HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/18/2012 James F.King,President O��QF SO!/j�ol Town Hall Annex
Bob Ghosio,Jr.,Vice-President 54375 Main Road
P.O.Box 1179
Dave Bergen Southold,New York 11971-0959
John Bredemeyer
Michael J.Domino �Q Telephone(631)765-1892
Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RECEIVED 'Pk-Lt
AUG 2 4 2012
Minutes Southold Town Cl&r&
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
6:00 PM
Present Were: Jim King, President
Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President
Dave Bergen, Trustee
John Bredemeyer, Trustee
Michael J. Domino, Trustee
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:Wednesday, May 9, 2012, at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: May 16, 2012, at 6:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of January 18, 2012.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Welcome to our April meeting. When we
get into the public comment period, if anyone wants to come up,
please identify yourself at the microphone. We have Wayne
Galante taking Minutes of the meeting, so he needs to hear your
name, how it is spelled and listen to you. We also have Peter
Young from the Conservation Advisory Council here. I guess we
can get going.
We'll set the next field inspection for Wednesday, May 9,
at eight o'clock in the morning.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 2 April 18, 2012
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: The next Trustee meeting will be May 16th, at six
o'clock, with a worksession at 5:30.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Do we have a motion to approve the Minutes of January
18, 2012.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for March 2012. A check for
$12,143.62 was forwarded to the Supervisorl 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., April 18, 2012, are classified as
Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are
not subject to further review under SEQRA:
T-Mobile Northeast, LLC - SCTM#45-1-14.1
Fishers Island Yacht Club - SCTM#1 0-1-9&9-2-13.1
Wee House Partners/Edgar J. Smith, Jr. -SCTM#24-2-10
Louis & Elizabeth Mastro - SCTM#52-5-9
Warren & Nina Bernstein - SCTM#59-5-3
Mill Creek Partners, LLC - SCTM#56-7-2
John & Marie Shack - SCTM#47-2-26.1
Skunk Lane, LLC - SCTM#104-3-18.1
Patricia Colaguiri - SCTM#123-8-18
Holiday House, LLC - SCTM#6-1-2
Isle of Cedars, LLC - SCTM#32-1-8
Peter& Mary Kornman - SCTM#56-5-39
Nick Andreadis - SCTM#106-6-25
Andreas Karacostas c/o Theo Ermogenous - SCTM#135-1-2
Ruth Ann Bramson c/o Robert Bramson - SCTM#41-14-4.5
Richard McKinney & Cynthia Power- SCTM#31-14-6
Alison Byers - SCTM#1 19-1-14.1&14.2
Board of Trustees 3 April 18, 2012
John Pitman - SCTM#52-2-34
Robert Longo - SCTM#67-1-8
TRUSTEE KING: So moved. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Is there an opportunity for me to speak
regarding one of those amendments?
TRUSTEE KING: When we get into the amendments. We are not there
yet.
Before I forget, there are quite a few postponements
tonight. I don't want anybody thinking we'll be going through
them. We won't be, addressing the following.
Page four, number four, 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 cubic yards 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, has been postponed.
Number five, 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+/- cubic yards over 250+/- square feet
along the waterward face of the concrete seawall. Located: Hedge
St., Fishers Island, has been postponed. Most of these are on
Fishers Island, that's the reason they are being postponed. We
have not had a chance to get over there yet.
Number seven, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on
behalf of MILL CREEK PARTNERS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to
remove the existing concrete seawall along the northern section
of the property and replace with a new stone veneer wall and
pedestrian entry stairs 240 linear feet overall; install a new
free-standing sign along the northern property boundary; install
a new timber curb with guard rail along boat basin side bay side
along the gravel driveway within the eastern section of the
property 1,300 linear feet overall; install non-turf plantings
along the northeastern corner of the boat basin 350 sf.; install
new drainage systems within gravel driveway; install new
lighting, underground utilities where required; construct new
dock master/marina building 290 square feet atop existing
decking along the eastern section of the property and install
attendant sanitary system to the immediate northeast; install
native grass plantings along the southern shoreline; remove
all non-indigenous materials along shoreline of boat basin,
Board of Trustees 4 April 18, 2012
maintain existing vegetation and re-establish native plantings
in disturbed areas. Reconstruct/reconfigure all dockage
within boat basin; install new handicapped accessible dock
access ramp and deck 285 square feet off the northeastern corner
of the boat basin; install new dock access ramp, stairs and
deck 185 square feet off the northwestern corner of the boat basin; and
install new dock access 120 square feet within southeastern
section of property. Install low-sill bulkheading around east
and west sides of the boat basin, east side 615' overall and
west side 330' overall; install native plantings landward of the
proposed low-sill bulkhead and seaward of the AHW; install
rip-rap 5'-10'W X 2901 along the southern shoreline of the
property, inclusive of stone steps 8'W, and backfill with 200
cubic yards of clean fill obtained from an approved-for upland
source; and remove dilapidated wood bulkhead 35' within the
southwestern section of the property. Maintenance dredge the
boat basin and southerly channel outwards into Peconic Bay to a
navigable water depth of 6'. Amount of resultant spoil @ 4,890
cubic yards to be transferred to on-site de-watering area within
southern section of the property 35'X 60' prior to being removed
to an approved-for upland location. Located: 64300 Main Rd.,
Southold. Partners has been postponed. .
And on page eight, number 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 have been
all postponed. These are all on Fishers Island and are listed as follows:
Number 15, KPC Planning Service, Inc., on behalf of FHV LLC
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 39' dock with a 3'X
12' ramp, 6'X 20' floating dock, three (3) two-pile (12" dia.)
Float securing dolphins and two (2) two-pile (12" dia.) Boat
securing dolphins. Located: 1500 Mason Dr., Cutchogue.
Number 16, 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.
Number 17, 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 on site
locations; install 85' of boulder barrier along the eroded
shoreline consisting of 1-2 ton stones placed on top of a V
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 V 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
Board of Trustees 5 April 18, 2012
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.
Number 18, 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.
Number 19, 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.
And number 20, 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 9 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.
Those have all been postponed. Those are all on Fishers
Island. We are scheduled to go over there Friday, so we'll play
catch up.
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Number one under Resolutions and Administrative
Permits, STEPHEN D. WALSH requests an Administrative/Ten-Year
Maintenance Permit to trim the phragmites to 12" by hand as
needed, and construct a storage shed elevated 2'-3' on posts.
_ Located: 7065 New Suffolk Rd., New Suffolk.
It's a little, small piece of property on New Suffolk
Avenue. He asked for a storage shed, that kind of thing. Dave
went out and looked at it and I went out and looked at it. I
don't have a huge problem with it. He wants to trim some of
the phragmites. I showed him where he should trim.
would make a motion to approve this, but we need to see a
little better drawing indicating the area of phragmites being
cut. It needs to be a little more made clear on the survey. So
Board of Trustees 6 April 18, 2012
1 would make that motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just a comment on the motion. There is a
proposed violation for this, so in the motion I would recommend
the permit not be released until the violation is taken care of.
TRUSTEE KING: All right, so I'll make a motion to approve with
the condition we need to see a better set of plans where the
phragmites will be trimmed and the permit will not be released
until this violation is cleared up. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(Trustee King, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer,
aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Bergen, nay).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For the record, I'm voting no on this. I had
voted no on this house originally. I thought this house was too
close to the wetlands and this is a non-disturbance area where
this work will be, so I'm voting no on this.
TRUSTEE KING: As we move through these, the ones that are very
simple and no problems with them, we'll lump them together so we
can move along. So numbers two, three and four, I would make a
motion to approve. They are listed as follows:
Number two, PINDAR DAMIANOS requests an Administrative/Ten-Year
Maintenance Permit to handcut Common Reed (Phragmites australis)
to 12" in height by hand, as needed and to maintain a 4' wide
natural path. Located: 2030 Mill Lane, Peconic.
Number three, ROBERT TAYLOR requests an Administrative Permit to
remove nine (9) deteriorating windows and one entrance doorway
on the enclosed porch and replace with new picture
and casement windows.Located: 2995 Sigsbee Rd., Mattituck.
Number four, Joseph M. Sorce, Esq., on behalf of MARTIN
EHRENREICH requests an Administrative Permit for the existing
flag pole in the rear yard. Located: 2950 Sound Dr., Greenport.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: And number five, Raymond W. Nemschick, RA on
behalf of STEPHEN MITCHELL requests an Administrative/Ten-Year
Maintenance Permit to replace and restore the sand level by
method of hand shoveling/hand-raking and to prune the vegetation
on the bluff. Located: 7132 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic.
This was found inconsistent with the LWRP, but it was to do
with decks. This is from 2010. Once again, this was found
inconsistent. This is a new folder. It's mostly because of the
trimming on the vegetation on the bluff and bank has not been
stated. It states the buffer should be maintained to achieve a
high filtration efficiency, avoid permanent and unnecessary
disturbance, maintaining existing indigenous vegetation in the
buffer areas.
The CAC, I don't see anything from the CAC. It's
administrative so they didn't go out and look at it. Quite
frankly, I was a little uncomfortable with this one. It's a
Board of Trustees 7 April 18, 2012
ten-year maintenance for trimming on the bluff and they also
want to do, looks like some beach nourishment of some sort. But
we had old pictures in the file. See how heavily vegetated it
was? There is the bluff. I would recommend we table this and
we'll go back out. These pictures were taken in September of 2008.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's funny because right along the side of the
stairway it's the same.
TRUSTEE KING: This was in August of 2008. 1 think we should look
at it when this vegetation, Dave, right now it's down to almost
nothing. It's been trimmed right down to ground level. So I'm
uncomfortable doing anything with this for a couple months. I would
just like to table this until we go out and look at it in the future.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If we could, I would like to, in the meantime,
at least make a recommendation to the applicant that he address
the water runoff off that deck.
TRUSTEE KING: He has a serious erosion problem under the
walkway, coming mostly from that deck.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What can't be seen here is the water that drains
off the roof of the house, drains on to the deck and all the
water from the deck drains to the bluff. And he has a serious
erosion problem. He can do what he wants but I strongly
recommend that he address that issue because it's just going to
get worse and worse for him.
TRUSTEE KING: Maybe we'll table this and write him a note that
we recommend he do something about this runoff, in the meantime,
until we get back to it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It will only help him.
TRUSTEE KIIM: [would like to table this one. And we'll revisit it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Once again under Resolutions and Administrative
permits, numbers two, three and four were all very simple
applications, no problems with them. Six and seven, these are
both, like I said, very simple like the one we all know about,
the park district one. I would recommend approval of six and
seven. They are listed as follows:
En-Consultants on behalf of JOSEPH & LAURA MAZZA requests
an Administrative Permit to install bluestone stepping stones
within approx. 670 square foot area of existing driveway to be
removed and install a bluestone walkway from proposed driveway
to existing stoop; and a Letter of Non-Jurisdiction to construct
a new section of driveway and a 22'X 26' garage entirely on the
landward side of the existing house and more than 100' from the
face of the bulkhead. Located: 280 Basin Rd., Southold.
Number seven, David B. Prokop, Esq., on behalf of MATTITUCK
PARK DISTRICT requests an Administrative/Ten-Year Maintenance
Permit to conduct periodic beach maintenance; removal of debris
from park beaches from 10' above mean high water to bluff
toe/bulkhead; manual or rubber-tired tractor only, no treads, as
needed. Maintenance to be conducted four times a year, Spring,
Board of Trustees 8 April 18, 2012
Mid-Summer, Fall and one additional, as needed. Located: Bailie
Beach, Breakwater Beach, Veteranl s Memorial Park.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KING: And on page three, numbers one, two, three and four, same thing,
there were no problems with any of those. I would recommend approval of those four.
They are listed as follows:
Number one, ROSE L. MILAZZO REVOCABLE TRUST requests a
One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7054, as issued on May 19,
2010 and Amended on November 17, 2010. Located: 1165 Island View
Lane, Southold.
Number two, MARY BURNHAM requests the last One-Year
Extension to Wetland Permit#7109 and Coastal Erosion Permit
#7109C, as issued on June 24, 2009. Located: Peninsula Rd.,
Fishers Island.
Number three, Natural Images Landscaping on behalf of PETER
& JOAN FRITZ requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit#7633 to re-vegetate the area landward of the bulkhead
and install a stone patio. Located: 755 North Parish Drive, Southold.
And number four, Samuels & Steelman on behalf of DAVID &
LIBBY ROSS requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit#7602 to add an additional 400 cubic yards of clean fill for the
new sanitary system. Located: 170 Park Ave. Ext., Mattituck.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number five, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on
behalf of KENNETH & ELIZABETH LESTRANGE requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7408 to allow
construction of an additional 16' return section on west end of
the retaining wall. Located: 960 Willis Creek Dr., Mattituck.
This was an amendment to put a return on an existing
retaining wall, and when I went out and looked at it, it was
instead a return, it was out of vinyl like they would normally
put in with this adjoining retaining wall, somebody had built a
stone retaining wall as a return. It looks nice and all but it
was actually done before they had the permit in hand. So I'll
- recommend we table this and Costello will come in with a new set
of plans indicating the stone wall that is there will remain.
So it's an.amendment to change it to a stone wall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: And number six, John E. Jones on behalf of OLD
ORCHARD HOMEOWNERS ASSOC, requests an Administrative Amendment
to Wetland Permit#7464 and Coastal Erosion Permit#7464C to
Board of Trustees 9 April 18, 2012
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.
This is a request for some chairs and things along behind
the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There was a letter in the file.
TRUSTEE KING: There is a letter in the file. There are some
issues here. There has been some questions asked on this. The
neighbor is questioning a few things about it. It was relocation of
existing boat storage, seating. I think we need to go out and take a
look at this so we can make a better determination. So I would make
a motion to table this application and look at it next month.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. MOORINGS:
TRUSTEE KING: We have two moorings. I don't think there were any issues with the
two moorings either. We looked at them in the office. They are both replacing an existing
mooring. I would make a motion to approve. They are listed as follows:
Number one, ANDREW LUTKOWSKI requests a Mooring Permit in Goose Creek for a
14' boat, replacing Mooring #115.
Number two, ROBERT MOHR requests a Mooring Permit in Corey Creek for a 28' boat,
replacing Mooring #780.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off regular hearing and
go into public hearings.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number one, LOUIS & ELIZABETH MASTRO request an
Amendment to Wetland Permit#7512 to remove the entire roof, front porch, remove and
reconstruct rear sunroom and move from the water by V-3/4"; construct 312 sf. addition
in front of the northeast side of the dwelling with new basement; and install a fence
along the north and south property lines and along the front of the property. Located:
1595 Bayview Ave., Southold.
This was found to be consistent with LWRP. The CAC resolved to support the
application with the condition that the drainage for the roof is depicted on the site plan.
