started at the other end. Actually it started in the
middle at Ilibasi's property and will be consistent all the way
through. And mine intention was to use sheathing also. The
problem is what you don't see in that picture. That bulkhead was
installed approximately 1993 or 1994. 1 think it was 1994. At
that time, the beach was above that waler all the way down. The
sheathing from the stairs, which you barely see at the corner,
the last 55 feet, the sheathing was 12 feet. Now, if you raise
the beach above the waler, the 12 feet was fine. Well, now the
beach is about a foot above the bottom of the sheathing. At that
55 feet. This side of that 55 feet, this side of the stairs,
where the stairs were, and partially still are, the sheathing is
only ten feet. Not 12 feet. So that we are about at the bottom
of that. And all we need is maybe two more nor'easters and we
are going to be at the bottom or below the bottom of the
sheathing. Then I'm going to be back here for an emergency
permit to do what I'm asking to do prior to having to do that.
This, every year we have, in the spring, we have several
nor'easters and every spring the beach gets lower and lower.
And once it goes below the sheathing that's when the problems
really start. So I'm trying to prevent that and do it consistent
with all of our neighbors right down the line, so that we can
Board of Trustees 16 January 18, 2012
get it all done at one point. Trust me, I'm not looking forward
to spending the money on this and I had not planned on doing it,
but conditions are such and the opportunity is such that this
seems to be the time to do it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have one question. I noticed on the plans,
there is a return to the west, I guess, and it goes along the
street, and I didn't see in the description here that you intended on
doing any work on the return. I just want to make sure it's clear.
MR. LATHAM: The return would also be done. We just forgot to put
it in.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So that needs to be added to the description,
then.
MR. LATHAM: Yes. It doesn't make sense to sheath it in vinyl
all the way down to the return and then have the wood. I could
leave it that way, but it seems like it's better to take it
around and have everything the same. I would be happy to add
that to it, if you like.
TRUSTEE KING: I just think we need more detail on this plan.
This side with the cross-section, because it doesn't show the
deadmen. It doesn't show a lot. And if you scale that, scale
the rip rap off on this survey, it's a lot more than
two-and-a-half feet that is shown on the profile. So there is a
little discrepancy there between what is shown on the survey and
what is shown on this profile. It's far more than two-and-a-half
feet shown on the survey.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess if we are going to request the
applicant to provide us a better set of plans that shows us a
detailed elevation and it shows the rip rap with, on the plan
also comports with the elevations on that bulkhead, that it
should also indicate details on the return and also the
elevation where it meets up with the neighboring bulkhead so we
can confirm we go are going to have equal heights of the
structure.
MR. LATHAM: How am I going to do that until I put those in?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a proposed -- in other words, we just
have to see your elevation to that we have a proposed elevation
from yours that comports with the permits in the file for the
other applicants.
TRUSTEE KING: For some reason, one foot sticks in my head, so we
have to see.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's just a simple fact of what we granted
the neighbors and then it would be a matter of simply putting on
here in your proposal the height, the elevation on the plan that
would match up with the neighbor for their future construction
so that we have a unit structure, ideally, that when theirs is
finished and yours is completed, they'll match up.
TRUSTEE KING: Where do you stand with DEC on this application?
Have you gone to them?
MR. LATHAM: The application is moving through at snail-like
speed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So you submitted it to DEC?
Board of Trustees 17 January 18, 2012
MR. LATHAM: Yes, but the other three have received their
permits. And I assume it's probably within the last week, but
they are, as I say, working on Ilibasi, which was the most
damaged. Most severally damaged. But honestly, I don't quite
understand in terms of your concerns about the rip rap and
everything because all of these plans, as far as I recall, when
we were doing them, we had, you gave us a permit for rip rap and
for, I forget, whatever the other was, and then they had to be
redone on this application. And all four of us, I believe, have
the same information in terms of the rip rap. Because it really
deals with the DEC and what they were after in the past. That's
why you see it again. But we had the permits for that so,
guess, you know, I don't quite understand what you are really
looking for and why you are objecting to something you have
approved in the past and have approved for the other three.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board, just to clarify, the Board has
not objected to anything. We are just requesting more
information so that a determination that we will undoubtedly
make one way or the other has sufficient information to move on
it. So I think it was a matter of just providing those
additional details so that we have a project written description
that includes the return and that would provide elevations
showing the structure and indicate so that what you propose in
rip rap in the width in front of a new detailed line drawing
comports with the width of the rip rap on the survey that you
-- submitted from Nate Corwin, which was dated May 14, 2010. So in -
other words the facts of the elevations --
MR. LATHAM: It was updated.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I have a May 14 date stamp.
TRUSTEE KING: It might have been revised.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the other item we were looking for also was
your cross-section doesn't include the deadmen that you have
verbally talked to us about, but it's not shown on your plans at
all. The deadmen. And again, we are just doing this to try to
make sure what we approve is what is actually going to appear
out there and you don't run into problems afterwards with doing
work that was never approved by us.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments?
TRUSTEE KING: We would want to see a non-turf buffer behind the
new bulkhead, too.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is one proposed.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion that we reserve decision
in this, table it and reserve decision, until we get a new set
of plans detailing those items that we just discussed during the
public hearing, that we show the deadmen, we show the elevation,
Board of Trustees 18 January 18, 2012
we show the rock rip rap matching between the survey and the
scale drawing, that we show the return and that we show an
elevation that matches with the proposed and approved bulkheads
of the neighbors to the east.
MR. LATHAM: How do you do that if you don't have the plans? How
can I -- I understand what you want. I just don't understand how
you do it on paper. Because it ends at my property line.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm sure if you have your architect or
engineer or the person that will help you with that rendition,
if they call the Trustee office we can provide the information
with the other permits in a format they'll be able to use. So I
made a motion to table with that.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll second that. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number three, 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 sf. Of new buffer areas on the north and south
sides of the approved new dwelling.
Located: 3450 Deep Hole Dr., Mattituck.
_ The LWRP report has found this to be inconsistent with LWRP -
noting that it's a critical environmental area. They could not
determine the impacts to the bottomland because they didn't know
the size of the boat.
TRUSTEE KING: Did he review that under this description?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. This is dated January 18. So that would be
it for, that was reviewed under this description.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this. At the
time that they reviewed it, which was back in November, it was
not staked, so they did not have any comment. And the Trustees
were out there last week and took a look at it.
Anybody here to address this application?
MS. ROSADO: Good evening, Kelly Rosado with Land Use Ecological
Services. I did submit revised site plans, you probably received
them today, outlining information that we discussed last week at
the site visit, namely removing the walkway from the proposed
plan. So the site plan shows a proposed deck that extends six
feet seaward of the dwelling that is there, and then the dock
that appears, that is proposed, will start 41 feet seaward of
the proposed dwelling, be elevated above the wetlands, be
constructed with open-grate decking, terminate in a "T" with the
ladder. The buffer area is also proposed now to be planted with
switchgrass, which is noted on the plans. I believe it's
everything that we had discussed last week. If you have any
questions, or anything, I would be happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I just need a minute so I know how to change
Board of Trustees 19 January 18, 2012
this to what is proposed.
TRUSTEE KING: Open-grate catwalk, starting 41 feet seaward of
the house. 23-feet long. Open-grate. And this will increase 40
feet, to the width of the property. To be planted with switchgrass.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All right, are there any other comments or
questions?
(No response).
I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application
noting that we are making the following changes, the following
stipulations: That this walkway and catwalk will be starting
41-feet seaward of the house, to the dock. The catwalk is going
to be 23-feet with the ladder at the seaward end; open-grating
is going to be used, which is already in the application to
begin with; that the buffer is going to be increased to 40 feet,
be planted with switchgrass, and by doing this and changing this
in that fashion as depicted in the plans dated January 18, 2012,
brings it into consistency with LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: Also proposed deck six-feet wide on the seaward
side of the house
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Correct, with the proposed deck on the plan
six-feet seaward of the house.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER:Was that your motion?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: Any discussion on the motion?
(No response).
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. ROSADO: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KING: Number four, Lark & Folts, Esqs, on behalf of
ELLEN F. EMERY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 32
square foot observation platform in conjunction with the existing
stairway system. Located: 5925 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue.
This has been found to be consistent with LWRP. The
Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support the
wetland permit due to insufficient information.
We have all been out there a number of times. Is there
anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application?
MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, for
the applicant Ellen Emery. I would just like to be very short and brief
but I want to do some housekeeping things first because the file, my
file at least, is a little disheveled. Do you have all the
mailing affidavits and the posting affidavits, Mr. King?
TRUSTEE KING: I would assume.
MR. LARK: I thought they were but there was a little confusion.
Second of all, I want to verify what plans you actually do have.
My file contains a straight view of the property, like a bird's
Board of Trustees 20 January 18, 2012
eye view dated December 7, which went with the application dated
December 23, along with the side-view dated December 7. Do you
have those?
TRUSTEE KING: I have later plans than that.
MR. LARK: I do, too. I have one dated January 26, which is a
straight view, and then another one dated January 12, which is
probably the final map, which is a straight view. I just wanted
to make sure you have them all. That's all I was trying to-verify.
TRUSTEE KING: I have the one from 1/12, and another set from
1/12. Yes.
MR. LARK: Do you have the ones originally submitted with the
application, which I think were dated December 7?
TRUSTEE KING: There is numerous drawings here.
MR. LARK: Okay. It's a housekeeping thing, that's all. Okay?
TRUSTEE KING: Okay.
MR. LARK: And you have the application dated December 23? Which
I think is fairly complete.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. LARK: Okay. In that application there is a letter from the
applicant Ellen Emery which explains the reasons for bringing
this particular application for a second deck on her property.
Succinctly stated, the second deck will restore the view of the
bay and the shoreline and surrounding areas, which as she
presently has, but will not have when she reduces the size of
the existing deck on the property. Otherwise I believe the
- application of 12/23 is pretty well self-explanatory. If you
have any questions, Ms. Emery is here today. But I want to
remind the Board, she is not requesting anything more than her
neighbors had. Submitted with the application are aerial photos
of the land on this area from Nassau Point on the southerly tip
all the way to the north, to the beach on Nassau Point Causeway.
In there is about 71 properties and of these 54 have one deck or
more. 76% of the land facing the bay. And 29 of the properties
have two or more, 54% of the properties that have decks, and 19
of them have three or more decks or observation platforms, which
is like 35% of those that have decks. So she is really not
asking for anything more than what the neighbors have on it. And
the reason is, even though the beach has a straight line to it,
more or less, there is a lot of curvatures in the bluff. And
that's why I believe a lot of the property owners have located
their decks or observation platforms in various spots. Also, not
only was this sited by the contractor so she could get her views
restored, which is the primary thing, it was done where there is
an existing cut in the stringers so we don't have to weaken them
at all and they can be, the pitch of them can be adjusted. And
that was an important consideration because they are pretty heavy
stringers going up there. And I personally, when I looked at
it, was concerned. But it will be okay structurally because the
posts can be located right there where the existing break is and
the adjustment of the angle can keep the steps from getting too
steep. That's all I have. Mrs. Emery would just like to address
Board of Trustees 21 January 18, 2012
the Board briefly for just a second, and that's about it. Unless
you have questions of me.
