HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-05/16/2012 James F.King,President ��OF SOUjyO Town Hall Annex
Bob Ghosio,Jr.,Vice-President �O l0 54375 Main Road
P.O.Box 1179
Dave Bergen Southold,New York 11971-0959
John Bredemeyer G Q
:rlh • �O Telephone(631) 765-1892
Michael J. Domino O Fax(631) 765-6641
lyCOUNT`l,Nc�
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RECEIVED 12�"
Minutes AUG 2 4 2012
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
6:00 PM ISM"Old
Town �l�r�
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:Wed., June 13, 2012, at 800 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:Wed., June 20, 2012, at 6:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of February 22, 2012.
TRUSTEE KING: Good evening everyone, can you hear me all right? Sometimes
people in the back can't hear me. I tend to mutter a little bit.Welcome to our May
meeting.We have three postponements we are not going to be addressing. I'll just let
everyone know, on page five, under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits, number two,
Docko; Inc., on behalf of LUCILLE BALCOM requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal
Erosion Permit to repair 142 linear.feet of 6' wide pile and timber pier and boat lift
waterward of the apparent high water line. Located: Private Rd., Fishers Island, has
been postponed.
On page six, number two,Wetland Permits, Docko, Inc., on behalf of HIRAM MOODY,
JR. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'wide pile and timber pier and install an
8'X 20' floating dock with hinged ramp and associated float restraint piles, boat berthing
tie-off piles, utilities and ladder. The overall length of the pier from the shore waterward
of the high tide line and tidal wetlands vegetation is 120'. Located: 33 Reservoir Rd.,
Fishers Island, has been postponed.
And on page seven, number 12, Melrose Marine Service, Inc., on behalf of AUDREY
ROTHMAN requests a Wetland Permit for the inkind/inplace replacement of existing
Board of Trustees 2 May 16, 2012
deteriorated fixed pier with an extension of the pier seaward 12' to reach greater water
depth and removal of 112' of existing catwalk. Located: 3995 Wells Ave., Southold, has
been postponed. So we won't be addressing those tonight.
We have with us tonight Wayne Galante keeping track of what everybody says.
So during the public hearings if you have any comments to make please come up to the
microphone and identify yourself so he can get everything on the record. We also have
Jack McGreevey from the Conservation Advisory Council with us tonight. They go out
and review a lot of the same projects we look at and give us their advice on what we
should be doing.
So with that, we'll set the next field inspection, Wednesday, June 13th, at eight
o'clock in the morning.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Our next meeting with will be Wednesday, June 20,
at six o'clock, with a worksession at 5:30.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion to approve the Minutes of
February 22, 2012?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make that motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
— I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for May 2012. A check for
$7,024.61 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for
review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the
following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wed., May 16, 2012, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to
SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA:
Lucille Balcom - SCTM#4-4-15
Trust U/W of R.C. Kopf FIB/O Kristen Powers—SCTM#123-8-26.1
James P. Rutherford—SCTM#7-3-3.21
Patricia Mete & Cheryl Christiano—SCTM#115-12-16
Anthony Campo—SCTM#111-1-24,25,26
Joan Prager—SCTM#14-2-1.10
Mattituck Fishing Station —SCTM#99-4-23
William & Patricia Baxter and Goeller Family Trusts—SCTM#111-1-15
Board of Trustees 3 May 16, 2012
Audrey Rothman—SCTM#70-4-1
Joan F. Whelan —SCTM#123-3-20
Crab Cove, LLC—SCTM#3-2-4.3
Lee Kruter—SCTM#1 19-1-1
TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to move that?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under Resolutions and Administrative Permits, what we try and do,
most of these are very simple, we have not had any problems with them, and we try to
lump them all together to move things along instead of addressing each one individually
and going through everything. It's time saving. We'll pull out two, there will be some
discussion on number eight and number ten, there will be discussion on. So I'll make a
motion we approve one, two, three, four, five, six, seven and nine. They are listed as
follows:
Number one, ALBERT PALUMBO requests an Administrative Permit to install a split-rail
fence along the side property lines from the front of house to street. Located: 1095
Aquaview Ave., East Marion.
Number two, ALEX HILLENBRAND requests an Administrative Permit to abandon
existing sanitary system and install new sanitary system further landward. Located: 50
Lupton Point Rd., Mattituck.
Number three, BARBARA BODKIN requests an Administrative Permit to remove a
dead tree with the stump to remain. Located: 610 Bayview Dr., East Marion.
Number four, DANIEL McGOVERN requests an Administrative Permit to construct two
(2) groundlevel decks (side by side) 8'X 12' and 12'X 26'. Smaller deck at base of steps
and larger deck across back of house. Located: 830 Oak Ave., Southold.
Number five, DIANE & HENRY HOBBS request an Administrative Permit to construct a
4'X 5' freestanding outdoor shower with appropriate drywell. Located: 800 Sterling Rd.,
Cutchogue.
Number six, Twin Fork Landscape Contracting on behalf of JOINT BOARD OF
ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES EDUCATION & CULTURAL HOLDINGS requests an
Administrative/Ten-Year Maintenance Permit for periodic beach maintenance, clean-up
and removal of debris. Located: 3800 Duck Pond Rd., Cutchogue.
Number seven, Chris Rivera on behalf of TOM & IRENE KALOGERAS_ requests an
Administrative Permit to construct second-story dormers onto the existing garage.
Located: 700 Sound Beach Dr., Mattituck.
And number nine, LEE & MARIE BENINATI request an Administrative Permit/Ten-Year
Maintenance to hand-cut Common Reed (Phragmites australis) to 12" in height by hand,
as needed. Located: 855 Oakwood Court, Southold.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number eight is JON KERBS requests an Administrative Permit to
install a 4' high split-rail fence with wire mesh. Located: 430 Riley Ave., Mattituck.
We all went out and looked at this and the only recommendation we had is it's a
fence on either side of the property that's going down to the vegetation on the water side.
The applicant plans on just stopping the fence there but in the event that he may have
to fence across the property, parallel with the water line, he's going to back the fence ten
Board of Trustees 4 May 16, 2012
feet landward up into the yard for us so he's not so close to the vegetation. So that's
the change he made for that. He was there and agreed to that, so there is no problem.
So I'll make a motion to approve with those stipulations.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number ten, Mark K. Schwartz, Architect on behalf of
SUSAN MAGRINO DUNNING requests an Administrative Permit to
remove the waste from the existing septic located on the water side of
the dwelling and fill with clean sand as per the Suffolk County Dept. of
Health requirements. Located: 925 Stephenson Rd., Orient.
This was a request to fill in an abandoned cesspool to County
Health Code requirements, and the Trustees in reviewing the site
plan felt that there should be established a non-disturbance
buffer for the native vegetation that exists from the beach up
into the property. So during the course of the field inspection
we set flags out to establish on the survey the non-disturbance
buffer. So based on the review of the whole Board in the field,
I would -- and also concerns that we don't have heavy equipment
on the beach in this area, I would make a motion to approve this
application subject to filling in the currently abandoned
cesspool to County Health Department requirements by hand.
Pumping it out and filling it in but without equipment on the
beach. And to place on the survey of the property a
non-disturbance buffer at the indicated area where the flags
were placed by the Trustees, the area seaward of that, to be put
in a restrictive covenant for the property so it remains in its
native state and not disturbed. So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just a question. I know we planted stakes out
There, but I would feel more comfortable if they were depicted,
that line was depicted on a set of plans, because those stakes
will disappear shortly. So rather than in the motion having it
conform with a set of stakes that are just temporary stakes, I
would rather see that line on a set of plans, if possible.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I appreciate that. I thought I would sort of
put it in those words, but to clarify, absolutely, that those
flags be placed on a licensed land survey that would be part and
parcel to the restrictive covenant so there would be a map
reference for the restrictive covenant going forward. Thank you,
Dave. So moved.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: We have one more postponement that I missed.
Number 11 on page three, John E. Jones on behalf of OLD ORCHARD
HOMEOWNERS ASSOC, requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit#7464 and Coastal Erosion Permit#7464C to
include the beach seating on the deck, install barrier and
terrace to stop erosion, and provide for small boat storage.
Located: 550 South Lane, East Marion, is postponed.
We won't be addressing that tonight, either.
Board of Trustees 5 May 16, 2012
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under Applications for Extensions, Transfers and Administrative
Amendments; basically the same thing, we try and lump them together if we don't have
any issues with any of them. Fortunately they all look very straightforward and simple so
I would make a motion to approve numbers one through ten under Applications for
Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments. They are listed as follows:
Number one, JOSEPH MANZI, JR. requests the last One-Year Extension to Wetland
Permit#7160, as issued on August 19, 2009. Located: 355 Midway Rd., Southold.
Number two, MARY MANZI requests the last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit
#7161, as issued on August 19, 2009. Located: 405 Cedar Point Dr. West, Southold.
Number three, Garrett A. Strang, Architect on behalf of RENATE HERTEL requests a
One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7330, as issued on June 16, 2010. Located:
205 Cedar Point Dr. West, Southold.
Number four, THOMAS CASSIDY requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#1860 from
Francis Romano to Thomas Cassidy, as issued on August 31, 1984. Located: 280
Beebe Dr., Cutchogue.
Number five, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of KENNETH & ELIZABETH
LESTRANGE requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7408 to allow
construction of a 15' stone retaining wall extension to the west end of existing vinyl
retaining wall. Located: 960 Willis Creek Dr., Mattituck.
Number six, John Wysoczanski on behalf of RONALD FURMAN requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7498 to reposition pool fence. Located:
1455 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck.
Number seven, Amy Martin/Fairweather& Brown on behalf of PETER & MARY
KORNMAN requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7742 to
construct an attached garage landward of the existing dwelling and a new dormer onto
existing 1 %story of dwelling. Located: 1077 Bay Home Rd., Southold.
Number eight, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of RICHARD E.
WRIGHT requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7703 to remove all reference to
the existing 9' buffer on the adjacent property. Located: 410 Atlantic Ave., Greenport.
Number nine, Amend Resolution dated February 22, 2012 to read as follows:
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees APPROVES the application of
JOHN &AMELIA WOOD to replace 131' of existing wooden bulkhead with a vinyl
bulkhead installed adjacent and inland of existing bulkhead and to be tied into
neighboring bulkhead; remove old bulkhead by cutting pilings at or near grade,
preserving existing wetland substrate; remove and replace existing brick walkway on
sand bed and leveling as needed; and install a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the
landward side of the bulkhead. Located: 3150 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck.
And number ten, JOSEPH & ELIZABETH BRITTMAN request an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit#7747 to install an 18'X 36' on-grade pervious patio and
a 12'x 30' extension to the existing gravel driveway. Located: 80 Glenn Rd., Southold.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: On number 12, En-Consultants on behalf of NORTH
FORK BEACH CONDOMINIUM requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit#7423 to authorize the replacement of the
previously approved layout of the stairway and deck with a new
layout consisting of a 6'X 6' top landing; 6'X 13' stairs; 8'X .
12' deck; 6'X 7' stairs over revetment; 6'X 6' bottom landing;
and 6'X 12' shore-parallel stairs to beach off bottom landing.
Board of Trustees 6 May 16, 2012
Located: 52325 County Rd. 48, Southold.
There, again, I don't think we had any issues with it. But we will take a roll
call vote on this one. I would make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?We'll take a roll call vote. Mike Domino?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Ghosio?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aye.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll vote nay due to the size of the deck,
because of the size of the deck as proposed does not conform
with code.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll vote aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: So the vote is four to one. Carried.
VI. MOORINGS:
TRUSTEE KING: On the moorings, I don't think so we had an issue
with any of the moorings either.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll approve one through six and we'll have a
discussion on number seven. I'll make a motion to approve one
through six under Moorings. They are listed as follows:
Number one, CAROLYN PEABODY & DIANE JOHNSON request an
Onshore/Offshore Stake Permit in Narrow River for a 9' boat,
replacing Stake#19. Access: Public
Number two, TOM & MARY MORGAN request an Onshore/Offshore Stake
Permit in Narrow River for an 8' boat. Access: Public
Number three, SOLOMON HASSELNUSS requests a Mooring Permit in
Gull Pond for a 22' boat, replacing Mooring#16. Access: Public
Number four, ROBERT A. SCOTT requests a Mooring Permit in Goose
Creek for a 17' boat, replacing Mooring #228. Access: Public
Number five, FREDERICK KOKE requests an Onshore/Offshore Stake
Permit in Goose Creek for a 10' boat, replacing Stake#S55.