We have been out to this one a couple of times out on Bayview Avenue, and this is
actually a reduction in what they originally wanted, and there was no problem with this
when we took a look at it again. And the roof runoff, the drainage was, it is being
handled. In the original permit we stated that it had to conform with Chapter 236, so it's
all on there anyway. This is just a reduction to make it consistent with what they are
actually doing: Is there anybody here who would like to speak on this application?
Board of Trustees 10 April 18, 2012
MS. HULSE: Which application?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is number one under Amendments. This is
under Public Hearings. Mastro. Page four.
TRUSTEE KING: Top of page four.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Seeing nobody would like to make a comment, I'll
make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve as applied for.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on
behalf of ROBERT & LAUREN EICHER requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#5467 from Monique Morris to Robert & Lauren Eicher, as
issued on December 21, 2001 and an Amendment to Wetland Permit
#5467 to install five (5) new bulkhead face pilings adjacent to
the existing face pilings. Located: 1555 Shore Rd., Greenport.
This was a holdover from last month because there was a
buffer that was supposed to be in place and there was not. Since
then it has been put on. Bob went out and checked on it. There
is a picture of it in here. It was found consistent at the last
meeting. I don't think there is any problems with it now. It was
supported by the Conservation Advisory Council. Is there anybody
here to speak on behalf of or against this application?
(No response).
Being none 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.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just bear with me for a second. It's a thick
file. Karen A. Hoeg, Esq., on behalf of WARREN & NINA BERNSTEIN
request an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7540 to demolish first
and second-story and reconstruct dwelling. Located: 2095 Lake
Dr., Southold.
This is a, it's come back to us, as it states here, there
was a permit given, #7540 for this, previously, and this was for
a renovation, and the renovation turned into a demolition. So
they are back for an amendment to approve the demolition.
Previously it was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be
exempt. And the CAC resolved to support the application.
So is there anybody here to speak for or against this
application?
MS. HOEG: Yes. Good evening. Karen Hoeg of Twomey, Latham, Shea.
I'm here on behalf of Warren and Nina Bernstein. First I would
like to thank the Trustees for taking the times to review
matters associated with this application prior to this evening.
Board of Trustees 11 April 18, 2012
A few things I would like to state for the record. I spoke with
James Manos, the neighbor to the west of the Bernstein property.
I spoke with him last night and Mr. Manos personally stated he
won't be appearing this evening and he has no opposition to the
amendment to the permit and that he has no opposition to the
work being done at the Bernstein property. For the record, the
Manos address is 2147 Lake Drive, Southold.
I also have spoken with Perry at the Peconic Land Trust.
They are the owners of the lot across the street from the
Bernstein property. I informed Perry of tonight's meeting and
he said they won't be appearing tonight and didn't believe they
have any opposition, as they had no opposition with the initial
application.
Last week I contacted the Lillian Ball, the neighbor to the
east and at that time she couldn't speak with me and I see she
is present here this evening and I'm sure she is anxious to
address the Board. I have nothing further at this time. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak?
MS. BALL: Hi. Lillian Ball, 2045 Lake Drive in Southold. I was
hoping to hear a little bit more in detail from both the Trustees and
the attorney for the Bernstein's as to how this very different kind of
an application is now before the Board of Trustees. The last time I
was here, I was here in support of my neighbor's addition to the
house, which they have been telling me about for the last three
or four years would be just a small addition on the Manos' side of
the house, not anything to do with me. I would not even see it. I
spoke in support of them. I even was much more lenient on the
idea of_a dock, which was not consistent with the LWRP. And I
believe it was as much of a surprise to the Trustees when they
went to visit the site and saw that there was no building there any
longer, as it was to me, as the neighbor. So, um, the trust that I had
originally in my neighbors to do what they said and to do it correctly,
as I stated before you the last time I was here, is obviously a trust
that has been misplaced. And I'm told this happens all the time
with the Trustees. I think there might be some fundamental
difference in the way a permit procedure might work in order to
avoid this happening, both for neighbors such as myself who
really were never notified that all of a sudden an addition is a
demo and what should take a month or two of construction is now
looking like it will be over 12 months of construction, noise
and interference.
When I started to look at this application more closely and
started to think about it more and I started to observe the
construction crews there, I realized it was a very sloppy
proposition.
I have a number of concerns that I hope you will address.
Number one is when the Trustees visited the site and saw
that there were, number one, not hay bales but corn husks with
full corn cobs on them in the husk as site control, and the silt
fence was propping up these corn husks, which the deer had
strewn all over the neighborhood, which, within two days, they
Board of Trustees 12 April 18, 2012
ate the corn, they brought the corn husks and the corn cobs to
my yard and all over the neighborhood. So the silt fence and
supposed supports are not protecting anything. I took some
pictures today. I thought you might be amused. They continued
working after-- hi, welcome Mike -- you were there at the
site, I hear. There is the way it looks in the backyard on the
lake side with the hay bales or corn bales, the corny bales all
strewn all over everything. They did this last week after you
visited. They actually excavated and dumped the excavated sand
on top of those corn husks, that were not protecting anything,
certainly not protecting the wetlands. They also dumped a giant
pile of hay bales in the front yard but they didn't bother to
put them around. And now the sand is on top of the corn cobs.
You can see the lovely detail of the corn cobs. I don't know
what hay bales substitutes, I have never seen that happen
before. It's ridiculous.
TRUSTEE KING: I always assumed they used straw hay bales.
MS. BALL: No, they were corn and corn cobs.
TRUSTEE KING: This is the first time I have ever seen this. And
also, this doesn't happen all the time. Occasionally we come
across this type of thing. Not all the time.
MS. BALL: Occasionally there are things where they are promoted
as a permit originally that would be for an addition. When I
went to the Building Department after the house came down, I saw
all over the building plans, demolition, demolition, demolition.
In the permit paperwork that I was noticed with,, there is
nothing that says demolition. It says proposed addition. It does
not say demolition. So that kind of thing does happen
occasionally, and unfortunately it has happened here, again, in
the situation where the contractor seems to be sloppy. And I
don't know, that's why I'm interested in hearing what the
attorney has to say about the process. They claim evidently that
this was what they always intended to do. It's not what they
told me and it's not what they told the Trustees. So that's one
of my concerns.
The second one is that my well is not placed correctly on
the permit plan. I didn't measure it so I'm not sure exactly but
I don't think that my survey and their survey line up as to
where my well is.
These kinds of details I didn't pay attention to the first
time around because I basically trusted them. So I want to be
perfectly clear, I don't want to slow down the process. I see
the process is already well underway and I would prefer to have
a finished house next to me and not a whole summer of hell and
construction and torture. As you know I care very deeply about
the wetlands and I'm very concerned when I see things like these
corn bales, is what I want to call them. So it's really
upsetting to me. Not to mention being awakened at six o'clock
in the morning by somebody sawing down trees. That's sort of an
environmentalist's worst nightmare. So you could imagine how
distressed I was.
Board of Trustees 13 April 18, 2012
I'm concerned that there be native plantings. My neighbors
have told me in the past they didn't like native pine trees that
are on the property. I want to make sure those don't come down,
and if they do any construction, serious planting, that it be
native buffer zone.
And I also was not noticed. I mean I don't think a phone
call is a notice. I also don't think a verbal violation is a
violation. If something like this happens, you have to say no. I
mean it's not the rules. And it's my understanding of how the
rules work is that when there is a violation it should be a
written violation, and the work should stop. Now, I understand
how you may have agreed to let them go forward, but now you see
how they went forward, even based on the permit, allowable
permit uses with the permit that was in place. So it's sloppy.
And it shows a total disregard for the wetlands and I'm frankly
very disappointed in my neighbors.
So secondly, I think the process here could be, there may
be some way that we could use this experience in a constructive
manner and positive manner, and I talked to a number of people
including the Trustees' attorney and Mark Terry and a number of
people, and Al Krupski, a number of people in town about the
issues here, and I think there might be some way of approaching
this a little differently. I don't know how to read building
plans very well. I know you have more experience with reading
building plans. But obviously, am I wrong? You did not see this
as a total demolition. You did not permit a total demolition.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why they came before us with this
amendment, yes.
MS. BALL: But that's an after-the-fact amendment, not a
before-the-fact proper procedure for wetland preservation. And
it seems to me a very sloppy method and shows on the part of the
Bernstein's a total disregard for the Trustees' procedure. So I
don't know whether it's possible to change the procedure. It
certainly would not be an easy thing, but it seems to me if the
proper plans are submitted to the Trustees, once they have been
approved by the Building Department, you have a much better
possibility of really knowing what it is you are approving, and
not having to have these amendments come after the fact.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Lillian, sorry, but we have a long agenda
tonight. I would suggest if we are going to discuss those kinds
of issues, let's do it in a separate meeting. For now we are
having a hearing on this particular application. Let's keep it
to that.
MS. BALL: Okay, I just think there is something that needs to
put the trust back in the Trustees.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The point is well taken.
MS. BALL: You've thought about it and probably considered it
before but I think it's a really bad procedure that allows these
things to happen on a continual basis.
And finally, I want to reiterate that I don't want to see
the process slowed down. I do want to see things done correctly
Board of Trustees 14 April 18, 2012
and especially with regard to the site controls and the native
plantings. And if there is anything you can do to speed up the
process, tell my neighbors, please, I would appreciate that the
process not take 12 months, which is what the contractor told me
was going to happen. So, could we have some answers as to how
the violation happened and how the stop work was allowed and
what is going to happen now, how are you going to ensure that
they do pay attention to the rules of the Trustees?
TRUSTEE KING: The only thing I can say, Lillian, when I was out
there and I saw those corn bales, I have never seen those
before and we will not permit them in the future at all. I do
notice in your picture all --
MS. BALL: They should be removed before they throw the other
bales on top of them.
TRUSTEE KING: I asked them to come out and put new straw hay
bales down in place.
MS. BALL: They just dumped them there. They didn't put them
down.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll make sure the new hay bales are put in place
and are properly done.
MS. BALL: And that the corn is removed.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll do that.
MS. BALL: And all my other concerns, is there anything you can
do?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, I'll try and answer a couple of things.
I'm sorry, you listed a lot of things there in your presentation
so you'll have to excuse me if I don't address every one,
because_I don't know if I remember every one.
I think Trustee Ghosio has already said, with regard to a
process that the Trustees follow when applications come in,
that's being addressed by the Town Board. You need to address
those concerns with the Town Board because they are currently
reviewing the demolition versus non-demolition process. So feel
free to go to the Town Board and address that with them.
MS. BALL: Glad to hear that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: With regard to this application itself, this was
an application that we reviewed and approved and gave a permit
for, for a renovation with some additions. It turned into a demo
and they have now come in for an amendment to that Wetland
Permit. And the plans that are submitted, as far as the
footprint of the building goes, matches what was originally
approved, as far as the footprint of the building goes. So there
is no increase in the scope of the job other than it changed
from a renovation to a complete replacement, so to speak, within
the same footprint that had been approved by us. They had to
comply with Chapter 236 Storm Water Runoff with the original
permit. They will have to comply with that, of course, with an
amendment to the permit. I think you already heard Jim, as he
has stated, will make sure that the materials that were used
previously for the hay bales are not used again, and instead the
traditional straw hay bale will be installed at the same
Board of Trustees 15 April 18, 2012
location as the previous hay bale line was installed.
With regard to your concerns regarding length of
construction or time of day in which people start construction,
that is not within the purview of this Board. You know, again,
that's between the applicant and the Building Department. If you
have questions regarding the construction process and how long
that should take and when they can start and when they can
finish, I refer you to the Building Department. That is nothing
the Trustees get into at all. So I hope I have addressed most of
your concerns.
MS._.BALL: Native plantings is the other item.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let me just see, first, is there anybody here
who would like to speak for or against this application?
MS. HOEG: Just to clarify in regard to the native plantings, the
DEC had required a significant amount of native plantings be
placed on the property throughout. It's approved on the site
plan, you can see where they listed the type of planting they
would-like to see installed back on the property and mitigation
of doing the construction work that was approved. So that will
be taken care of.
MS. BALL: I just hope the contractors really follow the rules.
So far they have not.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let's keep the dialogue between you and the
Board.
MS. BALL: And you required native plantings as well as the DEC.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's being required by the DEC. Anybody else who
would like to speak for or against this application?
(No response).
Are there any other comments from any Board members?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm a little disappointed in what occurred, too.
And the Board knows my feelings on this. Yeah, I mean given the
fact it's going to fall within the same footprint, okay, but it
would have been nice to know up front before we got this process
started. I'm also a little disappointed to see the type of hay
bale line that was created. I mean, frankly, that's a little
ridiculous, and I'm requesting the rest of the Board agree with me
on this. It needs to be cleaned up and it needs to be
constructed the proper way. If there is any issue on how to
construct it, we have the instructions for that in our office.
We'll be glad to provide it for you. There is a standard way
it's done. Most contractors know it and they follow it. How that
happened, I have no idea.
TRUSTEE KING:We'll make that part of the amendment.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We'll make that part of the amendment, that's all.
MS. BALL: I also want to find out if there is some way, I mean,
as a neighbor, I do feel that it's necessary to be honest with
your neighbors, if you want to have a good relationship with
them. So why couldn't they have come before this Board and ask
for a rebuild on their old footprint? which is perfectly
legitimate. I have no problem with that. I don't know why they
didn't feel they could do that under the circumstances.
Board of Trustees 16 April 18, 2012
TRUSTEE KING: They are doing it now, but it's late in the game.
MS. BALL: I think they seem to feel that's what they were
presenting to us, and it wasn't; is that correct, Lori?
MS. HULSE: This is-why they re-applied for an amendment to the
existing permit. Just to clarify that. So I suppose you are
correct, however I can't say whether it was done with intent to
deceive or not. Certainly their position is it wasn't. So
whatever it may be --
MS. BALL: They told me for years it was going to be an addition.
Now it's a demo. It's a violation of trust. Whether it's a violation of
Trustees, but it's a violation of certainly neighbors' trust.
TRUSTEE KING: To me it was disappointing the way everything was
handled. But let's move forward with it. Let's move it along
and hopefully at the end it will be exactly what we thought will
be there. And it's all brand new rather than additions.
MS. BALL: It will probably be lovely. A big improvement, but the
process here is what I'm objecting to.
TRUSTEE KING: But it was the method that was disappointing.
MS. BALL: Thank you, for understanding.
MS. HULSE: Jim, there is another person to be recognized.
MR. JONES: John Jones, I'm here representing the Old Orchard
Homeowners Association, item number six on the agenda.
TRUSTEE KING: Sorry, we kind of skipped over you. You should
have screamed.
MR. JONES: I was, but you didn't hear me..