TRUSTEE KING: No, just keep it short if we can. What the
neighbors have really doesn't have a lot to do with this.
MR. LARK: No, it's the applicant.
MS. EMERY: Good evening, my name is Ellen Emery and I'm the
resident of 5925 Nassau Point Road. I seem to have created a
mess here, quite unwillingly, but it's something for which I'm
totally responsible as the owner of the house, and I accept
that. I have spent, for the past 43 or more years, every summer
out at the house in Cutchogue, and have enjoyed, quite frankly,
spending many times with my friends and family on the deck, and
it gives great views of the water and the shoreline. And the
only thing I'm trying to do is just retain some portion of what
is already there. That deck has existed since 1969. And there
has never been a problem. So that's all I want to do is get my
view restored, get the value of my property restored and, um,
enjoy a deck again. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. I think the issue here is we are bound
by the code. And by code you cannot repair an unpermitted
structure. That was the whole crux of it. The code says you can
only have -- I don't have it in front of me -- but I'm quite
sure it specifically says decks and platforms associated with
stairs cannot be more than 32-square feet. So that's where this
whole problem came from. So with this application, I've seen
- stairways on The Sound where there are more than one platform.
And the code says platforms associated with stairs cannot be
more than 32-square feet. So technically, this meets the code.
So we've beat this thing to death, in my opinion. The fence has
been moved a little landward where the old fence used to be.
That area between the fence and the top of the bluff now will
just remain in its natural state, won't be cut down or mowed or
anything. We have indicated here some plantings with some little
supports for it. I would like to move forward with this as it's
been submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. I guess I would, too. As a point of
clarification, I know this may be putting the cart before the
horse but didn't we propose changes to the wetland code that
would allow for larger deck structures?
TRUSTEE KING: We talked about it in the past.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is it in the pending proposal?
TRUSTEE KING: It's not in the pending, no. Not that I know of.
MS. HULSE: I don't remember that, Jack.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I didn't know if it went in. It was just a
question of having it conform with the coastal erosion. Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on this?
(No response).
Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
Board of Trustees 22 January 18, 2012
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted with this plan that is prepared on the 12th of
January, on the site plan. It's found consistent with LWRP and
there is nothing from the Conservation Advisory Council because
there was not enough detail.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(Trustee King, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer,
aye. Trustee Domino, aye). (Trustee Bergen, abstains).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm abstaining.
MR. LARK: I did have one comment I want to tell the Board, for
the record. I did talk to the contractor and the work there
will have to be, because of the erosion and you are well aware
of on the southerly end, has to be addressed immediately. That
work will probably begin some time over the winter, but by the
time they get around to moving the fence and doing all the other
things that are in the other permit, granted permit, it will
probably be late spring or early summer before we actually get
to taking down the other deck and put this up. It will be a,
looking at it, construction-wise and getting the plantings in
and terracing in, it will be a six to eight-month project. Do
you want the contractor to keep notifying the Board what they
are doing there? Or how do you want to handle that so we don't
have a--future problem. I'm just trying to avoid a problem, -
that's all.
MS. HULSE: This is not a public hearing. Any of this comment
after, this is not part of the record for the hearing, just to
let you know.
TRUSTEE KING: We closed the hearing. This is a two-year permit.
MR. LARK: Two year, all right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, JMO Environmental Consulting on
behalf of JOHN O'GRADY requests a Wetland Permit to resheath, on
the landward side, 85' of timber bulkhead utilizing vinyl
sheathing; replace wales as needed; and to construct approx. 83'
of retaining wall landward of the bulkhead.
Located: 830 West Cove Rd., Cutchogue.
The Board did go out and looked at this. It was reviewed
under the LWRP and found to be consistent. The CAC resolved not
to support the application based on the lack of details on the
plans. Is there anybody here to speak for or against this
application?
MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just, of JMO Consulting on behalf
of the applicant.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Did you have any additional comments, Glenn, or
anything?
MR. JUST: I don't know what the Conservation Advisory Council
said was lacking in the plans.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jack, do you have any clarification on that?
MR. MCGREEVEY: I did the inspection on it and in looking at the
Board of Trustees 23 January 18, 2012
property, being on the property, the diagram on the application
did not match what I saw onsite. Onsite there was a swimming
pool and then there were structures shown on the diagram that
did not show up in actual reality. So I couldn't, it didn't
match up at all.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. And Glenn, if you want to come up and
look here, I agree with what Jack is saying, but what we were
concentrating on in the field inspection with what has been
applied for. See what he's saying.
MR. JUST: I agree. The pool was put in since the survey was done
and the plans are based on the survey. What we were
concentrating on were the structures down here and we thought
that was almost out of the Trustees'jurisdiction.
MR. MCGREEVEY: The Conservation Advisory Council's concern,
Dave, was that we were possibly looking at the wrong piece of
property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Understandable. I understand the confusion. As I
stated, we did go out and looked at this. And it appeared as
though what the applicant was trying to do also with regard to
the retaining wall was to match the property to the, I'll call
it east, the MJ Paul property. So the retaining wall will be at
the same elevation as that retaining wall, and the bulkhead,
what is proposed, will be at the same elevation as the property
owner next door, the Paul property.
MR. JUST: Exactly.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. The only other concern that I had --
here, it's again, this drawing that you submitted does not show
the stairs coming down to that retaining wall. It does show the
stairs, proposed stairs from the bulkhead to the beach. But it
doesn't show the stairs coming down the bluff. We are assuming
that there is no work being done to those stairs.
MR. JUST: We'll be coming back in for a permit modification
probably next month. I retained Nathan Corwin land surveyor to
locate those stairs for me because there was a problem with the
Martha Paul application where the stairs were constructed on the
wrong property, they were removed and rebuilt. And we are just
trying to make sure everything is perfect. So we'll be coming
back in for modification of that stair system.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, those are the only questions I had. Were
there any other questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: This is almost an identical project to what was
next door, correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup. Is there anybody else in the audience wants
to speak for or against this application?
(No response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of John O'Grady as
Board of Trustees 24 January 18, 2012
applied at 8030 West Cove Road, and this has been deemed
consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second it.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, number six, J.M.O.
Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of DAVID SCOTT
KETNER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a pool, pool
fencing, patio and landing.
Located: 4321 Brooks Point Rd., Fishers Island.
I had the pleasure of going to Fishers Island on January 9, and
it was a great day to be out there. Is there anyone here who
wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. JUST: Once again, Glenn Just, JMO Consulting, for the
applicant.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, just to recap what we have in our
file. The Conservation Advisory Council was not able to make a
trip out on the island. We don't have a report from them. The
LWRP has determined that the project is consistent with the
Town's coastal policies. I did get out to the site and did
review the plans and the construction at that time. I think we
might even have a photo in the lineup. A quick question I have,
is a bit of housekeeping. The application, Glenn, indicates that
the plans are associated with a CME Associates plan dated
8/4/11, and the plan that I think I was looking at was dated
8/24. Is that just-- do you have -- -
MR. JUST: Jay, I have to verify that tomorrow at the office. I
don't have those records here.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. It appears it may just be a
scrivener's error, that somebody forgot to put the "2"for"24."
But the plan I did have did not depict a drywell for backwash.
So that was the concern I had, that maybe I didn't have the
latest plan for that when I reviewed the proposal. When I was
there I did note two of the roof drains immediately discharged
into the adjacent wetland, and that could be pretty shocking,
not only depending on what kind of rain, the quality of rain or
if they do a roof repair or replacement, the possibility of
asphalting materials would be leaching oils or compounds into
the wetland. So those were two things that I noted on both the
plan and on the site visit. What I also noted looking at the
plan and comparing the plan to the site, that the site appears
to be very heavily constrained, that one side of the house has a
sanitary system, there is a driveway and the fairly limited lawn
area, is what the proposal will have the deck and fencing and
swimming pool, and there is no additional clearing being
requested in this application. So that, the area there, that's
in the photograph is in fact the area in which the pool would
be. So it was very straightforward, other than the containing
roof runoff and drywell and plans coming in that would show both
types of drywells, separate roof runoff, separate swimming pool
backwash.
Board of Trustees 25 January 18, 2012
MR. JUST: Different drywells, too?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, I would think that's advisable.
MR. JUST: I was out there two weeks ago, Jay, to be honest with
you, and right where the arrow is, I did see the pipe myself. I
did do the original permits for the house I think 20 years ago.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. I don't have any further questions, do
any members of the Board have any questions? It's pretty
straightforward.
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application subject to the submission of revised plans that show
a swimming pool backwash drywell and a separate roof runoff
drywell from the gutters and leaders, and I would make a
recommendation that the applicant consider a silver copper
electrode type of treatment system that uses a very small amount
of chlorides in the water, and that can reduce the amount of
chlorine that would go through the drywell since the wetland
associated with this property is so close. It's just a recommendation.
MR. JUST: What do you call that, silver chloride?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, silver copper electrode. It's a means
where it basically it's an ionic form of water treatment. It's
- just something to look into. They are fairly-efficient. i know
Bob Nuzzi, a former associate of mine when we did swimming pool
work for the county, has one in his pool. And it can actually
save you some money. It's just a recommendation but it would
mean the chlorinated backwash is not going through a drywell and
then leaching into that very close wetland. So I would move that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second it.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number eight, Samuels & Steelman on behalf of
DANIEL & JACKIE BINGHAM requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct
the existing dwelling with a new addition and new septic system.
Located: 50 Jackson St., New Suffolk.
The LWRP coordinator has found this application to be
consistent with LWRP. But he does have a couple of concerns,
just about making sure that there is enough room to accommodate
the sanitary system. And the Conservation Advisory Council
resolved to support the application as written.
The Trustees were out at the site for inspection, and the
only question was about a drywell in front of the house.
Is there anybody here who would like to address this
application?
MR. SAMUELS: Yes, my name is Tom Samuels, I'm here on behalf of
the Bingham's. I'm the architect. The sanitary system is
designed to obviously fulfill the requirements of the Suffolk
Board of Trustees 26 January 18, 2012
County Health Department and also the state DEC. And we are in
application to both of those agencies. If there are issues
regarding it, I would imagine it would come from them. But we
believe it works. You are aware or familiar with I think
Kimogenor Point and the unusual situation down their
property-wise, that you have six owners on one piece of
property, and so the property lines are not internal and
sanitary systems are cheek by jowl with each other. There are no
real setbacks between them. But a shallow system works.
Obviously the grade is very important and the height of ground
water is of most importance. It was taken at high tide on the
full moon as per DEC requirements, and we have a section on this
drawing that shows that it does work. As far as a drywell, maybe
you are asking for in the front yard or in front of the house,
under the paved or gravel area there, I'm not sure --we are
containing all our roof runoff inside the house, not in the
road. I'm certainly aware of the elevation of that road and I'm
sure also that at a certain point Jamie Richter will be very
interested in seeing the SWIP requirements met, which are likely
to involve some additional shallow systems in front of the
house. I'm not sure of that because a SWIP has not been prepared
for this yet.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think what the question really boiled down to
is to is on the plan it looks like it's showing an 8x5 drywell
86 feet from Peconic Bay and we were not quite sure what that
was.