Access: Public
Number six, WILLIAM REIMER requests a Mooring Permit in
Mattituck Creek for a 26' boat, replacing Mooring #132. Access: Public
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: And number seven, DAVID KIREMIDJIAN requests a
Mooring Permit in Broadwaters Cove for a 31' sailboat, replacing
Mooring BC1. Access: Public
I believe we want to have a stern anchor on that also.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes,just so in an easterly wind the boat is not
blocking the channel going into the marina that is in there.
TRUSTEE KING: So it won't swing around.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to.approve with that stipulation.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Motion to go off public hearings and on to Public
Board of Trustees 7 May 16, 2012
Hearings.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Under public hearings, amendments, number one,
Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of JOAN PRAGER requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit#7552 and Coastal Erosion Permit#7552C to remove
the remains of the existing stairway; construct 100' of new rock revetment using 1 to 2
ton rocks; reconstruct top of bluff to tip top edge; regrade and terrace slope; re-vegetate
slope with Cape American beach grass; provide a 15' wide non-turf buffer top of bluff;
provide 1' high berm within buffer and revegetate with native plantings such as Rosa
Rugosa planted 18" on center and Bayberry planted 4' on center; construct new stairway
to beach in-place of existing stairway; and provide a 4'X 9' cleared mulched path
between upper platform and backyard. Located: 39823 Main Rd., Orient.
We have been out there. As you can see, we have a picture here of some storm
damage. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection for this
amendment, and therefore no recommendation was made. It's been found consistent by
the LWRP coordinator. I want to see if there are any notes on it at all.
TRUSTEE KING: (inaudible).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Jim was just mentioning this was an amendment
due to a,DEC application that has been revised as per DEC
conditions. Aside from that it was approved by us in the past.
and there is really nothing, we had no problem with it, so. Is
there anybody here like to make comment on this application?
MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costello. If the Board had any
other questions, you did issue a permit for a small bulkhead
armored with rock. The DEC would not allow the bulkhead so what
we had to do is we had to plant, put some terracing on the cliff
in order to try and get it revegetated. So we will be tipping
the bluff, try to retain all the soils in the terracing and
revegetate. I think it's probably--they think it's a better
project, God bless them.
TRUSTEE KING: Time will tell.
MR. COSTELLO: Let's try to get it done. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there anybody else here who would like to address this
application?
(No response).
Anybody on the Board have any comments?
(No response).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 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
for amendment as applied.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
Board of Trustees 8 May 16, 2012
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Docko, Inc., on behalf of LEONARD ORR
an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7315 and Coastal Erosion Permit
#7315C to remove 255 linear feet of concrete seawall and
construct 255 linear feet of new reinforced, cast-in-place
concrete seawall with new reinforced, cast-in-place
concrete footing, 275 cy. Over 2,750 square feet and establish a
10' wide non-turf buffer landward of the new seawall all at and
landward of the high tide line; place 35 cy., 80 tons of stone
shoreline protection along the face of the new wall water of the
apparent high tide line and landward of mean high water.
Located: Private Rd. Off Equestrian Ave., Fishers Island.
This was found consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation
Advisory Council did not make an inspection of this, therefore
no recommendation was made. Is there anyone here to speak on
behalf of or against this application?
MR. NIELSON: My name is Keith Nielson, Docko, Inc., Mystic,
Connecticut, speaking on behalf of the Orr application. I prepared
the application documents before you tonight and we discussed this
at a meeting a couple months ago. And I believe you had a chance to
look at the site now and formulate your opinions.
It turns out that where we had proposed removing the
southeasterly corner or easterly corner of this wall and
utilizing armor stone to make a more natural slope, the DEC
would not approve the project that way and they would not
- approve armor stone in front of the existing wall. They -
suggested, as did the Department of State, that we go back and
rebuild the entire wall in place.
So we went out there and did some test hole, came up with
some design parameters for retaining the existing soil and it
turns out that the reason that the wall is so tender at this
point is because the thickness of the concrete on the face,
while it's about a foot, and the reinforcement is in place, it
was attached to actually to refacing of a stone wall, and so the
connection between the concrete and the former stone wall is
tenuous at this point, to say the least, and the objective here
is to get this rebuilt before it collapses into the waters and
the wetlands.
The revised drawing will also show a curving corner instead
of a hard corner, to minimize the amount of wave reflection
along the face, and otherwise the design parameters and the
other issues addressed in the previous application are pretty
much the same.
If there are any questions, I would be happy to answer
them. Our application contains all the necessary certifications
and information required by the LWRP and the various
applications for the state.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm curious. What was the predominant
reason of the DEC staff for not allowing the armoring;just because it
would simply involve the vegetative wetlands?
MR. NIELSON: Well, actually, we had avoided the wetlands by that
curving approach in the corner and there would not have been any
Board of Trustees 9 May 16, 2012
filling of that wetlands. Their sole objection to it was new
fill beyond five feet in front of the existing wall. They will
allow us to, after we pour this new wall, they will allow a line
of large stone and boulders, not in the wetlands but in the area
between the wetlands, in the area of the dock and such, out to
about five feet, but they would not allow us to go out the ten
feet that we had shown before.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any questions? Anybody else have any
comments?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: We were out there on the 20th of April. I just had
in the field notes to include that pool fence, the pool fence
there, upland.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, was that a split rail or modified --
MR. NIELSON: There was a split rail through the yard, right back
in here.
TRUSTEE KING: So we'll just include that so it's included on
part of the permit so it's an included structure.
MR. NIELSON: Thank you. And this design approach does include
your ten-foot, non-turf buffer, bayberries and beach plums will
be planted there.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had any issues with that. Just
include the pool fence, just to get it on the record.
MR. NIELSON: Yes.
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 the application as
submitted with the inclusion of the fence that is on the
property that is in our jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Docko, Inc., on behalf of PETER
SCHWAB requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7629 and Coastal
Erosion Permit#7629C to place new scour protection stone, 25+/-
cy. over 250+/- square feet along the waterward face of the
concrete seawall. Located: Hedge St., Fishers Island.
Once again, we are on Fishers Island. I know we issued a
permit:This is just a slight modification to it. (Perusing).
The Conservation Advisory Council doesn't say--
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jack, there is nothing here from the
Conservation Advisory Council.
MR. MCGREEVEY: On?
TRUSTEE KING: Peter Schwab, Fishers Island. You probably didn't
look at it.
MR. MCGREEVEY: No.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll just make a note no inspection. Anyone here
to speak on behalf or against this application?
MR. NIELSON: Again, Keith Nielson from Docko, Inc., on behalf of
Board of Trustees 10 May 16, 2012
the application. I prepared the application documents based on
discussions at our last meeting when the pier and deck
reconstruction project was approved, and the contractor had made
a recommendation that some armor stone be added to the base of
the existing concrete wall, which would be very similar to what
is shown in your photograph, even though that is on the Greevy
(sic) property. So that is the basis for the application
amendment that we have here before you. Just to let you know,
the DEC has determined they want a new permit. They were not
willing to amend the other permit. So we are starting over
there and Mr. Schwab is not too happy with me on that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We had no concerns on this one.
TRUSTEE KING: What was this date change on this?
MS. STANDISH: What do you mean?
TRUSTEE KING: On this, the Board of Trustees, April 18th, we
approved this a while ago, if I remember right.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Last summer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Probably the September meeting when this was
approved originally.
TRUSTEE KING: This was approved August 24, 2011. So actually
that should be the date of the letter, right?
MS. STANDISH: I'm not sure. I have to look (Perusing). It was
approved in the May meeting.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The original application was approved in August.
TRUSTEE KING: August, 2011.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Today is May 16.
MS. STANDISH: Sorry, I put it on for today. This is a-note to myself to put it on.
That is incorrect, I made a note.
TRUSTEE KING: So it's August 22nd, right?
MS. STANDISH: Right
TRUSTEE KING: There we go. Any other comments? Board?
Questions?
(No response).
Anybody else?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. NIELSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KING: You're batting a thousand tonight.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That brings us up to Wetland and Coastal Erosion
permits. Number one, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of WEE
HOUSE PARTNERS/EDGAR J. SMITH, JR. requests a Wetland Permit and
Coastal Erosion Permit to re-stack fallen stone and recap
concrete seawall and repair existing 10'X 111' timber dock and
Board of Trustees 11 -May 16, 2012
jetties. Located: 650 Bay Lane, Orient.
This is a holdover from last month. And just to review, it
was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council and they
supported the application, however the plan did not include the
actual length of the wall being repaired as well as the
dimensions of the dock.
The Conservation Advisory Council recommended that the dock
is repaired using non-treated lumber because the dock is outside
the extent of the repair should conform to code. And also to
review, it was found consistent under the LWRP.
Now, I know last month when we opened this hearing there
was extensive conversation about this structure, and in
particular the part of the structure or part of the dock to the,
I'll call it to the south that was a wave break, I think it's
how it was described, and then some offshore mooring dolphins. I
know, again, we went out in the field this month to inspect this
property. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore on behalf of Wee House Partners.
I also have with me the partners Susanne Smith and Edgar Smith;
joint partners.
Mr. Kelly, who is the adjacent property owner that benefits also
from the dock, is here in support because activity on the wave
breaks, any activity on the wave breaks are really included for
his benefit as well. So he definitely wants_to be here to listen.
We have, I have the partners here who are prepared to
testify. You have already heard this dock has been there for a
very long time, prior to DEC, prior to Trustees jurisdiction.
It has been there for at least 41 years in the time that Mr.
Smith has been on the property. And the pile cluster equally
has been used and been there for about 41 years. So everything
there has remained pretty much as is for many, many years. I
think, you know, we want-- do you want a dialogue, or how would
you like to deal with some issues and questions?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If we could just to clear up one other matter
before we get to the dock structure. The CAC's concern about the
project description did not include the length of the stack
stone repair, to restack the falling stone. If we could just say
it's limited to the property boundaries of the applicant.
MS. MOORE: Actually, the adjacent property is Smith. That's
them. It's just not in the Wee House Partners' ownership.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I'm saying, we can't approve
something on a neighbor's property. So if we can limit the
repair of the fallen stone to the Wee House Partners' property,
that will address that issue that the CAC rightfully brought up.
Because we can't issue a permit to another piece of property.
MS. MOORE: No, because the stones, they are bordering right
There, so it would make sense if you have the guys there fixing
the stones, you don't have this arbitrary red line that crosses,
so if you would like us to, you know, I think Bob Fox drew it up
this way with kind of an approximate of where the stones were,
but I would not want the contractors to suddenly stop because I
have the boundary line. So if you would like, after the
Board of Trustees 12 May 16, 2012
hearing, I can provide for the Board,'s you know, paperwork,
consent from the adjacent owner, which is the same owner, to
prepare it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Actually, the adjacent owners would have to
apply for it. They would have to come in for an application for
their property, like any property owner would. If they would
like to do that, obviously they have every right to do that. And
I'm just surmising we'll look at it favorably as we are this
one. It's just we can't give a permit to another property owner
without them applying for it, that's all. I just want to clear
that up.
MS. MOORE: I don't necessarily agree with you. I think with
consent of the property owner that you can have repairs that go
beyond the line. If, for example, the DEC, when you have a
bulkhead that is being repaired and connecting, let's say it's
going beyond the property line, the DEC asks for consent of the
owner of the property because, of the adjacent property because
it's overlapping the property line. So it's being paid for and
being done by the primary property owner but because of boundary
line issues, a consent is all the DEC ever requires, and I would
say similarly that is all you would require as well. But.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it depends how long it is.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I mean I'm looking at the plan view here.
It goes pretty far along on both adjoining pieces of property,
both Smith and Vanderwater. Vanderwater on the plan looks okay
but I don't know if they also want to face the same decision.
MS. MOORE: I don't think any of the work that is proposed is on
the northeast side. I think all the work-- Edgar, can you confirm
this for me?
MR. SMITH: You are correct. The Vanderwater property is now
owned by Mr. Kelly. So you have all the owners of all the
properties and --
MS. MOORE: What we can do, any rocks that need to be put back,
if you take the consent of both property owners, it's stacking.
It's just rock stacking and repair, so. I'll do whatever you
want. Obviously, I don't want to cause trouble, you know, or be
difficult. It's just we don't need to make such a big process
out of something that is'so simple.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right, that takes us to the structure of the
dock and the timber jetty and the pile clusters.
MS. MOORE: Did I get an answer from you, is consent sufficient?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think historically the Board has required
separate applications. We don't have counsel here.