TRUSTEE KING: We want to come out next month and take a look at
that on our field inspections.
MR. JONES: We have two questions.
TRUSTEE KING: Let us finish this and we'll go back to you.
MR. JONES: Sorry.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments regarding the Bernstein
application?
(No response).
If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close this
public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the amendment to
Wetland Permit#7540 with the condition that the material used
for the current hay bale line will be removed offsite to a
proper disposal area and a traditional straw hay bale line will
be established in its place. And silt fence.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. HULSE: Is there a motion to go off public hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 17 April 18, 2012
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go back to section five,
Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments. And this is
number six, 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.
Yes, sir?
MR. JONES: Thank you, I'm very sorry to interrupt. We didn't
hear what the decision was, just to postpone it?
TRUSTEE KING: We are going to table it and we want to go out and
look at it next month. There was a letter from one of the
neighbors was concerned about the activities. We thought it was
a very simple thing when we did it in the office without going
out there but I feel now we should go out and take a look and
check everything out.
MR. JONES: There were three amendments to the original permit.
The one involves erosion problem. Must we wait until we have
approval from you guys in order to proceed with repairing the
erosion?
TRUSTEE KING: I think it would be a good idea to hold off until
next month.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He's talking about his original permit. That's
on the original permit, you mean?
MR. JONES: We had the original permit, it was granted for the
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Oh, I'm sorry.
- MR. JONES: There were three amendments, one for small boats and
so on.
TRUSTEE KING: I just think we should look at it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yeah, I would hang tight.
MR. JONES: What happened was, we staked out the area because we
thought you would come out and inspect it. Did you do that?
TRUSTEE KING: We did not.
MR. JONES: So we staked out the area and someone ripped out the
stakes.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll be out there on May 9
MR. JONES: Should I re-stake it and hope it's not ripped out?
TRUSTEE'KING: Is it still staked?
MR. JONES: No, probably the person who wrote the letter ripped
out the stakes.
TRUSTEE KING: Probably do it just a couple of days before we get
out there.
MS. MOORE: The staking, there was planting of the grasses they didn't take out the staking, by the way. But it's been
planted, so maybe the staking is going to damage the plantings.
so it might be pretty obvious where the boat racks, they want to
move them to. Because it's just--
TRUSTEE KING: We need to go out and look. I wish we had gone out
but we didn't.
Board of Trustees 18 April 18, 2012
MS. MOORE: Really what he staked is on the area where the
grasses are on the one side already established, and the area in
front of Lapse Minning (sic). So it seems to me like you really
don't need to do that. It will be really obvious.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll take a look at it. But we want to move
along here.
MR. JONES: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE KING: On Old Orchard I'll make a motion to table it as
we did before and we'll look it at it next month on the 9th.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go back on to our public
hearing section.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND AND COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Wetland and Coastal Erosion permits number one,
Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of ANDREAS
ARACOSTAS C/O THEOERMOGENOUS requests a Wetland Permit and
Coastal Erosion Permit to remove 55' of existing bulkhead and
construct 55' of new bulkhead in-place; backfill and regrade
void areas landward of entire bulkhead with clean trucked-in
sand (approx. 60 cy.); revegetate area with Cape American beach
grass; and realign existing rock armoring as required by
construction. Located: 21275 Soundview Ave., Southold.
The LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation
Advisory Council voted to support this application. Is there
anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costello, Costello Marine
Contracting. We are the agents for the Karacostas' on this
application for a bulkhead replacement in place of an existing
deteriorated wooden bulkhead that has holes in it and is
vulnerable to being taken over in the next storm. If the Board
has any questions, it will be similar to the adjacent 45 feet
that was replaced with vinyl, and the treated material is going
to creosote and the pilings will all be taken out.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The Trustees found this to be pretty
straightforward but had a question about access to the bulkhead.
MR. COSTELLO: We can bring the material in by land. It's all
fairly light stuff. We'll be shooting the sand over the top through
a funnel. It's a minimal fill. And we'll be taking a small
excavator and lowering it down there to remove the rock from the
dine, and upon completion, put the rock back in front of the
bulkhead. That's all. It will only take a small piece of machinery.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You can get it in through there?
MR. COSTELLO: Sure.
Board of Trustees 19 April 18, 2012
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else here to speak to this application?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: That was the only question I had in my notes was
to get access.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as stated before.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, Costello Marine Contracting
Corp., on behalf of RUTH ANN BRAMSON C/O ROBERT BRAMSON requests
a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to remove 44' of
existing bulkhead eastern return and construct 50' of new return
in-place and provide one level rock armoring at toe of new
bulkhead return, approx. 1 ton per linear ft. Located: 12042 Rt. 25, East Marion.
The application is considered consistent under the Town's
LWRP. The Trustees visited the site on field inspection and felt
it was fairly straightforward. The Conservation Advisory Council
however has requested that we consider-- they did not support
it and they wish that we consider that the proposed 50-foot
return be constructed as a revetment. And that would be
consistent with that application which we'll be hearing at the
next hearing. So that brings to the fall all the comments we
have in the file. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on
behalf of this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Again, my name is John Costello, from Costello
Marine, and we are the agents for the Bramson's on this
application. When the Trustees visited the site, they can see
this is a reasonably steep cliff behind the bulkhead. There is
several trees, which you see in the photograph, and in order to
try and maintain some of those trees and the growth underneath
them and the elevation, we would-only put the wall in and have
helical screw anchors. If you did it with a total revetment,
what you would do is you would be encroaching way out on to the
beach because you need the angle on the revetment to sustain
that and get that elevation. That's why I recommended that they
consider putting a vinyl bulkhead in, in the place. Some of the
rocks that are adjacent to there were placed by the neighbor
under another permit and the last easterly storm overtook the
rocks and you can see what the damage to the property, the
Bramson's property occurred. And we are going to try and correct
that on both occasions. Taking that all out, now I'm probably,
that wall is rotating slightly, and we would try to, there is
one piece of concrete that will have to be broken up and taken
away and disposed of. That is behind the piling. That bulkhead
for many years was maintained by Mr. Larry Tuttle, and the last
Board of Trustees 20 April 18, 2012
few years, after Mr. Tuttle passed away, they have not done much,
and the whole bulkhead is tired.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The question is would that revetment
sacrifice the trees, because you have to go back so far?
MR. COSTELLO: With the helical, you can straighten the wall.
There is a bend in the wall right now. It's rotated slightly.
What we do is try and straighten it out and keep it on the
property line. That's what we'll try to do. It's rotating, the
top of it is over the property line right now.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments, Board members?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just I could vouch for what happened in the last
easterly, I was there, they lost a tree as well when they had
that blowout. I was there and saw what happened, just a day
after it happened. Just to corroborate what you were saying.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, any further comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In the application of Bramson, Costello
Marine on behalf of Ruth Ann Bramson, I would make a motion to
approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application is Costello Marine
contracting on behalf of RICHARD MCKINNEY & CYNTHIA
POWER requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to
remove existing 90' rock revetment and reconstruct in-place 90'
of new configured rock revetment deeper and 3' higher reusing
existing rocks supplemented with approx. 150 tons of additional
new rocks as needed; scarf top edge of existing bank, regrade
and revegetate with native plantings; remove existing 300' of
existing concrete slab revetment and reconstruct in-place 3001
of new configured rock revetment deeper and 3' higher approx. -
1.4 tons of rock per linear ft.; regrade top edge of existing
bank and revegetate with native plantings. The existing Cedar
tree to remain and the removed existing concrete slabs to be
broken up crushed and used as fill and foundation base. Any
excess not used to be removed from site to an approved disposal
site. Located: 12040 Rt. 25, East Marion.
This application has been viewed consistent under the
town's LWRP plan. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the
application with the condition that a 20-foot non-turf buffer
from the top of the bluff landward and the proposed revetment is
continued to the bank line with a three on one slope. And there
was a question about the fence on the property.
The Trustees, I guess there was a question about the
platform and consider requesting moving that landward and
Board of Trustees 21 April 18, 2012
checking its status and possibly having it moved landward,
because the Trustees felt that might have been complicated in
the construction of the revetment, it might be compromised. That
said, that's the material I have in the file. Is there anyone
here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Again, my name is still John Costello. And we are
the agents for the McKinney's on this project. And I'm surprised
that, you know, the Conservation Advisory Council -- and some of
the concrete, as you see, has migrated out on to the beach. My
recommendation was to the McKinney's, is take that, instead of
buying core for the base of the revetment, take the concrete and
you break it up into 50-pound pieces and use that as the core
base on filter clothe. Get it down to the elevation of low
water. The existing revetment, portion of the revetment that was
built did not get down to the low water mark and the rocks were
starting to rotate and move. So there is plenty of concrete and
I think by removing it from the public beach would certainly
give access to the people there. There were, some of the
concrete out on the beach, you can see it, there is a couple of
beaches with reinforcing in it and we took and cut some of it
out already because I recommended that just get it cut out of
there. You don't need that through your foot. But that is an old
road, that's probably your Main Road between Orient and George
Meuller thought was free and would certainly be a nice
revetment, and probably was for about a week. Concrete is light,
and in a storm it moves, and the granite rock would certainly
help alleviate that problem. So that's the purpose of it. And we
are going to take the existing rock revetment abutting the
Bramson's, remove it, dig it down slightly, break the concrete
up, use it for a core base and change the angle and go higher
with it so we try to eliminate the splash over in a storm. That
area as you well know is extremely vulnerable to a hurricane or
southeast storm.
Now, as far as the fence, I believe that they put the fence
up for kids. I don't know when. And I don't know if it's
permitted. But I certainly would not want to fall over the top
of that bluff. So I don't know whether they wanted to keep it or
whatnot. I don't even know if it was permitted. But that deck
that is out there, we can build around it. But, it's still in
good condition. But, that's the prerogative of the Trustees.
TRUSTEE KING: I think the Board would prefer to see the deck
moved landward.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, I think the Board felt it would be in
everyone's best interest.
TRUSTEE KING: Put the seaward side in line with the fence. I
think that's the proper thing to do there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the non-turf buffer--
MR. COSTELLO: Personally, I would try not to even mess with the
vegetation, myself, because of the elevation and the steepness
of the cliff. Unless you are going to take down the fence and
tip it. You know, the angle there is a little bit steep to mess
1
Board of Trustees 22 April 18, 2012
around with too much.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think there is an issue of a --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's not a managed turf lawn, so the issue
of fertilizer--
MR. COSTELLO: I don't think they.fertilize it, but it sprays
over with salt water in a storm, I can assure you.
TRUSTEE KING: Everything seaward of the fence, we just leave in
its natural condition.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments or questions?
(No response).
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 requirement that the existing
deck be moved landward of the landward most feature of the new
revetment so it would be behind the fence, behind the existing
run of fence. So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number four, 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 jetties. Located: 650 Bay Lane, Orient.
This has been found to be exempt from the LWRP. I'm a
little surprised myself. The Conservation Advisory Council was
out there and took a look, and they are resolving to support the
application. However they note 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 is
recommending the dock to be repaired using non-treated lumber,
and because the dock is outsized, the extent of the repair
should conform to code.
The Board was out there and we did have some questions
concerning the size of the dock. It is not a dock that would be
permitted by today's code so one of the things I would recommend
that we stipulate when we move on this, if we move on this, is
that we talk about having some kind of amendment to this
application so if it should come in in the future, that this
dock is brought into code. With that I'll open it up to anybody
who would like to speak to this application.
MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore on behalf Edgar Smith. Mr. Smith
Is here. Actually a neighbor, Mr. Kennedy is also here in support
of the application. This actually, this dock, predates the
Trustees, obviously. It predates the DEC. In 2004 it actually
received permits for the proposed repairs, and Mr. Fitzgerald
was Mr. Smith's representative, but there was some
mis-communication between them. He had all his permits but he
Board of Trustees 23 April 18, 2012
apparently never told my client that he had his permits. So
there was some confusion as to the permits that were in place.
Since -- in the last storm or last couple of storms, have
damaged the end of the dock, I have an aerial photograph that
Google is probably late 2001 or so on aerial photographs. The
dock in its entirety is showing there. The damage at the end has
been a more recent consequence of some of the storms that have
occurred. I think, Mr. Bredemeyer, you were in the area, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I was there during the storm.
MS. MOORE: During the storm, so it was my understanding that was
a result of the more recent storms.
It is a permitted structure. I came in really because I
wanted to be sure that he had all his protections when the work
is there but, um, all of the agencies had approved it in 2004.
The length of the seawall, the repairs to the seawall are pretty
obvious.
There is some pitting of the cement. It's not a
reconstruction of the seawall. It's really a filling in, as I the concrete apron has cracks in it, so it needs repairing. But,
for the most part it's still a functional, stable seawall. So I
guess the bottom line is that the code allows, at least as I
understood it, it would allow the continued repair of a
permitted structure, and that's what we have here. The concern I
had was the reconstruction of the end that was recent storm
damage. So I think that the Board has, for the most part,
acknowledged and helped property owners that had storm damage to
their existing permitted structures. I wanted to be sure that we
had that protection here so, I'm happy to go over anything.
TRUSTEE KING: Pat, what was the original use of that dock?
MS. MOORE: There is actually a deed that Mr. Smith provided from
1947. So in my guess is that this was an area for a marine area
in the, you know, in the '40s. You guys know the history of
Orient better than I do. No, you don't? Well, I was under the
impression it was actually in the '40s that it was kind of a
homeland security and the Orient area was an area where the
ships could come in. I mean I'm really speaking out of turn in
the sense that that is folklore. I don't know, it's before my
time and before all your time.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't know. There are a few docks there on
the harbor.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there any particular reason this has to be in
an "L" configuration? Why can't it just be straight?
MS. MOORE: What he's asking -- does it have to stay as an "L"
versus straight? You could answer that better than I can.
If you are going to speak, you have to come up and put it
on the record.
My concern is to have to go back to the DEC to make that
kind of alteration. Right now it's a permitted structure. For me
to straighten it out, I would have to go to the DEC and explain
the Trustees want me to straighten it. You would end up having
to go further out. I don't know, you know. I would think the
Board of Trustees 24 April 18, 2012
wisdom is keep it as it is because it's hugging the shore more.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. Just to be a little clear about the
permit from 2004. There was never a permit issued. It was
approved. There was an approval involved. I was not there at
the time, but there was an approval, there were conditions to
the approval and whoever was in charge of getting those
conditions met prior to receiving the permit, never followed up.
So the permit was never issued. So this is not a permitted
structure from the Trustees.
MS. MOORE: Well, I think the issue was, at the time, one of the
Board members, I'm guessing maybe Polywater may have been on the
Board at that time. I'm trying to remember. His issues was the,
um, the dolphin. And my, it was the dolphin, and my client was
very adamant that those were needed and wanted to maintain them.