MR. SAMUELS: Okay, sorry. That is a drywell for the roof runoff
on the bay side, yes. And you would like that to be moved back
or at least around the side or eliminated all together?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is it possible for the roof drainage to be --
MR. SAMUELS: I would say that's the highest part of the upland
right there. That is the top of this like little, I don't want
to use the word "dune," I didn't say that word, but it's the
highest point of, where the land comes up highest. It's the best
place to drain.
TRUSTEE KING: You would probably get the best drainage right
there.
MR. SAMUELS: I think so. And I understand your concern.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question was, is it possible to engineer it
so the water would drain to the drywell that is designated to
the western part?
MR. SAMUELS: Yes, we could definitely make that work to that
extent. And we have enough, yes, we could put it inside the
line of the front of the house, without any trouble.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I guess that would effectively eliminate that
drywell.
MR. SAMUELS: Yes, or moving it to a more conforming location
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Basically getting it out of our jurisdiction.
MR, SAMUELS: Right. You see how each jurisdiction is overlapping
on both sides here. I know the bulkhead on the inward side has
been there forever and maybe you guys have a different approach
Board of Trustees 27 January 18, 2012
to it. The DEC, of course, it's a pre-existing bulkhead but for
the fact we are in their jurisdiction from the bay side, so we
are seeing how they respond also to the setback on the bulkhead
side. Which I think the Kimogenor Point Company has a new permit
for replacing now, from you guys.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, that was very recent.
MR. SAMUELS: And that's not to raise it any, I don't believe.'So
I don't think we'll be raising the ground there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't believe there was. But I don't recall.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any other questions or comments?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted with the one exception and that being that we are
stipulating the drywell currently planned on the bay side of the
house be moved to the side of the house that is outside of our,
basically outside of our jurisdiction. With that, it's been
noted to be consistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. SAMUELS: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KING: Number nine, En-Consultants on behalf of FREDERICK
DELAVEGA& LAWRENCE HIGGINS requests a Wetland Permit to
construct an 18'X 36' in-ground swimming pool (including
8'X 8' spa); on-grade masonry pool patio, pool enclosure fence,
65 linear feet of 2' high retaining wall (with existing boulders
added to each end to avoid need for additional retaining wall),
and steps; construct masonry stoop and steps from house to pool
patio; remove existing bluestone patio in back of house and
construct new masonry on-grade patio; place stepping stones from
proposed patio to proposed pool; enclose existing outdoor shower
with wood panels; replace existing driveway with new pervious
gravel driveway; plant native red maples, Acer rubrum, along
property line; legalize previously completed relocation of
sliding glass doors to outer wall of previously existing porch
to completely enclose porch space; and establish permanent 10'
wide non-turf buffer adjacent to wetland boundary. .
Located: 15437 Route 25, East Marion.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this
application? It's consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation
Advisory Council supports the application with the condition the
existing non-native vegetation is removed from the bluff and
replaced with native vegetation, and there is a non-disturbance
buffer from the crest of the bluff to the wetland edge of Dam
Pond. That's the recommendation of the Conservation Advisory
Council. Is there anyone here to speak for or against this
application?
Board of Trustees 28 January 18, 2012
MR. HERMAN: Yes. Good evening. Rob Herman of En-Consultants on
behalf of the applicants. As Jim mentioned, there are a number
of what are mostly minor landscape activities proposed on the
property, but the main feature of the application being the
proposed inground swimming pool, the patio and pergola. We are
exceeding the minimum wetland setback requirement under 275 by
about 24 feet to the swimming pool. This is an interesting
parcel because the pool, although probably at first glance
appears as though it might be in a side yard is actually based,
on my conversations with Mike Verity of the Building Department,
is able to be treated as a rear yard because of the way this
property was originally developed, such that you have the
access, the fronting access to the property coming from the
southwest corner. So the yard that contains the existing
driveway which is to be replaced with a pervious gravel
driveway, is actually the front, and that makes this a rear yard
for the swimming pool.
There is a walking right-of-way that goes over this
property and because it is deeded as such and not a depicted
right-of-way we also do not have to draw the setback to the pool
from the interior. The right-of-way but rather from the property line.
There is a small retaining wall proposed on the Dam Pond
side of the pool, which will eliminate the possibility of having
a continuous downward slope from the pool toward the wetland in
order to try to mitigate against runoff. And there is a
dedicated pool drywell shown to collect pool backwash. There is
going to be an alternative filtration system used here in order
to reduce chlorine. This goes back a little bit to what John
was discussing with a prior applicant. So that will be
implemented here. There is a ten-foot buffer shown along the top
of the bank; I mean term "bluff' here will be used awfully
loosely. We are at around ten feet elevation.
The coastal erosion area is much farther north toward The
Sound. The landscape architect Stacy Paetzel is here if there is
some discussion that the Board would like to have with respect
to the buffer, but I will take any comments from the Board in
that regard or if the board has any other questions that I can
answer.
TRUSTEE KING: I think you've answered most of the questions we
had, Rob. One was a set-off for the right-of-way. That's not a
problem now. We just wanted to see a larger buffer area on the
top of the bank.
MR. HERMAN: I'll let Stacy speak to that. Because we have talked
about the possibility that the Board would like for that. We
didn't want to come in with anything overly complicated to
start. I think the idea would be possibly to leave the ten-foot
width over alone in front of the house where the property is
narrower, but over on the side where the pool construction will
go, that maybe we.can do something that would swing back, like a
variable width buffer because there is more lawn there. The yard
widens up there to the east of the house and that's also where
Board of Trustees 29 January 18, 2012
the proposed construction is.
Stacy, I don't know if you have any thoughts of what you
would want to do in that area or see if the Board has any
suggestions. But we would, again, just be interested in seeing
the allowance for some variable-width buffer we can keep ten
feet in the front of the house and then widen it out over in the
area between the pool itself and the wetlands area.
TRUSTEE KING: I think in the field we talked about--there is a
flagpole there. We were talking about maybe drawing the line
somewhere from the flagpole roughly to the east there was a
couple of stones that are right on the edge of the buffer area.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It shows in the plans two stones.
TRUSTEE KING: It shows two stones there.
MR. HERMAN: The flagpole is the west side and the stones are on
the east side. That's almost to the opposite of what I'm
describing. What I would be suggesting is, you see the way on
the plot plan, the ten-foot contour swings back; doing something
closer to the edge of the bank in the same sort of formula. Let
me bring this up.
MR. HERMAN: This ten foot, then swing something out in this
direction. Because this is where the pool is going. So we would
sort of widen --
MS. PAETZEL: What you were saying maybe go from here, across
here.
TRUSTEE KING: Right, widen that out. Because this is basically
-the top. This was all being mowed to the top here, if I remember
right. And that would give you a little buffer.
MS. PAETZEL: I know that because --
TRUSTEE KING: Because this drops off pretty steep.
MS. PAETZEL: I know where one of their concerns is to keep a
little space here where the existing patio is, we are actually
bringing it back in a little bit, but the yard gets kind of
narrow there. We don't want to make it more narrow in that area.
But we are willing to work with the Board if you have a certain
amount of square footage you are looking for.
TRUSTEE KING: Even if just came in five feet, it would give you
a little bit of that buffer before the edge. That's what we are
trying to get at. If you want to increase it down here, that's great.
MR. HERMAN: I see what you mean, Jim. Because we have it offset
to the wetlands, and that area is actually the slope.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The current cultivating practices in that
buffer area where they had a few non-natives, or whatever,
garden care, weeding, was already starting to break the edge on
the bluff there. I'm not sure, if the Conservation Advisory
Council comments, I was at the Conservation Advisory Council
meeting, I don't know if it got transmitted, but they were
hoping that we could request, there was a couple pieces of
privet, in other words to naturalize it and get the non-natives
out of there.
MS. PAETZEL: I think we can definitely do that.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what they want to see, the existing
Board of Trustees 30 January 18, 2012
non-native vegetation removed from the bluff and replaced with
native shrubs.
MR. HERMAN: Okay. So do you want to come back five feet the
whole way or some planned mark?
TRUSTEE KING: Well, you were going to increase it here, right?
MS. PAETZEL: Make it come out a little more there.
TRUSTEE KING: Just kind of blend it along and follow that.
MR. HERMAN: With a minimum five-feet here and blend it out.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, make it narrow in front of the house and
widen it out when you get on either side of the house.
MR. HERMAN: I could ask Stacy to come up with a revised buffer
plan.
MS. PAETZEL: Since we are all here, something like that would
work?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, that's what we had in mind.
MS. PAETZEL: Okay, great. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: As far as the relocation of the sliding glass
doors, I mean they are all in place. That's something we would
not have problem with. But that's something, needs to be some
shop keeping on that as far as the permits go.
MR. HERMAN: Right. So we would ask the Board to legalize that as
part of this permit, then the applicants have to go to the
Building Department and get basically the interior work permit.
But they are going to ask for something from you first.
TRUSTEE KING: Because the Building Department will ask us for
the permit, you know what I mean?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other issues?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: Okay. We didn't have any other questions that I
could think of. Anybody on the Board?
(Negative response).
Any other comments from the audience?
MR. PIEKARSKI: My name is Ken Piekarski, I live to the east of
the proposed application, along the evergreens, right on the
other side. I'm definitely in support of the application as
presented with just the exception of some of the proposed
landscaping that would potentially block our view. We would just
like to have them be somewhat sensitive to whatever they do put -
down.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: They have on that side proposed, five proposed
trees, three to four inch caliper, correct?
MR. PIEKARSKI: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to clarify, Rob, you understand exactly
what he's talking about here?
MR. HERMAN: Yes. I'll let Stacy speak to that.
MS. PAETZEL: The trees we are proposing, our hope, was that as
the trees grow up, they are canopy trees, so they would have
trunks that come up, then the canopy would come over. So there
would still be potential for him to have views that would be
underneath those trees. But I'm not really sure what my
Board of Trustees 31 January 18, 2012
client's thoughts are about changing that. I know their concern
is privacy. And, um, they don't want to block the walking
right-of-way so the canopy trees give us the ability to have
privacy in a smaller amount of space.
TRUSTEE KING: It's a tough call, because the view really is not
part of what we should be regulating. Our issues are
environmental. Just hopefully good neighbors work things out
between themselves. It's not within our purview to say how high
a tree can be.
MR. PIEKARSKI: I understand.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you for your comments.
MR. PIEKARSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with new plans showing that the buffer at the top of the bank
that we all just discussed, and I believe it is a preliminary
drawing on the existing survey that the applicant has. So we'll
see that, the new drawing. And I think that's all we need. It's
been consistent, and we addressed some of the concerns of the
Conservation Advisory Council as far as the non-native
vegetation. So with that being said I'll make a motion to
approve with those conditions.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number ten, En-Consultants on behalf of AVELNO,
LLC, AS CONTRACT VENDEE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
12'X 37' in-ground swimming pool; install pool enclosure fencing; and
relocate drywells.
Located: 12120 New Suffolk Ave., Cutchogue.