TRUSTEE KING: By scale it looks like it's about 20 feet on either property.
MS. MOORE: On the adjacent? I could talk to Lori and if it's
okay with her, would you accept it? If not, I'll come in with an
application if it extends beyond the property line. It's your
call. As long as it's on the record.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Why don't we go work on the rest of it and maybe
Lori will, I know we are expecting her any moment now, maybe she
will come in.
MS. MOORE: The poor girl will walk in, no forewarning, but okay,
that's fine.
Board of Trustees 13 May 16, 2012
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now that gets us to the timber dock, timber
jetty and the pile clusters. And as I stated, we did go out and
looked at these. And this is a tough situation because this is a, you know,
nonconforming structure, obviously built, as you alluded to, many years ago,
and we know when we rebuild nonconforming structures we try to bring them
into conformance. Here we have a case where there is repairs being asked for but
they are permitting in the structure in order to do those repairs because it's a
non-permitted structure. So the applicants are doing the right thing with
coming in and applying for a permit to permit in the structure. It's just, again,
this month, and other Trustees can certainly chime in, but from what
I gathered from our conversation out there, we still had a very,
it's still very challenging for us to include in what is listed
here as a timber jetty to the north that extends beyond, if you
extend the property line out--
MS. MOORE: The south line, not the north line.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, sorry. The south one. Say towards the yacht
club, toward Bud Light. As well as those pile clusters. So
again, I feel like that was the general feeling of the Trustees
was that we had a real issue with those parts of the structure.
MS. MOORE: I understand.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that's a true description of the
situation. The three-pile cluster as it is, scales out to be 160
feet from the seawall, so it is additionally, a good distance on
the order of I guess 60 feet from the timber dock itself. So
there is a huge footprint of this structure, which is probably
if not the largest dock that I have ever seen in 13 years on the
Board, one of the largest I have ever seen coming in for an
approval, um, such that, and I think it should be put into a
context with the dock itself. The dock itself, at 111 feet is
somewhat larger than the original state grant from the state
property office, but within that"L" of the dock it would be
quite easy to house, if you will, a dock, rather two 30-foot
vessels. You could, depending how creative you are, because the
depths are very substantial, if you take from the two-and-a-half
foot contour out to the "L"at three-and-a-half feet you could
probably put two 31-foot Egg Harbors in there with proper, you
know, fendering and proper tying. The timber jetty to the north
then would be an asset, of course, to protect boats that are
within that dock structure. And a wave break on the face to the
seaward would similarly, and that doesn't even count the
potential for any neighborly docking that I know has been the
history there between neighbors Jack Kelly and Mr. Smith have
enjoyed. So my feelings go exactly to those of Dave's, I think
it's extremely problematic to have a timber jetty that extends
across the property line of another. I think neighborly, this is
a great thing. I lived in Orient almost my entire life, and it's
something to be appreciated. I had the use of a large dock
growing up. But as a Trustee I'm very concerned that we now
grant a permit with that wave break which seemingly goes so much
against our current standards that future property owners would
come to a board and have a permit problem with a permit we might
issue. Now, if something could run with the land, restrictive
covenants, one to the other, the relationship, such that it runs
Board of Trustees 14 May 16, 2012
with the property so there is no question with what the property
owners intend and what this Board feels, 1•think that's a
consideration. But otherwise, speaking for myself, I have a
problem with both those structures as transecting and going way
beyond the code, given that the structure has been maintained
and looks like they totally honored, the owners have honored the
state grant, I don't have a real problem with the width of
the dock or the current extension of the "L" itself because it
seems to me to meet all those attributes. We realize the DEC
would not grant a permit for a 65-foot long structure in this
day and age because of not meeting the two-and-a-half foot
standard depth that they require.
MS. MOORE: I appreciate your comments. I do want to point out if
you take the, I mean I have the same aerial, if you scan the
aerial down to the south, and go out, you can see that when you
are looking in the context of, I mean you can see it actually
better this way. When you see the, you have Orient club, what is
it called, the yacht club, wharf house, you have, this is a
huge, a substantial structure. It is dwarfed by these even
though Mr. Smith's structure historically, based on today's
standards is a large structure, it is dwarfed by the wharf
there. So in relation to that particular code, that area, it
really isn't that large. It's all in relation to the rest of the
structures that are in that cove. You can also see the structure
just to the south of it is a larger one that, I mean I have the
aerial. I don't know-- does it have that structure there? I
don't know. I have an aerial that shows it. I don't know
what you have there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is the yacht club right there.
MS. MOORE: I'm missing one there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's not there. It's gone.
MS. MOORE: I went out to see, okay, well from this date to that
date, I don't know. Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a local Orient trustee, I don't want to get
out in front of you, that's very true, as far as scaling. But
you have to recognize the wharf was an historic wharf that
shipped multiple thousands of tons of vegetables to New York
City to feed the city and took multiple thousands of tons of
horse manure to run the farms. And there is a state grant is
similar to the Smith grant, the state grant, so the scaling also
has to be put into context to that. That this is state bottom
land and predominant interests of the state being what they are,
the state has already also made some determinations. But a
Board of Trustees, which apparently the prior Board, had also
granted a permit with restrictions that included removing the
pile cluster. You know, it's within our discretion. It's a
discretionary issue here.
MS. MOORE: I'm not saying it's not within your discretion. I
agree. However the environmental, the damage you do to removing
a 40 or at least 50-year old structure, pile clusters, you
probably have more stability under those piles than to take them
out, and you are now disturbing. So you are undermining your
own purpose and regulations. My client uses that as a tie off
Board of Trustees 15 May 16, 2012
and then because, as you know, the outside of this timber dock
is useless with the wave action. So they actually tie it to the
pile cluster, and he then takes his small craft rowboat and goes
out to a moored vessel. So it's been in use and it's been useful
for that purpose. It doesn't house a large boat that, you know,
takes up any more space. So it just seems to me you have to
honor existing, particular structures that have been there for
so many years, I think you do more damage to remove them. That
is as to the pile cluster.
The timber jetty, I am happy to address that. I did speak
to Mr. Smith of Wee House Partners and Mr. Kelly and we could
certainly draw up an agreement that says that it's understood
that the timber jetty is for the benefit of both Wee House and
Mr. Kelly's property because it does provide protection for
those, for Mr. Kelly's marine structures as well as any boats
that would be docked on the inside.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: When I said restrictive covenant, I didn't
say agreement.
MS. MOORE: It's the same thing, agreement or covenant.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Something that is recorded with the
property.
MS. MOORE: I'm using the same terminology.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Would certainly, if it's something that would
pass muster with the attorneys so a future Board of Trustees is
not looking down the barrel of a neighbor who wants to alter
their dock and has objection to the existing timber jetty or
wave break potentially.
MS. MOORE: Right. I think, as you said, it's a covenant that
would actually benefit both properties, so it's understood the
person who buys Mr. Kelly's property, that wave break,is.actually
a protection for them as well. So it seems, that's not a
problem. That's easily addressed. And it's a benefit, it's a
logical determination by this Board to allow it and have it
functional.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: When you are talking a mutual benefit, it's
similar to if a new applicant would try to develop docking
facilities that were shared as part of a subdivision or another
planning process, where there would be rules that the community
knows, in this case adjoining property owners would understand
and not--
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think there is also an opportunity here,
because I understand the concern for a wave break, particularly
when you consider the fetch build up from Shelter Island all
the way over to this location. There is an opportunity for a
wave break to be constructed right along the dock. But without
putting, in other words remove that timber jetty and incorporate
a wave break into the structure of the dock so that it functions
the same way. The goal here, as I understand it, is to stop the
waves from going in and attacking any vessels tied --
MR. SMITH: If I may, it was there before. It was all broken up
by storms.
MS. MOORE: I would agree, the wave breaks along the west side of
the timber dock, the fixed dock, would be very helpful, but at
Board of Trustees 16 May 16, 2012
the time this was built some 40, 50, 60 years ago -- 60 years
ago, there was somebody knew more than we did that they thought
the timber jetty also with wave breaks, would also provide
protection. So the design of it was thought through at the time
when there was a lot more, I would say even commercial activity
out there in Orient.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I would agree with what you said. I'm sure
at the time, adding another wave break, so to speak, in the form
of a timber jetty, did assist with a wave break issue. But what
we are saying here, you heard the Board has an issue, has a
challenge with this timber jetty that is proposed on here. So
if the goal here is a wave break, what I'm suggesting is just
incorporate the wave break into that dock structure itself and
you now have a wave break for boats to tie up to the north side
to assist with breaking up the waves to the north side. The
other issue with that pile cluster, particularly the one Trustee
Bredemeyer had mentioned, that is approximately give or take a
couple of feet, 60 feet off the timber dock, we saw in the one
picture there, it looked like there was a line going from that
pile cluster to that dock. And that's, you know, I think that's
excessive. I know we have in docks, we have in docks on the bays
in some locations allowed for a tie off pile, but certainly
nothing 60 feet away extending that far out into the bay.
MS. MOORE: Understand, we didn't have to do anything to the pile
cluster, so that is staying. That was not part of this
application. If they wanted to replace the pile cluster with a
pile, a suitable size pile closer in to,.so he can still
maneuver, use the tie off, I mean I guess that's a possibility.
It seems to me, I don't want to say a waste of money in the
sense you are removing a very good, stable--
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But where I'm going, and I'm just one, I don't
know how the other four up here feel about this, if the tie-off
pile was ten feet off, or, I'm just using an arbitrary number
here, that is a lot less of the bay that is being interfered
with by this line and tie-off system, et cetera. It's impeding
navigation for kayaks and small boats, whatever it is, and I'm
just trying to find some type of reasonable accommodation that
can perform the function of a tie-off but at the same time try
and eliminate the hazard to navigation.
MR. SMITH: Edgar Smith,Wee House Partners. I just want to make
sure I understand the colloquy concerning the jetty that just
occurred five minutes ago. Do I understand that you would permit
the jetty to continue as a part of your approval process on the
understanding that Mr. Kelly and Wee House Partners would enter
into some kind of covenant and, if you want to put in the
covenant we would put wave breaks down because that would indeed
be protective of both the Kelly property and ours.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not sure what I said the whole Board is
comfortable with.
MR. SMITH: I'm asking because I can't figure out whether we are
dealing with two give ups or one with an adjustment. Do you
understand? Am I making myself clear? I hope.
MS. MOORE: There was a question, and let me just get your
Board of Trustees 17 May 16, 2012
feedback, the pile cluster, because you need that tie off, if
that was, arguably, whatever the distance is that you need, ten,
15, whatever the number is, I don't know what it is, to move a
pile here so you have the tie-off rather than the pile cluster
that is here?
MR. SMITH: You certainly could do that.
MS. MOORE: Okay, there is willingness to do that.
MR. SMITH: It is physically possible to do it.
MS. HULSE: This is actually, it's difficult to have testimony
taken because they are having a separate conversation than this
conversation and I don't know what Wayne is recording right now.
MS. MOORE: He's taking ours.
MS. HULSE: Is this part of the testimony of the public hearing,
this conversation?
MS. MOORE: Yes, it's to find out if he would accept a pile-that
is removing the pile cluster that is there and been there a long
time, and replace it with a pile that allows for a tie-off the
way he's always had, but nearer to the--
MS. HULSE: I'm just asking if that's a conference between you
and your client or if this is part of the testimony.
MS. MOORE: No, it's for the record. I want him to say yes or no.
And I think the answer is yes.
MR. SMITH: The question is whether it was feasible. And yes, it
clearly would be feasible. It would significantly diminish the
ability to put a boat there because of the diminished freeway
between the piling and the dock. I would, with your permission,
I would like to know whether the Trustees, what is the Trustees'
position with regard to the jetty?
TRUSTEE KING: My position is I think the non-functional timber
jetty should be removed and I think the three-pile cluster
should be removed and moved landward if it's replaced.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's my preferred position. I think it
keeps it neatest and cleanest.
TRUSTEE KING: That's where I'm coming from.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And since a former Board has also made a
determination to have the pile cluster removed as part of the
permit process, I think it's something to give some additional
consideration.
MS. MOORE: But they were not touching the jetties. Now you are
asking to touch the jetties as well. And those have also been
historically there. And I take great objection to that in the
sense that all throughout your legislative process we have all,
I have been very vocal about preserving the historic rights of
property owners. And, um, this functions very well as is. And
the --you know, it seems like you are taking away--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, it would seem if Mr. Jack Kelly were
the owner of that wave break and that it was not part and not
.attached to the dock of Mr. Smith and we were to come in with
his own application for the'wave break, as the owner of the
water, because it's over the extension of his property line,
then it would be his structure and it would be his permit. It
would be something that would be with his property.
