HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-02/20/2013 James F.King,President F SO�j�; Town Hall Annex
Bob Ghosio,Jr.,Vice-President ,`O� Ol0 54375 Main Road
P.O/Box 1179
Dave Bergen J�t Southold,New York 11971-0959
John Bredemeyer G Q
p Telephone(631) 765-1892
Michael J.Domino O Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED-� ;;
M AY 1 6 2013
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES a4ed4arL4ez&
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
S thold Towh Clerk
Minutes
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
4:30 PM
Present Were: Jim King, President
Robert Ghosio, Vice-President
Dave Bergen, Trustee
John Bredemeyer, Trustee
Michael Domino, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk Typist
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, March 13, 2013, at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday March 20, 2013, at 5:30 PM
WORKSESSION: Wednesday, March 20, 2013, at 5:00 PM
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of December 12, 2012
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone, welcome to our February
meeting. Once again, we are meeting a little on the early side to try and cope with the
many applications that we have. When we get into the public hearings section, please
come up to the microphone and identify yourself. Wayne Galante here will get
everything on the record for us. Please try and keep your comments limited to five
minutes or less. Please keep your comments directed at the project that we are talking
about. Don't go off on a tangent. Last month we had people talking about pollution in the
bay and oil spills and everything else. We know all about it but it didn't apply to the
project we were talking about and it took a lot of our time and made things difficult for
Wayne. Please direct your comments to the Board. If there is controversy between one
Board of Trustees 2 February 20, 2013
and the other, don't go talking amongst yourselves and debating the issues. Talk to us.
We really appreciate that. Thank you.
I would like to set the meeting next field inspection for March 13th at eight o'clock
in the morning.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
The next regular meeting, hopefully things will slow down a
little bit, so we would like to have a work session starting at
five and our regular meeting will start at 5:30 on March 20th.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion to approve the Minutes of
December 12, 2012?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make that motion to approve the Minutes of
December 12, 2012.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for January, 2013. A check for
$24,136.43 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the
General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin
Board for review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
hereby finds that the following applications more fully
described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee
agenda dated Wednesday, February 20, 2013, are classified as
Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are
not subject to further review under SEQRA:
TRUSTEE KING: We have a number of these. They are listed as
follows:
Robert E. Taylor- SCTM# 126-6-9.1
Charlotte C. Burkard - SCTM# 128-2-16
David C. Esseks - SCTM#64-1-14.7
Charles & Janice Bovino - SCTM# 119-1-6.1
Warren & Nina Bernstein - SCTM# 59-5-3
Board of Trustees 3 February 20, 2013
John & Emily Breese - SCTM# 70-6-24
Fishers Island Development Corp., C/O Fishers Island Marina, LLC
- SCTM# 10-1-9
Barbara & Seth Eichler- SCTM# 51-1-6
Fishers Island Yacht Club - SCTM# 10-1-9 & 9-2-3.1
Ralph Carbone - SCTM# 1-2-5
Hay Harbor Club- SCTM# 9-3-1
Norton A. Davidson - SCTM# 12-2-5.3
Suzanne Moyse, Mary Guerriera & Jennifer Blackhall —
SCTM# 31-18-5
John Luscher- SCTM# 31-18-4
Barbara Koch c/o George Koch - SCTM#31-18-6
Kirk O'Farrell & Denise Cerasani - SCTM#31-13-9.1
Soundfront Holdings LLC - SCTM# 51-4-8
Dean Stefanides - SCTM# 31-18-17
Valerie Michelsen - SCTM# 31-18-18
James A. & Nancy W. Clous - SCTM# 53-6-18
Andrea Parks - SCTM# 111-9-5.1 & 5.2
Ellen F. Emery - SCTM# 111-13-6
Daniel DeVito - SCTM# 81-3-26.1
Romeo &Ann Solon - SCTM# 31-17-13.2
Dina Masso - SCTM# 111-13-4
Jack Cipriano - SCTM# 87-5-23.6
Robert Horvath - SCTM# 81-3-5
Bruce Beaney - SCTM# 86-7-1
Joan M. Keating QPRT c/o Stanley J. Keating - SCTM# 118-4-14.2
Michael & Grace Ann Griffin - SCTM# 37-4-15.1
Shelter Island Sound, Inc., c/o Mark Miller- SCTM# 81-3-25.2
Mark Miller- SCTM# 81-3-24.2
Caroline & Douglas Fraser, Jr. - SCTM# 118-4-7
Mary McFeely - SCTM# 128-2-9.1
Stephen & Elizabeth O'Shaughnessy - SCTM# 128-2-9.2
Frederick de la Vega & Lawrence Higgins - SCTM#23-1-6.1
Cynthia O'Leary - SCTM# 123-7-7.3
Sal Varano - SCTM# 86-7-4.3
Ruth E. Miller Residence Trust- SCTM# 86-7-2.2
Matthew D. Volpe - SCTM# 80-5-1.1
Henry Goetz - SCTM#135-3-5
Manning Credit Shelter Trust Mannviewe LLC, c/o Philip Manning -
SCTM# 117-10-11
Joseph O. Brusco - SCTM# 117-10-12.3
John W. Bellando - SCTM# 117-10-10
Bert A. Collison & Glendinning Family Trust, c/o Kopen &
Collison, LP & c/o Port of Egypt Island - SCTM# 56-6-13
Sean McCoyd - SCTM# 87-3-66.4
Barbara Kelsey - SCTM# 128-6-2
Fred Young - SCTM# 114-12-13.6
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 4 February 20, 2013
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: We have a few cancellations here, postponements.
I would like to just go through them so no one is sitting here
waiting for us to do something we don't address.
On page six, number seven, Patricia Moore, Esq., on behalf
of JOHN & EMILY BREESE, requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit
#7200 for the storm damaged part of the dock; replace 6'x9.6'
wood dock with 4x18' wood dock which will enable to use shorter
aluminum ramp; replace 28' permitted aluminum ramp with 20'x30"
aluminum ramp; add two tie-off piles on east side; relocated
existed float. Located: 3698 Pine Neck Road, Southold, has been
postponed.