So that was the problem there. Also, I think there was some
delay from the time the Trustees approved it, the DEC was
questioning the history or the lineage of that dock, because the
DEC ended upcoming back very late in 2000 -- 1 guess -- I want
to say 2005, and then finally recognized that this was in fact a
pre-existing dock.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As point of information how many dolphins
are associated with the dock?
MS. MOORE: One? How many dolphins do you have?
MR. SMITH: Edgar Smith. If you look outward to Orient Harbor,
from there, that's a dolphin. I think it's approximately 20 feet
off the front of the dock. And then there is a line that you can
see going from left to right. That line, if you follow the
line, there is a dolphin. It's out of the picture.
And may I be permitted to address one of the previous
questions? I don't think that it's unusual at all to have an
"L" shape because it facilitates the berthing, the docking of a
boat. for 45 years, I have had a boat that you put the bow up
front. It's a 22 foot skiff. And the stern you can bring in and
out toward the dock by the use of that line back there. So that
in its original configuration, 'I think that dock actually had
boards going down to protect it from storms. But it is, that is
how you can use of the dock to berth a boat. If that makes
sense.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, one of the suggestions that we had was,
see what we are doing here is we are trying to work with you and
also get it more into conforming with what we have as code
today, which is nowhere near, this is a much larger structure
than we would normally allow. You have some area to the left
here which is really quite, Jim used the word derelict. And I
guess I suppose it is. Can we remove that section? Remove that
from this?
MR. SMITH: That actually is on my neighbor's property.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This part that is connected? Is that connected
to the dock?
MR. SMITH: I don't know what you call it, the finger going off
to the left.
Board of Trustees 25 April 18, 2012
MS. MOORE: Is that called a timber jetty?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's connected to the dock.
MR. SMITH: That's used by a neighbor to berth their boat.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So you have an agreement among your neighbor
to use your dock communally?
MR. SMITH: That's correct. My next door neighbor, who happens to
be physically present tonight, permits another neighbor to put
their boat there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So now this is a community dock.
MS. MOORE: Well, informally. Is it in writing?
MR. SMITH: No.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The reason if becomes important at this point is
now we have a dock that we'll be voting on that traverses two
properties and only one person has applied.
MS. MOORE: Well, he's right here. But it's not a legal
agreement, it's a mutually beneficial agreement that the
neighbor uses.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustees like good neighbors but I think the
issue here is we are trying to find ways to bring the dock
somehow in conformity with the standards.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And the part we are talking about maybe
removing, we just, is not even on your property. It's one structure.
MS. MOORE: But keeping in mind this is also pre-existing.
MR. SMITH: It's been there for 60 years. How could you
conceivably, you want me to rebuild the dock to conform to
current code?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, then I would have stated that. I stated we
are trying not to do that. We could but we don't want to go in
that direction, of course. I'm just feeling out ways that maybe
we can do something a little different because ultimately when
the time comes for this to be replaced, and this will be a
condition to this permit no doubt, that when it comes time to
replace the dock, it will have to conform to code. So it may not
be in your lifetime or mine, but there will come a time, so
that's kind of, I'm just trying to see if we can start working
in that direction.
MS. MOORE: This may not be the right time.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just for clarity, for myself. Wee House Partners
and Edgar Smith is one and the same?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. I wanted to make sure.
MS. MOORE: Sorry, no. Wee House Partners, he's the managing --
MR. SMITH: Wee House Partners is my wife and myself.
MS. MOORE: Legal entity. He's authorized to speak.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, I don't know what to do now. Any
suggestions or ideas? How do we address this issue with the
issue with the part that goes on someone else' property?
MS. HULSE: You need the authority of the adjacent owners.
MS. MOORE: To remove it.
MS. HULSE: Jim, that's not correct because you are permitting it
and it now goes across two neighboring parcels.
Board of Trustees 26 April 18, 2012
MS. MOORE: But it's pre-existing since the '40's, so.
MS. HULSE: But they are permitting it tonight if they vote on it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't know how we can permit a structure that
includes the property of another.
MS. HULSE: Not without them conjoining the application.
MS. MOORE: You have the gentleman right here. Maybe he would
like to speak.
MR. KELLY: I'm Jack Kelly, the abutter of Wee House Partners.
Just a way of background, they were originally one ownership.
Dean Fox owned them. I think they were constructed by his
family. That piece that goes out to the left, the jetty?
MS. MOORE: They call it a wood jetty.
MR. KELLY: I don't regard it as being on my property. It extends
in front of my property. But it's out in the bay. So, I don't
regard it as mine and it's never thought to be mine. There is a
little dock, you know, much shorter dock to the left, with the
dolphin sticking out. The thing that I was here to comment on
was not so much the dock -- and I disclaim ownership to the
piece that goes out to the left. The comment that I wanted to
make was, as you well know, is the importance of the safety of
these docks and the seawall as well, because there is a lot of
traffic, tourists and others, people in the Village of Orient,
who use that as access to the waterfront, the pathway along in
front of our house, houses; and frequently have kids, for
example, running by, and as they would go out on a dock or
something like that. And my wife and I never, never, when we
see kids out there unattended, stop looking at them. Because it
can very easily you'll fall off that, and at high tide that's
very deep. So the safety of those structures is important, as
I'm sure you recognize. I think that's all I had to say. But
Wee House Partners and the house that I live in, which is next
door, were once in the same ownership, Dean Fox, basically.
And I think you acquired it from the Fox family.
MR. SMITH: From the Fox estate.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, we really don't have any problem with the
seawall issue. Repairing the seawall is not a problem. I think
we should table this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can table it and have an opportunity to
meet with the owner in the field, too.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll tell you what we are going to do. At this
point I'm going to make a motion to table the application. The
reason that we need to table it is because we need to deal with
the section that is connected to it that is on a different
property. Because right now I can tell you that I think that
most folks on the Board will want to see that removed, so.
MS. MOORE: What is called the timber jetty?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, no, the section -- yes, it's labeled here
as timber jetty.
TRUSTEE KING: At one time I would not be surprised if there were
wave breaks there at one time.
Board of Trustees 27 April 18, 2012
MR. SMITH: There were. And it's currently in use. The contractor
is here now.
MR. PRINDLE: Mike Prindle, MTP Custom Carpentry. The only thing
we are repairing is the main dock, a couple of the main runners
that run under the deck boards and a little bit on the end. I'm
not touching the left or right at all. It's just the main dock
itself.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What kind of lumber are you using?
MR. PRINDLE: I was going to use CCA but I found out you can't,
so.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: For quite a long time.
MR. PRINDLE: Just the joists, the 6x8's.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The decking has to be non-treated lumber now.
MR. PRINDLE: We were going to use regular Douglas fir on that.
But what about the frame itself?
TRUSTEE KING: The structural members can be CCA. Like the cross
members or stringers, those can be CCA. The decking has to be
untreated.
MR. PRINDLE: It's very limited. There is only the four main
going from piling to piling and two or three center ones and the
ones out at the very end where the deck boards are missing. So
that's it for repair. And a few decks boards that are split or
cracked. So I'm not doing nothing to the left or right. It's
just the main drag everyone walks on. Just so you know.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We understand that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The issue for us --
MS. MOORE: Maybe I can assist. As far as the fact this has been
in place since the '40s, establishes pre-existing rights here
and also, I want to call it adverse possession, but, it's there.
What we have here is actually the adjacent owner who would have,
I guess, theoretically, a right to go out straight, which is
what I think you are concerned with, if somebody wanted to build
a dock that went straight out, and might hit the timber jetty.
I'm just trying to figure out what, because once it's in the
water, the fact it's been there for so long it may be just
useful for you to have on the record, I mean, he's already put _.
it on the record but I would be happy to get a letter from Mr.
Kennedy that says I make no claim of right and I give consent to
placement of this continued placement of this timber jetty.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is why we are going to table it. So we can
try and work through all this.
MS. MOORE: Yes, you tell me what you want. I mean, we could work
on this.
MR. SMITH: I would like to just make one comment I think is
obvious to you gentlemen. But the state and conditions of this
dock is a matter of genuine concern to both the community and to
me and my ex-wife, from a liability standpoint. The children,
people have walked back and forth and gone out for a hundred
years in that part of Orient, and it is truly dangerous. And I'm
not there 24 hours a day. We have got to get it fixed so that
people don't get hurt.
Board of Trustees 128 April 18, 2012
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, we'll be out there to take another look at
it in two weeks. I would like to make a motion to table this
application and we'll do what we need to do to get these issues
resolved so we can vote on this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. MOORE: So let me know if you want something from us,
because, at this point, I think the application pretty much
speaks for itself. There is really not very much -- sorry, have
you voted yet?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we voted to table.
MS. MOORE: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, number five, Fairweather Design Associates
on behalf of DAVID MOORE requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal
Erosion Permit to cut back the non-permitted bluff side deck
16', lessen the amount of decking that approaches the bluff and
redirect the roof and deck run-off to the landward drywell.
Located: 21075 Soundview Ave., Southold.
This was found consistent with LWRP. And the Conservation
Advisory Council voted to support the application. The CAC
observed a four-inch pipe running through the bulkhead. And
there is a lack of detail on the plan with what currently exists
on the property. There is also a question about the legality of
the existing boat lift on the bulkhead. Those are the comments
from the Conservation Advisory Council. And we questioned that
drain pipe, what it was, what it was doing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Lots of drain pipe there.
MS. MARTIN: My name is Amy Martin, representative of David Moore
from Fairweather & Brown in Greenport. We are here for the
as-built deck, and there was drain pipe that was running through
when Costello replaced the stairs to the bluff. We are in the
process of trying to -- and what we ended up at the ZBA, and you
had, I had met you at site and you had recommended cutting back
the deck nine feet. We went through the Zoning Board of Appeals
and due to the fact that there was a lot of lot coverage
involved and they felt we needed to cut the deck back to only
eleven feet from the house. So we are cutting the deck back 16
feet. It's not actually going to be cut back, it has to be
replaced. It's already like ten years old and he wants to
totally replace it, but to the eleven feet that has been allowed
by the ZBA.
As far as I understood, the drainage had been redirected to
drywells in the driveway. I don't know what is running down, all
the extra pieces of irrigation pipe. Um, I will find out from
the contractor what is going on there. Because I was told all of
that was being redirected to drywells that are in the driveway,
and we went through the whole process of the, all of the
property's runoff with the ZBA and are drainage plan was
approved by the town engineer as far as every bit of runoff will
be directed to drainage facilities.
Board of Trustees 29 April 18, 2012
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When we went out, the drain line goes all the
way down, follows the stairs and it connected to the bottom of
the stairs and runs down to the beach. We couldn't figure out
what that was either. That's what all these pictures are of.
MS. MARTIN: That's new since I was there. Other than to check
that the sign was still there. I don't understand that at all. I
know that everything will be redirected to the proposed drywell.
TRUSTEE KING: It has to be to meet the code.
MS. MARTIN: Yes. And that drainage plan was calculated by Rob
Brown and Jamie Richter has approved that. So I know once we go
forward everything will be properly taken care of. And in the
meantime I'll make sure everything is taken care of. But on the
whole, you were much more lenient than the ZBA. So we are
tracking it way back.
TRUSTEE KING: We noticed when we went out in the field, what
happened here. I don't think there were any other issues other
than the drainage. We felt that there has been an improvement.
The boat lift, I don't know how to address that at all.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If it's not permitted it would have to be
removed. Or applied for to be permitted.
MS. MARTIN: I'm thoroughly confused because, you know, I know
they know it's not allowable. And I was told it was being
redirected landward.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's right here, I don't know if you can see it
in the picture.
MS. MARTIN: I don't know if they thought that was a temporary fix.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Oh, no, we are talking about a boat lift.
MS. MARTIN: Oh, I don't know about that. I don't do boat lifts.
TRUSTEE KING: The CAC brought it up as a concern. It's landward
of the bulkhead. It's just used to lower a skiff down to the
beach. It should have been put in the bulkhead permit by rights.
Maybe they should amend the bulkhead permit to include that. I
think that's what I would recommend. Amend the bulkhead permit
to have them apply for that boat lift that is on that bulkhead.
That would be better than trying to tie it into the house on the
application.
'MS. MARTIN: I'll redirect that to the Costello's. If he
remembers his name. Right now he's not remembering his name.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application? 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, and
the drainage will have to meet 236. The drywells are indicated
here. And all those pipes we observed in the field will have to
be removed.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 30 April 18, 2012
(ALL AYES).
MS. MARTIN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number six. Amy Martin on behalf of ISLE OF
CEDARS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit
to lift dwelling 24" (3 courses of cement block); add 14'X 6'9"
addition to front bedroom; add 7'X 10'9" front entry and 12'6"X
19'4" screened in porch to west end of dwelling; cathedral the
roof; interior renovations; new windows, siding and roof; and
replace the seaward side deck inkind. Located: 2450 Peter's Neck
Rd., Orient.
The Board did go out and looked at this. It was found
consistent under the LWRP with a recommendation that a natural
vegetative buffer be established between the beach and the lawn.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with the condition all leaders and gutters go into
drywells. In other words to meet Chapter 236.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MS. MARTIN: Amy Martin of Fairweather & Brown, Greenport, 205
Bay Ave. This is an application to renovate a house that
basically the Isle of Cedars in the Latham family and they
bought this house from other family members estates. And the
purpose is basically to, hopefully, I guess, improve the house
so that some of the kids will bring grandchildren home when they
have them.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's won't be a condition of this permit.
MS. MARTIN: No. It's basically to keep the house in the family
and to improve it. So it, the permit includes raising the house
three blocks higher, about 24 inches up, to get it higher off,
for future flood problems. And they're replacing the windows,
they're adding three small additions, one including the porch on
the west side, but everything else is on the road side. We have
shown site plan with all of the Chapter 236, 1 believe, is all
the drainage, I believe, for all the structures and the driveway
and everything on the property. And since we applied, we had a
meeting with the client and they have now decided to ask for a
dormer. So I'll hand this out. There will be a dormer on the
east wing, a proposed dormer on the east wing of the bedroom end
of the house. And this is just to be able to put a second story,
to increase it one bedroom and have a second story on the east
wing. It doesn't change the footprint in any way, shape or
form. It doesn't do anything more than, other than the fact that
now instead of just replacing the shingles on the roof,
basically the whole roof will be replaced because the peaks on
each end will be a little higher, and they want some attic
storage between them. So again we are not changing the
footprint except for those that we already applied for and we
just wanted you to be aware there is more demolition to the roof
than we originally stated. We don't want to be one of those that
comes back and says we are doing more.
TRUSTEE KING: You said demolition. That's a scary word.