The Board went out and looked at this. It has been reviewed
-under the LWRP and found to be consistent with the
recommendation that the Board require the creation of a
landscape buffer 30-foot in width landward from the concrete
seawall. It was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council,
the CAC supports the application with the condition the American
beech tree is preserved and there is a ten-foot non-turf buffer
landward of the seawall. I do have one letter.
MR. HERMAN: Sorry, Dave. Can you repeat the last two sentences?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. The Conservation Advisory Council supports
the application with the condition the American beech tree is
preserved and there is a ten-foot, non-turf buffer landward of
the seawall.
We did receive a letter last week from an joining property
owner, and I'll stipulate that we'll enter the letter in its
entirety into the record. But in general it says, Dear Board of
Board of Trustees 32 January 18, 2012
Trustees, this letter is in reference to the swimming pool
application of 12120 New Suffolk Avenue. We do have some
concerns and hope the Board will listen to them, if not act upon
them first. Can the pool be placed in the rear roadside of the
lot? The pool equipment can then be placed next to the barn
near the existing air-conditioning condenser so the noise and
equipment is located in that area. If not in the above location,
where are the pool pump and noise-emitting equipment going to be
placed? We ask that they be located away from our property.
Third, we have a concern that the pool and its chemically
tainted contents are sited too close to the bay, and they go on
about the environmental issue of chemicals leaching into the
bay. We respectfully ask the Board weigh these important
environmental issues and make appropriate changes to the
applicant's request. We strongly oppose the entire application.
Very sincerely much, Randy Plimpton of Plimpton Family, LLC. Is
there anybody here to speak for this application?
MR. HERMAN: Yes. Rob Herman of En-Consultants, on behalf of the
applicants, which, as you noted, is in contract to purchase the
property. The swimming pool is laid out, first of all, as
required by zoning code, to the rear of the house. And is on
the waterside of the house. This also is an interesting parcel
in that the swimming pool is actually located about a 120 feet
from the high water line of the bay. And so based on this
Board's original wetland jurisdiction, it is actually more than
- 100 feet from wetlands, where a 50-foot setback is required.--But
under 275, the Board claims jurisdiction within 100 feet of a
defined beach, which in this case, the landward limit of the
beach would be the seaward face of the concrete seawall. So the
swimming pool is actually located partially within the Board's
jurisdiction, being within a 100 feet of the concrete seawall.
But again, it is important to note that with respect to its
setback from wetlands, it is well over 100 feet from wetlands,
as defined by code.
In response to the letter, interestingly enough, there was
actually a point of which a location in the front yard was
explored, but as shown on the survey, there are two sanitary
systems on the property, both of which are legal; there is a
water service line, there are other utility lines and a
driveway, and there is just simply no practicable location for
the pool on the roadside of the house; esthetics not being an
issue, there is just no practical place to put it. So the pool
has been located in concert with the applicant and her landscape
architect in a desired location to the rear of the house. It has
been situated a conforming distance from the easterly property
boundary, and that's the property to the east that is owned by
the writer of the letter that Dave had paraphrased. And I did
review this map with Mike Verity before its submission to the
Trustees to verify that we in fact had proposed it in a
conforming location with respect to zoning. There is a dedicated
pool drywell proposed to contain backwash. The pool equipment
Board of Trustees 33 January 18, 2012
will be located more than 100 feet from the concrete seawall and
therefore out of the Board's jurisdiction. But for the record,
the applicant plans to use a pump called Intelliflo, which is
increasing in popularity due to its very, very low noise level
and energy efficiency, and there will be an alternative
filtration system used in order, again, as we discussed in the
last application and the one prior to that, to reduce the amount
of chlorination and other chemicals that are required for the
pool. Both of those are plans the applicant even prior to
receiving the Plimpton's letter. I think those are really the
only issues. Again, they are not issues that are typically
within your purview, but just out of courtesy to the letter
writer, that would be our response.
And again, with respect to the environmental concerns,
again, the swimming pool is located more than twice the required
setback from wetlands under 275. And it is located more than
200-feet from the wetlands located to the west, which were
associated with the Grattan site that I think this Board had
looked at recently for reconstruction of a dwelling on that
property. So this pool would be located remotely from that
wetland relative to that approved construction.
It is located a minimum of 75-feet from the concrete
seawall, as required by Zoning. And also that would be the New
York State required wetland setback although the pre-77 seawall
actually exempts the bay front wetlands from New York State DEC
jurisdiction.We do need a permit from the DEC because as you
see on the blue line on the Ehlers site plan, the pool is
located within 300 feet of those offsite wetlands to the west.
think that addresses every part of the application, except there
are some existing, according to a prior landscape design plan,
there are a couple of roof runoff drywells located in the area
that will be relocated.
We had actually, we had not included the buffer on here but
I would ask the Board to consider something closer to the
ten-foot buffer that is recommended by the Conservation Advisory
Council. There is, the beech tree, I don't know where the beech
tree is relative to the pool, except that I do know that the
pool was staked out and there is no tree located within that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Maybe Jack could clarify.
MR. MCGREEVEY: That was a point the CAC wanted to bring up. On
the day that we inspected, that was the Monday just prior to
that Wednesday where we have our meeting, and the pool was not
staked out. But based on the diagram, it seems that that beech
tree right in that picture would be right in the northeast
corner, within the boundary of the pool itself. But, there was
no staking. So that was our concern. We were just going on
possibilities.
MR. HERMAN: Yes, I mean, again, I can't make a promise that a
tree would not have to be removed. I don't think the Board would
typically have a concern if a tree has to be removed that
distance from the wetlands. Again, I don't recall, I don't know
Board of Trustees 34 January 18, 2012
what the Board remembers, but I did go out to make sure the
staking had been done prior to your inspection, and I don't
recall seeing any conflict between the pool location and any
tree.
TRUSTEE KING: There is no stakes shown in the picture.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: On the western side there is.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was staked when we inspected it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And the tree was in the pool.
MR. HERMAN: Was it? Then that answers that. It has to be removed
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And it's such a beautiful specimen. The
owner may want to see if they can save it. I mean, we try save
trees when we can, but --
MR. HERMAN: I'll certainly pass it along. Again, this applicant
is also engaged with a landscape architect, so that may -- I
mean engaged in a business way -- so I'm sure that would be
something they would consider.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, I know it's non-jurisdictional for us, but
the pool equipment, where was it proposed to be located?
MR. HERMAN: Well, there has not been a location that was
determined other than that we had agreed in our conversations
with the application to keep it out of your jurisdiction. So it
was one less item. We had not given it any more thought than
that until we got this letter. So again, I can hope that they
would find a location that would not intrude upon the neighbor's
peace. But the only thing I can report, again, in that regard is
the intention to,use this Intelliflo system, which apparently is
a very low-noise system. I mean, I don't think the owner wants
to listen to it either.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I can't speak on behalf of the neighbors,
but speaking to the letter, I'm sure they would appreciate that.
And as we talked about with the previous application, just
playing good neighbors, if the neighbors can get together and
maybe agree to the location of that, that would be great.
MR. HERMAN: The applicant has been made aware of the letter.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Great. And I do notice you have a proposed hedge
there on the property boundary between those two properties that
would, I'm guessing, also help address some of that noise
concern.
MR. HERMAN: That's the intent, yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Is there anybody else who wanted to speak
for or against this application?
(No response).
Any feeling from the Board with regard to this proposed non-turf
buffer landward of the seawall? I know, Rob, I thought I heard
him indicate they might be agreeable to a ten-foot, non-turf
buffer along there.
MR. HERMAN: I think that was the CAC's recommendation, and there
is no objection to that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the LWRP was 30 foot. I don't know if there
was any thoughts from the Board regarding this.
TRUSTEE KING: That's a pretty extensive area. I should think
Board of Trustees 35 January 18, 2012
ten feet is more than enough.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the construction is not really impacting.
It's not relating to --
TRUSTEE KING: Right. There is the distance there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
En-Consultants on behalf of Avelno, LLC, as described at 12120
New Suffolk Avenue, with the condition of the inclusion of a
ten-foot, non-turf buffer to be located immediately landward of
the concrete seawall. And it has been found consistent under the
LWRP.
MR. HERMAN: And we'll get you a revised site plan to show you
the buffer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES). -
MR. HERMAN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 11, En-Consultants on behalf of LEIGH
ALLOCCA& STACY SHEPPARD requests a Wetland Permit to construct
a fixed timber dock, consisting of a 4'X 12' ramp, 4'X 57'
fixed catwalk, 3'X 14' ramp and 6'X 20' floating dock secured by
(2) 8" diameter pilings.
Located: 710 Park Ave. Extension, Mattituck.
The Trustees visited the site last week on field inspection
on the 11th.We have a report from LWRP of inconsistency, and
the Conservation Advisory Council did not support the
application because the project was not staked at the time they
inspected it. They had raised concerns based on the application
concerning the location of the navigational channel that is
depicted on the plans and had requested that the dock be
designed in an "L" configuration. The LWRP inconsistency had a
number of elements, I'll move through it, I'll paraphrase in
general because I think most of these are of the type that the
Trustees are familiar with. First being that the project would
comport with the Trustees' rules and regulations for Trustee
lands. It's noted that the project is in a critical
environmental area. That also the Trustees have to be cautious
of the public's right to access town waters, riparian rights,
and under--that the Trustees obviously would look into to make
sure we don't impair navigation. There was a specific comment
concerning a buildup of a sand bar on the entrance to the
channel that if removed during a future dredging, it might, it
would mean this dock would be the last, excuse me, the first
dock that would, someone navigating this creek would encounter
coming into the channel, and consequently they thought a
Board of Trustees 36 January 18, 2012
consideration should be given to reconfigure it into an "L"
configuration. And that the dock itself would degrade water
quality if it was solid construction. That was something we are
regularly attuned to with respect to issues surrounding critical
environmental areas.
The Trustees in visiting the site also felt the flow-thru
grating would be appropriate to protect the water quality in the
creek, and that we might consider discussing with the applicant
the lowering of the catwalk along with the flow-through grading
so the visual impact might be somewhat reduced where the grading
would allow for catwalk to go closer to the wetlands. And that
we would also discuss specific conditions concerning that the
piles would be hand dug or driven but not jetted in so we didn't
damage the intertidal wetlands. That's the --
MR. MCGREEVEY: John, do you want to mention the fact that we
thought, the Conservation Advisory Council thought, that by the
diagram, the angle of the dock going out seemed to go east over
the property line.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, I had discussed, as a matter of fact,
it didn't come through, we had discussed it and I actually,
after we met, I had brought that to Jim King's attention, and
Jim is very, quite familiar with dock siding and I'm sure the
applicant can add to the discussion, but I think Jim had
addressed some of my concerns and maybe can describe that
better.
MR. MCGREEVEY: The other point, John, to correct what is on
here, on the day that I personally inspected on that Monday, on
the 9th, those two stakes were in the water, but from a visual
point of view looking out, it didn't align itself with what the
diagram showed, that angle going out to the east. So I don't
know if it's just an illusion but the stakes seemed to be out
perpendicular to the shoreline, where the diagram shows the dock
going out on an angle of approximately 70 degrees, I would say,
and going over the property line to the east.