On page four, number seven CONSTANCE C. VICKERS requests a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#11-88-113-6-11 from Gerald Wood to
Constance C. Vickers, as issued on April 4, 1989. Located: 900
Holbrook Lane, Mattituck, has been postponed.
Number eight on page six, Mark Schwartz, Architect on
behalf of DOUGLAS & KATHLEEN FOLTS requests an Amendment to
Wetland Permit#7837 for the existing foundation to remain; new
first floor to be at elevation 12; the south screened porch and
its foundation walls will be removed and replaced with new deck
piers and decking; the north bedroom and its foundation walls
will be removed and the proposed foundation installed to support
existing basement will be filled in with approximately two feet
of sand with a new concrete slab. Located: 90 Oak Street,
Cutchogue, has been postponed.
Page 15, number 32, JMO Environmental Consulting Services
on behalf of HAY HARBOR CLUB requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct and realign a 5x50' dock
which was destroyed by Hurricane Sandy by constructing a 5x30'
elevated timber walk; a 4x100' timber walk on grade and to
remove and dispose of existing wood walk and to connect proposed
walk to existing walk as required. Located: 990 Fox Avenue,
Fishers Island, has been postponed.
Page 15, number 33, JMO Environmental Consulting Services
on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, requests a
Wetland Permit to remove the existing 9x131' timber fixed dock
and 26 supporting piles; and to construct a 5x76' timber fixed
dock supported by 12 piles, a 4x20' ramp with railings and an
8x40' float secured by four piles. Located: Winthrop Drive,
Fishers Island, has been postponed.
Page 15, number 34, Docko, Inc., on behalf of FISHERS
ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP., c/o FISHERS ISLAND MARINA, LLC,
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to dredge
8,650+/- cubic yards of sandy silt over 63,000+/- square feet
with a one foot over-dredge allowance of 2,400+/- cubic yards
by clamshell bucket for open water disposal; including the
temporary removal and subsequent reinstallation of floating
docks A & B as necessary to facilitate dredging. Located:
Central Avenue, Southwest Corner of West Harbor, Fishers Island,
has been postponed.
Board of Trustees 5 February 20, 2013
Page 15, number 35, JAMES A. & NANCY W. CLOUS request a
Wetland Permit to rebuild and/or replace the existing storm
damaged fixed pier and to extend it from 22' to 40' to move the
docks to deeper water; add four new 12" pilings set apart from
the floating docks (two on each side of the floating docks);
3x20' seasonal ramp; and two 6x20' seasonal floating docks;
rebuild and/or replace the existing storm damaged stairs to
beach and stairs from top of bulkhead to fixed pier and related
pilings; and to repair the existing 100'+/- long storm damaged
bulkhead by replacing the top cap-boards and approximately 15'
of a 4x4 transverse beam on the bulkhead where the fixed pier
was ripped off in the storm. Located: 3805 Bay Shore Road,
Greenport, has been postponed.
Page 15, number 36, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc.,
on behalf of PAUL HOLOBIGIAN requests a Wetland Permit to
reconstruct the existing timber dock (4.0'W x 31.01) and extend
an additional 38.0+/-to result in a new catwalk measuring 4.0'W
x 69.01, supported by eight timber pilings (4"x4") and fourteen
timber pilings (6"x6"); construct a hinged ramp (3.0'W x 15.01)
and a floating dock (6.0'W x 20.01) off the seaward end of the
new catwalk; the floating dock is to be secured by four timber
pilings (6"x6"); all materials to be non-treated; all catwalk
top-decking to be of an open-grate design (i.e. Thru-Flow or
similar); all hardware to be hot-dipped galvanized. Located:
3300 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold, has been postponed.
Page 16, number 37, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc.,
on behalf of BERT A. COLLISON & GLENDINNING FAMILY TRUST c/o
KOPEN & COLLISON, LP & c/o PORT OF EGYPT ISLAND, requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a brush jetty (500+/- overall) along
the southwesterly shoreline (seaward of AHW) of Port of Egypt
Island in order to protect same and the shorelines to the
northwest. Located: Off Bay Home Road,.Southold, has been
postponed.
Page 16, number 38, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of
DIANE MACARI requests a Wetland Permit for a proposed 30'x15'
pool with decks and patios; retaining walls for all structures;
75+/-from edge of wetlands for structures. Located: 465 Halls
Creek Drive, Mattituck, has been postponed.
Page 16, number 39, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of
MAUREEN MASSA & ALAN SCHWEITZER requests a Wetland Permit to
replace existing window of garage to a sliding glass door and
add a skylight; construct a 4x28' hardwood dock consisting of
60% open deck a minimum two feet above grade; a new 3x12'
seasonal ramp and a 5x18' seasonal float; construct a 4x36' set
of stairs from top of slope to fixed dock; a proposed 10x4'
slate (stone) on sand or crushed stone as a non-turf buffer
area; and install irrigation landward of the top of the slope.
Located: 460 Ruch Lane, Southold, has been postponed.
Page 16, number 40, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of
FRED YOUNG requests a Wetland Permit for pedestrian access and
kayak launch, 4x245' low-profile catwalk with open deck, two
Board of Trustees 6 February 20, 2013
foot above grade with kayak rails/braces at 4x14' open deck
platform with steps down to creek; and hardwood piles 10' on
center. Located: 780 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck, has been
postponed.
Page 16, number 41, Creative Environmental Design on behalf
of GEORGE YATRAKIS, requests a Wetland Permit to re-vegetate any
disturbed areas due to the construction of new rock revetment
and access area; removal of existing grass from top of bluff to
northern pool fence line, and re-vegetate with native plant
species; construct a four-foot wide access path to stairs
consisting of bluestone flagging set on sand base. Located:
18805 Soundview Avenue, Southold, has been postponed.
Seeing that we are starting early tonight, there have been
a couple of requests. On page five, under Amendments, number
two, we have been asked to hold that off to at least 5:30. So if
it comes up before that, we'll just skip it. And on page seven,
number one, was asked to have this hearing happen after 5:30.
There, again, we'll hold that off, too, if we get to it before 5:30.
We have a resolution concerning older emergency permits.
There has been some controversy over them. I would like to read
it. It begins on page two.