MS. MARTIN: We are taking the roof off and basically raising the
Board of Trustees 31 April 18, 2012
whole roof a little bit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The concern that the Board did have out there in
the field was, because we looked very closely at these plans and
we saw how many walls are coming down and what is staying. And
we are concerned that this not turn into a demolition. If you
were here earlier this evening you saw the challenges that this
Board faces when permittees who are granted a permit for
renovation turn it into a demolition. So we are just asking,
please, if it's going to turn into a demolition, that they stop
the work and they come in to the Building Department and the
Trustees to apply for the appropriate amendments.
MS. MARTIN: They are really, there really are only three places,
with the exception of the roof, that there will be, where walls
will change. That's the small addition on the roadside bedroom,
the entry location is changing to the further west, and have a
little vestibule so you are not walking right into the living
room. And there will be a foundation under the screened in porch
on the west end. And the deck will have to be replaced because
it will now be higher. And that's in the application. Inplace,
same size, with cedar. It's not, there is no, the house has very
good integrity. It has a very good foundation. And they are just
trying to make sure that there is no future flood problems. It
will have flow-throughs, there will be no mechanicals in the
basement. It's, you know, they just want to make the maximum out
of the house while they are doing the work rather than later
have one of the kids say, oh, we need another bedroom upstairs,
so. But we'll, if we decide that it has to be a demolition,
we'll come to you first. After we talk to the Building Department.
_ TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. The LWRP recommended and established
buffer and I know going out there and looking at the site, we
looked at the pictures, there is already a wooded natural area
in front of this house going to a bank. So myself, personally, I
feel there is already a natural buffer there and I would ask,
just ask that wooded natural area which is depicted as wooded
natural area in the plan, remain as a non-turf buffer.
MS. MARTIN: The owners have lived in the house next door for
several years and they know that every storm, the dunes and the
beaches change there, and they are very, very careful of the
environment. So I know they will, they are not people who
fertilize. Everything is natural. And that they will do, you
know, respect the environment, in the same way.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: With regard to the change of the scope of the
project, with the addition of the dormer, it's my feeling and
I'll look for the feeling of the rest of the Board here, that
since the dormer is staying within the footprint of what has
been applied for, that I don't think that will effect this
permit here tonight.
TRUSTEE KING: No.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just wanted to check with the Board on that.
MS. MARTIN: I'm not sure if your plans show it, but with the
DEC., the fact there was also the freshwater wetlands to the
Board of Trustees 32 April 18, 2012
east, we are hay baling both perimeters. And they had a lot of
storm damage to trees there, in the last wind storm. Those were
not trees they wanted to take down. Those were trees that were
knocked down and they plan on reforesting that area. They don't
want to see the houses, they want them to be separate. So we'll
be doing a very natural planting.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I've done is marked this plan you have
provide with us tonight, dated and initialed it here, so that
we'll go with that plan because you also have, it shows the
dormer on it, and it also shows the location of the staked hay
bales, both to the east and to the south.
MS. MARTIN: Okay, and we will also submit, this plan actually
was just drawn this week, it's not even on the computer yet. So
I'll submit the new plans when it's on the computer so you have
everything for your records. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who would like to speak
for or against this application?
(No response).
Not seeing anybody, any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Amy Martin on behalf of Isle of Cedars LLC, as per the plans
submitted this date and conditioned upon receipt of new plans
that will depict the dormer as well as the hay bale line and
that with the condition that what is marked as wooded natural
area be maintained as a non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And this was found consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Wetland Permits, JOHN & MARIE SHACK request a
Wetland Permit to repair an existing 3'X 40' catwalk, replace 3'X 7' stairs from bulkhead
to dock and replace damaged 3'X 3.5' stairs from dock to beach. Located: 1265 Shore
Dr., Greenport.
The LWRP found this to be exempt, and the CAC voted to support this
application. The Trustees' field inspection found it to be straightforward with one
comment: A modification of the stairs up and over the, for access to the public, that
there be stairs left and right of the dock. Is there anyone here to speak to this
application?
MS. SHACK: Hi, Marie Shack, 1265 Shore Drive. And I think it's
pretty straightforward. I'm just here in case up have any
questions. I have absolutely no problem with putting stairs on
either side. A lot of times the kids will come from Silver Sands
and walk along the beach and go out on the dock, and, that's fine.
Board of Trustees 33 April 18, 2012
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application?
(No response).
Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: It's just untreated decking on the dock.
MS. SHACK: Right, we'll use through-flow untreated decking.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: There are no further comments, I'll make a
motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Wait a second, I'll put a stipulation in there it's to be non-treated,
flow-through decking. Non-treated lumber, flow-through decking and stairs on either
side.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you. I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
use of non-treated lumber and stairs on either side.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. SHACK: Thank you. Good night.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In our number two, Re, Nielsen, Huber &
Coughlin, LLP on behalf of T-MOBILE NORTHEAST LLC requests a
Wetland Permit to maintain and upgrade public utility wireless
telecommunications antennas on an existing electrical
transmission pole and related equipment on the ground. Located:
69685 Route 25, Greenport.
The CAC did not make an inspection therefore no
recommendation was made. LWRP finds it to be consistent with the
LWRP, with no further comment. I did go out and take a look at
this. It's very straightforward. This is a slight renovation
being done to a T-Mobile transmission line and pole. It's in a
small, fenced in area. They are going to be adding a piece of
concrete. The only reason it's even in here is because it's
within a hundred feet of a designated wetland. But there is
really no wet areas. It's just because it has specie indicators.
It has no impact on anything, and I'll just recommend approval
on this. So unless there is anybody here who would like to speak
against this, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on
behalf of ALISON BYERS requests a Wetland Permit to construct
630' of low-profile 1.5 to 3 ton rock revetment and backfill
void area landward of revetment with clean trucked-in sand
(approx. 500 to 600 cy.); revegetate areas with Cape American
Board of Trustees 34 April 18, 2012
beach grass; realign collapsed existing deck and reinstall
existing stairway to beach; repair all as needed; and realign
collapsed section of wood walkway and repair as needed. Located:
10335 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue.
This area was absolutely devastated by several of the last
storms we had. The Trustees viewed the site and did see all this
damage and undercutting and loss of a huge amount of natural
sand barrier beach. The LWRP deems this project consistent with
the town's LWRP. The CAC voted to support the application. The
Trustees felt that this was very straightforward and necessary
at this time given the conditions we encountered on the inspection.
Some questions the Trustees had about access for the
construction activities. Anyone here who wishes to speak on this
application?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. My name is John Costello. And we are the
agents for Alison Byers on this application. And the only
questions that access, there was access through the property,
actually you can almost see, there is one spot, they took the
trees down and they had one little roadway to the beach, at one
time. And they took it and revegetated it and put in the pine
trees right back. So there was a path, you go to the upland
portion of the site, there was a couple of spots that we had
access. When we built the bulkhead on the east side, we did the
same thing. We cut a road down and revegetated it on the way up
and finishing the job. It will have to be done here only because
there is so much footage that you want to try to use one area,
and we would use the same area that was used previously. And
they brought in fill previously. And the fill is gone. And that
would be the access.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: How does the DEC feel about the structure in
this area?
MR. COSTELLO: I think we might even have the DEC permit already,
on this. Because it's well above the Spring High Water Mark. And
actually the adjacent neighbor to the north of them has a DEC
permit for a revetment, and putting fill on the beach. The fill
will not last very long, you know, but we will be covering some
of the rock because when we excavate into the beach we'll have
probably some of the fill, and we'll place it amongst the rocks
and hopefully behind filter cloth. That's all. So you don't lose
it again. I mean any other questions, I'll attempt to answer them.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think so. I think the Board felt it
was straightforward and met the needs of the site and it's
consistent. Any additional questions?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
MR. COSTELLO: One of the things in the application, I don't
believe we specified this but you can see on the photograph,
there was a little deck area there that has fallen in and we are
told don't even bother to replace it, save some of the solid blocks.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Stone.
MR. COSTELLO: And do it after the revetment, because it will
Board of Trustees 35 April 18, 2012
keep eroding. Just by naturally drying out and seeking its
angle of repose, the time to repair is upon conclusion. We would
level it where you see the concrete patio blocks and that deck
will be re-leveled and the posts put in a little more sufficient
than they were.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, hearing no further comment I'll
make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number four, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc., on behalf of PORT OF EGYPT requests a Wetland Permit to
install new pavement within the central portion of the property;
repair/reconstruct sidewalks and decking within the southeastern
section of the property; install native perennial grass
plantings within an area on the southeastern section of the
property; and add Eastern Red Cedars within a planted garden
area along the southerly section of the property. Located: 62300
Main Rd., Southold.
This was a holdover from last month, if I remember right,
because of neighbor notification. We all went out and looked at
it last month. It was found consistent with the LWRP. The
Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support the
project because the parking area should be a pervious surface.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
for Port of Egypt Enterprises. You were out there, you saw how
rutted the surface was a concern here as we have trucks coming
in and out. We have been unable to maintain any kind of stable
road base which is appropriate for a commercial site. When you
were out there you'll notice that the circulation pattern as you
enter what used to be the showroom adjacent to Albertson, and
you come around in a counterclockwise direction, it's a one-way
street that loops around the parking area. The easterly side of
that loop is already asphalt. Also, when the parking lot was
last improved, grading was already provided for the parking
area. So that grade was already in place. The CAC's comments
are not adverse to what we are doing because we are maintaining
the parking area as gravel surface. It's simply to provide a
loop surface through the site. So you would park either to the
east or the west, like you currently do, if you are going to the
fish store or what have you, that will remain parking, gravel
paving. The width of the pavement is typical 24-foot wide aisle
width, which is planting standard for this type of, or any type
of operation. So this is really should be a pretty
Board of Trustees 36 April 18, 2012
straightforward application. So the parking areas will remain
gravel, so we are not in variance with the wishes of the
Conservation Advisory Council. There will also be some native
plantings that were proposing on your plan. We want to
reconstruct sidewalks and decking, we want to reconstruct the
entryway into the fish store because it's not level and it's not
safe. And we want to repair the handicap ramp to the back of the
building, which I think is all straightforward items. Other than
that, I'm here to answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had any issues. We went out and
looked at it. I think if anything it's an approvement to the
site. Anybody else? Any other comments?
(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 as
submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on
behalf of BARBARA KLEIN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
4'X 106' elevated catwalk secured with twenty-eight (28)
posts @ 6", a 3'X 15' hinged ramp and a 6'X 20' floating dock
secured by four (4) pilings @ 8". Located: 320 Broadwaters Rd.,
Cutchogue.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent on March 14. The
Conservation Advisory Council voted not to support this
application. The concerns were the seaward end of the dock was
not staked at that time, the dock extends beyond the pier line
of the neighboring docks, and they question the legality of the
chainlink fence.
The Trustees' inspection, this is a holdover. We had
suggested moving it landward as much as possible.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting.
I'll hand out some revised plans. When we were here last month,
what we discovered was the seaward edge of the dock was in fact
staked. We also resolved to make it consistent, I thought, with
everyone's concern, by turning the float 90 degrees. So the
plans before you do that. And that brings it in line with the
pier line. So that was what was discussed and that was the
requested amendment. In addition to that, there is discussion
about the fence. I don't have it with me but I have it back in
the office. But the fence was existing at the time the property
owner purchased the property back in 1987, and I have a survey
to show that. Nevertheless, the fence was over the property line
encroaching to the property to the east. And so we prepared a
plan that would relocate the fence back 50 feet from the high
Board of Trustees 37 April 18, 2012
water mark from its present location, which we hope resolves
that issue. So I think these plans address all the issues and
concerns that were raised last month.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this
application?
(No response).
Any additional comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: These are six-inch piles? Is that what they are?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: 28 six-inch posts.
MR. ANDERSON: The float is secured by eight-inch piles.
TRUSTEE KING: The rest is six-inch, I hope.
MR. ANDERSON: And the rest of the catwalk is six-inch piles.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no other comments, I make a motion to
close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would make a motion to approve this
application as per the new plans.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We need to address the inconsistencies in that
motion. I would recommend including in the motion with the
reconfiguration of the dock and the relocation of the fencing
this would bring it into consistency under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The motion is to approve the application as per
the new plans that shows the reconfiguration of the dock and
moving the fence landward to address the --
TRUSTEE KING: Mike, I hate to interrupt you. Any interest in
open-grate decking on that rather than timber decking, over the
wetland area, in particular?
MR. ANDERSON: I don't have an issue with it. The plans could be
revised accordingly.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: From the most landward part of the dock through
to at least past the low water mark; does that sound right?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, we have been leaning in that direction with
all the catwalks over wetland.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: From the most landward part of the dock seaward
to the just beyond the low water mark.
MR. ANDERSON: Great. That's fine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Here we go again. Try this a third time.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll keep my mouth shut this time.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, motion to approve the application as per
the newly submitted plans which indicate a reconfiguration of,
the dock and moving the fence landward to address the previous
concerns and to use open grating from the most landward portion
of the dock seaward to just beyond the low water mark. And doing
so will deem it consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting on behalf of MARY DESETTA requests a
Board of Trustees 38 April 18, 2012
Wetland Permit to construct a second-story addition and separate
lantern addition atop the existing single-family dwelling;
reconstruct the existing outdoor shower; abandon the existing
septic system; install a new updated sanitary system;
reconstruct and raise the existing bulkhead, stairway, hinged
ramp and floating dock. Located: 1325 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport.
REVISED DESCRIPTION AS OF 4/9/12
Reconstruct existing timber-sheathed bulkhead into a
vinyl-sheathed bulkhead; install two (2) separate returns;
reconstruct/repair existing stairway; reconstruct existing
hinged ramp and reconstruct existing floating dock. Proposed
reconstructed bulkhead will consist of vinyl sheathing and
increased in height by 2.3' in order to match existing
bulkhead to the immediate north and 40 cy. of clean fill
backfilled landward of reconstructed bulkhead. Existing stairway
along face of bank will be reconstructed/relocated centrally,
existing hinged ramp will be reconstructed into new
hinged ramp measuring 3'X 15' and relocated centrally, and
existing floating dock will be reconstructed into a new floating
dock measuring 6'X 20' and relocated centrally.
The application has been deemed to be exempt under the
LWRP. The Trustees on their revisiting the site on the 11th
found that the new plans addressed most all the issues that we
had previously encountered with the exception there was some
discussion that needed on a non-turf buffer. That leads into the
comments of the CAC, which go back to the March meeting so that
this was, I think a holdover determination that they wanted the
- dock and bulkhead to conform to the existing Town Code with
regard to the square footage, which the new plans address. They
wish to have new ten-foot non-turf buffer, revegetation of the
bluff with native vegetation, retain the permeable driveway, hay
bales and silt fence throughout construction, and retain the
storm water runoff on the property. So that would be under the
drainage code.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting.