TRUSTEE KING: Not the way I see it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You know, that's not the way I saw it
either. And there is also the aerial photograph that the LWRP
provided. And it's got the extension, it's got the plot lines
extending out over the bay. Excuse me, over that creek. And the
application as submitted and drawn on the John Ehlers' survey
comports with actually what the aerial is. So I think we are
probably in good stead with respect to that portion of the plan.
MR. MCGREEVEY: If you project the property line, the east
property line going out into the water, if you project it going
straight out, which is the normal way--
TRUSTEE KING: No, that's a misconception. That's the wrong way
to do it. In other words you are extending the property line on
the same angle. If you have a channel coming in, you draw the
line throughout center of the channel and that property line is
extended perpendicular to that channel. So this line actually
goes to the shoreline then angles out that way to be
Board of Trustees 37 January 18, 2012
perpendicular with the channel.
MR. MCGREEVEY: So my visual is correct, but based on
technicalities, we are incorrect. Okay, gotcha.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There you go.
TRUSTEE KING: Actually it's 25 feet off the property line, if
you extend that out to the proper position.
MR. MCGREEVEY: I saw a dotted line but it looks like it was
drawn in subsequently
TRUSTEE KING: That's exactly what was done. That line was
extended out to be perpendicular to the channel line. That's the
correct way to do it.
MR. MCGREEVEY: I've never seen that before.
TRUSTEE KING: That's the correct way to do it.
MR. MCGREEVEY: I'm educated now.
TRUSTEE KING: And there are different formulas to different
shapes of the shoreline.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Very good, thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, we had a lot of discussion back and
forth. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of the application?
MR. HERMAN: Yes. Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. There were a number of issues that were raised. I'll
try to address each one of them quickly.
What Jim is describing is consistent with how we designed
the plan. I would not characterize it as a technicality, as Jack
did. That is the standard way, because you can't carve up the
riparian rights, so to speak, of a creek, based on what may be a
haphazardly-drawn real estate Fine. Basically those divisions
have to be right at right angles to the shoreline in order to
create the proper spacing. So the dotted line Jack sees is in
fact an extension of the easterly property line drawn at a right
angle to the shoreline. Which is the way the dock is laid out.
Which does create the optical illusion that it's crisscrossing
with the property line.
With respect to some of the issues in terms of the
intrusion into the waterway, we actually, we situated the float
where we situated it in order to get a two-and-a-half foot depth
at lower low tide on the inside of the float, which is required by the DEC. But we did get a letter back from the DEC asking us
to reduce the overall seaward intrusion of the dock by two feet.
And that request is based on the fact that the low water to low
water waterway width here is 188 feet, which I can personally
attest to because I swam it with a tape. So I know that number
is right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Last week?
MR. HERMAN: No. Last July, I think.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought maybe you walked across it.
MR. HERMAN: No. You can walk out a little ways and then you are
in the water pretty quick. And that channel is deep and it stays
deep until you get about the same distance off the opposite
shoreline.
So the Trustees, as you know, your code allows one-third of
Board of Trustees 38 January 18, 2012
the width of the waterway with a dock and a boat. Whereas the
DEC and Army Corps both use a policy of 25% or one-quarter of
the waterway for the structure itself. They don't, because they
can't legally regulate boat size, they don't make an attempt to
do that, they just regulate the extent of the structure.
The reason that we went with the dock going straight out
here, you can see on sheet one of our plan, there is four other
docks within about a 350 to four-hundred foot radius of this
dock, all of which are configured the same way, extending
straight out, and all of which extend out about the same
distance or farther into the creek. Here the property is owned
by two couples, and each couple would like use of the float for
a boat. Now, sometimes you know, we get into a situation when we
put a dock out, we just don't have the luxury of being able to
extend the dock out straight, so we are really compelled to put
it in a "T" or"L" configuration. That really is not the
situation here. We are well within the allotted distance across
the waterway, and even if we moved it to an "L," you would still
have a boat on the outside of the "L So between the float and
the boat on the other side you get about the same intrusion as
if the dock goes straight out and you run the boats alongside
the float. So again, we are doing that here really for use of
having the two boats for each of the two owners of the property,
coupled with the fact that we have the room to do it here, based
on the Town's code, the Corps of Engineer's navigational
restrictions or limitations, and the same with DEC, except we
would pull this in by two feet. Because the DEC pointed out that
that the 188-foot width would allow us 47-feet out as 25% of the
width of the creek, and we are showing a distance out of 48-plus
a pile. So they are basically asking us to come back so that the
outside of the float would be 46-feet from the shoreline. And
if they are going to give us a pass on the water depth on the
inside, we are happy to take it. Again, these water depths I
measured with John Ehlers Land Surveyor as at lower low tide. So
these are pretty low data point here, which is what the DEC now
requires.
With respect to the elevation of the catwalk, the DEC had the same request that the catwalk be lowered in elevation -- or
I guess I'm saying this backwards. They require that we use the
open-grate decking on the catwalk which then enables them to
allow us to situate it lower, as the Board is requesting. So we
would be able to modify the dock in response to your request
there as well. I think those are the issues that you raised. I
don't know that we want to go too low on the elevation of the
catwalk here only because, I don't know if--you can't really
see it now, but that Alterna Flora is pretty tall in the summer.
So we don't really necessarily want to be cutting, you know,
through the top of the vegetation if we can help it. So I think
we show a four-foot elevation now. We can move that down to
three feet and switch to the open-grate. But I would not really
go any lower than that, just to sort of minimize intrusion into
Board of Trustees 39 January 18, 2012
the Alterna Flora. I think that covers all the points you raised.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, it was just a question I had. Others
may be more familiar with this creek, and I know Dave is our
dredge expert. The request to look at this in light of the
accumulation of sand there, the sand bar, I was just wondering
if anybody who is more familiar with this creek entrance, it
seems what you discussed addresses most of the navigation
concerns as approaches coming in from the bay. Dave?
MR. HERMAN: The bar to the east, Jay?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MR. HERMAN: It shows on sheet in one of our plans.
TRUSTEE KING: You have it on dotted line here.
MR. HERMAN: That's the edge of the shoreline which Ehlers runs
around that bar. That's located about, just shy of 200-feet to
the east.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I don't feel that sandbar, the dredging of
that sandbar where that channel is will affect navigational
access to this dock or the dock will impede navigation into the
creek at all.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments?
(No response).
Hearing no additional comments, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE KING: Just one other thing. I'd kind of like to see
these piles hand dug or driven throughout wetland, rather than
pumped in.
MR. HERMAN: Yes, that we didn't respond to. I mean, Jim --
TRUSTEE KING: It depends on who is doing it. I have seen jobs
that are deplorable and other jobs are fine.
MR. HERMAN: You made that request before, I mean you know, it
makes the installation of the catwalk a little more time
consuming, but that's going through the heart of what your
responsibility is to protect, so it's hard to object to it. That
really is the most important part of your purview on this one,
so I'm not going to argue with that. We are not going over a
real big expanse of marsh here, so you are not really talking
very many set of piles.
TRUSTEE KING: What size piles, Rob; six inch?
MR. HERMAN: Yes, I would like to do either six-inch piles or
46. 1 don't know if they can hand dig around piles. That's the
thing. But if you want to make six-inch max and then to a
certain degree it will be up to the contractor's ability to put
in four by six as opposed to six -- inch rounds. But if you
want to just say 46, 1 don't think it's an issue.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's an issue. Even at my age I
could dig for a six-inch piles.
MR. HERMAN: Okay, you're hired.
TRUSTEE KING: They use larger piles out in water.
MR. HERMAN: Right. So why don't we just say six inch. For the
portion of the catwalk over the open water, use eight-inch
rounds. And then do either six-inch rounds or 4x6 over the
Board of Trustees 40 January 18, 2012
marsh. That's pretty consistent with what you have usually done
in these types of environments.
TRUSTEE KING: Better than the 44. That was very restrictive.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think I made a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve the
application subject to revised plans that would show open-grate
deck of the distance from the mean low water at 46-feet to
comport with the DEC permit. And the requirement that the piles
be hand dug or driven in as opposed to pumped, and that those
piles that penetrate the Spartina Alterna flora, the patens,
would be limited to not larger than six-inch piles. The piles
that are below, seaward of that, would be no greater than
eight-inch in diameter. And the height being limited to not more
than three feet above, and in doing those changes to the
construction, to limit the size of piles and to have them be
driven or dug as well as the grading, and the grading height
will alleviate concerns in the LWRP, would address the issue
concerning riparian areas, we have addressed concerns concerning
the protection of water and navigation. So I would move that.
MR. MCGREEVEY: John, is there any concern with CCA that is
supportive of the grate?
-TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: CCA is normally used in the structural
members but the benefit of going to open-grate is we have
essentially no leaching from that. So that's, we pretty much
what we are doing is pretty much what the standard is.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERMAN: Thank you. And we'll get you revised plans for that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 12, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on
behalf of WILLIAM & JANICE CLAUDIO requests a Wetland Permit to
construct 250' low-profile 1.5 to 2 ton rock revetment; recover
20-22 cubic yards of eroded sand from in shore end of floating
dock assembly; place recovered sand as backfill landward of new
rock revetment; and provide a 10' wide non-turf buffer landward
and re-vegetate with Cape American beach grass.
Located: 2006 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport.
The LWRP coordinator has found this to be consistent with
LWRP, with the following suggestions: That the low intertidal
wetland vegetation be avoided and preserved during construction;
require that the areas of low intertidal wetland vegetation that
are unavoidable to impasse be removed prior to construction and
replanted onsite following construction of rock revetment. The
Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application as written. Field notes confirm the measurements,
single row of stone, 15-foot non-turf buffer is suggested at
Board of Trustees 41 January 18, 2012
that time. Is there anybody here who would like to address the
application?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. My name is John A. Costello, I'm with
Costello Marine Contracting, and we are the agents for Bill and
Jan Claudio on this application. I would like to state one
thing, that shoreline, even though it is in a small creek, and I
made the recommendation to them, instead of building any type of
retaining wall or anything else, that the costs would be
elevated with a retaining wall, that the rock revetment would in
all likelihood solve their problem indefinitely at that
location. That beach is flattened off to major degree in of the
last few storms and much of the sand is out in the water
underneath the dock and some other locations. And right now if
you went up there at low tide, a good portion of the dock is out
of the water on the inshore end.
The bank has eroded significantly, and one of the reasons,
and Claudio's went out there and they took an aluminum ramp and
tried to make the transition in order to just get to the dock.
There is a temporary aluminum ramp where the erosion has
occurred. The small rock revetment, even though the drawing
shows an indication of one single rock, the elevation varies
from maybe three-and-a-half feet in elevation at the highest
point, down to one foot. So there will be different, you may
need two or three small rocks at some locations and a single
rock at other locations.
I'll answer any questions that the Board may have. I can
also add one other thing. Where the vegetation is on the south
end, if you walk through that vegetation, you'll see a scarf in
- the bank, except the vegetation is absorbing much of the energy.