IV. RESOLUTIONS -OTHER
WHEREAS,the Town Code of the Town of Southold, pursuant to
Section 275-5(C) reads as follows: "The Trustees may issue a
temporary emergency permit where specific exigent circumstances
exist that may result in personal or property loss or damage.
Upon expiration of temporary permit or before the date of
expiration, the applicant must apply for a permit as set forth
in Section 275-5, 275-6, 275-7; and
WHEREAS the Board of Trustees issued permits between 1990 and
1995 for storm related emergency work, recognized as "emergency
permits" and those permits were, by definition, temporary in
nature; and
WHEREAS due to Super-storm Sandy, exigent circumstances exist
that may result in personal or property loss or damage to some
applicants before this Board; and
WHEREAS, applications to repair or rebuild structures described
in permits issued between 1990 and 1995 recognized as "emergency
permits"would be required to apply for a permit pursuant to
Sections 275-5, 275-6, 275-7 and include the requisite Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) review, Conservation
Advisory Council (CAC) review, notices and stamped plans and
public hearings; and
WHEREAS the Board of Trustees recognizes the need for expedited
review of applications to repair or rebuild due to Super-storm
Sandy; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT, RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees hereby
finds that permits issued between 1990 and 1995 as "emergency
permits" shall have full force and effect of a wetlands permit
Board of Trustees 7 February 20, 2013
issued pursuant to 275-5(A), 275-5(B), 275-6 and 275-8 of the
Town Code.
Does anybody want to move this?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would like to have a little discussion on
this.
TRUSTEE KING: Does anyone want to have any discussion on this?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. Two points. One of institutional memory.
was Chair of the Trustees at the time. I actually saw it
through the lens of the way the Board currently conducts Chapter
275, we view these types of permits as being temporary, but at
the time I think we reviewed these as emergency authorizations
as necessary to protect the shoreline, which was rupturing very
similar to what happened under Tropical Storm Sandy. So to give
you an analogy, if you go to the dentist and he has sufficient
time and you need an emergency repair, you have the choice you
can either get a temporary filling or if he has the time he'll
give you a permanent repair. I believe for the sake of the
institutional memory of the Board at the time, and there may be
even be individuals here who were before the Board at that time,
all the approvals were given based on protecting the public
safety and the coastal, and we viewed them at the time under the
authorization we had as being emergency repairs. But they have
permanence. There was a notion of permanence to them since the
structures in most places were replacement bulkheads that had no
permits because they predated the Town Wetland Code.
Now through the eyes of the updated code which I believe occurred
when you were on the Board Jim, in 1996 and 1997, they tended to change
the manner in the procedure in the manner which the Board looked
at those permits. So I wanted to provide some clarification for
this, and I would also like --that's the first part. I would
just like to provide that as clarification, as far as
institutional memory, since I had the benefit of having been
Chairman of the Board at that time.
would also like to bring this forward to the next work
session because I think we have to have some discussions as far
as the level of compliance, inspections, how we'll handle some
emergency authorizations we just granted. We had a difficult
situation here, understandably, the coastline was, again, put at
risk, and I think for the good and welfare of the office staff
and the Trustees going forward, I think we have to have some
discussions as far as how we'll handle compliance inspections
whether we want to require them or not or require additional
paperwork to follow after these current group of authorizations.
So that said, I just want to bring those points up. Thank
you.
TRUSTEE KING: I honestly had some concerns about this. I'm not
trying to be a mind reader. I think back when those decisions
were made it was recognized those were a legitimate bulkhead.
But by today's standards, there was no real review on it. I have
Board of Trustees 8 February 20, 2013
seen some of the emergency permits, there were no plans, we
really don't even know what was there. Like I said, I think we
need further discussion on this. I think we need, in my mind, I
would have rather gone the route to go for say an administrative
wetland permit for these to recognize them at this time as a
wetland permit. The difficulty is some of these are coming in
for amendments and I don't think we have ever in the past
amended an emergency permit. So it's kind of a tough situation.
I know our legal advisor says these are not really wetland
permits. But that's up to the Board. I think we should just
take a vote on it if there is no further discussion. Is there
anybody else?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just as a point, I agree, Jim, things have
certainly changed. I would think that notions of improving the
recordkeeping, I mean these permits were all granted before we
had municity, before there were strict requirements for licensed
land surveys backing the plans, so I believe we could probably
have a proper governmental process that would be able to protect
the property rights that individuals acquired by virtue of those
permits. Because those permits were granted at a time when
permits ran with the land, and I believe that we probably need
further discussion. I think this is a good resolution to start,
but further discussion where we could protect the property
rights of people that acquired those permits absent an actual
resolution from a prior Board that met here that said they were
not permits. I would hold these are proper permits that ran with
the land, that the people who applied to the Board came in in
good faith, and in most cases they were building simple navy
bulkheads that replaced prior structures that went back to the
'20's and '30's that had been torn apart by the perfect storm
and the Halloween storm of the subsequent year. Anyway, thank
you.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree with what John has said here. I know,
and I apologize, I meant to bring it today, but I have a copy of
one of these permits that was given in 1993 and in no place on
the permit did it say "emergency." It was a regular permit. So as
the owner of the property there was nothing there to indicate at
all that it was anything but a valid, full, wetland permit. So
I agree that I think we need to have further discussion
regarding this, involving emergency permits that we are granting
today, and we can have that at a later work session. But I
would like to move forward with a vote on this resolution
tonight to recognize all the permits given at that time as
valid, full, Trustee permits.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else?
(No response).
We'll make take a roll call vote. Trustee Domino?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bredemeyer?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Aye.
Board of Trustees 9 February 20, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bergen?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll vote nay. I can't support this as written. I
think it needs more work.
Trustee Ghosio?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Resolution passes four to one.
V. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under Resolutions and Administrative Permits,
number one, Mark Schwartz, Architect on behalf of MICHAEL &
DARYL MALTER request an Administrative Permit to replace
existing block cesspool with new upgraded one inkind. Located:
4450 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
Did you look at that, Dave?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. I went out and looked at this. It's
actually replacing a septic system where the pre-existing septic
system was, and it's almost non-jurisdictional. So I would move
this forward to support this application, this resolution for an
Administrative Permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, K. Russell Glover, Architect on behalf
of ROBERT OXNAM requests an Administrative Permit to construct a
10x20' approximate stone slab patio on-grade to replace existing
stone patio torn up during Hurricane Sandy, and behind existing
bluff retaining wall. Located: 19625 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
We all went out and looked at that. As a matter of fact we
talked a little bit to the property owner, and the patio that is
there is quite a bit larger than the 10x20. I think it measured
out at about 40 feet, if I remember right.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Roughly, yes.
TRUSTEE KING: And the notes just said we want to make it 10x20,
which was applied for. So if they want to cut it back to 10x20,
don't think we had an issue with a deck that size. We all felt
it was too large the way it is right now. They had some mulch,
I guess would be to the east side of the stairway. Part of a
non-turf buffer. They'll probably continue the mulch just to the
west of the stairway, the stone patio, in this application. So
as long as we keep it to 10x20, I would make a motion to
approve.
TRUSTEE KING: It was found inconsistent with the LWRP but I
think by downsizing it from what it is to the 10'x20' -- and the
land slopes landward. It doesn't slope toward the bluff. So if
there is any drainage issues, it will be sloping toward the
property owner.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Could we condition that the 10'x20' be located
adjacent to the upper landing for the stairs so it's pulled from
that west property line? It was going very close to the
Board of Trustees 10 February 20, 2013
neighboring property.
TRUSTEE KING: There is a letter here that came in on the 14th. I
think they are asking now to increase the size to what it is at
the present time. I don't think the Board had any interest in
,keeping it that size. I would like to stay with what we decided
in the field, to keep the patio at 10'x20'.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What about John's suggestion?
TRUSTEE KING: On the west end of it?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What did you want to do, pull it off the west
end?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Pull it off the west end so it was not so
close to the neighbor's. The question is, it's in the Coastal
Erosion Hazard Area, and it's a question of the code required
protection, lateral support protection, that was very impervious
and so heavy rainfall is going to be running water over toward
the neighbor's property.
TRUSTEE KING: So do you want make it 10'x20' starting at the west
side of the steps going down to the bluff? That would slide the
whole thing to the east.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, it would slide the whole thing to the
east.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It makes sense, really.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we'll do that, then.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: If we allow it to the west, he'll need a walkway
anyhow, so by moving it eastward we avoid that need for a walk.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want to specify square footage instead of
10'x20', since it's an irregular shape, make it 200-square feet,
that way he can pick whatever shape he wants, however he needs
to revise it, starting at the west end of the stairs going west.
TRUSTEE KING: All right. I'll make that motion. I'll make a
motion to approve a patio beginning at the west side of the
stairs going down the bluff to be no larger than 200-square feet.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under Applications for Extensions, Transfers and
Administrative Amendments, what we try and do if they are not
very complicated at all and there is no issues, we try and lump
some of them together to move things along a little quicker.
What I would like to do, on page three, one and two; and on page
four, numbers four, five and six and ten; and on page five, 12
and 13. 1 would like to lump those together. They are listed as
follows:
Number one, En-Consultants on behalf of HENRY MAZZONI request
the Last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7277, as issued
on April 21, 2010. Located: Stoney Beach Road, East Marion.
Number two, KENNETH & ELIZABETH LESTRANGE, request the Last
Board of Trustees 11 February 20, 2013
One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7256, as issued on March
17, 2010, and Amended on August 18, 2010, and Amended again on
December 12, 2012. Located: 960 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck.
Number four, ANTHONY & SUNMI WONG requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#6433 from James & Eileen Buglion to Anthony & Sunmi
Wong, as issued on August 23, 2006. Located: 2520 Clearview
Avenue, Southold.
Number five, ANTHONY & SUNMI WONG request a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#5938 from James & Eileen Buglion to Anthony & Sunmi
Wong, as issued on June 24, 2004, and Amended on October 20,
2004. Located: 2520 Clearview Avenue, Southold.
Number six, ROCKCOVE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION requests a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#6015 from East of Eden, LLC, to
Rockcove Estates Homeowners Association, as issued on October
20, 2004. Located: 1380 Sound Drive, Greenport.
Number 12, JMO Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of
FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP., requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit#7804 to include a proposed
approximately 3/4 acre wetland mitigation pond. Located: East
End Road, Fishers Island.
And number 13, En-Consultants on behalf of FOR THE LOVE OF
FAMILY, LLC, requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit#7279 for the as-built gravel over asphalt driveway;
masonry fire pit; and walk. Located: 9205 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue.
I make a motion to approve those.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: So we'll start with number three on page four.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, TIMOTHY MOYLAN requests a Transfer
of Wetland Permit#1579 FROM Lawrence D. Byron, Jr., to Timothy
and Mary Moylan, as issued on February 5, 1983. Located: 1075
harbor Lane, Cutchogue.
I went out and looked at that. I had no problem with the
transfer, I just want to make sure the condition on this new
permit matches the condition that was put on the original permit
by the Trustees back in '83, that the dock cannot go any further
seaward than what was issued back on February 5th, 1983.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eight, John N. Blakely on behalf of RJJ
PROPERTIES LLC, requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#4203 from
Warren Augenthaler to RJ Properties LLC, as issued on July 29,
1993; and an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#4203 to
install +/-100'x6' of vinyl skin onto existing sheathing of
bulkhead. Located: 7225 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
It was a straightforward application, they just want to put
vinyl on the front of the existing bulkhead to support the
existing bulkhead. It's consistent under the LWRP. So I would
move to support that application.
Board of Trustees 12 February 20, 2013
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: We have another one, number nine, ANTON BOGOVIC,
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#1273 from Peter Bogovic
to Anton Bogovic, Danielle Bogovic, Josip Bogovic and Sanja
Floricic-Bogovic, as issued on November 28, 1977; and an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#1273 to legalize the
existing structure into the current dock dimensions which
comprises of a 3x22' fixed dock with four-foot wide steps to
beach; 3.1'x12.3' ramp; and a 6x20' floating dock. Located: 1980
North Bayview Road, Southold.