When we were here last we produced a grandfathered application
for a 6x30' float, and the discussion came to that we would
nevertheless have to reduce this to a 6x20' float. Now, part of
that discussion had to do, and you know when you were down there
you see some rather large boats in this area. And we discussed
the possibility of putting in a tie-off pile. Unfortunately the
pile was omitted from the plans but it was under discussion and
my understanding is since we were reducing from 30 foot to 20
foot float, we would be able to put in an additional tie-off
pile. So I have revised plans that reflect that pile, that give
the same mooring capability that the 30 foot dock would have,
consistent with our discussions of last month. So I would like
you to consider that in this permit. If for some reason it
can't be done, then I would ask you just to vote on the
Board of Trustees 39 April 18, 2012
improvements as applied for. It's just the addition of that
tie-off pile, you'll see that page two of four.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's pretty much inline with the dock.
MR. ANDERSON: I believe everything else is addressed in this
application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe everything else was addressed
other than coming to terms with the extent of the non-turf buffer.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, we have, you know, there is a walkway
directly behind the bulkhead. And there are steps that lead to
that walkway. And what I would suggest is that simply all
disturbed areas below the top of the bank be vegetated with
native vegetation. I think that would probably do it. Because
that will have to be done anyway.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bruce, we had a concern out there, given how
sharp this bank is, and the distance from the proposed
construction to the top of the bank, if maybe helical screws
could be used instead of excavating that bank out for deadmen.
Our concern also has to do with the trees that are immediately
on top of that bank. We are just concerned that if you excavate
the deadmen, those trees will come down and will have to be
sacrificed. Then you are compromising the integrity of that
bank. You can see in this picture just how steep that bank is.
There has already been trimming down on this bank and we are
just concerned that bank will just collapse.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, I think that's a legitimate concern. And in
response, right now we are showing the lay logs back down, they
show an excavation of the top of that bank, and you'll see on
page two of four, you'll see that the lay log deadmen are at the
top of that bluff, actually slightly above it. So the
excavation is proposed. Now, this is something the contractor
recommended and so I do understand what you are saying. It seems
to me it could be done either way or the laymen could be set
such that they are not landward of the top of that bluff and it
would accomplish the same thing. So maybe the way to approach
this is either/or. In other words either the lay logs be not
landward of the top of the bank or helical screws be inserted in
its place. Then what I would do is just consult with the
contractor and bring back plans consistent with one of either
alternative. I do know what you are saying, because you can see
it right on plan 2-4.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. For me I think it could work. I don't
want to speak on behalf of the rest of the members of the Board.
MR. ANDERSON: You can see the way it's laid out, they are going
ten-feet back and just immediately adjacent to the stairs on
either side, the bluff face is actually closer to that. So this
plan envisions an excavation of the top of that bluff, which I
think is what you are talking about.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the subsequent loss of the trees. You can
see that one tree, I don't know how it would survive if you
excavate to the top of the bluff. That tree would go, that is in
that picture.
Board of Trustees 40 April 18, 2012
MR. ANDERSON: I agree.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any other questions concerning this
application? Any other comments?
TRUSTEE KING: I think if they go with the lay logs they should
show us the contour of the new bluff they would be creating
because you know that's going to change dramatically.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Have a new angle of repose.
TRUSTEE KING: That's ten, almost 12 feet back in from the
bulkhead. So you know that will be a big change. They might
even need a retaining wall or something, after they do the
construction. I think there will be a big change there because
of the lay logs.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm agreeable to that. I'm just at a loss because
I would like to sort of resolve this this month. Um, and I want
to be able to consult with the contractors that build this.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have an issue moving forward with it as
long as we can see if they decide to use lay logs to show us a
profile of the finished job.
MR. ANDERSON: And limit it so it would be seaward of the top of
the existing bluff I think is what I'm hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: If they can do that. If that's enough support.
MR. ANDERSON: The contractor might say the helicals are better
because you get to go further in.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay. With a lot less disturbance.
MR. ANDERSON: Now helicals are also more expensive.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If we get a revised plan indicating --
MR. ANDERSON: I'll give you one or the other. I'm just going to
carefully write it so I know what I'm doing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And maybe the construction method showing
the planting plan on the new slopes that are created.
MR. ANDERSON: So you want a vertical profile of the bluff with
deadmen, lay logs seaward of the top of the bluff or helical screws.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application subject to a plan depicting the lay log installation
seaward of the existing bluff line or the use of helical screws
profiled through the new slope showing the use of native
vegetation. I think that covers it. So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eight, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc. on behalf of JOHN PITMAN requests a Wetland Permit to .
demolish and remove the existing one-story dwelling 1,020 square
feet and appurtenances 230 sf., and construct a new two-story
dwelling 1,050 sf., front porch 70 sf., rear deck 130 sf.,
Board of Trustees 41 April 18, 2012
abandon use of existing cesspools and install a new sanitary
system and install two (2) drywells. Located: 1100 Ruch Lane,
Southold.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent
with the recommendation of a landscape buffer or non-turf buffer
to be included. The CAC resolved to support the application with
the condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer landward of the
embankment and the PVC pipes coming out of the bank are removed.
The Board did go out and looked at this. Is there anybody here
to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting.
I'll hand up revised surveys that show the buffer that actually
extends ten feet landward of the existing deck, which I think
exceeds what the CAC is requesting. The reason why it is there
is because that is what covers the bluff up to where the flag
pole is. So that overall distance is, I don't know where you
measured it from, but from the wetland boundary, at least, would
be as per plans approximately 30 feet.
So we have a house. We'll demolish the house. We are
going to build a house of almost identical size on its existing
footprint. It will be a modular home. This has an interesting
little quirk to it because if you look at your survey you'll see
there is an existing cesspool that is down on the common
property line between this property and the property adjacent to
it and west of it owned by Spotis (sic). These homes in this
area were built many, many years ago, probably in the '30's and
__. '40's, maybe '20's. And Dr. Pitman's father is out there, who is
103, and had been there his entire life and he had purchased
that home. So what is going to have to happen is we'll
disconnect from that existing septic system, but the adjacent
neighbor still has rights to use it. And our septic system will
then be placed landward out of your jurisdiction up by the road,
and the house will be connected to public water. So you should
take note of that. There is nothing I can do about that.
Generally we remove cesspools so situated. But in this case,
it's not an alternative for me.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I do notice on this new survey you submitted
tonight, the inclusion of a hay bale and silt fence line.
Because we had also discussed that out in the field, so thank
you very much for the inclusion of that. And they put in a
non-turf buffer and also, on the new survey, is the flagpole is
depicted so we'll be sure to permit that in.with.this
application. I think that was it from us.
Is there anybody in the audience who wanted to speak for or
against this application?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
Not hearing any, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 42 April 18, 2012
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Suffolk Environmental on behalf of John Pitman as described, and
as per the survey submitted this evening, with the inclusion of
the hay bale line, silt fence line, non-turf buffer, the
inclusion of the flagpole, and that the existing septic will be
disconnected and located so the new septic system that will be
outside of our jurisdiction. With that it is consistent under
the LWRP. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number nine, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of
JOSEPH & HEIDI BATTAGLIA request a Wetland Permit to construct a
41 X 681 fixed dock elevated a minimum of 4' above grade; install
a 3'X 15' seasonal ramp; and a 6'X 20' seasonal floating dock.
Located: 2100 Hobart Rd., Southold.
I believe this was tabled from last month because we wanted
to see it restaked.
MS. MOORE: Right. It was staked, the width of the float was
staked, exactly. Um, just for your own information, this
particular lot, Mr. Battaglia, the town asked Mr. Battaglia to
grant the town a 50x168 drainage easement. So he, I think, you
know, when this comes to government, we have amnesia sometimes
on the good things that are done by the property owner. He gave
the town this easement. The town engineer-requested it. And -
while the town had to buy it, it would have been a very
expensive portion of property to buy. But Mr. Battaglia shook
hand with Mr. Richter and said, okay, he would give him the land
for future drainage. So there is, he's participated throughout
this whole process in a way of, you know, environmentally
appropriate way, and this particular piece of property has a
drainage easement being given to the town. So I want the record
to reflect his contribution to the town and the environment. So.
Aside from that, this dock is a standard dock. It has all the
permits already from the DEC, the Army Corps and Department of
State. So you are the last permit.
TRUSTEE KING: It was found inconsistent with the LWRP.
MS. MOORE: I don't know why, since it meets the code's
regulations.
TRUSTEE KING: He just asked questions on public use of the
waterway. The opposite shoreline has not been provided
correctly. I don't think that's an issue here.
MS. MOORE: No, not at all.
TRUSTEE KING: 2'9"feet of depth at the terminus of the dock.
What's the expected draft of the vessel. Insufficient load depth
could result in bottom scarring, turbidity and loss of marine
species. Coastal vegetated sea.grass; I don't believe there is
any vegetated eel grass there. High probability of commercial
valuable shellfish species occur at the proposed location. I
don't think this Board has any knowledge of whether there is a
r"
Board of Trustees 43 April 18, 2012
lot of shellfish there or not. I don't know myself, personally.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's a real question if you can have, ever
have permitted status shellfish anyway because of the
residential nature of the neighborhood.
TRUSTEE KING: Those are the reasons, basically. I have
highlighted them. I think there was a letter in the file from
the neighbor who was not happy with it.
MS. MOORE: That neighbor is not actually even affected because
it's on the opposite, it's on a separate piece of property, I
guess south, south of the vacant lot.
TRUSTEE KING: That would be to the north.
MS. MOORE: Yes, their north. Yes
TRUSTEE KING: The Conservation Advisory Council moved to support
it with the condition the application is within the bounds of
all town codes.
We went back out and looked at it. It looks like the stakes
were put a little closer together. I don't think we have any
real issues with it. It's pretty straightforward. Was this
proposed open-grate decking or?
MS. MOORE: Good question.
MR. BATTAGLIA: Unless we really need to use it. But there is no
vegetation on it.
TRUSTEE KING: It's not going across a lot of wetland. It would
just be untreated lumber.
MR. BATTAGLIA: Right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I was thinking-is if it was open-grating
used from the landward start of the dock to the low tide mark,
that could address the inconsistency and bring it into
consistency under the LWRP. It would help to do that.
MS. MOORE: That's not a problem.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And that creek does have some sections that
are in flux with the Spartina coming and going.
MS. MOORE: It's not a problem. I mean the DEC doesn't really
care, so.
TRUSTEE KING: They have been proposing the open-grate. I'm
surprised they didn't request it. There is really no vegetation
there to worry about.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What's the height at the beach?
TRUSTEE KING: Four feet.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do they need stairs on either side for public
access?
TRUSTEE KING: I suppose we could do that. Maybe have steps up
and over on either side of this for public access.
MS. MOORE: You don't have a problem with that?
MR. BATTAGLIA: My plan was to see where the dock ended up
landward and then we'll see if there is enough room for public
access. Because I think there is a sufficient amount of room. If
there isn't then we'll provide two steps probably on each side,
or whatever is necessary to follow the code.
MS. MOORE: If you want to put it in the permit we'll provide
public access, either by land or by steps, then we'll just,
Board of Trustees 44 April 18, 2012
we'll do it, so.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That works.
MR. BATTAGLIA: Not many duck hunters left.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe I should come down.
MR. BATTAGLIA: Any time. Let me know, I might join you.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? Any questions from anybody?
Anybody in the audience? Any other comments?
MR. FRIESE: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Paul
Friese, I live at 1580 Hobart Road, Southold. This is my partner
Andy Siems (sic) is the one that submitted the letter of
objection to this dock. Actually are we are not in objection to
the construction of this dock so Mr. Battaglia may have full
enjoyment of his waterfront property, however we would request
there be the proviso that the dock that is existing now on the
vacant property between his built-upon property and our property
be removed. Because at this time, because it's in the Town
Code, accessory structure cannot exist on a vacant lot. And Mr.
Battaglia's choice to subdivide that property he then created a
vacant lot and now there is an accessory structure that is there
that doesn't belong there. And I'm fully aware there is intense
litigation going on regarding that structure.
The other thing that I would like to bring to the, remind
the Board of, is that in previous meetings, particularly with
the structure that is on the vacant north wooded property, when it
came up that it was potentially Mr. Battaglia might repair or
replace this dock, he was given clear edict that if he did so he
would have to do this in order to bring it up to code. And it's
obviously clear that he did. So what I'm concerned with, and-in
addition to which there is a stone revetment on his southern
- - property, which as you know, was given permission for 75 feet
then turned into 90 feet. I don't know what the upshot of that
is either, but this brings to mind, um, what is said and what is
done. And I would just request that the Board kindly keep in
mind due diligence might be involved on their part to ensure
that what is said and agreed to here is actually performed in
the field. Thank you, very much, for your time.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else?
MR. BATTAGLIA: Can I say one thing, please. That rock wall was
brought down to the appropriate size two days after the meeting.
I did provide two letters with the Trustees and with the town.
Weather it was on my favor that week, so the native planting was
all re-addressed and the screening and everything was brought
into specifications.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We did confirm that when we were in the field.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other Board comments?
(No response).
I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve this dock as applied for with the
Board of Trustees 45 April 18, 2012
condition of public access being addressed either by walking
around it or up and over it with stairs. Open-grate decking out
to the low water mark. I think that brings it more into
consistency with the LWRP. There are other docks in the same
area. And I would also, there is a lot of aggravation with this
whole thing with the other empty lot. I would stipulate we won't
release this permit until the other dock is brought into
conformance with the Town Code as it is now, four feet wide.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. BATTAGLIA: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number ten, Patricia C. Moore, Esq.,on behalf of
ROBERT LONGO requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing
dwelling and construct new dwelling within the existing
footprint. Located: 220 Sound Ave.., Peconic. NON-JURISDICTION
We checked it out in the field and it is out of our
jurisdiction, so we'll give them, submit a letter for them of
non-jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: .Number eleven, Amy Martin on behalf of PETER &
MARY KORNMAN requests a Wetland Permit to remove the as-built
platform with replace with a 4'X 14' walkway with handrail and
12'X 20' on-grade patio beginning 12' landward of existing
platform/walkway. Located: 1077 Bay Home Rd., Southold.
The LWRP found this to be-consistent. The Conservation
Advisory Council resolved to support this application. The
Trustees field inspection found this to be straightforward and
all okay. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MS. MARTIN: Amy Martin of Fairweather & Brown, 205 Bay Ave,
Greenport. As you know, this was rebuilt without permits. We are
interested in taking away the platform that had the benches on
it and we are asking for this just enough of a walkway to get
across the revetment with a handrail as one of the owners has a
serious back problem and needs the stability factor of being
able to hold on and getting to the beach. And doing as little as
possible in the walkway across that and having the brick or rock
in sand area to have a table and chairs for summer enjoyment,
further up from the beach, I believe 12 feet from the current
end of the existing platform there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this
application?