MS. HULSE: Just to clarify, Jay, the application seeks to.repair
Board of Trustees 18 May 16, 2012
the existing jetty. Part of the application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, part of the application. But I'm just
saying, in other words--
MS. MOORE: We are willing to do that. I'm not going to have my
client or Mr. Kelly go through a fruitless effort of coming back
to essentially put, you know, fix the jetties, because they
don't need replacement, I think they are repairs, and add wave
breaks_to the jetty so that they are more, you know, they work
in the way that they were originally intended. But if the Board
is of the mind that, no, you know, we don't like these wave
breaks, we don't care who makes the application, then why waste
the time? I'm telling you now that Mr. Kelly is here and he's
willing to put on the record that, yes, he wants to see it kept
and the Wee House Partners are willing to fix it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just a point of clarification. At this time
I think we recognized the request to repair the wave break is of
course with this application of Wee House Partners, but I didn't
see a connection between the four pilings and the dock. Or did I
miss something. Is there a physical connection? I didn't see a
connection.
MS. MOORE: They are physically connected.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They are, okay.
MS. MOORE: So it would not make any sense to build a wave break
independently of the dock. It just--
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think what we have to do is move this
conversation along a little bit. And I'll just start by saying
for myself, I do not feel comfortable approving the southern
timber jetty as part of this project, and I don't feel
comfortable with that outer pile cluster, 60 foot offshore, or
excuse me, 60 foot off the end of the dock, at its current
R location. I think that needs to be pulled in. That's my opinion
on this. And if other Trustees would like to chime in, feel
free.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I have to echo those sentiments.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments from anybody else on
this project?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll just point out,just because you see me
playing over here, I'm looking at the aerials, Suffolk County
aerials. I can only go back as 1962. When we looked at 1969, so
you know what I'm doing here, 1969 there is no wave breaks
there. I don't see any pile cluster either. That doesn't show up
until, 1978, for whatever reason. But in 1984 it shows up. So it
looks like it was built somewhere either in the late 70s or
early 80s.
MS. MOORE: Prior to your jurisdiction, though.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And then the pile shows up.
MS. MOORE: It was definitely there prior to DEC jurisdiction in
1977 because that was proven to the DEC.
MR. SMITH: I just want to go on record, I don't know what it is
you are looking at, Mr. Ghosio, but we purchased the property in
'71. The other property in '71. The adjoining property in '71.
The pilings have been there, the cluster pilings have been there
forever, as far as I know.
Board of Trustees 19 May 16, 2012
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What I'm looking at, to answer your question,
this is the Suffolk County GIS, I guess. It has all the aerials
that were taken in Suffolk County for government purposes, going
back to 1947. I'm able to pull up some older aerials.
MS. MOORE: In the time he has been there, and their history,
it's always been there, so. There is no doubt that it's been
there certainly before the Trustees had jurisdiction and the DEC
had jurisdiction, so whether it was in the 40s or in the 50s,
or, you know, it was prior to the Board's jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience
who wanted to speak for or against this application?
(No response).
MS. MOORE: I just need clarification. The sentiments of the
Board are that the timber jetty, the southern timber jetty, is,
you don't want to approve repairs to that at this time, on this
application, correct?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We don't want to include it. We prefer to have
it removed. In other words we are considering a permit here that
would not include that structure. So it would be removed.
MS. MOORE: Okay. And the northern --the western side jetty,
there one on the west and one on the east. The larger one is the
one on the east that Mr. Kelly has been here at two meetings and
told you that it benefits him. And what I didn't hear from other
than one Board member is that if Mr. Kelly and Wee House
Partners come in together to repair that jetty, because it
benefits both of them, whether the Board would entertain it.
This is -- I guess just answer that question, if you could.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question is, what Trustee Bredemeyer had
discussed is the possibility of, in covenant and restrictions,
to have the property owner to the south include in their C&R's
that southern wave break/timber jetty. And I can just say for
myself I prefer to have the jetty removed and that outer tie-off
pile or cluster pile moved in and to incorporate some type of
wave break into the dock structure itself. So on the profile of
the dock there would be a modification there to include a wave
break.
MS. MOORE: But understand, I think Mr. Bredemeyer, I think in
the field, mentioned that the portion of the dock that is on the
east side, the area for the boat itself, to be able to put a
boat on the east side of the dock without it being damaged, or
effected by the wave action, needs the protection.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But unfortunately, Pat, and I have to move this
along, unfortunately with docks on the bay, anybody who has
docks on the bay, including you pointed out the Orient wharf,
you notice there are no boats on the eastern side there. There
is no slips on the eastern side. It's the wharf. And with docks
on the bay, you are not going to get a situation where there is
going to be total protection allowed on all sides for all
weather conditions. It's just inherent with having a dock on the
bay.
MS. MOORE: That just happens to be the place where the common,
by agreement or by sharing, somebody is being allowed to use
that space, and they seem to be comfortable, correct, that's the
Board of Trustees 20 May 16, 2012
mutual friend that has a boat on that side.
MR. SMITH: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. Any other comments from the
Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I just question the repairs to the seawall. Should
they be restricted just for this property and not for the
neighbor's property without them coming in for a permit.
MS. HULSE: Just for whose property?
MS. MOORE: Lori, what I have mentioned --
MS. HULSE: I know. But I've researched this and discussed it
with the Trustees.
MS. MOORE: Even though the DEC uses a consent form?
MS. HULSE: Yes.
MS. MOORE: Well, you guys always steal from the DEC the bad
things, I thought maybe this good thing would be acceptable. So
you propose to come in and do work on the Smith side of the
property line and you want Smith to come in.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, and the same thing for Vanderwater, if
there is anything needed for Vanderwater, for Vanderwater,to
come in. It sounded like Vanderwater is fine, though.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Before we go, I have a comment based on the
research I have been doing as I have been listening to the
testimony. And I don't think I'm necessarily inconsistent by
saying I have always looked at part of these applications, I
tend to look at the history, too. You guys heard me talk about
that. If it's been, if I could see it's historically been there,
I tend to be a little more lenient than I would be if it had not
been there for so long. Here is a case where I can see it's been
there for at least the last 60 years in terms of the main
structure. Then.I can see that the wave break or jetty, whatever
we want to call it, was added at some point in the 70's, based
upon what I could see from Suffolk County records. That means
it's been there for 30 years or more. I mean at this point
seeing how it's repairs, I'm not one that is apt to require to
remove it at this point. I would be more inclined to put a
stipulation in if it ever, and it will at some point, needs to
be replaced, then it needs to be brought up to current code as a
replacement. That's just my opinion. I know how the rest of you
guys feel. That's just what I wanted to say.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: How would your client feel about the pile
cluster being relocated 20 feet seaward of the outer edge of the
timber dock?
MS. MOORE: It's your call.
MR. SMITH: Gentlemen, I would agree with Trustee Bergen we need
to come to some kind of conclusion. I appreciate your comments,
Mr. Ghosio. I think what would be fair and reasonable and I was
about to say not arbitrary but I'm not sure that's true, would
be for us to keep the jetty, we'll put wave breaks on it
pursuant to a covenant agreement with Mr. Kelly, and we'll
remove the piling. But the cluster piling all together, I think
having, having the piling moved that close to the dock would not
work because the swinging action of a small boat that is
Board of Trustees 21 May 16, 2012
tethered between the dock and the piling, there would not be
enough turning radius, to use a car term. And so if the demand
of the Trustees, for what is otherwise a permitted use, would be
to remove the pile clusters, we would do that, but I would ask
you to do is permit the jetty to exist and we would put wave
break boards down and we'll try and work out how to put a small
boat there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If Lori is okay with restrictive covenants.
MS. HULSE: For the neighbor properties?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Neighbors to each other.
MS. HULSE: No.
TRUSTEE KING: I still think it should be removed. I don't think
it's functional.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So it should be a condition of the permit.
MS. MOORE: I could remove it from my permit and come back with a
separate application for the, to address the timber jetty.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are no other comments, I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Wee House Partners-Edgar Smith, with the stipulation that the
repair of the stack stone is contained within the Wee House
Partners property line, and to include the removal of the outer
pile cluster and allow for a tie-off piling 20 feet off the
outer end, seaward end of that dock, the removal of the timber
jetty to the south, and the addition of wave break structure to
the dock subject to receipt of plans that depict that as
described. And this was found consistent under the LWRP. So
that's my motion. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: I'll second that. All in favor?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Discussion on the motion. I don't know if
Mr. Smith has indicated he doesn't really want a single pile 20
feet out. I'm not sure we want to include it in, and cloud the
removal of the three-pile dolphin. But that's just a thought I
have. He may wish to have a different configuration for tie-off
pilings. I would not want to preempt his planning with respect
to tie-off piles could also accommodate a vessel on that seaward
side when the weather is nice and it might actually not have to
be 20 feet out. It could can 12 or 15 feet out depending on the
berth of the vessel. It's just a thought I had.
MS. MOORE: Please, come up here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, the hearing is closed. This is just a
discussion on the motion. My reason for proposing tie-off pile
20 feet off the seaward end of the dock is the applicant can
elect not to put one,in..
TRUSTEE GHOSIO`Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If he doesn't want one. But allows for one if he
wants it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: But the motion is to remove that cluster. And
what was the wave break.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And to allow a wave break.
TRUSTEE KING: You can build a wave break on the end of the dock
Board of Trustees 22 May 16, 2012
here.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: But remove the wave break to the south and
east.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Subject to receipt of plans that shows profiles
in particular of the new wave break, the additional wave break
structure on this dock. That's the motion, and I have a second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Domino, aye.
Trustee Bredemeyer, nay. Trustee Ghosio, nay).
TRUSTEE KING: The motion carries, three to two.
MS. MOORE: Can I just get a clarification of what you said.
Because you said remove the southeasterly jetty.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The southeasterly timber jetty, that is removed.
MS. MOORE: You didn't say anything about the northwest.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Nope.
MS. MOORE: Fine. Okay, thank you. And I'll get you a new
drawing.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Was there wording in there on that ,non-treated
lumber?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's in our standards.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's in the code.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing is in the matter of J.M.O.
Environmental Consulting on behalf of WILLIAM L. HANLEY, JR.
requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to restore
a damaged shoreline in various onsite locations; install 85' of
boulder barrier along the eroded shoreline consisting of 1-
2 ton stones placed on top of a 1' deep layer of stone chips on
filter fabric, and with a slope of 1:2-1:3; extend the existing
concrete seawall 38' and armor the extension with a boulder
barrier consisting of 1-2 ton stones placed on top of a 1' deep
layer of stone chips on filter fabric, and with a slope of
1:2-1:3. In the eastern portion of the site, install 50' of
boulder barrier consisting of 1-2 ton stones placed on top of a
1' deep layer of stone chips on filter fabric, and with a slope
of 1:2-1:3; and randomly place boulders and stones seaward of
the proposed barrier. In the northwestern portion of the site
install 35' of boulder barrier consisting of 1-2 ton stones
placed on top of a 1' deep layer of stone chips on filter
fabric, and with a slope of 1:2-1:3. Along the northern portion
armor/rearmor the existing concrete seawall by randomly placing
1-2 boulders and stones in the voids of the existing armoring.
Located: East End Rd., Fishers Island.
This is to repair extensive erosion of the easterly most
portion of Fishers Island. Do I have the right location here?
The Hanley job is the one all the way out at the point, right?
He's still setting up and didn't hear me.
MR. JUST: Sorry?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is the Hanley job is the one we are
hearing now, that's on the easterly portion --
MR. JUST: Yes
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We walked a number of sites on this where
the tropical store Irene had evulsed the shoreline and had
Board of Trustees 23 May 16, 2012
basically torn up and moved, safe to say hundreds if not
thousands of cubic yards of material. It was huge erosion. And
the project plan is rather extensive.
We met with the applicant. We walked the site. We didn't
have any problems with this construction. It didn't involve any
vegetative wetlands. It's restorative of what was the native
shoreline before Irene had really torn it up. And there.was
really, that was the, it was really no questions, it was
standard marine construction on each one of the sites.We had a
person from the DEC joining us on field inspections. I don't
believe I heard any concerns from them during the course of the
inspection. We had a question about the drain pipes but we found
they were roof runoff that is contained basically within the
stone area. There was a concern it might have been swimming pool
filter backwash, which we, subsequent to seeing you, I don't
know if you were aware, we checked it all out and found out it
was roof runoff and doesn't pose an issue for this particular
location. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of the application?