This is for the transfer of an older permit, and I know
there was a newer permit issued for a bulkhead there. So I think
what I would like to do on this one is to approve the transfer
and also transfer the newer permit -- I don't have the number
here --from what it was, but I know it was fairly recent for a
vinyl bulkhead. So I would like to transfer both permits to the
family. I guess it's transferred to the kids. There is actually
two permits; this older one and there is a newer one. So we
would, we should just transfer both of them. And this was found
consistent with the LWRP. That is my resolution. There are two
permits on this property that should be transferred, not just
the one.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number 11, JOHN S. WHITE requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7818 for the
as-built 8" diameter pilings instead of 4" diameter pilings on
the fixed dock; and to add two smaller pilings and abut each of
them against the two farthest existing pilings that hold the
floating dock in order to strengthen them. Located: 4324
Westphalia Avenue, Mattituck.
I think there was some misunderstandings on this plan
because the piles indicated on the plan are already indicated at
eight inches. And I think we wanted to make a couple of minor
changes to this to kind of improve this permit. So it will be
eight-inch pilings. What we want to see, we want to see six-inch
pilings through the wetland area, then go to eight-inch pilings
when you get out into the water. So it would be three sets of
six-inch pilings and three sets of eight-inch pilings. And
think, like I say, we are trying to make this a little better
application. The ramp on the plans is 14-feet long. I'm very
familiar with Mattituck Creek. We have about a five-and-a-half
foot rise and fall of tide there. A 14-foot ramp really is not
long enough because at low tide it gets so severely steep you
can't even walk up and down it. So my suggestion would be to
change the ramp length to 20 feet and shorten the catwalk by six
feet. So the overall length remains the same but you have a much
more gradual slope at low tide down to the float. And as far as
Board of Trustees 13 February 20, 2013
the two pile dolphins, we have been staying with one pile on
each end of the float. We have not been doing the two-pile
dolphins in quite a few years now. So I would recommend
approval for this, with those stipulations: Six-inch piles for
three sets, the rest eight-inch out into the water; shorten the
dock by six feet and increase the ramp to 20 feet from 14. So
the overall length stays the same. And it will be two eight-inch
piles holding the float in place.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off our regular hearing
and into the public hearing section.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE KING: Like I said at the beginning of the meeting, if.
you have any comments, please keep them brief. Keep it
restricted to what we are talking about. If it's something
controversial, a dispute going on, please don't discuss it
amongst yourselves. Talk to us. Thank you.
Number one, under Amendments, ROBERT TAYLOR requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit#4241 to extend the existing +/-30'
return/bulkhead another +/-10' to meet proposed Marlene Park
bulkhead. Located: 2995 Sigsbee Road, Mattituck.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent with the
LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council has voted to support
the application, with no other comments. I went out and looked
at this. It's very simple. There is a new bulkhead being built
to the east of this project and he just wants to extend his
return in to meet that new bulkhead on the east side of his
property. It's a very simple application, just an extension of
the return to meet the new bulkhead of the neighbor. Any
comments from anybody?
(No response).
I'm 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 as submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOS1O: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just so everyone knows, I turned the heat off.
For some reason the thermostat is not working. If you start to
get cold, let me know, we can turn it back on.
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, we'll come back to after 5:30 as was
requested in the beginning.
Board of Trustees 14 February 20, 2013
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number three, DROUZAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
CORP., requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7891 to relocate
the proposed dwelling and to construct a smaller dwelling with
attached deck on seaward side. Located: 54120 County Road 48,
Southold.
Basically this is an application to amend a wetland permit
that we spent an awful lot of time on a couple of years ago. It
took us quite a while to work through it. Anyone familiar with
the area, this is the property just east, on the south side
across from the town beach. It's a sunken lot. It borders
Hashamomuck. They are looking to move this further and relocate
it so it gets closer to some of the wetland areas that we had
originally set aside as non-disturbance areas, as I understand
it. We all took a look at it. The original was inconsistent
under the LWRP, just to make a note of that. The Conservation
Advisory Council resolved to support the application to
relocate.
Now, it is possible when they went out there to take a look
at it they didn't realize that we had other stipulations from
the original on this.
So is there anybody here who would like to speak for or
against this application?
MR. DROUZAS: Vlassie Drouzas. We were wondering if there is any
problems with the go ahead on that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That remains to be seen. We have to vote on it
first. Are there any other comments?
(No response).
Any comments from the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think field inspection revealed that the
proposed amendment would have the house located closer to the
protected wetlands than the original, and the original which
had, my understanding, had a lengthy approval, would have been
brought into consistency under the LWRP plan by providing the
home further away from wetlands during that initial application
process. So that puts us in a difficult position to grant an
amendment that would remove, would ostensibly put the project
back into being inconsistent with LWRP, and would actually,
think before we would even be able to act on such, we would have
to have another LWRP review. It would seem it would have to come
as a totally new application with a new LWRP. It certainly
would seem to be going contrary to the previous consistency that
would have been granted by moving the project further away from
the wetland.
(Inaudible).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Basically what we are discussing up here is the
changes being made actually takes and encroaches the project
into the non-disturbance buffer that we had set at the original
hearing on the original permit and that's not something that the
Board is going to support, I don't think. The contour is up
here. This is well past it. It really does increase the size of
Board of Trustees 15 February 20, 2013
the disturbance in that whole area. The whole parking area is
changed, the driveway is changed. The house has been moved
closer to the wetlands. And again, we had, there was a lot of
comment in the original hearings. This went back and.forth for
quite a while and I don't find myself in a position to support
it. I don't know about the rest of the Board.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm very uncomfortable with moving it that much
closer to the wetlands. We are looking at 20, 25 feet moving it
closer.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We had a lot of trouble figuring out what the
elevations were going to be in terms of height. Is there anybody
else who would like to comment on this?
(No response).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience who would
like to comment on this application?
MR. DROUZAS: Can it be moved a little more toward like the area
where you'll be comfortable with?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The quick answer to that is you can apply for
anything you would like. We issued a permit we were comfortable
with after a number of months working on it. We are not in a
position now to tell you exactly where to put it. You already
have a place to put it that we worked on. As far as, aside from
that, if you would like to work on that to get another amendment
through, it's your right, but we can't tell that now.