And the phragmites will start to re-appear in that area quite
significantly. But he's probably not going to intend to do that
in the very near future. I mean possibly in the future. I said
let's apply for everything, so you don't have to keep coming
back should a storm or hurricane hit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: John, per chance did you have a chance to
talk to Mr. Claudio after our field inspection?
MR. COSTELLO: I talked to him several times.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because it seems he's thinking he wanted a
single row of single stone height and didn't want to go so far
to the south, based on what we heard in the field from him.
MR. COSTELLO: He just doesn't want to spend the money.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I wasn't going there on the public record.
It has to do more with we were looking --
TRUSTEE KING: We measured it out in the field. Mr. Claudio said
here is where I want the stone to stop. It was 60 feet from the
dock. I measured that. And he also stated I want just a single
row of stone.
MR. COSTELLO: The only trouble with single row, they are odd
shaped, and let me tell you, you have to fit them together behind
a piece of filter clothe. So the, there will be a variation of
rocks that fit, to solve the erosion problem.
Board of Trustees 42 January 18, 2012
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aside from that change, when we met Mr. Claudio
out there, he wants to change it to 63 feet. Aside from that, I
don't think there is any problem. Nobody had a problem with it, so.
MR. COSTELLO: My representation to the Board and would be to Mr.
Claudio had he been here, I believe he's out of town, 60 feet,
it is going to be some additional storms and bad weather, and
there will be, if he wants me to come back four times, I'm
certain to be back.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I was saying.
MR. COSTELLO: I mean the original application was for I believe
250 feet?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, it is. How does the Board feel?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to clarify, we are not talking the total
length of 63. We are talking from the dock to the south, 63. So
the total length is going to be -- I don't know how long the total
length is.
MR. COSTELLO: You have to go past the dock.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. I just want to clarify that because we are
not talking about reducing from 250 to 63.
MR. COSTELLO: My suggestion will be to Mr. Claudio and this
Board, if you want holdup on the permit until I talk to him, but
minimize it to 100 feet. Because I don't want to come back here
three times for this.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If we don't have a problem with the 250, and
that means if something should happen, he doesn't have to come
back. I don't see that being a problem with the 250.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, the issue we have is from, I don't know,
I'll say approximately 70 feet to the south on, is all naturally
vegetated, there didn't seem to be huge erosion problem, and so
from, I would rather--
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So if we brought it back 75-feet and we made it
175 feet from the --what side? (Perusing).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If the applicant is suggesting to table this to
talk his client and come back to us in another month, there is
no problem with that.
MR. COSTELLO: I would reduce it. I'll be here anyway.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We can table it.
MR. COSTELLO: To get the distance properly. I mean I know more
about the erosion, and having tried to solve a degree of it. But
I also would like to come back three times and represent him and
charge him each time.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: As far as the single row of stone, I think we
can agree the stone is no higher than the existing grade, it
seems that's the goal here we are all agreeing to. So that's --
MR. COSTELLO: It's three-and-a-half foot, the highest part, and
one foot, the lowest part. And much of that rock is in the ground.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I see that on the cross section.
MR. COSTELLO: It's not a big structure.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: With that I'll make a motion to table the
application.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
Board of Trustees 43 January 18, 2012
(ALL AYES).
MR. COSTELLO: See you next month. Thanks.
TRUSTEE KING: 13, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf
of PHILIP &JENNIFER STANTON requests a Wetland Permit to
construct two 4'X 10' dock extensions at offshore end of
existing fixed dock and install a 32"X 12' seasonal aluminum
ramp onto a 6'X 20' floating dock secured by three 8" diameter
anchor pilings. Located: 845 Maple Lane, Southold.
This has been found consistent with LWRP, which is
surprising. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to
support the wetland permit with no other modifications. Just a
straight support for it. Is anyone here to speak on behalf or
against this application?
MR. COSTELLO: My name is still John A. Costello and we are the
agents for Mr. Stanton on this application, him and his wife.
And Mr. Stanton has a beautiful piece of sailboat that is like a
piece of furniture, and it has incurred a degree of damage over
the years, and he asked me for a suggestion on how to minimize
anything happening to that sailboat when he works in the city.
And that's why I recommended he put his small addition at the
end of the dock. He also wanted to know if he could go out
further and I said you won't get it out any further, so put the
addition adjacent to the end of the existing dock and try to get
the approval of that.
He also has a jet-ski boat that he keeps. He has been
anchoring it out on one end and holding it at the stern on g-
ladder board it. That's why the floating dock was suggested. The
ski boat would be on the offshore side of the floating dock and
a kayak on the other side. There is only a couple feet of water
at best.
TRUSTEE KING: There was a jet-ski float that we noticed with no
permit or anything.
MR. COSTELLO: He had that tied up to the dock and it's in the
wetlands.
TRUSTEE KING: It should be removed, by rights. There is some
history here that I'm familiar with..This dock was rebuilt a few
years ago.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, sir.
TRUSTEE KING: And we, I know we spent a lot of time on this
because it was six feet and we wanted to downsize it to meet the
code. And after numerous discussions on it, we allowed the
six-foot width to be re-built for that length.
MR. COSTELLO: At that time, I did not represent Mr. Stanton. Rob
Herman is the one that got the permit.
TRUSTEE KING: I know, you're right. The problem I have with this
is you already have a nonconforming dock that we allowed not too
long ago and now you are going to make it more non-conforming by
doing these additions. I'm very uncomfortable with that. That's
my viewpoint. I think it's really an awful lot of structure you
are adding on to a nonconforming use now.
MR. COSTELLO: It was not a nonconforming dock when it was
Board of Trustees 44 January 18, 2012
originally --
TRUSTEE KING: It was non-conforming when we allowed it to be
re-built. The code was for a four-foot dock.
MR. COSTELLO: You allowed it.
TRUSTEE KING: I know. That's why I say I'm very leery of doing
anymore on that. Because it's already nonconforming. That's my
take.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess it's a practical consideration, if
you view the nonconformity as providing excess coverage over the
creek and wetlands, would the applicant want to consider
downsizing in width to bring it into conformity, net no increase
in square footage?
TRUSTEE KING: They were dead set against it when we had the
hearings as far as reducing the size. We tried get him to bring
it into conformity. We beat it around and beat it around and
finally allowed the six-foot width. But there was a lot of
discussion on this, I could remember, with the other Board.
Maybe a smaller"T" on the end. But to me it's unreasonable.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For myself, yes, I recall that last, when the
applicant came in with regard to this dock, I was on the Board
at the time, and I agree with Jim, there was a tremendous amount
of discussion on this one. And so, in summary, I agree. When I
was out in the field, the only thing I looked at that I thought
maybe we could agree to is maybe the "T" on the end. But for
myself, not the "T" on the end and the ramp and float. Again, my
concern is you add that much structure on to something that is
already nonconforming, we are just adding a lot of structure on it.
TRUSTEE KING: I mean, he's pushing the envelope dramatically.
So, he has a sailboat, John?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, he does.
TRUSTEE KING: How large is the sailboat?
MR. COSTELLO: I think it's 32.
TRUSTEE KING: It's not that big.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: He has the mooring piles already there. Existing
mooring piles. They'll still be there. So if the "T" was agreed
to, that's 26-foot of dock.
TRUSTEE KING: 20-foot would be my preference.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We are being told he has a separate mooring with
us that he keeps the sailboat on.
TRUSTEE KING: In a storm event?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think he's using it now, right?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Could be wrong, there is an Abbott 33 at that
mooring. It could be an Abbott 33.
TRUSTEE KING: By code, you can't have two. You can't have a dock
and a mooring, unless the dock is unusable for a boat, then you
are allowed a mooring. But you cannot keep the boat at the dock.
This may be a case where he has a mooring and in a storm event
he takes it to the mooring. I don't know. But this dock is
suitable for docking boats so he should not have a mooring, too.
That's the way I see it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what I hear you suggesting, Jim, is the "T"
Board of Trustees 45 January 18, 2012
was 20-foot total, which means two 7-foot extensions on either
side, because it's a six-foot width already. That would be
seven, seven and six, would equal 20.
TRUSTEE KING: That would be the maximum I would be interested
in. Other than that, I don't have an interest in it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is an awful lot of structure out there
between the docks and properties, right?
TRUSTEE KING: They are separate properties.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I know they are. I'm just saying in general.
TRUSTEE KING: He has adequate access now, given what he has. He
has more than adequate access to the water. To me that's just--
anybody else?
MR. COSTELLO: Let's see if, is there any difficulty with the
float? Is that a problem?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MR. COSTELLO: I want to get a handle on all the difficulties.
TRUSTEE KING: I think if the float was removed and the "T" was
20-feet overall length, that I would consider that. Like I say,
that's even adding more nonconforming to the whole structure.
But it's not a huge issue. That will give him a little more
bearing on the dock where the boat is.
MR. COSTELLO: Okay, let me ask you one question here on that. If
the "T" was total of 20 feet, you are saying?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MR. COSTELLO: Okay, if you moved it off to one side, that he
could easily board a speed boat, off-centered it, so you could
put a ladder back into your boat instead of over the stern?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are talking an "L" configuration?
MR. COSTELLO: More of an "L". And move the sailboat backward.
The other thing is you could narrow the walkway up to three
feet. All you want to do is be able to secure both boats.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Myself, it doesn't matter to me if it's
off-centered slightly.
TRUSTEE KING: No.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, doesn't matter.
MR. COSTELLO: He owns plenty of property.
TRUSTEE KING: As long as it's not more than 20-feet long.
MR. COSTELLO: No. Then you can have the outboard, get aboard the
outboard off the dock instead of over the stern. That's all.
TRUSTEE KING: Right. You don't have a lot of rise and fall
there, right? What's the rise and fall, two, two-and-a-half feet?
MR. COSTELLO: Two-and-a-half feet.
TRUSTEE KING: It's not a lot.
MR. COSTELLO: But the outboard has an engine with the propeller
up in the air. That's all.
TRUSTEE KING: The property is way over here, the configuration
of that, whether it's an "L" or almost a "T" or whatever really
doesn't have to do with property lines. What is your pleasure;
do you want to table this and give us new drawings?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, I don't have a drawing for you.
Board of Trustees 46 January 18, 2012
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And go back to your client?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. He's the one that will ultimately make the
decision.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we are looking at is a 20-foot "T" or
partial "L" on the end of that. No ramp and float. That's what
we are looking it at.
MR. COSTELLO: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And if needed, a ladder on the "T" is fine.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Jim, the width of that float would be six foot?
TRUSTEE KING: We are doing away with the float. There will be no
float. Just the "T" on the end. Or offset "L" type of thing.
That's what I would consider. Other than that, I'm not interested.
MR. COSTELLO: Certainly.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else have any feelings on this? Anybody
in the audience?
MR. COSTELLO: All the other ones want to give me everything.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to table this?
MR. COSTELLO: No, I have to converse with the owner and I'm
trying to redesign it in my head now, that will sell to the
Trustees. I mean, why not.
TRUSTEE KING: That's the only thing we just described, that
might sell.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The other consideration would he be willing
to reduce the width down to four feet, as prior discussion, and
come in with a new proposal based on a narrower catwalk.
TRUSTEE KING: After the discussions we had previously, I doubt
very much he would be interested in downsizing the catwalk.