MR. JUST: Glenn Just, JMO Consulting. I'll try to keep my
comments brief, under five minutes or less. Again, we walked the
site three weeks ago. We showed surveys prior to the 1938
hurricane that the conditions really have not changed, except
after Irene. For a lot of damage to the boulder field, a lot of
boulders moved. And it's basically just a replacement of the
boulders where they were, and armoring on the north side where
the concrete seawall is,just placing some boulders in front of
it to break up the wave energy.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The LWRP coordinator did find this
consistent with LWRP so there is no issues with coastal
consistency. Any questions?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Make a motion to approve the application of
JMO Consulting on behalf of William Hanley, Jr., as submitted.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of
FISHERS ISLAND YACHT CLUB requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal
Erosion Permit to install a sub-surface sewage disposal system;
existing leaching pool to be pumped out and filled with sand;
new 1,500 gallon septic tank and a 500 gallon pump station tank
to be installed; and new tank and leaching field. Located:
Central Ave., Fishers Island.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. He also noted that
the sites are identified as occurring within the
archeo-sensitive area with a high probability of artifact
occurrence.
There is one letter in the file from a neighbor, Penelope
Board of Trustees 24 May 16, 2012
C. Sharp. I won't read the letter. The neighbor has two
concerns, essentially; one, that the septic system might
interfere with her septic system and also notes that an
archaeologist should be hired to evaluate the property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mike, what's the last name of the author's
letter?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Penelope C. Sharp.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We'll stipulate that the Sharp letter is entered
into the record in its entirety. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: There is no recommendation from the Conservation
Advisory Council as they did not do a field inspection. As I
recall, in our visitation, this was fairly straightforward.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we should probably review the
inconsistency.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It mentioned inconsistent because of the
archeo-sensitive area.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So we'll have to address that through
possibly a review by the appropriate rating agency that handles
the archaeological review.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone here to address this
application?
MR. JUST: Glenn Just, JMO Environmental Consulting. I'm unaware
of any archaeological historical concerns. I don't know if
that's based on the surface and square maps from years ago that
the public is not allowed to view, but regulatory agencies are.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is that because they don't want to have
unauthorized digs?
MR. JUST: So people don't steal artifacts.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because the Ferguson Museum on the Island is
the museum of record, but I don't know if to meet the
inconsistency we go through them or the New York State office.
MR. JUST: Quite frankly, John, I think Penny Sharp is part of
the museum. And this letter, you know, came out of left field
on me and I would be more, if you could send it to me, we could
put this application on hold, you know, for further review.
Because I do think it's a big plus. Actually, where the septic
system is, it's about--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Usually an archaeological dig in connection
with a septic system excavation is a doable event that can be
planned for to keep, I'm sure to accommodate the needs of--
MR. JUST: It's usually three stages. I think the first stage is
a literature check and second stage is someone actually goes out
and looks for artifacts.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With the museum right there I suspect the
community would cooperate and have a monitor at the site. Back
in the day I found remains on Shelter Island. Human remains.
It was an Indian.quarry.
MR. JUST: It's quite some time since something like this,
archaeological concerns is head on the project. I would be more
than happy to research that.
TRUSTEE KING: I think there was also, Glenn, in that list, did
she request it be moved further to the west also from her
property? That was something, another comment she made in the
Board of Trustees 25 May 16, 2012
letter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, approximately 20 feet to the west.
MR. JUST: What was the concern about that?
TRUSTEE KING: I guess she feels it's too close to her property.
MR. JUST: Again, we could deal with that. There was, at one
point, the church there, they thought there was a little kettle
hole, and we went there after you guys left, with Bob Marsh and
we couldn't find anything. So. I'm sure we could move the whole
system 20 or 30 feet, if needed.
TRUSTEE KING: We can table this until you find out what is going
on with the dig or whatever.
MR. JUST: We are not proceeding any quicker with the Health
Department or DEC, so it would not be a headache for us.
TRUSTEE KING: Because that letter came in kind of late in the
game. Why don't we table it tonight.
MR. JUST: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay. Is there anyone else to speak to this?
(No response).
If not, I'll make a motion to table this application.
MR. JUST: If I could just be forwarded a copy of the letters for
concern so I could address them.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number five, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on
behalf of HOLIDAY HOUSE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and
Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct approx. 50' of a storm
damaged boulder/concrete seawall and to repoint as necessary;
remove and dispose of existing concrete cap and provide approx.
52' of new concrete cap; fill voids landward of the wall with
stone as necessary; place stones along the base of the wall at
its northern terminus; and provide four 2-3 ton boulders to
armor the wall. Located: Fox Ave., Fishers Island.
This was found consistent with the LWRP, and the CAC did
not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. Is
there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MR. JUST: Once again Glenn Just JMO Consulting. If there is any
questions from the Board or public.
TRUSTEE KING: We walked down this shoreline with you.
MR. JUST: You came down the ramp and back to the left there was
a broken off piece on the top of the seawall. They want to just
tie that back up. Once again, this is a wall that predated the
'38 hurricane. The homeowners actually spent the honeymoon in
that house during the '38 hurricane. Which I guess gave them
less to talk about.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Would have been lonely, too, I'm sure.
TRUSTEE KING: Any comments from anybody else? Board comments. I
don't think we had any issues from anything here. It was a
simple application. Being no comments, I'll make a motion to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 26 May 16, 2012
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing is J.M.O. Environmental
Consulting on behalf of CRAB COVE, LLC requests a Wetland
Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct a 3'X 50'
timber walk and a 4.8'X 90' timber fixed dock. Located: 12060
East Main Rd., Fishers Island.
I think this is one we don't have a photo for.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Which one is this for?
MR. JUST: This is the one we went back to on the latter part of
the day before we left the island.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is this Silver Cove?
TRUSTEE KING: No.
MR. JUST: It's on Chocomount Cove. It's the place we went back
to just before we jumped on the boat where it was an existing
dock that most of the decking was off.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You went back with DEC. We didn't go back.
That's where the confusion is. I didn't take photograph with
this particular one. We didn't have a problem with this project
as submitted. It was a straightforward repair of an existing
dock. I'll open it up to any questions.
(No response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to close the hearing in
this matter.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second, to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to approve.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS
TRUSTEE GHOSIO:-Number one under Wetland Permits, PATRICIA MELE &
CHERYL CHRISTIANO request a Wetland Permit to renovate the existing dwelling,
construct a second-story addition and landward extension with a two-car garage.
Located: 1140 Deep Hole Dr., Mattituck.
This is found to be consistent with the LWRP, and the Conservation Advisory
Council resolved to support the application, with no other suggestions. Jim was out in the
field to take a look at this. And I'm also familiar with the property. Jim notes to come
back to the Trustees if it becomes a full demo. Hay bales were already in place. And
was there a question about jet-ski floats?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, there are two jet-ski floats there that are
not permitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. So we would, I imagine stipulate the
jet-ski floats be removed. Is there anybody here who would like
to address this application?
Board of Trustees 27 May 16, 2012
MS. MELE: My name is Patricia Mele. And we can remove the
jet-ski floats.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, anybody else have any comments from the audience?
(No response).
Anybody on the Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You do understand if this becomes a complete
demolition you'll have to come back to this Board. In other
words, during construction if they decide that the whole house,
the builder or the engineers decide the whole structure has to
come down, you have to come back to this Board before proceeding
forward.
MS. MELE: We are not anticipating that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sure you are not, but sometimes it happens.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Hearing no other comments or questions, 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
written with the stipulation if it does become a demolition, the
applicant will come back and re-apply, and that the jet-ski
floats will be removed.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. HULSE: Is there a certain point for removal?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would assume it would be pretty much
immediately. You'll take them out pretty much immediately.
MS. MIELE: As soon as we get some muscle this weekend. We can't
lift them.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay,'thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, J.M.O. Environmental
Consulting Services on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT
CORP., requests a Wetland Permit to construct a paved
recreational path approx. 4,250' long and 8' wide; approx.
1,533' of the proposed path would be located within 100' of a
regulated freshwater wetlands; construct approx. 570' of 8' wide
elevated boardwalk secured by helical anchors within 100' of
wetlands, which is a portion of the 4,250' total length of the
proposed path; construct approx. 617' of retaining
walls within 100' of wetlands; and to construct a 16'X 24'
viewing deck that would be elevated approx. 9' above grade.
Located: East End Rd., Fishers Island.
This is a continuation of a project that Trustees
previously had approved for the Fishers Island Development
Corp., that goes out to the country club, and in reliance
greatly on the DEC staff who was there flagging it, we
understand we are probably not as well versed in freshwater
wetlands as they are in the sense it's wetlands on Fishers
Island and their staff was busy flagging and going over the
project specifications. At this time I'll open it up for
comments.
MR. JUST: Glenn Just, JMO Consulting. Quite frankly, I have been
Board of Trustees 28 May 16, 2012
back out there twice since we were out there. I'm delineating
the wetlands completely around the bodies of water of Barlow
Pond, both sides of the road for the DEC. We have not really
gone back and forth as far as what the decision is but what they
are mostly focused right now is mitigation. And the reason that
I'm delineating these wetlands is they want to see 100 feet away
from the wetlands, 150 feet away from the wetlands, because they
have different ratios of mitigation. If you are within 100
feet, they may want say two bottom. A one to three feet of
mitigation. If you are 150 feet away, they might want one in
ten.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are the plans being altered as you are going
through the mapping process?
MR. JUST: No, not at all
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In other words there is the likelihood if we
approve this packet tonight we would not have to come back with
amendments or--
MR. JUST: I feel, quite frankly, that the DEC will approve what
you have in front of you and what they have in front of them.
But again, it's a matter of mitigation of the payback we have to
do at the end of the project, which will benefit the people of
the Town of Southold.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Did the previous mitigation include the
blueberries I picked along the bike path on the way with the
county health inspectors?
MR. JUST: It might have been. I think, I don't know if you
noticed the path, I think they did a pretty nice job. They
actually had ten-thousand passes for the last two years of
people using this very short path for walking or jogging or
riding a bike.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I could attest to the safety that it's put
there. I was doing, in my former life I was doing inspections,
and a coworker joined me to go out to the point to take beach
samples and he had the chain come off his bicycle while he was
going on one of those hairpin curves when there was oncoming
traffic, and I'll tell you, the new system is, as far as public
health and safety, is a real plus.
MR. JUST: People that are not familiar with Fishers Island, it's
one contiguous road on the east end, it's not very well marked,
there is no street signs, no lights. It's not very, it's been
repaved in the last year and, um, there is a lot of big SUVs and
old cars driven down the road all summer, and kids on the road
going back and forth to the club, and the mode on Fishers on the
east end is by bicycle and walking. It's just a laid back
community. But again, we are still working with the DEC as far
as the mitigation is concerned and I don't think they'll have
any, you know, we met with Rob Marsh once since we went to
Fishers three weeks ago and he seems to be pretty comfortable
with the plan.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: How do the Trustees feel about this?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have any issues with anything that has
been done so far. They have done a nice job.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Very nice.
Board of Trustees 29 May 16, 2012
MR. MCGREEVEY: Just a point. The CAC didn't make an inspection
on this property and I'm not familiar with the diagram. But part
of the mitigation, does it include at all the eight foot width
of the path and the eight foot wide elevated boardwalk? I think
that would be a concern if I had been there. The width of it.
And especially within a hundred feet of the wetlands. Do you
think it's a concern?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe, not from what we had seen. The
width of it, it was pretty much laid out to take into
consideration the road hazards there and to have bicyclists
safely pass next to each other, and sections that were going
over vegetated freshwater wetlands were open-grate sections, so
even though it might have been, and correct me if I'm wrong,
even if it was the full width, it was almost in every instance
where it was upland path, it was developed and it was macadam or
concrete, depending on the crossings, and then any area that
went into a vegetated freshwater wetland was all open-grate
construction so that vegetation could thrive underneath it.
MR. JUST: There would be the post modification over vegetated
wetlands whereas the first part was, but they are still willing
to use the 60% thru-flow decking. There will be one part that
would extend over the wetlands. That's the wildlife viewing
station they want to put out. But again, that will be nine feet
above grade, and because of the sun patch, you can see the sky,
there is not much of shading factor, but it's also built on
thru-flow.