MR. DROUZAS: So we have to make another amendment toward that?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think what you are hearing from the Board is
if you want to amend it in some way so it's closer to the road,
in another direction, feel free, but I don't think this Board is
going to support any application that the structure is moving
toward the non-disturbance area. Again, I agree with what has
already been said. This was worked on for several months, this
application, and I know there were neighbors there were very,
very concerned about how this was encroaching on a small wetland
area. What people in the audience have not seen that is on our
plans, it's not just Hashamomuck Pond, there is a wetland area
to the east -- excuse me, to the west of where the proposed
house is, was going to go. So if you want to amend something
that prevents the structure from going any further seaward than
what was approved already, I think there would be a greater
tendency for a favorable reaction to that, but not a favorable
reaction for any application that would move it seaward of where
we approved it already.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there anybody else who would like to speak to
the application?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to deny without prejudice the
application.
Board of Trustees 16 February 20, 2013
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number four, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting, Inc., on behalf of DAVID C. ESSEKS requests a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#5974 from Jennifer& Philip Stanton
to David C. Esseks as issued on August 18, 2004, and Amended on
May 18, 2005, and Amended again on December 16, 2009; and for an
Amendment to Wetland Permit#5974 to maintain the original "L"
configuration of the floating dock; and install two mooring
pilings (8.0" diameter) with Slide-Moor Systems off of the
seaward end of the floating dock. Located: 522 Town Creek,
Southold.
The project has been determined to be consistent with the
Town's LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support
the application because the pilings may prove to be a navigation
hazard. This is the offshore pilings that are proposed. And the
floating dock currently sits on the bottom. There is a question
of the need for the additional pilings.
The Trustees during the course of our monthly field
inspections also raised questions concerning the safety of
navigation in the creek, and Trustee members who had been
familiar with the application previously had raised the question
as to the need for the tie-off piles. Those were the issues
surrounding, similar issues surrounding both the Conservation
Advisory Council review and the Trustee review.
That said, is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. IVANS: Matt Ivans, Suffolk Environmental for the applicant.
To give you an idea of how far the piles stick out in the creek,
this is scaled directly from the plan itself. And the reason the
owner wants these piles is because apparently his boat is taking
a beating from southerly winds. Again, this is scaled directly
off what is in the drawing. These piles sit a maximum 14 feet
off that floating dock. Again, you can see, the dock to the
east, that actually encroaches a little further. I measured most
of the docks in the area. This dock, inclusive of those pilings,
the extension, is very similar to the docks on both shorelines
north and south. There are some instances where docks are
exceeding the length of our dock overall. There is also numerous
examples of tie-off pilings, as you can see.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because the record can't reflect what we are
looking it, it does appear from the photograph and the scale,
the addition of these two piles would seem, in scale, in
comparison to the dock, that it doesn't appear to go beyond the
neighboring dock, nor does it appear to go a third of the way
across, which is the general standard that we have to abide by.
MR. IVANS: That's correct. I think the distance across is about,
I have about 215 feet directly across. And we are about 65 feet
from the high water mark, full extension, including the proposed
pilings.
Board of Trustees 17 February 20, 2013
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess the only question I have is the
adjacent property owners and how the plot lines run as far as
navigation approaches to neighboring properties.
TRUSTEE KING: What's the distance between those two piles? It
looks like it might be close to 20 feet?
MR. IVANS: It's about 14 feet.
TRUSTEE KING: What size boat is he planning on tying to those?
MR. IVANS: That, I don't know.
TRUSTEE KING: I doubt it's a 14-foot boat.
MR. IVANS: I would doubt it.
TRUSTEE KING: So that would mean the vessel would be extended
out further. I'm uncomfortable with these tie-off piles that are
put out. It just takes up more of the public bottom.
MR. IVANS: Do you want me to get information on the boat the
owner has and I can scale it onto a drawing?
TRUSTEE KING: There is no way you can tie to the float itself?
Supposing they had a couple of piles on the seaward side of the
float that he could tie to, with the sliders on them. We did
that in Mattituck. It was successful until we had the hurricane
and the guy left his boat on I windward side and he had a
problem.
MR. IVANS: I think, again, he's worried about the southerly
winds banging his boat against the dock itself.
TRUSTEE KING: If we put a pile here and a pile here with the
sliders and tie his boat here, it works very well. I mean you
are not going way out. -
TRUSTEE BERGEN: My concern also was the proximity of these
tie-off piles to the extended property line. In the code it has
to be 15 feet off the adjacent property line and I have a
feeling -- and again, I don't have a survey here. Actually the
-- I think I would ask if you could go back to the client and
see if the client would be willing to consider what Jim has
recommended here.
MR. IVANS: Let me just see, I want to make sure I have this
right. You are talking along the side of the float?
TRUSTEE KING: (Indicating)
MR. IVANS: That's what I'm saying, he's afraid, the boat is
getting beaten up with the southerly wind. That is his concern.
That is what he's worried about. That's what I'm afraid of going
back to the client.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm trying to figure out what orientation the
boat will be here. What is he trying to do?
MR. IVANS: I think with the sliders, you see here, you can
basically go right up against these things. The sliders go up
and down with the tide, so you basically connect this.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I guess my point being whether the sliders are
here or there, what's the difference.
MR. IVANS: That's what I'm saying, I think because this keeps
the boat from banging into the dock on a southerly wind and I
think, I mean in a normal situation, two tie-off piles on the
outside, but I guess, apparently this is the way to go. Maybe I
Board of Trustees 18 February 20, 2013
can do a schematic of the boat.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Maybe have all this in there.
MR. (VANS: And I can get an idea how big this boat will be.
(Perusing). All right, we'll wait and see what they want to do.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Jim, he was just saying he would be more than
happy to have a schematic drawn in with a boat drawn on it so we
could see what it looks like in total, which would be helpful to me.
TRUSTEE KING: Fine with me.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We could table it to see.
TRUSTEE KING: We can table it. Whatever you guys want to do.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I'll move to table it then, and bring
in more information. Any other comments with respect to this
application?
(No response).