(No response).
Are there any comments from other members of the Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think when we went out in field where it's
proposed to be moved looked fine.
MS. MARTIN: Okay, when he re-built, when the contractor rebuilt
he obviously used the wrong lumber. And the stringers are
allowed to be CCA? Or do they also --
TRUSTEE KING: The stringers can be CCA.
Board of Trustees 46 April 18, 2012
MS. MARTIN: And the decking has to be -- okay.
TRUSTEE KING: The structural parts can be the CCA.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no other comments I'll make a motion to
close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. MARTIN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 12, 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.
TRUSTEE KING: For the record, I'm abstaining from this
application. The property, the adjoining property to the north -
belongs to my sister and brother-in-law, so I'm staying out of it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Essentially this is an application to put a set
of stairs on either side of an existing pool on the first level
and to remove some Poison Ivy and put in a path. The LWRP finds
this to be inconsistent with the LWRP because the Board
established a non-turf buffer along the 18-foot contour line, so
the action is to remove all Poison Ivy and replant with native
plants, remove selected trees, etcetera, would not be allowed.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application, with no further comment. I'm not sure if the
Conservation Advisory Council realized there was a
non-disturbance buffer established on the original permit. There
is a rather lengthy letter that was submitted and received on
April 18th, which of course was today, from the neighbor, the
Grudman's (sic). That in no way, shape or form are they in
support of this application. And they do have numerous reasons
for that, which I won't read into the record, but we'll note
that it's there and it's in the file.
As you know, we all met with you out there on site, so, if
there is any, if you would like to make comment on the
application, we would appreciate it.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Dave Chicanowicz, Creative Environmental Design
representing the Andreadis'. The deal with the situation that
was prior to lists it as a non-disturbance area. I guess this
was all about when the house was being constructed originally.
Board of Trustees 47 April 18, 2012
Um, probably without their knowledge, I don't know if they did
or not, but there is a lot of Poison Ivy in the area. And it
turns out that most of the family is highly contagious.
Actually, as you guys were leaving the site visit that day, the
son came out and his elbow was completely covered from shoulder
right to the wrist with Poison Ivy. And that's definitely one of
their major concerns is trying to eliminate the Poison Ivy.
Putting down a choice of your plants or whatever you would like
to have there, just as long as it's not Poison Ivy. I'm not
looking to create any turf in the area. It's completely non-turf
area, and would be willing to give a larger non-turf buffer back
from the high sloped area, so eliminating any nitrogen leakage
anywhere to perform in that particular spot. We did address the
drainage issue of the proposed patio, you know, and as far as
removal of selected trees, it's just to encourage better root
growth of the existing large trees that are there. So we
respectfully request you allow us to remove the Poison Ivy,
which is really a big issue for this family.
TRUSTEE_GHOSIO: Are there any comments or questions from the
Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think down at the -- is this a new plan that
was submitted? It's dated April 12. Yes. Okay, because we had
asked for, if the path that leads to the dock could be angled
slightly differently, and it looks like you have done that. We
appreciate that. Thank you.
Myself, with regard to the non-turf buffer, excuse me, the
non-disturbance buffer, I heard what you had to say about the
Poison Ivy and the susceptibility to the Poison Ivy the children
and parents have, and I do realize kids will be kids and will go
down there into that area.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: I think there was a comment made by one of the
Board, well, if we allow you to clear by the pathway, but, this
is a 6th grader and I think a 9th grader, you know, the two kids
that, kids are kids.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For myself, I would be amenable to allow the
clearing of Poison Ivy only in this non-disturbance buffer. The
challenge we have is we have done this before and then gone out
and find additional clearing done after the fact and we have
been burned on it before. You know, I don't think ever by a
project you were involved in, I'm just saying in general we have
had it happen. So that's why I say that. But there is a side of
me that, you know, that has been burned on this and really has
an issue with it: So I would like to propose to the Board that
we do allow the clearing of Poison Ivy only in this
non-disturbance buffer, in addition to the scope of the project
as described. And just ask, you know, please, tell the
applicant, you know, don't burn us on this.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: As far as the removal of the Poison Ivy, would
you be amenable to replanting of anything in its place?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. I think that would be great if there was
native species used to replant in there that would help keep the
Board of Trustees 48 April 18, 2012
Poison Ivy from coming back, I think that's a great idea.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Along with that notion, then removal of some
of the smaller saplings. I had tagged specifically numerous
trees. Pretty much it was the worst of the worst. Most of them
were half dead or had no benefit to that area, and as a
landscaper myself, I'm looking to encourage plant growth, keep
the slope as healthy as possible, so I was only looking to
remove selected trees as needed to allow enough sunlight on that
bluff, which is facing east, and is hard to get enough sun in
there as it is. So again, we are back into that dilemma where
we don't touch.anything other than the Poison Ivy and we try to
get the native species to grow in a very shady area because of
the small saplings that are hiding it from the sunshine, it's
going to weaken. The Poison Ivy unfortunately grows very nicely
in almost any condition. So again, I'll put that back to you as
a possible, maybe there is some middle ground we can find so we
allow some of the smaller saplings up to a certain caliper size,
allow to be removed, leave the larger trees that were tagged in
place, and that way at least we can get some of the new native
vegetation to take hold.
MS. HULSE: I just want to talk to the Board. This is indicated
in the LWRP. There was established a non-disturbance buffer
along the 18-foot contour line. That is a C&R that is filed, so.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have a copy of that here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, I didn't know. I appreciate you
bringing that to our attention -
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have it right here. The C&R was filed, the
certificate of compliance with it outlined and highlighted, was
given to the property owners. I have to be honest, you know, we
have been down this path before. I'm not completely comfortable
with it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not comfortable with it either. It
seems like we locked in a preserve for non-indigenous, entirely
undesirable native species.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: So how do we --
TRUSTEE-GHOSIO: Well, you know, part of that is learning to live in the country. It's like, you know, ticks, Poison Ivy, Poison
Oak. It's, you know.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: How about if we were to at least go back to Mr.
Bergen's suggestion as to allow removal of the Poison Ivy,
because it is a hazard to their health.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How are you going to remove it?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: I haven't a clue. How do we remove it? The
Poison Ivy itself there, physically removed. You don't want to
be chemically treating that bank. It's too close to the wetland.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's why I was asking.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: My personal feeling is in clearing the Poison
Ivy in the non-disturbance zone would not compromise the purpose
of the non-disturbance zone, which is to prevent the silt
flowing down. So I would not be against that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I made that recommendation before counsel had
Board of Trustees 49 April 18, 2012
advised us there is a C&R filed on this property. And given that
information, you know, I'm amending my recommendation because
that ties us, I believe the C&R ties us legally into what was
established there. I mean.
MR. HERMAN- Can I offer a public comment? Rob Herman of
En-Consultants. I don't have anything to do with this applicant,
but it's one of those situations where I'm kind of sitting
biting my tongue. The issue of the C&R's in this town is a more
recent phenomenon. We have been dealing with Southampton Town
Wetlands Code, C&R's non-disturbance buffers for a long time.
And the C&R's that are issued in association with those buffers
have all the same purposes and intent as you all do. But the
language specifically allows for somebody to come in with a
wetlands restoration plan or native vegetation plan where the
removal of the species, specific removal of noxious or invasive
plants like Poison Ivy is allowed. Because if you take it to
never minding the health of the family and all, if you look at a
different invasive species, whether that be bittersweet or
knotweed or something, there are invasive species that grow up
and kill the trees themselves and also contradict the whole
purpose of the non-disturbance buffer. So just sort of looking
beyond the application that is before you, if the Board feels
that a C&R like this for a non-disturbance buffer would lock you
in so tight that you couldn't even make a change to the buffer
for the sake of the buffer, never mind the property owner, then
there is something wrong with the C&R. And I would have to think
the purpose of these non-disturbance buffers are not to
encourage the propagation of invasive or noxious species that
will cause damage either to human health or the ecological
welfare of the buffer itself. So I could see.from where I'm
standing, I don't know if this helps, Dave, I can see why you
immediately bristle at the idea of removing saplings because
when you start doing that you are sort of countering the purpose
of the buffer in the first place.
But as Mike just said, the removal of specific noxious
vegetation like Poison Ivy, which is contributing nothing to the
buffer, to disallow removal of that just seems to defy all
common sense both for public health and safety and the ecology.
So if you are locked in by that C&R then there should be some
way the applicant can come back and ask the Board to revisit
that C&R, because when we write these and we pass them through
Lori all the time that these can't be changed except by a vote
of the majority plus one, or something like that, of the Town
Trustees. So I think, I'm sure Lori will correct me if I'm
wrong, I think the applicant,can come back in and ask for C&R
even to be modified to allow for removal of this one specific
plant and have it be replaced by native vegetation that would
not harm the people that live there and also encourage the
purpose of the buffer in the first place. And I think you would
almost have to make that common practice. Because every
covenant we file in Southampton has that specific language.
Board of Trustees 50 April 18, 2012
Because someone can come in and want to do a Wetlands
enhancement plan and you would say we can't let do you that.
Just a thought. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Lori, is there a legal way a C&R can be amended?
MS. HULSE: It really depends on the language of the C&R. If
it's before you here, that's something we can look at. Typically,
Rob is right, the ones that I review. But, I mean, I helped
create that language. So I don't know if this one was done
prior to the template that I have been using or not. I offered
the template to the consultants so they have something that is
user friendly. However I think the bigger concern is that this
application far exceeds what you are describing, Rob, as
something that is like, you know, minute or minor. And
additionally, there has been, I know of, many situations where
they are going to remove one invasive species and end up
clearing a lot of what was, you know, thought to be something
that you would want to have remain. So I think that as cavalier
as Mr. Herman is being about it, I would caution you it should
be only in very, very few select circumstances that you would
want to do that because the whole point of a C&R is that it's a
restriction on the property. So, I mean, it sounds all well and
good, but I don't think every scenario will play out that way.
MR. HERMAN: I was not being cavalier at all. I'm not. It's a
restriction on the property for a purpose. It's not just for the
sake of having a restriction.
TRUSTEE KING: I think she meant it as a compliment, Rob.
MR. HERMAN: No. I'm just saying, I'm not standing up to discuss
the C&R's lightly. I'm not dismissing them.
MS. HULSE: You are standing up during this hearing and are you
looking at what he's requesting? What he's requesting is far in
excess of what you described. And your citing of what the Board
does in Southampton is completely irrelevant to this Board. I mean,
I appreciate your comments but I feel I need to respond because
there is a purpose to the C&R's. And if you start reviewing them
and saying we don't need this, we don't need that --
MR. HERMAN: That's not what I was saying.
MS. HULSE: Let me tell you, I have seen a lot of circumstances
where more than just one invasive species is removed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the dialogue is important.
MR. HERMAN: That's why I raised it. I understand Lori has a more
sort of tighter field of concern here, and I understand that.
And I'm not disrespecting that. I'm just saying I think
sometimes with these restrictions, folks start to lose sight of
the greater goal of why the restriction was put in place. The
greater restriction was put in place to make sure that people
were not clearcutting these areas and turning naturally existing
areas that have wildlife values and sedimentation protection
values and values for the wetlands in place. They are not put in
place so you can grow Poison Ivy.
MS. HULSE: I disagree with you, Rob. It's not to -- this is the
Board of Trustees 51 April 18, 2012
last thing I'll say to this in response. This has nothing to do
with clearcutting. You are stating it to the extreme and I'm
just trying to reel you in a little bit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is, this does kind of begs the question
when we went out there and we saw this to begin with, and I was
involved in that process so I could speak to it. The concern
never came up before. And you can't tell me that, you know,
everybody who looked at this million dollar piece of property to
put up a million dollar house and all the design and everybody
who is involved with this, nobody said, oops, there is Poison Ivy.
MR. HERMAN: I don't think people think about that kind of thing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When we tell you you'll have a non-disturbance
buffer that can never be touched, as part of the agreement to be
able to do the building.
MR. HERMAN: Bob, I think this is my point. If you suddenly had
an outgrowth on this bank of Japanese knotweed that was killing
every piece of native vegetation there, the Board would want to
see that situation resolved. And you would be sitting there
saying, well, we can't resolve it because somebody ten years ago
passed this C&R that doesn't leave an exit strategy to
accomplish our greater goal. That's why I'm speaking. Not about
this application, but looking forward. You can't lock yourself in
so much that the Town couldn't even help itself if it wanted to.
Because we see that all over.
MS. HULSE: That's an extreme example. You can say it the
opposite way. You can say you agreed to the C&R at one point.The applicant agreed and it was a give and take and there was a
reason why the applicant agreed to that C&R and agreed to have
it filed. Because they were conceding the restriction on the
property because the Trustees were willing to give him something
at the time. Now they want to come back and have another bite of
the apple and say wait a minute I'm not really happy with that
restriction, so let's consider this, this and this. It's just
something for the Trustees to consider because you were pointing
out the positives of it but there is huge downsides to it as well.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: You are bringing up an issue about assuming
whoever does the work will clean cut once they get an approval,
and there should be a way that we, the Board, and I'm the
contractor representing the owner, can come to a some sort of
bond or some sort of guarantee that the town can put on at the
owner's expense so that you can be assured the only thing taken
out is the Poison ivy and revegetated with the native species or
not, as per what you would request. And again, it's for health
reasons. Not looking to change or change anything else. Just
eliminate the hazard that exists.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You know why we are gun shy on some of this now.
Because you were involved with the one that was clear cut and
then you were his rep, came up with a beautiful plan, we all
agreed on the plan, then they decided to fire you, let you go,
whatever it was, have somebody else come in and do the work and
wiped it all out. Twice. You know. Not once. Twice. So this is
Board of Trustees 52 April 18, 2012
why this is a big deal now. Particularly on one where we have
the C&R's. I'll say, for whatever it's worth, so we are all kind
of familiar with it --this is the C&R's, right?
(Affirmative response).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is a section in the C&R, number three,
covenants and restrictions can be modified only at the request
of the then owner of the premises with the approval of the Town
of Southold Board of the Trustees after duly notified notice of
public meeting. The adjoining property owners shall be entitled
to notice of the meeting or as deemed otherwise sufficient by
the Board of the Trustees. But their consent to such a
modification shall not be required. So there is that kind of
addressing what Rob is saying. There is that.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: How do you propose we proceed?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As I see it, we have a neighbor who, again,
didn't read it into the record, but Jim and I reviewed the
letter. There is nothing about this application that he doesn't
bring up points against allowing. You know, in questioning why
you need two new sets of stairs instead of just one, for
example; bringing down of the trees. I don't know, how does the
rest of the Board feel about this?