MR. COSTELLO: No, I didn't represent him on the original
application. Rob Herman was here and I was in the crowd, and I
did hear much of the discussion.
MR. MCGREEVEY: What would be the width of that additional
20-feet?
TRUSTEE KING: Four feet.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: You folks approved it as it was submitted.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Through ignorance.
MR. COSTELLO: Come on, you are the most intelligent person on
the block.
MR. MCGREEVEY: He's my lawyer. Thank you. I wasn't there.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table this application and
get some new plans submitted.
MR. COSTELLO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we would like to do, if it's okay with the
applicant, is open the next two applications together, permit
applications together, number 14 and 15, since they are
adjoining properties and same owner.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, that's fine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we would like to do is open number 14,
Board of Trustees 47 January 18, 2012
Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of DAI W. MOY
requests a Wetland Permit to repair the existing jetties
numbered 1,2, 3, & 4 in-kind and in-place; replace any missing
pilings, stringers and sheathing as needed; and re-bolt existing
piling and stringers as needed. Located: 950 West Lake Dr.,
Southold.
And number 15, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of
SIM H. MOY & 106 MULBERRY CORP., requests a Wetland
Permit to repair the existing jetties numbered 5 and 6 in-kind
and inplace; replace any missing sheathing as needed; and
re-bolt existing piling and stringers as needed.
Located: 750 West Lake Dr., Southold.
The Board did go out and looked at these properties. These
were reviewed under LWRP and both LWRP reviews are identical in
that they were exempt. They were reviewed under the Conservation
Advisory Council and the CAC supports the application with the
condition that the number of groins on the two properties is
reduced to two or three and jetty number six to remain.
So that's the review, the combined review of the two
properties by the CAC. As I stated, the Board did go out and
looked at these two properties. Is there anybody here to speak
on behalf of this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. George Costello, Sr., representing the
applicant. If I understand you correctly, you are saying to
remove jetty number two and number three?
- TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, the suggestion from the CAC is to reduce the
number of groins down to two or three. But maintaining jetty
number six. The difference being the jetty number six is the
jetty that protects the entrance to the inlet there where the
others are all actually groins that go down that beach. So,
that was just a suggestion of the Conservation Advisory Council.
We are open now to discussion.
MR. COSTELLO: Okay. Well, as you know, I have a DEC permit for
all four jetties, 40-foot in length. Years and years ago I went
around with this application, I think it was in '84, '85, with
Chuck Hamilton. At the time we got a permit to repair and
replace whatever jetties needed to be repaired and replaced. And
the reason behind that is if we don't maintain those jetties,
most of the time when this little community inlet was dredged,
the material went on this beach. And the only reason it didn't
go back into that inlet, closed it immediate on the first
northeast storm was the fact that sand was trapped by these
jetties. And, as you are aware, in that storm Irene, that inlet
is pretty well clogged up now because of a lot of that sand that
was on that beach trapped into those jetties and other places,
are now in that channel.
So if you were to dredge, and at some point somebody will
dredge that little inlet, I don't know what they'll do with the
material, but they put it back on anybody's beach, you'll want
all these jetties back in or you are just spinning your wheels
with this dredging project. So that's the reason why Chuck
Board of Trustees 48 January 18, 2012
Hamilton back in the day gave me all those permits to replace
all those jetties, and not to maintain them. So we are still
staying with that theory, we need to maintain those jetties as
that length to make sure whatever sand is on that beach won't go
into that inlet on the first nor'east storm. And apparently the
DEC in 2012 agreed with that theory. Actually back in '84 and
'85, some of these jetties were at a length of 60 feet. At this
point they cannot be any longer than 40. Which actually takes
them out almost, some of these, to low tide.
TRUSTEE KING: I see one of the problems I see is CCA sheathing.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: That's a problem.
MR. COSTELLO: Sure. And, back in the day, it used to be ice.
Some of the piles are still creosote. They take a beating.
Number three jetty used to be 60 feet long. The end has
been removed back in '85. '85, '86
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For myself, a couple of things. I know this
Board, when they have been looking at groins, we have been
looking,at low profile and not to extend them beyond the mean
low tide mark. We also had sought some advice of an expert a
couple of years ago, Mr. Jay Tanski --from, sorry, Sea Grant.
And we had asked him the question of how many groins or what's
the distance between groins that he thought was appropriate. And
what he had said was you take the length of the groin and at
least twice that distance between the two. And in looking at
this, I notice-it's about one to one. It's about 60 feet between
them. And as you alluded to, well, looks like you are
approximately 40 feet in length.
From myself, personally, I'm not a fan of groins
whatsoever. And I agree with the jetty to help protect the
inlets. Where we have inlets I have not had a problem, and as a
matter of fact Jay Tanski when he was here also commented, he
said jetties to protect the mouths of inlets are appropriate.
But groins and groin fields, for myself, all they do is rob one
side from the other side. They build up sand on one side by
robbing it from the another side. And I don't see myself,
personally, the need for so many groins in such a short distance
along this beach. That's just my own feeling.
MR. COSTELLO: If we can take the last 45 years of history, these
six jetties have been there for 45 years. Have they been working
and preventing most of that sand from going back into that .
little inlet? Have we been starving the downhill side?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't have the history but I know some people
in the audience here that might have the history that live in
that area.
MR. COSTELLO: Just knowing the fact they have been in there for
that many years, you could probably talk to your neighbors or
just kind of put it together or talk to somebody that has some
history, like some of the old codgers up on deck there, they
have worked. I don't really know how many times this inlet has
been dredged, but I can see, let's say we take two or three
Board of Trustees 49 January 18, 2012
jetties out of there. This, whatever sand you see in this
little drawing right now, is going to fill this number six up.
And it's right around the corner. How long do you think that
jetty will last. It will be full in a first flow. Now somebody
will be dredging that out a lot sooner than later. That's for sure.
TRUSTEE KING: So we'll take it littoral drift is from east to
west there?
MR. COSTELLO: Correct. And most of the time if you get a little
bit of northeast, a little east, a little southeast, that stuff
is moving rapidly. You can get a storm out of the other
direction, but it usually doesn't work that way. The reason you
see it the way it is, that's Irene. It has it going the other
direction. Because when Irene turned around and came out of the
west, it--
TRUSTEE KING: It howled.
MR. COSTELLO: It moved a lot of sand. So it's the opposite on
this drawing than what it usually is. And you can go down there
on any kind of day and see that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know there are some other people in the
audience who would like to speak. So I invite them to the podium.
MR. KAMINER: I'm Henry Kaminer, 130 Midway Road on that West
Lake. And I'm secretary of the West Lake Association and one of
the people who is a neighbor of Mr. Moy, and Ms. Sawiski could
not come and she is also a member of our organization. We, first
of all, I defer to the expertise of Mr. Costello. I have no way
near the knowledge and experience of Mr. Costello. And we are
wholeheartedly in favor of preserving the jetties and the groins
that would preserve the beach and we are happy that Mr. Moy's
bulkhead has been restored. I'm amazed that his house didn't get
blown down, because I was out here during Irene and the spray
was higher than his house. I was watching from my house. There
is one small thing that I, that we want to comment on. I'm
sorry, I'm not too well prepared, but we learned about this at
the last minute.
You probably have a large drawing, but the small drawing
that was part of the notification, I made a sketch according to
that drawing and I colored it in. One of the things that we are
concerned about is number six. That jetty number six that goes
along the inlet. Let me give you my version, okay. I have
enough, fortunately, for everybody. I think I need one more. I
used some color to make my point. This should be enough. So what
we are concerned about is this channel silting up, and it's
already silting up. And one of the problems is that there is, on
the drawing, jetty number six as drawn on the application is not
quite right. The actual jetty number six comes out at right
angles to the bulkhead, just like number three, four and five.
And if you look at it, you see it comes exactly out at a right
angle. On the drawing it's dotted line on your drawings on the
plans. But there is an underwater jetty, there is a jetty that
was from a long time ago that has been underwater. It was never
removed. It was just cut off at the water line. And now for
Board of Trustees 50 January 18, 2012
some reason, last few years, the pilings, we removed, at our own
expense, the vertical boards. But we were able to remove the
pilings. That's beyond our physical strength. But the pilings
are now tipped over toward the west, toward the inlet, so it's
like what the German's put under Normandy Beach so the landing
craft couldn't get in. So when you go out with a boat, it's a
hazard to navigation. So what we are hoping is that Mr. Costello
will get permission to re-do number six and all the others, and
while he has his equipment out there, might be a perfect time,
if all his equipment is out there, I don't know the details, I
don't know how one does it, to pluck up some of these pilings,
not all of them, but the ones that are very close to the jetty
but the ones that are curving around that are underwater and
blocking the channel. That's our suggestion. And our hope.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
MR. COSTELLO: If I may show you the survey to explain what he's
shown you guys. He's right about the fact that that is on a
little bit of a, not running completely inline. It's cocked over
a little bit.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Jim, the structures that this gentleman was just
describing, is that part of the numbered jetties? Is it one of
the numbered jetties that we are talking about, or is it something --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, it's our understanding it's a remnant of an
old jetty that was there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We could see it when we were out there.
TRUSTEE KING: That's the stuff that is left. Bits of it.-
MR. MCGREEVEY: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who wanted to speak for
or against this application?
MR. COSTELLO: My name is John A. Costello and I would like to
make a couple of comments on this application. That pond, it was
probably a freshwater pond many, many years ago. And when the
development and the people moved out there and the houses were
built, it was opened up and they tried to maintain it. It's a
tough spot to maintain because of the direction. And there was a
slight discussion of littoral drift. It depends upon the weather
conditions. Littoral drift, basically, on that whole shoreline,
all the way up to Laurel, is onshore/offshore. Southwest winds,
summertime, there is a slight build up because the drift is from
west to east. The severity of the storms that cause the most
erosion are from the northeast. And when they come out of the
easterly storms, the littoral drift is certainly significantly
going from east to west, thus filling in the entryway that
probably should have never been there, except the development of
waterfront properties. So by having that developed, they have a
little problem on it building up. And the offshore/inshore
drift of sand is going to build up the jetties. Build up the
inlet. Those jetties stabilizing the beach, and I know Jay
Tanski and I recommended this Board contact Jay Tanski, and we
done a lot of work with Jay Tanski over the years. Jetties in
some locations, if they are low profile, don't rob sand. That
Board of Trustees 51 January 18, 2012
comment you made robbing sand from one side to the other, if
they are low enough, they fill and it goes over the top. When they
are efficient. Their efficiency occurs on the length of the
jetty. When they are out in the water, they trap, just like a
fish trap, they will bring in sand and bring it up on the beach.
But in recent years, again, everybody is looking for low profile
jetties, they are much better. It gives public access along the
foreshores and it only goes up the beach to protect the
upland structures. So hopefully, don't become anti-jetty, there
is a lot of spots up there in Laurel, Mattituck, my God, they
are saving a lot of the structures. But, that happens to be
trend, if you keep them, I'm doing several jetty repairs now.