Hearing none, I would make a motion to table this application
and afford the applicant an opportunity to bring in more
information regarding tie-off of the vessel. So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc., on behalf of CHARLES &JANICE BOVINO request an Amendment
to Wetland Permit#7978 to replace inplace the existing two
12-foot returns at the northern and central portion of the
property, and one 23-foot return at the southern end of the
property. Located: 9775 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
This is to amend a permit that was just given in December
because they want to include returns at the property line and in
the middle of the property, which we had, by the way, had
recommended for people to think about after Sandy is returns, so
that if a neighboring bulkhead blows out, your property is
protected. So they are helpful. They definitely are. So it was
found consistent under the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory
Council resolved to support the application.
Is there anybody here who would like to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. IVANS: Matt Ivans, Suffolk Environmental, if there are any
questions.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: None from us. Does anybody else have any
comments for or against this application?
(No response).
Any comments from the Board?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second..
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Suffolk Environmental on behalf of Charles and Janice Bovino as
described.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
Board of Trustees 19 February 20, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number six, John Berg on behalf of WARREN & NINA
BERNSTEIN request an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7540 to
restore the driveway to original dirt and gravel condition,
pre-construction; and to include the installation of new
four-inch aggregate base and new gravel at upper driveway and
parking area.-Located: 2095 Lake Drive, Southold.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The
Conservation Advisory Council voted to restore the driveway to
the original dirt and gravel condition and install a new
four-inch aggregated base and new gravel in the upper driveway
parking area. They made no inspection -- clarify, they made no
recommendation. The Trustees visited the site. Our decision was
that the recommendation there be no aggregated base or crushed
cement, which would be virtually impermeable, and recommended
beach stone or pea gravel so that it will allow water to
percolate through the driveway.
Is there anyone here to speak to the application?
MR. BERG: Hi, John Berg, Berg Design Architecture. That sounds
perfectly acceptable, as long as we are also able to put the
aggregate in the upper parking area with pea gravel on top of it
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The plans show the aggregate in the upper area.
Our concern was in the lower section.
MR. BERG: Understood.
_TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else to speak to this
application?
-TRUSTEE KING: I think our concern was the area going through the
wetlands itself; to remove that aggregated from there and just
have the gravel.
MR. MANOS: Charles Manos, I'm speaking on behalf of my father
James Manos who owns the adjacent property. The reason for
concern is there is a common apron on the driveway, if you look
at the plans. If I may refer you initially to Mr. Berg's sketch
and you see the lower part of the driveway, which is on the top
of the diagram, and for definition of terms, it's where it
enters Lake Drive. And the hatch area ends and there is actually
an area between the hatch area and Lake Drive which is a common
driveway. If you will imagine an upside down letter"Y." So Mr.
Bernstein's driveway represents one half. Actually, maybe you do
have a picture of it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have anything down looking the other way
toward the driveway. That's all I have.
MR. MANOS: Okay, not a problem. I gave you some pictures, just
by way of description. If you imagine an upside down "Y" shape,
and Mr. Bernstein's driveway is one leg of the "Y," my family's
driveway is the other leg of the "Y," and the stem of the "Y"
goes into Lake Drive. So in other words there is a common area.
If you look at the pictures I provided.
MR. BERG: I have a diagram, it might be helpful.
MR. MANOS: If you look at a picture I provided, number one is
Board of Trustees 20 February 20, 2013
standing in the driveway of 2147, which is the adjacent property
to Mr. Bernstein's. And you are staring at Lake Drive. Now, if
you look to the left of that, excuse me, the right of that
picture there is some trees, and you can actually see Mr.
Bernstein's driveway through the trees.
If you flip to picture number two, you are standing on Lake
Drive and looking at the driveways. So here the perspective is
reversed. To the right is my family's driveway, to the left is
Mr. Bernstein's driveway. And I'm guessing approximately where
that post is, is where the, on the submitted plan, the hatch
area ends. So in other words if you look again at that hatch
area, on the amendment, to the left of it is a curve. That curve
is my family's driveway. Then there is an area, I guess ten, 13
feet, that extends from that hatch to Lake Drive. That's a
common apron. So there is egress and ingress.
I should also mention to the left of this, to the left of
the family house driveway is all wetlands. So for to us extend
the other way is you go into wetlands.
Then if you switch to number three it's just another
perspective of the common apron. And four is the same thing.
It's standing on the Lake Drive. You see the common apron on
the bottom and now you are looking up the Bernstein's driveway.
So, you know, the reason my father is concerned is he just wants
to ensure that the grading stays the same there, that there is
no obstruction, because it's necessary for emergency vehicles to
get in and out. And also what you don't necessarily see from
these diagrams is as you go from either driveway exiting, if you
made a right on to Lake Drive, there is like a hill, and it
actually obstructs vision. So, again, if the common apron is
not preserved then my father, you would have an 86-year old man
making too wide of a right turn and going into oncoming traffic,
which I don't think is in the public interest. Part of my humor.
Nobody got it. So, we would like the Bernstein's to be able to
get this done. Spring is almost upon us and I'm sure they would
like to enjoy the property as soon as possible.
So our only concern is there is some restoration, you know,
that the apron be preserved. And my father mentioned to the
Bernstein's whatever common expense for material in that area,
he's willing to chip in for as well.
MR. BERG: I have met with James Manos on behalf of Warren
Bernstein and listened to his concerns and have taken them to
Warren Bernstein and we have assured Mr. Manos that we will
render that apron to be level and that there will be no
migration of any new gravel on to Mr. Manos', the shared portion
of the apron. And I have a letter here from Warren Bernstein
making those assertions that were sent to James Manos on January
22nd. Mr. Manos has also met with Fred Seifert of Seifert
Construction who has also assured him that we will do whatever
it takes to render the apron to his satisfaction, once the
weather becomes, once we are able to do the finished gravel.
MR. SEIFERT: Fred Seifert. I spoke to your father, Jim, on the
Board of Trustees 21 February 20, 2013
site and he walked me down to the apron, showed me his concerns.
We, at the time, had the apron completely level but it was a
different material than what your father, your father's apron
is. And in the essence of trying to cooperate with him and
satisfy him, I told him we would extend the gravel that is in
Mr. Bernstein's apron over to his apron to make it looks like
one harmonious, continuous apron. He thanked me for that and
thought that was a good resolution. Since then he's asked me to
make it a little wider because we didn't get his whole apron,
and I told him we would, once the weather cooperates. And that
was the last conversation I had with him. He seemed completely
fine with that, and our intention is to make sure that Mr.