MR. MCGREEVEY: It's still a lot of square footage over the -
wetland area. It's just a thought thrown out there for your
consideration. This is the first time I have seen any path that
I'm familiar with.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The path is not in the wetland. In other
words, the path itself is actually in upland, fringe areas, in
many cases. The path itself is kept out of the regulatory
wetland but because of the proximity, that's the reason for the
mitigation is, by the mere presence within the zone of
jurisdiction, but they are not taking out freshwater wetlands,
the plans show there is no path going on this section of
wetland.
MR. JUST: And the final plan will also reflect a lot of
screenings done into the adjacent area between the path and, you
know, the adjacent wetlands area. Again, nothing is proposed
over wetlands over the observation deck.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Any additional comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application as submitted with the stipulation that if the DEC
requires a plan change, that we receive updated plans so our
files can be complete. So moved.
Board of Trustees 30 May 16, 2012
MR. JUST: Most definitely.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES)..
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much, have a good evening.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, Kinlin Rutherfurd Architects, PLLC
on behalf of JAMES P. RUTHERFURD requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a single-family dwelling, terrace, screened porch,
sanitary system and drywells for roof drainage. Located: Clay
Point Rd., Fishers Island.
The LWRP found this to be consistent. There was no
inspection by the CAC. We inspected this three weeks ago and
found it was in our jurisdiction. Other than that it was
straightforward.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. KINLIN: My name is Bruce Kinlin, from Kinlin Rutherfurd
Architects. We designed the house and filled out the
application.
TRUSTEE KING: We don't have any issues with it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: No. Jim, they are looking at the photographs
there. There were no issues with it. We were concerned that
tree might be taken. That's why it was in the photograph.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I thought you were just trying to converse with
it.
MR. KINLIN: I wanted to say I don't know who I should give this
to. I have the notarized form from the certified mail and the
receipts from that, for the mailing.
TRUSTEE KING: Bring them up.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Do you have any other comments to make?
MR. KINLIN: No, I don't. I'm happy to engage in conversation
about the project if there is are there questions. Essentially
we think we designed the house, in fact we think we are sure,
it's within all, outside of the required setbacks in terms of
zoning and in terms of wetlands. We believe we have all the
height restrictions.
TRUSTEE KING: We have one area designated there, designated
undisturbed. That's what we would have asked for. I think you
met all the requirements, in my mind.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That was our only concern, that tree, for
example, seems to us to fall within the line you designated in
your application as a limit of clearing.
MR. KINLIN: Is the question does the tree stay or go, or what is
the owner's intent? I'm not sure. Can you help me, I'm just
not sure where that is relative to other things.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: There is a stake that shows the corner of the
building. The terrace. And then --
MR. KINLIN: I know. I think I know. May I approach?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Sure.
MR. KINLIN: I think that tree, you can, if I have the right
spot, is located right here.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The tree is right about here, so it would be the
corner. You can see there.
MR. KINLIN: Okay. So your question is?
Board of Trustees 31 May 16, 2012
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The tree would be here. This is the limit of clearing. We want to
make sure that--
MR. KINLIN: You want to make sure the tree stays.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Correct.
MR. KINLIN: Okay, sure. We can -- yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak to this application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: If not, I'll make a motion to close this application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion we approve this application with the stipulation
that that tree remain.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KINLIN: Thank you. Can I get a copy of the photograph of
that tree?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can we E-mail it?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, I can.
MR. KINLIN: I know what tree it is, it would be good to give it
to my client.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It should be in our file
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It should be a hard copy in the file.
Typically, we print them out in the file.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you have a hard copy there now? Do you want
to give it to him?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Sure.
MR. KINLIN: That would be great.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It is quite a substantial tree.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Wetland Permits, number five, Creative
Environmental Design on behalf of NICK ANDREADIS requests a
Wetland Permit to install a 1,570 sf. permeable patio with
drains leading to existing drywells; install a set of stairs on
either side of existing pool at first floor level down to grade
level; place silt fence and hay bales on south side of property
during construction; remove all Poison Ivy and replant with
native plants; remove selective trees to allow for further
growth of healthy trees and plants; place permeable brick path
on existing 72'X 3.5' wide dirt path; and add a 4'X 24' catwalk
on the landward end of existing catwalk. Located: 700 North Dr.,
Mattituck.
This is a continuation of a hearing we tabled last month so
we could go back out and take a look at some flags for some
vegetation we couldn't see the month before because it was not
the growing season, really. Just to, I guess to recap. We were
in the middle of a discussion on this, we were talking about the
need to be able to remove the Poison Ivy. As we can see in the,
it's kind of hard to see in this photograph, it's easier to see
in my computer. We all saw it when we were there, a good many
flags showing where the Poison Ivy is. Even though it's early in
the season, it's pretty prevalent all through the property. As
part of this application, of course, is also some work above the
Board of Trustees 32 May 16, 2012
line of non-disturbance. We did see the line of non-disturbance
that was staked out for us when we went out the second time. So
it was good we get to see that. Get a better feel for what it
was we were trying to do. The applicant if I'm not mistaken, has
has decided to not remove the trees in the non-disturbance area
but just remove the trees above the non-disturbance area.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Correct, in order to conform with the
non-disturbance zone, to leave all the vegetation other than
hopefully grant removal of the Poison Ivy above the 18-foot
non-disturbance line, and we would like approval to remove the
trees that were staked from the original.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just for the record, your name.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Dave Chicanowicz, Creative Environmental
Design.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, I think we discussed it out in the field.
Are there any questions or concerns from the Board? I think we
pretty much have seen what we wanted to see.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do we still have an issue though with the
non-disturbance buffer listed in the C&R's and wanting to do
work in the non-disturbance buffer?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As far as, I don't think, maybe it's just me, I
don't think the intent of having a non-disturbance buffer in a
case like this, where so prevalent a health and safety issue for
the kids there, um, I don't know. I don't have a problem with
removing Poison Ivy. There is also a plan to re-vegetate,
right? The Poison Ivy taken out and revegetate?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: We can•revegetate the Poison Ivy removed areas
or not, basically depending on what the Board says. We would be
very happy to revegetate but, you know,just the guidelines from
the last meeting, trying not to touch anything, so if we are
just touching just the Poison Ivy, so be it. If we are allowed
to put back some native species planting --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If he takes out the Poison Ivy, which is what we
discussed in the field, I imagine it would just seed and
revegetate itself.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There was an understory, correct me if I'm
wrong, I'm not sure, if it was Huckleberries, there was some
wild native members of the --
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Mulberry and blueberry.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, native bush, whatever it was.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, blueberry.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Whether they would come back, at this point,
I guess it's early intervention, because maybe that would come
back because the Poison Ivy has not totally made a canopy over
them.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: That would kind of look to see what happens or
allowing us to put in, you know, a few dozen native plants in place of.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess I have a problem doing anything
additional in there until we get a code change. I think public
health and safety, I think there is a doctor's note in the file
the children are particularly allergic.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, there is. From Peconic Pediatrics, um,
Nicholas-- I'll read it into the record. Nicholas Andreadis is
Board of Trustees 33 .,-May-16, 2012
an 11-year old followed in our office for pediatric care. His
mother reports he's had a recent episode of Poison Ivy. His
sister Lorisa and both parents have had multiple episodes of
Poison Ivy in the past as well. Please allow the family to have
the Poison Ivy removed from their property.
This is from Dr. Meah, which interestingly enough is my son's doctor.
So that is in here.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: May I make a suggestion for the time being, if
we could be granted permission to at least remove the Poison Ivy
and just stop there and allow the Board to possibly, you know,
re-visit the code as it's written to make whatever amendments
and maybe we could back at a later date to revegetate it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For me, I would not want to wait for code
changes because, 111, we have been waiting three or four years
for code changes. So I mean for myself personally, I don't have
a problem with removal of the Poison Ivy for health and safety
reasons. And I think it was also there was an issue with two
sets of stairs or one set of stairs from the house down to --
MR. CHICANOWICZ: We have two proposed sets of stairs.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Last month we asked if there was an opportunity
to reduce that to one set of stairs. I don't know if you had
a chance to speak to your client about that.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: I have my client here. And we had not discussed
it, but we can, if you want to give me a half a minute.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure.
MR. ANDREADIS: Hi, my name is Nick Andreadis. I want to thank
you for all the wonderful work that you do. I appreciate your
consideration of this matter.
We had kind of gone two stairs coming down from the deck
because that would look better, you know, for esthetics really,
because it would kind of balance out the structure. I suppose in
a practical sense you could have, you know, one set of the
stairs coming down but it would not have the same esthetic
appearance as the two. So if it's all the same to the Board, I
would like to have two. But if you have an objection, we'll
go with one.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't really have an objection. It's certainly
out of the non-disturbance area, and it will connect up to the_
paver patio. So, any other questions? Comments?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I want to mention that I don't think removing
the Poison Ivy goes against the intent of the non-disturbance
zone. So I don't have a problem with that because of the health
issues that are raised.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: If I could make one more note. In the area of
the non-disturbance zone there are at least two if not three
completely dead and rotten trees, kind of standing there. Just
to allow us to remove those. It's not cutting anything live,
it's just for safety issue more so than anything. It's in the
non-disturbance. Would that be allowable? Not revegetating,
not doing anything else,just remove it so it doesn't fall on
somebody's head.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I don't recall that. I don't recall them, so I
can't make a comment. Are they in any of the photographs?
Board of Trustees 34 May 16, 2012
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll see if I have anything older.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think over to the left of the stairwell. I
remember that tree.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: That right there. Specifically, it's just down,
probably two feet away from the non-disturbance line.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are talking about trees, they are not
that large either.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: That's probably seven or eight inch calliper.
We want to just cut it off and remove it. No live trees. Yes,
that's it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just that one?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: That's the only one that is most apparent. Do
you know of any others?
MR. ANDREADIS: If you go to the right, there is, I think you can
see them here, actually the ones marked here: This one, this
one and this one are totally dead. So right now you don't see it
because they are, the others, those, they'll be just as dead if
you revisit later on, so.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aren't those the ones that are above the--
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: No, those are definitely below.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have to tell you, we had this come up before
and we have not allowed it. Again, it does serve as habitat for
something; many times, it's a non-disturbance buffer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Bob, I agree with what you are saying. I
would make an exception though because of the safety issue of
that tree to the left that is adjacent to the walkway. I would
hate so to see it come down and destroy the walkway. So I would
make an exception to that. The others, you know, I agree that we
have not allowed that to be done in the past.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: So the one on the left, okay, but the others
leave them alone.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It opens up too many doors.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions from the Board?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer,
aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee King, recused).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All right, I'll make a motion to approve the
application with the following stipulations: That
the removal of the Poison Ivy will be permitted, however there
will not be any replanting with native plants at this time. The
only tree that can be removed would be the dead tree to the
north of the existing stairwell, the existing stairway,just a
couple feet inside the non-disturbance area. I'm seeing if
there is anything else we need to change from the description.
And I'll ask for a revised drawing showing the differences,
because the planting plan we have shows plantings and things of
that nature, so. And I would say that addressing only the Poison
Ivy in the non-disturbance area, as a health and safety issue,
Board of Trustees 35 May 16, 2012
removes the inconsistency with LWRP and makes it consistent.
Is there any other questions or concerns?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought the walkway that was requested down at
the base of the bank to the dock, I thought we had discussed in
the field moving it slightly so it was not going to, there was a
more direct shot, I thought we had discussed in the field.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: The end of the catwalk was requested to be
angled, and I thought you have that revised plan.
If you don't--
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I want to make sure we have that. Thank you.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Instead of going straight, we made a lazy"L"
toward the direction of the staircase.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Lazy "L."Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. And the only reason I wanted to get a new
set of plans is because there is some plantings in there that
were included that we are not going to allow. And that is my
motion.
MS. HULSE: So the rest of the application as written is going to
be denied, basically; it's not being considered? Because there
a lot of language that is in that resolution. So it's going to
be as you read it, Bob, correct?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: You need to include the patio.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's right. Everything as written, except for
no replanting of the non-disturbance area after he removes the
Poison Ivy. He's only allowed to remove the one tree instead of
all the trees. The one to the north of the stairway, two or
three feet inside the non-disturbance buffer. And he did make
the change on the plans to slightly bend that catwalk. And
that's reflected on the plans. And everything else is okay. Do
I have that right?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have a second. All in favor?
(Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer,
aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee King, recused).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: For the record, Jim King has recused himself
from that application.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number six, High Point Engineering on behalf of
MATTITUCK FISHING STATION requests a Wetland Permit to remove
(1) 3,000 gallon single wall fiberglass gasoline UST, install
(1) 3,000 double wall steel UL#2085 fire rated A.S.T. with new
piping and dispensers along bulkhead. Located: 2275 Naugles Dr.,
Mattituck.
This was found exempt from LWRP. The CAC does not support
the application. Work was completed prior to issuance of a
permit. There are runoff issues due to the steep grade. There
was toxic testing of the soil so the tank was removed, and DEC
required an Environmental Phase One Impact Study. I don't know.
This was a previously approved plan. And I know there is work
done. I don't know if the work was started before the original
permit expired or not. I don't know. I think most of the work
has been completed. For me it's not an issue. These people have
Board of Trustees 36 May 16, 2012
waited and gone through a lengthy process on this tank and I
certainly would not want to hold them up for any reason
whatsoever. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this or
against this application?
MR. LEGER: My name is Brian Leger, from High Point Engineering.
As you said, we went ahead, the project has been going, we filed
for our building permit. We tried to extend it since the
construction had been taking a long time. We filed for a
building permit, we obtained that, and at that time we were
notified the Board of Trustees permit had expired so we are here
to extend such and follow it through.
TRUSTEE KING: The easiest thing would it have been to extend the
Trustee permit. But it was overlapped. I understand what
happened there. Things were held up.
MR. LEGER: We have our Health Department approval and our
building permit. This is the last thing, so.
TRUSTEE KING: What were the concerns, Jack, as far as drainage
goes, and testing of the soil? I don't know that they-- they
have, between the Health Department and DEC, they go through a
tremendous amount of work.
MR. MCGREEVEY: I would imagine so, but we raise that question
because we assume the testing was done, but for the --
TRUSTEE KING: Ourselves, we don't. We try and move these along
as easy as we can because it's very important.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is a fiberglass underground tank.
MR. LEGER: It's actually an aboveground tank, triple
containment. It's double wall underground tand that holds 110%
of volume. So it's triple containment.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And believe me, because I have the hundred
thousand gallons in the dyke right here on Leon's Avenue. You
have to keep rain records and the whole thing. I have three
books of stuff on my rack alone.
TRUSTEE KING: This is not easy. And it's very expensive.
MR. MCGREEVEY: The CAC's concern was not about the new tank. It
was about the one being removed, because when I had mine
removed, I didn't have it removed. What I had done is
encapsulate, if that's the word they used, so instead of soil
testing being done, we just closed it right down. But this tank
is removed and our concern is the soil tested at that time to
see if there was contamination there. That was our concern.
MR. LEGER: That's usually prepared by the Health Department when
they go out.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's part of the field inspection of the
tank program. I have a little familiarity with that when I
previously worked for the department. I knew some of the crew
that did that.
MR. MCGREEVEY: There is one other concern, because of the
topography of that piece of property, and there is an asphalt
road that goes from Naugles right down to the bulkhead, if
something could be done and some kind of construction at the end
of that roadway to catch the storm water runoff that goes,just
comes right down like a thruway right into --
TRUSTEE KING: Did you ever look at what goes down by the old
Board of Trustees 37 May 16, 2012
mill?
MR. MCGREEVEY: I could make a list. But this is my application.
TRUSTEE KING: This is a drop in the bucket. I believe down the
road here those folks will be coming in for bulkhead permits
because some of that bulkhead, I think it's in the south end now
is getting pretty old.
MR. MCGREEVEY: You can appreciate the CAC's position. When we
see something, storm water runoff and possible contamination of
the creek.
TRUSTEE KING: When they come in with these new bulkhead permits,
we'll take care of that.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Okay, but you can see the position where we come
from.
TRUSTEE KING: I know. Any other questions, anything from
anybody?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven, En-Consultants on behalf of
WILLIAM & PATRICIA BAXTER AND GOELLER FAMILY TRUSTS requests a
Wetland Permit to install a 6'X 20' floating dock secured by (2)
8" diameter pilings and a 3'X 14' hinged ramp to be connected to
existing bulkhead; and remove existing mooring piles as
necessary. Located: 420 Fisherman's Beach Rd., Cutchogue.
This was reviewed by the CAC and the CAC tabled the
application because the proposed dock was not staked. They
recommend.a ten-foot wide buffer and four-foot wide path and a
possible variance for an accessory structure on a vacant
property. The LWRP coordinator found inconsistent and the
reason for the inconsistency is the construction of the dock is
not possible to maintain a 15-foot setback on the property line
as per code. The Board did go out and looked at this
application. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicants. I had a feeling that a seasonal ramp and float in a
bulkheaded basin surrounded by dozens of other similar docks
would somehow be too easy.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought that was maybe a little sarcastic.
MR. HERMAN: Actually, it's really not. I had a few of these over
the years in different towns and somehow these can become more
complicated than a hundred-foot long dock. I don't know how.
Anyway, this is a site that the Board is familiar with this
area, I'm sure. There are several of these properties that have
ownership on alternating sides of the road. This is a small lot.
It's not a buildable lot, under any of the standard code
Board of Trustees 38 May 16, 2012
allowances. It has been used historically for dockage. There
are tie-off poles there now, one set of which will be removed
for the placement of this float. So there really is just a
continuation of this historic use to dock boats here, except now
two of the owners of the property are handicapped and they are
seeking to have a more accessible use than what has been used
historically by having a float that will rise up and down with
the tide in which they can access with a ramp...
We have positioned it basically in the center of the parcel
that allows ten feet to 14 feet on either side. There is good
water depth there. Even at lower low tide. As I noted, there are
many, many, many docks just like this one that line the
shoreline, including a fixed dock immediately to the west that
will protrude out quite a bit farther. This is a bulkheaded
basin. There is no marsh vegetation here. There is no aquatic
vegetation here. I can't think of any reason why this would have
any impact whatsoever, really, on anything regulated by your
Board. Again, the use exists now. So the only thing this will
change will be that it will improve the access to the boats that
are already and have already been docked there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, it looks like in order to stay within
the property lines they will be limited to one vessel on each
side of this floating dock.
MR. HERMAN: There is basically, I showed the distances from
either side of the float. So, and again, the tie-off poles,
there is two clusters. Well, there is actually a few clusters
of poles there. There is one that lines up with the easterly
property line. So they would be about a ten-foot dockage area
between that existing piling cluster and the east side of the
proposed float. And then to the east of that there is another
ramp and float associated with the Holman's property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
MR. HERMAN: There is a cluster that exists right where the float
would go now. That would be removed. Basically the end of the
float which extends maybe a foot past that existing cluster
would just have a single pile to hold the end of the float. Then
to the west, there is another two-pile cluster which I have to
assume is probably used by the house to the west of the Curren
property. So there would be a 14-foot space between the west
side of the proposed float and that pile cluster, and that pile
cluster to the west seems to run along with that float adjacent
to the bulkhead on that adjacent property, which also shows on
the map. It's also a fixed dock that extends out off of that
property to the west.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I'm very familiar with this piece of
property.
MR. HERMAN: I figured.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I just, like I said, my only concern is when
we add the boats on each side, that it doesn't encroach on the
neighbor's property.
MR. HERMAN: It seems to me that the locations of those clusters,
at least as they exist or as are proposed would dictate
consistency with that concern.
Board of Trustees 39 May 16, 2012
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
MR. HERMAN: I don't know exactly what their plans are but I'm
sure that if they had to put in something bigger they would
probably have to drop one of the slips all together and come
back to you to move the float, then adjust it accordingly. But
at the moment, I had shown this design to William Baxter and he
said this was exactly what they want.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Are there any other questions from any
Board member on this application?
(No response).
Anybody else in the audience who wants to speak for or against
this application?
(No response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve this application,
and given the historical use of this property for the docking of
boats, I would find it consistent under the LWRP. That's my
motion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, En-Consultants on behalf of TRUST
U/W OF R.C. KOPF F/B/O KRISTEN POWERS requests a Wetland Permit
to construct+/-30' landward extension of the existing +/-66'
low-profile vinyl groin. Located: 220 Park Ave. Ext., Mattituck.
This was found consistent with the LWRP. The CAC supports
the application, however recommends the Trustees limit the
landward extension of groins.
Jack, why was it suggested to limit the landward extension?
I don't understand.
MR. MCGREEVEY: We had kind of a unique setup at this applicant's
location. You have a very narrow strip of land, and that became
obvious that at some point you would have to limit, in our
opinion, the landward extension of a groin. It's especially in
this area, it's something to be considered. When you say
landward is enough, at what point do you draw the line. Because
if I'm not mistaken, the applicant's property goes from one body
of water in the south to another body of water in the north. So
that was a question to be raised.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't see why they would want to extend it that
fa r.
MR. MCGREEVEY: I agree.
TRUSTEE KING: It's just that is a road behind the existing where
it starts. I mean, I don't have an issue with this at all. Is
there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. As Jack said, it's, I don't know if it's unique, but
it's definitely a little bit different situation than we
typically see with groins that we see so often around Great
Board of Trustees 40 May 16, 2012
Peconic Bay that back up to a bulkhead. So the bulkhead kind of
sets the most landward possible extent that the structure can
go. The Trustees had previously approved what became in effect a
landward translation of or landward relocation of the prior
groin. If you remember, there was a substantial section that
was seaward and no longer functional, that was removed
permanently. And then the groin was moved landward and this is
a house that had been moved landward previously. So this is
sort of a pattern of landward retreat on this site. But as it
turned out, after Irene, there was such a drop in beach
elevation that the high water progressed immediately farther
north and, as Jim mentioned, is really outflanking the landward
extent. I don't think there would be a concern in general as the
CAC had alluded to in terms of the landward extent. I mean at
some point the groin would just function as a retaining wall
along the upland part of the property. It's not a part that is
interacting with the bay at all. After a certain point. So
really, this is really a perfect position to prevent the bay
from outflanking around to the house.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? Any comments from the audience?
(No response).
Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number nine, En-Consultants on behalf of JOAN F.
WHELAN requests a Wetland Permit for the existing dock
consisting of a TX 24' fixed timber catwalk, 3' X 11.5' hinged
ramp and a 5'X 20' floating dock. Located: 1645 Bungalow Lane,
Mattituck.
TRUSTEE KING: There was no LWRP on that? I don't see one.
MR. HERMAN: There isn't.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay. And the CAC resolved not to support the
__. application, with the following observation: The dock should be
elevated off the wetland; concerns with the possible use of
treated materials; there was an erosion condition along the
front of the property; and there should be at least ten to 15
feet non-turf buffer landward of the wetlands. Those are the CAC
comments. This is an existing catwalk, ramp and float, and it's
been there for many years. It never had a permit on it. It's
there. What you see is there. I looked at it. Is there anybody
here who wants to talk about this for or against it?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. Jim, there is no waterfront consistency review on
this because there is no action that is actually proposed. We
are just looking to legalize the existing structure.With
respect to the CAC concerns, those are concerns that relate to
what the current policies of the Board would be, and we would
anticipate, as with other similar, not really grandfathered
Board of Trustees 41 May 16, 2012
permits, but this type of legalization of pre-existing
structure, that we would expect there to be some sort of caveat
or condition with your permit that would indicate that if the
dock at some point had to be substantially replaced or
reconstructed that it would have to be, you know, it would
undergo a full review under waterfront consistency, Chapter 268,
full review under Chapter 275, wetlands, and that some changes
might have to be made to the dock with respect to treated
materials, et cetera. But at this time there is not even
maintenance or repairs proposed. The property is changing hands
and they are just seeking to, based on how the Town Attorney's
office and this Board interprets Chapter 275, to have it as a
permitted structure in case even a simple replacement of deck
boards or something like that had to be done, they would not
have to worry about doing that and then getting a violation over
something for, you know, repairing a non-permitted structure. So
that is the extent of the request. I have found aerial
photographs on line dating back to late 1960s that depict a dock
being present at this property. The 1976 aerial we obtained
from, for purposes of recessing the dock relative to New York
State DEC regulations, actually showed virtually the same
structure except that the floater looked more like it was more
of an "L"than a "T." Otherwise it looks like this dock has been
around for quite some time.
TRUSTEE KING: Rob, your plan, are you indicating a low sill
bulkhead here? There is no low sill bulkhead there.
MR. HERMAN: There actually is.
TRUSTEE KING: Really? It's invisible.
MR. HERMAN: It's invisible at high tide. You can actually see
it.
TRUSTEE KING: I know we put one to the neighbor.