TRUSTEE KING: I'm glad I stayed out of it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't have a plant problem with the
application but for the fact this is a restricted area will have
to be sacrosanct for them.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Say that again, Jay?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't really have, other than we have to leave
the non-disturbance zone totally sacrosanct, with what
information we have now, I don't have a problem with the project.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I stated a similar position. I don't have a
problem with the application. Removal of the Poison Ivy is not
going to drastically change the purpose of the non-disturbance.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do we want to have them place a bond?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That would satisfy me.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It sounds to me from what you read, Bob, that
there is an opportunity within that language of the C&R for the
applicant to apply for an amendment to the C&R. Am I wrong on _.
that?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, these covenants and restrictions can be
modified only at the request of the owner, and as deemed
sufficient by us.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what I would suggest then is that the
applicant go back to the owner and share with the owner this
information that has been talked about tonight and that we table
this application giving the owner the opportunity to consider
their options here. With the option of coming back and applying
for a change to the C&R. Then that, it's the chicken and egg
theory. If that was to happen and if that was to be approved
then we have a different scenario we are looking it.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Okay. And just to --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And also, one other thing, Dave, on the
Board of Trustees 53 April 18, 2012
landscaping plan, it would be helpful if we can draw in where
the 18-foot contour line is. You know, where the line is for the
non-disturbance area. It would help us literally make it make
more sense to us.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: The majority of it is lower than the 18 foot,
unfortunately. There is very little up above that. But I'll be
happy to get that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is the patio above or below it?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: It's above the line. Absolutely above the line.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think that's probably a reasonable request.
Does that sound all right?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: So we'll table the entire project or anything
that has to do with the non-disturbance area or are there any
options or just try again next month?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would probably at this point bring the
information back to, you know, that we discussed, see if we
can't get a revised plan here that shows the line. I think if we
do move on it, they would, they'll have to, you know, apply to
get the C&R's changed also. I think that's pretty much it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that's where we are at.
MS. HULSE: The C&R's would be changed by your decision to change
them. Then they would have to file an amended C&R.
MR. YOUNG: Could I make a suggestion as a member of the public?
Peter Young. That the applicant in this matter, since you have
the flexibility to allow the applicant to apply for some leeway
from this C&R, why not have him submit a specific plan as to
exactly what he wants to do in that non-disturbance area so that
you have something you can measure your decision upon? But it
has to be a very specific plan, that's Poison Ivy, it's saplings
less than an inch, or whatever it is, so that you can then have a
foundation for making your judgment on the relaxation of that C&R.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I might be able to make that a little simpler,
because, and I'm not, I can't speak for the whole Board, but my
gut feeling is it will be Poison Ivy only.
MR. YOUNG: But whatever it is, specific.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A specific, plan. Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As far as the path is concerned, I mean I didn't
really have a major issue with the path or anything like that.
What about the patio, any issues with the patio?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As long as it's not below 18.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's above it, so. So even the path. Because
we do, including through non-disturbance buffers, we allow the
four-foot path. So that's not an issue.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: So at this point you'll table it until we
address the other issues or address --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Table it with the opportunity for you to go back
to the homeowner and explain the options to them, then let them
decide what they would like to do here. Do they want to just
remove from the application any work in a non-disturbance area
so we are concentrating solely on the things I think you heard
positive comments about tonight, or do they want to go the other route.
Board of Trustees 54 April 18, 2012
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Very good. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to table.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer,
aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee King, abstains).
TRUSTEE KING: Number 13, En-Consultants on behalf of PATRICIA
COLAGUIRI requests a Wetland Permit to construct approx. 80
linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing storm damaged
timber bulkhead; backfill with approx. 25 cubic yards sandy fill from an
upland source; remove and replace (inkind/inplace) 3'X 10' wood
steps to beach; and replant vegetated slope.
Located: 2950 Park Ave., Mattituck.
This was found to be consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation
Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of
the 20-foot non-turf buffer along the top of the bluff and
questions of legality of the fence.
I went out and looked at it. I thought it was a very
straightforward bulkhead replacement.
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. I agree with Jim's comments. I've got to make up
some of the time I cost myself.
TRUSTEE KING: I really didn't have any problems or issues with
this whole thing. I don't know if anyone would like to see the
pictures. Here it is. This fence up there. I think this is a
sufficient buffer area there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I saw the file.
TRUSTEE KING: Does anybody else have any comment? Board?
(No response).
This was a simple one. Hearing no other comments, I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(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: Number 14, En-Consultants on behalf of SKUNK
LANE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 68' fixed
timber catwalk (equipped with water and electricity and constructed with
open-grate decking) with a ladder at seaward end; and a 6T tie-off piling.
Located: 9105 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue.
The LWRP has determined this is inconsistent with the
Town's LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support
the application. There was a previously approved plan dated
9/22/04, by the Trustees for what appears to be a 40-foot long
catwalk with a ladder on the end.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
Board of Trustees 55 April 18, 2012
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant.
John is right. This was a permit previously that was issued
by the Trustees in 2004. 1 think there were a couple of
iterations. There was a plan that the owner at that time had
approved by the DEC, and then the Trustees had required that the
plan be modified to what they ultimately approved in 2004. And
this plan basically sought to emulate what the Trustees
previously approved. Now that is, if my math is right, eight
years ago. So we went out with the surveyor and shot new water
depths and the width of the channel there from high water to low
water and came up with a plan for a catwalk which ends up
longer, really, for a few different reasons. One, the other
walkway kind of went out more at a right angle to the shoreline.
Maybe a little'bit to the southeast of where this is. Then it
just kind of came back and stopped in the middle of the wetland
area, where we are now proposing a catwalk that would extend out
landward of the wetlands area and end in the non-disturbance
buffer where we were proposing a pathway to the catwalk. The
prior walkway had a configuration where the walk was up higher
and then there was a set of stairs at the end that went to a
lower section of the catwalk. And I think at the time it was
probably just a typical timber decking.
So what we proposed here was to make the whole structure
lower using the open-grate fiberglass re-enforced decking so you
could really just include a sloped section in the catwalk rather -
than having that set of stairs at the end. With the minimum
elevation above grade of about two-and-a-half feet over the
wetland area. I actually found the wetland vegetation did not go
quite as far landward as had been previously shown by Chuck
Bowman, but I have the old line is still on there because it
marks the origination of the non-disturbance buffer. So I just
used, I had the catwalk follow that old wetland line, although I
think it probably goes farther landward than it really needs to.
The idea was that the first stake you see would be the end of
the catwalk then the tie-off pole, which again is just emulating
the prior Trustee approval, keeping everything sort of to the
side so you could still pass through the middle of the channel
around the side of the dock, and based on the surveyed locations
of the low water line we were staying, both with the catwalk and
also the piling, no more than one-third of the width of.that
channel. And of course the boat would be intended to be just
tied up between the catwalk and pile so, to make sure the boat
is not docked to the side of the walk, which then would put the
boat out more obtrusively into the channel. So that's really the
idea. Again, it's just a slightly different spin on the prior
permit. It extends out in that direction maybe five feet farther
than the prior approval just to get a little bit, maybe six
inches better water at low tide.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: John, what are the reasons for the LWRP
inconsistencies?
Board of Trustees 56 April 18, 2012
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We had several reasons. The one-third rule.
And we had vegetation, construction standards, silt boom,
probably not necessarily the scope of this.
MR. HERMAN: Was that a recommendation or a reason it was
inconsistent?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's the general category. To protect and
restore tidal wetlands, comply with statutory requirements of
construction and operation standards. Going to the heart of the
dock locations and lengths, docks that would affect navigation
fishery, shellfishery and length and width one-third; orientation and
beam of represented vessel not shown on the plans.
MR. HERMAN: Well, just to respond, I mean, and again this is
following the prior approval, but the idea of having the two
stakes showing the pole is the orientation and size of the
boat would be between the two. I didn't draw a little boat but
I don't normally do that. It shouldn't violate the one-third
rule. We have on the plan, we show what the distances are, I
showed two distances across the channel from low to low water.
think on the old permit it shows the width of the waterway being
straight out, in which case we would be far short of that. But,
that seemed like it might be a little misleading because I think
the concern would be the width of the channel this way. Of
course the only property you can get to once you pass this is
behind that. It's basically behind the same people. But they
don't want their access blocked either in case they want to put
a dock up on the end. But this-is not a spot where you would
have a thruway of navigation heading anywhere. You know, from
that site, once you make that turn you are sort of on the
backside the bay beach. So you are not going anywhere. The only
people going in there would be -- other than the owners I don't
know who they would be, other than for something small like a
kayak or canoe anyway. Nobody will bring a big motorized boat
into this area because there is nowhere to go once you get in
there except one of the two houses.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Which kind of leads to my question; what is the
purpose? I mean, like you said, you can't really bring anything
in here but a-kayak.
MR. HERMAN: No, what I said was if you were not one of the
owners you would not be bringing in a motorized craft in here
because there is nowhere to go once you get in here but to the
houses. But if you lived in the two houses you would have a boat
to get out and back. That's the purpose of it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It doesn't seem to violate the one-third
rule for a vessel for the.size of the structure. One thing we
noticed on the field inspection, we felt that the pathway could
be finished approximately 15 feet to the southeast and avoid
some of the cedars. Seemed to think it was a natural opening.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right there.
MR. HERMAN: That's not a problem.
MR. HERMAN: See that opening there, Rob?
MR. HERMAN: Yes. Where we started the landward end of the
Board of Trustees 57 April 18, 2012
structure itself, Nathan Corwin and I had actually tried finding
the angle that you come to, in order to not disturb any of the
Baccharus, but then I didn't go farther landward from there,
just showed sort of a typical pathway from point to point.
The pathway could be, you know, if the Board was inclined to
approve the application, one way or the other, my suggestion
would be to put in a condition that the owner would have to call
for a meeting with the Trustees to stake out the actual path and
have it, you know, before it was clear.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we measured this, it was 15 feet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was actually 15 feet from where it was
staked now.
MR. HERMAN: If you take the entry point and move it. That's --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a straight point.
MR. HERMAN: That's easy enough to show, too. I'm just trying to
err on the side of caution from the Board's perspective, just
given the amount of clearing in general
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm trying to figure out a way to address the
inconsistencies. Because you already proposed open-grating.
MR. HERMAN: Dave, it's getting to the point where we have
virtually every dock they are deemed inconsistent for one
reason or the other. And you know, it almost leads to like what
can I willfully leave out of the application that you can
correct to then call it consistent. We are trying to design the
whole thing to be consistent and be in accordance with
your rules and regulations, and I'm not hearing John say -
anything from that LWRP report that is inconsistent, that has
not already been addressed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are moving the path, so.
MR. HERMAN. The objections seem to be associated with docks in
general. Now, again --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, you know, and most of the folks up here
know and you know, I'm not a person who is against having docks.
I'm going to be honest with you though, in this particular case,
I'm not supporting this particular dock. I think what he's done
there with the estate and in turning these three properties into
an estate, he's got his docking facility on the north side of
the property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Northwest.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Northwest side of the property. He has.his
access. I think this is kind of borderline for me, again, with
just because of where it's being put. Regardless of the what
they did when the Board, on a different Board in 2004. It was a
whole different thing up there. It wasn't all clear cut,there
was lots of woods, you know. For me, it's just not sitting right
for me, so I'm going to vote no on it.
MR. HERMAN: But none of that has anything to do with the
dock. If he's, it's almost like saying if he didn't own the
adjacent parcels you would have a different opinion. And to me
that has nothing to do with the application that is before you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes and no. I think I'm looking at it more
Board of Trustees 58 April 18, 2012
comprehensively. The damage that has been done there
ecologically over the course of the whole project is playing in
my mind on this. I remember walking up to that with those two
huge trees that were sitting there that were beautiful, and they
are gone. Walking up there and seeing the pond has
been pretty much wiped out, contrary to what they told us they
were going to do. I'm not being punitive here, it just doesn't
sit right with me, and I'm saying it so the Board knows why I'm
voting no.
MR. HERMAN: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The challenge I'm having on this is being able
to navigate this waterway with a dock and a vessel attached to
the dock. I know I already heard it said, well he owns the
adjacent property so anybody coming in there will either be a
guest of his or him. But we also know there is public access to
the waterways and so everybody has the right to go into that
area.
MR. HERMAN: Sure, that's why we designed it like this as opposed
to sticking out and putting a float in the middle and saying
nobody else is going to use this. We designed it so we don't
exceed the one-third width in even in an area where I think it's
almost inapplicable.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that but where I was going with
this was, what is to prevent somebody from tying his boat off in
the other direction for whatever reason so it does exceed the
one-third rule. So for me, if that was addressed, so there would
be consistency with the one-third rule, that would then bring it
-. - into consistency under the LWRP.
MR. HERMAN: I don't think we have a problem addressing that. I
think you could stipulate that the boat, no boats could be
docked to the east of the structure, the dockage line. Between
the end of the catwalk and the pile, location of the pile two,
and if we did that then I would then propose we brought it into
consistency under LWRP.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't have an issue with that because
that's the point of the design. I presume that's the point of the prior Board
designing it that way. But I agree once the thing is out there
you could come and park a boat the width of the channel if you
wanted to. So I think you have to either show on the plan, you
know, have a condition and/or show on the plan some sort of--
TRUSTEE KING: A vessel can only be moored between the end of the
dock and the tie-off pile. That's the only permitted spot for a boat.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MR. HERMAN: I mean I'll speak to the owner but I don't know what
choice they would have, otherwise they would be totally in
violation. So I would say, yes, I would agree to that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close.the hearing in this
matter.
Board of Trustees 59 April 18, 2012
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application subject to moving the four-foot pathway 15 feet to
the southeast, and with the limitation that vessels moored or,
excuse me, tied up to the dock and pile, the limitation of vessel
docking be limited to ties to the pile and dock solely, thereby
addressing the question of inconsistencies surrounding the one-third
rule and protecting native vegetation on the site found during the
course of the Trustee field inspection. So moved.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Say that again?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve based on moving the
pathway 15 feet to the southeast and limiting the docking of
vessels solely between the mooring pile and the end of the dock
thereby addressing the inconsistencies by making sure there is
no vessel more than one-third of the way across the waterway, and
protecting native vegetation that the Trustees encountered
during.the'course of field inspections
MR. HERAN: And I'll review that with the applicant to make sure
that is clearly understood, so if for some reason there was some
issues or misunderstanding, we would be back.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll second that. All in favor?
(Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer,
aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Ghosio, nay).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think that's it for this evening. Motion to
adjourn.
.- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
-" James F. King, P esident
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
AUG 2 4 2012
0- 1104/7
Southold Town CleA