And of the customers are all voluntarily taking them down from a
four to five foot elevation down to 18 inches above, in the
hopes of just maintaining the beach and the access along the
shore. Okay?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
MS. HULSE: Public passage, has that been addressed?
TRUSTEE KING: No, because 18 inches, you are looking at that
high (indicating). It's not--
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have a question for the gentleman who was
speaking before. You've lived on this property for a long time;
this location for a long period of time?
MR. KAMINER: Eight years, seven years. Not long.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, because I'm interested in the dredging
history, this location has been dredged every year, every other year.
MR. CASE: Jerry Case. No, not that frequently. And it was
dredged, I'll say four years ago. Pretty sure it was four. And
we have a permit that includes ten years. So we are looking at
doing it again, which we were anyway. But now Irene sort of
hastened our decision to do so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Prior to four years ago, because I remember it
then, it was completely filled in.
MR. CASE: It never was filled in, Dave.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you remember when before then?
MR. CASE: Approximately '85.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it was a long period of time.
MR. CASE: When we first moved 13 years ago, you could get out
at high tide.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. I'm familiar with the dredging
that is done at Richmond and Corey Creek, which are along the
same shoreline, and in both of those locations it's the build up
of sand is to the west. The material that goes to the east. They
don't like to put the material to the west because they said any
material to the west will go right into that water again. And
that happens to be those two locations. Cedar Beach, again, the
material seems to evolve on the, move to the eastern side also.
But again, I'm not familiar with this specific location as far
as where the sand seems to accumulate, in other words which way
the littoral drift goes there.
MR. COSTELLO: Two more comments. One is, we would actually be in
Board of Trustees 52 January 18, 2012
better shape as far as the inlet is concerned if these jetties
were repaired. Some of them are kind of bad repair.
The other issue, if you can imagine, if you took number six
jetty and dropped it down to 18 inches. Disaster. So you got to
keep in mind, if there is going to be a lot of sand put on that
beach, or I don't know where you'll put the sand, but if you are
going to put it back on that sand like they did four years ago,
you'll want to have a bunch of jetties there to keep from going
right back into the same spot again.
So, again, I don't know what the master plan is for
dredging that, ten-year plan, sounds like they had a five-year
DEC permit or ten-year DEC permit, but I think on that DEC
permit, if you look, where is the spoil site, it's right on the
beach at Dai Moy's. I don't think there is another spoil site,
to my knowledge. Just from talking to these guys, I talked to
the homeowners association, this, right after, in August, I
talked to these fellows, because they came down to my job and
talked to me. Some of your guys. And they wanted to know what
was going to do about the jetties and do about keeping the sand
from going back into the inlet again. So that's my last comment.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: George, can I ask a question. Presently, the
distance between the jetties is about 60 feet?
MR. COSTELLO: I think the whole property from one end to the
other, I think is 296 feet. So I guess if you do the math.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's approximately 60. My question is, is it
.possible to increase the distance between them to 80 feet, which
is more in line with scientific, the practice; that would give
you five instead of six. Would that be doable?
MR. COSTELLO: As long as it works. And you know how we'll tell it
works? When are you guys going to dredge again. And after it
doesn't work or these guys come back complaining to you guys,
what do we do now? All I can go, with most of my teachings are,
you go by what has been going on there for years and years. I
worked with Ralphy Preston back in the '60's, we would go there
when I was a little kid, go there and repair these things. But
you can pick up a lot of information in the last 45 years of
dock building. And I know this area has been dredged several
times, I know what's going on down that whole beach, because I
worked the whole beach from here to Laurel, Riverhead, whatever.
The last 45 years. So that's how I base my information on it.
Scientist? No, I'm not a scientist. Has it been working for 45
years? Yes, it has been working for 45 years. So they were
actually longer, it was working better. And they just told you
it was a long time between dredgings. The jetties were in good
shape. Now they are not in such good shape. They are short. So
when you put all that stuff together, okay, something will be
sacrificed, and I assume it will be the inlet dredging.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is groin number five the same as one, two,
three, four in height above the beach and it's only six at the
entrance is the one that has the proposed height staying as it
Board of Trustees 53 January 18, 2012
is? Just curious.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's not on the plans.
MR. COSTELLO: As far as going down on the beach and measuring
the height of each one, they are all a little slightly
different. I think they were all built at the same height
originally. But I couldn't tell you if number one is 20 inches
above the beach and number five is, I couldn't tell you right
today.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you have a DEC permit presently?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Did they address height specifically on each
one?
MR. COSTELLO: No. Special conditions, let me read that. Well,
you know what, I don't think I have the special conditions here.
No, I don't have the special conditions. I did read them,
though. No, I would have to tell you or call you or give you a
copy of the DEC permit and tell you what the special conditions are.
TRUSTEE KING: Give us a copy of them, too. Any plans in just
cleaning them up? I mean they are really raggy.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. We are actually going to make them look a
little nicer. Normal Costello job.
TRUSTEE KING: The only problem I have with sheathing, by code we
can't put CCA in there.
MR. COSTELLO: That's good. I don't want CCA. I'm putting C-Loc,
probably C-Loc 9900 or 9,000. Stuff that will take a little more
of a beating.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The vinyl.
MR. COSTELLO: They'll only be 18 inches above the ground. I
can't do wood anymore. We are done with that. Even if you
allowed it, I'm not doing it. We are done with that.
TRUSTEE KING: So it's basically going to be low profile groins.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, I think the last ones we did were up on the,
up in Laurel, or up in Mattituck, and we did C-Loc 4500. And it
was, yes, CCA piles, eight-inch diameter, something like that.
By the time I was done, they were buried. They were just one
right, it went right over the top of the other one. You didn't
even have to step over them.
TRUSTEE KING: That's another point, public access along the
beach, if you have a low profile groin, it's not an issue.
MR. COSTELLO: Keep on trucking, yes. That's pretty much a DEC
issue.
TRUSTEE KING: If you can't step over 18 inches, you better stay
off the beach, you know.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now --
MR. COSTELLO: There's been days.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: These groins as shown on the plans, every one of
them extending beyond mean low water. And --
MR. COSTELLO: Existing length..
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Looking at number four, looks like it's about
15, 18-feet beyond mean low water. Same thing for number three,
little, definitely less than number two. But I know, again, what
Board of Trustees 54 January 18, 2012
we have talked about or what we have approved here, since I have
been on the Board, we have not approved any groins going beyond
mean low water. Now, with number six, I'm in full agreement with
what you are saying, George, as far as number six being able to,
it's protecting that inlet more than the others. And I'm in
full agreement with that being of a suitable height and length.
And I would also ask if you could ask your clients if they would
be willing as part of this project to remove the remnants of
that old jetty that is in the inlet so it takes away the
navigational hazard that is there.
MR. COSTELLO: That's done.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So, I don't know how the rest the Board feels
about allowing groins going beyond mean low water.
TRUSTEE KING: They are only 40-foot groins. That's the issue for
me.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have lost so much beach during Irene I
would say we are looking at this in a different state
post-Irene. When we went out there, it been scoured out.
MR. COSTELLO: A lot of that sand is in the channel now.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the comments of Trustee Domino, if
you could reduce one, but, obviously, you are based on a good
history and protecting this, but where length is so important
and it's a case that the homeowners have the expense of
maintaining their private inlet, and this has been working for
everyone, I guess- I don't really have a problem with it, after
the testimony you gave. I think it explained the situation on
the ground, the history. I don't really think it has to, I
don't think they should be shortened, myself.
MR. COSTELLO: I was going to say if I had some photographs prior
to Irene, I wonder exactly where the low tide was. You know, I'm
sure it's offshore somewhere, but I couldn't tell you exactly
where it is. But I'll look through the file and see, if I have
pictures. Because it used to be a lot of beach there. We used to
see some bulkhead damage because the beach dropped, and during
Irene, it kind of jacked up the bulkhead because now the
bulkhead is not four-feet tall, it's six-and-a-half feet tall.
It makes a big difference to a structure. It's coming back, but
I don't know what it is as of today. I have to go and measure
it. But I would be interested in seeing if I had pictures
showing where low tide used to be prior to the storm. Might make
you feel better. I don't know.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, did you have any comments to add?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Basically, I agree with John, that I don't
really have an issue with it.
TRUSTEE KING: Now, is it just five and six being worked on or
all of them?
MR. COSTELLO: They are all kind of raggedy. The all need some
sort of attention. I'm not sure, I can't tell you I'm going to
go in there and rebuild all six. Mr. Moy will have to make that
decision.
TRUSTEE KING: Is that number five or number six?
Board of Trustees 55 January 18, 2012
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We opened both applications.
TRUSTEE KING: Sorry. My mistake.
MR. COSTELLO: In the pictures that you see, obviously, whatever,
if that's number two, number two will get a lot of work done on it.
TRUSTEE KING: I keep forgetting it's two properties.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments? Jack?
MR. MCGREEVEY: Possibly solving the problem, I don't know if it
fits in with your thinking, but I go along with what you said,
Dave, keeping with number six, at the appropriate height and
length, and protect that inlet, can we gradually shorten each
groin as we go east from there? Would that serve any purpose,
low sill, but shorten each one appropriately? Or keep them all
the same length? Does it serve any purpose?
TRUSTEE KING: No, not in my mind. It seems to be a history here
of working the way they are.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Actually, the drawing, in our experience,
when we did field inspection, shows equal distribution in each
cell, so it's already well-balanced with respect to sand
distribution. So it would seem again, the conditions on the
ground --
MR. MCGREEVEY: I'm just going by this rough sketch.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: One other question, I notice in application
number 14 for Dai Moy, one, two, three and four, does not
include stairs or that platform there, and was wondering if they
want to include that in this application, so those stairs in
that platform are permitted in also.
MR. COSTELLO: Well, the stairs are there. We take them out every
winter. So in that picture, there is actually the stairs up on land.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I guess my question is are those stairs and
platform permitted?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, we just take them out every winter because
they get whooped.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Where I was going, if they were not permitted
this is an opportunity to permit them.
MR. COSTELLO: That platform probably has been there right from
day one. That's how we got down and got in the water all the
time. That's probably more important than anything else, to him.
Yes, it is permitted.
TRUSTEE KING: So it would be plastic then.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
I would ask if somebody else could move it because I'm not going
to support it.
TRUSTEE KING: We opened them both up at the same time?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we did.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, if there are no other comments I'll make a
motion to close the hearing on both of these properties.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 56 January 18, 2012
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I would make a motion to approve them with the
understanding necessarily not inkind, that would not be CCA
lumber, it would be the plastic, vinyl.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second it.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(Trustee King, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer,
aye. Trustee Domino, aye).(Trustee Bergen, no).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For the record I'm going to vote no, and I just
want everybody to understand, I'm completely in favor of the
jetty in protecting the -- and groin to protect the inlet. But
based on the professional, and with all due respect to Mr.
Costello and his experience, based on Mr. Tanski's
recommendation I feel there could be a reduction to at least one
of these groins. That's why I'm voting no.
TRUSTEE KING: So it's four ayes, one nay.
I think that's it. I'll make a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respec Ily submitted by,
it n
. -'41 r
Jame . King, Presiden
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
APR 2 0 2012 C Iv.k k
Sod1wNrk_.