MR. HERMAN: Yes, and this is the Meuller(sic) property where
the Board approved the bulkhead. This is the low sill bulkhead
that runs, you can see this is at low tide because you can see
Meuller's wall. But remember, when we had proposed Meuller, we
had point out the fact there was in effect a low sill bulkhead
immediately next door and we joked at the fact these folks are
well ahead of their time. It's almost completely covered by
growth, but it is most certainly there. In fact we took some
pictures of it which of course I don't have. But it's too long a
story to get into, but we wanted to show somebody what the low
sill bulkhead looked like, so we took shots of both walls there
at low tide. And then above that, there is some sort of like
railroad timbers or telephone pole timbers or something that the
surveyor picked up, which I didn't see. But it shows on the
survey.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? Anybody else?
MS. HULSE: Jim, I would just like to make a record that probably
the more appropriate course of action would be to apply for LWRP
and be exempted if that's the case that it would be exempted.
Because I think there is an argument that could be made under
268-3 under definition of"action," it says require one or more
new or modified approvals, permits to review from an agency.
Board of Trustees 42 May 16, 2012
Which is essentially what he's requesting here. So, you know,
I'm not going to argue whether it is or isn't, or whether it's
exempt or not, because that's the coordinator's purview but, um,
it seems the better course of action would be to apply and see
if it's exempt so at least you have something in writing saying
you had to review it because certainly there is some ambiguity
there that could interpret that it could be required.
MR. HERMAN: Lori, this is actually one that I talked to you on
the phone before I filed. Based on our conversation
MS. HULSE: I did not-- no, no. No. Trust me. I said it's up
to, Rob. You could do whatever you want, if you want to proceed
that way. However, there is definitely, and it's up to the LWRP
coordinator to say if it's exempt or not. I can't say that.
That's his decision. However, I think it's a precedent that you
might not want to start at this point, since you were asking for
an approval of a permit from this Board. Essentially, once
approved, then you can make repairs and do stuff to it. So
certainly that will be an action down the road.
TRUSTEE KING: I was surprised there was not an LWRP review done
on this.
MS. HULSE: Because it was not applied for, so.
MR. HERMAN: The letter that I submitted with the application
reads the paragraph that relates to it: Please note that
because we are not requesting permission to replace or
reconstruct any part of the dock at this time, there is no
construction or other physical activities proposed by the
application. Therefore the formal permitting of the dock
pursuant to Chapter 275 does not constitute an action pursuant
to Chapter 268 of the Town Code, and because the structure also
predates the enactment of Chapter 268, there is no waterfront
consistency review required pursuant to Chapter 268. Therefore
we are not submitting an LWRP application with this application.
We do understand if and when reconstruction of the dock is
proposed, such action would at that time be subject to review
pursuant to Chapter 268 of the Town Code.
So what I was getting at was unlike an illegally
constructed dock, where somebody let's say went out tomorrow,
built a dock, then came to you a month from now and said, well,
I'm not proposing to do anything other than have you permit this
dock. They would say, well, at the time that you built it
without a permit you would have to have gone through waterfront
consistency review pursuant to Chapter 268. But in the 1960s,
there was no waterfront consistency review required.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, but there was a Trustee permit required.
MR. HERMAN: Yes, we understand that. That's why we are here.
TRUSTEE KING: Technically it was built as a violation. It was
built without a permit. I would be more comfortable we table
this and have LWRP-- I'm listening to our attorney. You're not
an attorney. She is.
MR. HERMAN: I suppose my question is, I mean, Mark will come
back and say--
TRUSTEE KING: Because it would be on the record as being found
inconsistent, consistent or exempt. I would be more comfortable
Board of Trustees 43 May 16, 2012
going that route.
MR. HERMAN: What if we stipulate we assume it will be
inconsistent because every application for a dock is
inconsistent. Would that change the Board's course of action?
MS. HULSE: They can't answer that at this juncture. That is
calling for an advisory opinion.
TRUSTEE KING: How does the Board feel? I would like to just
table it until we get an LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we should table it because we are
subject to audits, the town is, and it puts all of us in the
same basket if we move on this and don't listen to our attorney..
TRUSTEE KING: I feel the same way. I'll make a motion to table
this application until we get an LWRP review on it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: All right, moving right along.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, number ten, Terry Contracting
& Materials, Inc. On behalf of LEE KRUTER requests a Wetland
Permit to replace approx. 248 linear feet of an existing timber
bulkhead with a new epoxy coated cantilevered steel sheet pile
bulkhead; interstitial space between the abandoned existing
and new bulkhead to be filled with approx. 75 cubic yards clean
sand; and remove and replace existing retractable access stairs.
Located: 9475 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue.
The application has been deemed to be consistent with the
Town's LWRP. The CAC supports the application with the
condition of the new bulkhead is constructed in place and best
management engineering practice is used in question length and
and tie rods. So that would be a point of discussion.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
(No response).
The clerk informs me also there is a deficiency existing in
the notification. One of the neighbors who was here happens to
be Dave Bergen, he got his notice, but there is apparently at
least two or neighbors that we have not gotten cards back. We
didn't get notice on. So I guess we could discuss some of the
issues surrounding maybe some of the concerns of the CAC but we
are in a position we can't move on this. We'll have to table it.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay. I just kind of want to see a profile of it.
I don't understand, I never heard of a cantilevered bulkhead. I
don't know what I they mean by"cantilevered." I thought may have
meant drive it straight down. That isn't cantilevered.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, l thought maybe cantilevering refers to
the profile of the materials. Is cantilevered.
MR. MCGREEVEY: That's why in wording our concern was in place.
Because I think that was brought up at our meeting that the new
bulkhead be in place. I don't think that wording was on the
application
TRUSTEE KING: This is a unique situation here.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Did you see on the plans, if it's
cantilevering, I'm thinking of, did you see the actual tracks or
Board of Trustees 44 May 16, 2012
trundles or whatever you call it, of the bulkhead, are designed
to meet exactly contacting the existing pile surface. So
they'll cut the sheet and mate it so at each juncture where
there is a pile in front of the existing bulkhead they'll be
actually having the new sheet touching it so effectively the new
bulkhead is probably within, I want say four or five or six
inches at most within the existing structures, as close as you
could place it. And the environmental benefits here, for a one
shot, you know, this may probably be the last time they can
maintain this bulkhead without an inkind/inplace replacement
provided DEC is in accord, they'll be much less siltation of the
waterway. It will just be a huge amount of disturbance. In any
event, the reconstruction of this will involve some
environmental impact, even with a silt boom and silt fence in
the future. So it was a situation that, we are looking at is a
unique construction situation which will avoid all those very
detrimental environmental impacts, at least put them off for a
time. Understanding that, yes, at some point when this bulkhead
has its"last life it would it major engineering feat that will
involve a new bulkhead, the stabilization of the house
structure. That was, I think the general feeling of the Board,
if I'm --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think that's pretty accurate.
TRUSTEE KING: We talked in general out in the field. It looks
like the lifespan of this epoxy-coated steel will be a long
time. Long time. Because I seen some of these regular steel
bulkheads that are 40, 50 years old. So. If there is a problem
with notifying neighbors, we'll have to table this until next
month.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this point I'll make a motion to table
this application pending proof of the service. We can
reconsider it at a subsequent date.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(Trustee King, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer,
aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Bergen, abstained).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm abstaining.
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bergen abstains.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mark K. Schwartz, Architect on behalf of ANTHONY
CAMPO requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing
dwelling and replace in same general location, meeting flood
zone regulations; existing septic system to be removed and new
one installed further from the water and at a higher elevation
with retaining walls; install drywells to control water run-off
from the dwelling; construct alterations to existing shed;
rebuild deck; reside building; and remove existing bath,utility
use only. Located: 1165 Haywaters Rd., Cutchogue.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Good evening. Mark Schwartz, architect for the
project. We are back basically with the same project that you
saw back, that was approved back in August of 2009. A couple of
minor things that changed, we did add a deck area, a slight
wrap-around deck area. And there is an existing shed we would
like to reside, reroof, new windows, that is an accessory
Board of Trustees 45 May 16, 2012
building that was not part of the original application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: If we could backtrack a second. The LWRP found
this to be inconsistent for a couple of reasons. One is the
as-built shed doesn't comply with erosion hazard
recommendations. The second is that the activities require
enough fill that a storm water management plan should be
prepared. I'm reading from the LWRP dated May 9. And that the
non-disturbance buffer area be staked out prior to any
construction. The CAC resolved to support this application.
MR. SCHWARTZ: We could certainly stake out the non-disturbance
buffer area prior to construction. I do understand that SWIP is
kind of a new program, I have never done one, but we'll fill out
the necessary application forms and submit them. Does that need
to go to the Trustees prior to an approval from the Trustees?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, I missed part of that.
MR. SCHWARTZ: The storm water management plan.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe this is a new regulation,so it's
new by us. I think you make an independent application through
the town engineer for the storm management plan. We are not
going to pass review on the storm water management plan. It's
an independent function under the new regulations and we'll
incorporate if there is any recommendations or if that's maybe,
I think a standalone permit. But we don't do that.
Was there a mention, there was a question about the ZBA
that Dave is researching. Dave I think is conferencing with the
Town Attorney concerning the ZBA issue right now.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question was for that shed; has there been
approval given for that shed from the ZBA?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, it has, actually. I don't have a copy with .
me, I'll get a copy to you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what you are now asking for is the permitting
in of that shed so you can do work on the shed.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, Mr. Campo did start doing work. They got a
stop work order. We stopped immediately. We want to really
replace what was there, inkind, with siding, deck, and for the
ZBA approval we'll take out the half bath in there and the use
is going to be just storage.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I see removal of the septic, so I figured the
bathroom was coming out.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How big is--
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The shed itself is 14.3x14.3 square with a wood
deck extending out beyond that.We just need to address Chapter
236 in whatever we do there with the shed.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any further comment from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Not a comment. I think it's a question. How
do we meet inconsistency on this? It seems we have to get
involved with replacement of the buffer.
MR. SCHWARTZ: We have a hay bale line that shows the limits of
clearing. That would pretty much be, I think the line of
un-disturbance buffer.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Could you show that hay bale line?
Board of Trustees 46 May 16, 2012
MR. SCHWARTZ: (Indicating). I don't see one. I'm looking at the
DEC approvals. I have to get you the proper site plan. This
doesn't show it. But it's somewhere along these lines. You are
right.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That would be our concerns.
MR. SCHWARTZ: All right.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We'll probably have to table this.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this
application?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only other comment I would have with regard
to 236, obviously it's all sand all around that small shed, so I
don't think there is any need for any additional drainage
structures to address 236 around that shed. I don't see the need
for it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion we table this application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Why are we tabling it?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I can submit tomorrow a site plan that shows the
hay bales. What I submitted doesn't show the hay bale line. So
that's the concern. It was just a mistake.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We could stipulate a hay bale line on a contour
line on the survey there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess it's a question how you meet
inconsistency without having a hay bale line, if there is a way
to site it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I could show you, we have DEC approval for this
project that does have a hay bale line on it. I could show you
that, if that helps. So it wraps around here and along here. So
the limit of non-disturbance would follow here.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think storm water management is
independent of us. I don't think, even though we may acknowledge
it is all sand, I don't think it's our call.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Here is the DEC approval. Here is the hay
bale line.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It has to conform to 236, no?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's no trouble conforming.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question, Lori, that we have is no storm
water management plan application is included in the packet. And
so we are trying to see if it's the same as the previous
application that has been missing an LWRP, we tabled that, do we
have to table this because of that or can we address the storm
water management on this property through the permit?
MS. HULSE: You can address it through the permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It just has to conform to Chapter 236, that's
all.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have a DEC permit that shows the hay bale
line, so we can request additional copies of the plan that shows
the hay bale line in compliance with the DEC permit and then we
would have addressed the inconsistency.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Does this make sense?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I agree.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought you would.
Board of Trustees 47 May 16, 2012
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Now, you'll have to help me craft this motion. I
make a motion to approve this application with the stipulation
that that the hay bale line follows the DEC approved permit as
per the submitted site plan, and that the project comply with
the requirements of Chapter 236 of the Town Code, thereby
addressing the inconsistency of the LWRP. And given the
historical use of the shed, that we would also find that it is
consistent under the LWRP. So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: So we'll get a set of plans showing the hay bale
line and everything else that is on this site plan. Is there a
second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Motion that we adjourn.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
Cz
James F. King, Pr sident
Board of Trustees
RECEIVEDIT
t`
AUG 2 4 2012
Southold Town `I&rL-