Bernstein, I mean Mr. Manos is satisfied that the apron is
passable for everyone. That's just our intention on that.
MR. MANOS: He takes them at his word. His only concern was that
it's not reflected on the diagram, so.
MR. BERG: I could amend the diagram
MR. SEIFERT: We already extended the common apron area.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It appears to me most of the discussion is
happening off the property itself, correct?
MR. BERG: Excuse me. I didn't hear what you said.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Most of your concerns is on the property not
owned by Mr. Bernstein, :that's my question.
MR. MANOS: It's actually like a common area. There is common
egress.
MR. BERG: So what the diagram reflects is the area that is zoned
solely. There is --this is the area of non-easement.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I guess the point is we can't stipulate to them
to do something to your property.
MR. MANOS: It's not our-property. There is a common area.
should say it's not solely. It's an area --
MR. BERG: I think there are two issues; one is the Board issue,
one is the issue with Mr. Manos. We are trying to satisfy both
issues.
TRUSTEE KING: We can't make you do something on somebody else's
property.
MR. BERG: Right. So our issue with Mr. Manos, we have given him
our word we will take care of that, which we have already done,
but we'll clean it up a little better to satisfy him, and the
with you, if accepted, not to use the aggregate, that is fine, too.
TRUSTEE KING: That was our concern.
MR. BERG: And both issues we plan on resolving.
MR. MANOS: I think the property line extends beyond this
diagram, and there is a common area. So it's not, as you are
asserting, outside the property line.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think the bottom line here for me is that this
is all outside of our jurisdiction of the Trustees. This apron
that is being discussed right now. Our jurisdiction is 100 feet
from the wetlands.
TRUSTEE KING: Technically it is within our jurisdiction because
it is within a hundred feet. It's jurisdictional, but it's on
Board of Trustees 22 February 20, 2013
somebody else's property.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are there any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I think our concern is get rid of the aggregate
and make it a gravel driveway like it was.
MR. MANOS: That would be fine then.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, 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
with the condition that the driveway be restored to the original
grade and use either gravel or pea stone so that it remains
permeable.
MR. MANOS: If I may, grade and elevation because then it creates
an obstruction. I know it's a minor point, but.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you want to put that in your motion?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The motion says restore the driveway to the
original. That should satisfy the condition.
MR. SEIFERT: The elevation was the same.
MR. MANOS: If it's uniform, it's fine. And the owner pledges to
make it absolute level across the apron, so there will be no
obstruction.
TRUSTEE KING: All right, that's the motion. Is there a second on
it?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Well go back, we held off, on number two, on page
five, CHARLOTTE C. BURKARD requests an Amendment to Wetland
Permit#6661 to include a proposed 12x18' return running south
to north attached to the existing bulkhead to prevent further
erosion to the southeast corner of the property; add fill to
re-establish eroded area and re-vegetate with beach grass; and
to include the repair or replacement of the existing 20x10' deck
with three-foot wide stairways on the north entrance to existing
dwelling. Located: 5360 Great Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel.
This was exempt under the LWRP and the Conservation
Advisory Council resolved to support the application. They are
recommending an engineered bulkhead design due to the fact the
previous bulkheads failed. I believe the bulkhead that failed
was not on Mr. Burkard's property. I think it's on the adjacent
neighbor to the east.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MR. BURKARD: I'm here. Thank you, for the postponement. I had to
drop my wife off at work today and I just got here. I'm the
husband of Charlotte C. Burkard.
TRUSTEE KING: I went out and looked at this. What happened, the
neighbor's bulkhead failed and where it meets Mr. Burkard's
bulkhead, it blew a hole in and went into Mr. Burkard's property
Board of Trustees 23 February 20, 2013
and did a lot of erosion in front of his home. In front of the
cottage. So this amendment is to extend the return a little
further landward to protect that from happening again. I didn't
have any issues with it at all.
Is there anyone else here to speak on behalf of or against
this application?
(No response).
Any Board comment?
(No response).
It's pretty straightforward, pretty simple. If there are no
other comments, 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 BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. BURKARD: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there anybody here for Barbara and Seth
Eichler?
(No response).
They are not here yet.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Moving into Wetland and Coastal Erosion permits,.
we'll go to number two,'Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on
behalf of BARBARA KOCH c/o GEORGE KOCH requests a Wetland Permit
and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove the remains of existing
wood walk, stairway to beach, and 73'+/- of bulkhead; construct
73'+/- of new bulkhead inplace; fill eroded area with clean
trucked-in fill (approx. 100 cubic yards); re-grade area;
reconstruct 10'x20' wood deck. Located: 270 Rabbit Lane, East
Marion.
This is one of the homes on Rabbit Lane in East Marion.
There will be a series of these coming up, pretty much all in
order, as was the same case last month. Most those homes and
those bulkheads were completely wiped out in the storm, so this
was just repairs to those bulkheads. And also the decking and
some of the housing that were damaged.in Sandy.
This one has been found to be inconsistent and consistent
by LWRP. It's inconsistent because anything larger than 10x20'
foot deck located in the coastal erosion hazard area is
inconsistent. And of course he also lists being in a beach area,
there is really no development permitted in a beach area. Of
course we know that, but this was an existing home.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application, though it does have a concern about the location of
Board of Trustees 24 February 20, 2013
the sanitary system, which we'll probably find on almost all of
the applications because all the sanitaries are fairly close
because of the proximity of the beach area and the homes.
TRUSTEE KING: What he is noting there about the decks, I don't
know--
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What the LWRP coordinator is noting here is the
deck is supposed to meet the 200-square foot of unregulated
activity, but the deck is not removed in the Fall of each year
and does not therefore meet the definition.
TRUSTEE KING: I disagree.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I disagree, too.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was under 200-square feet or removed
in the Fall. That's my understanding of the coastal erosion law.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think your understanding is correct.
TRUSTEE KING: It doesn't have to be both.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That was to capillaries that had a regular
erosion rate and to allow minimal use of the shoreline.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That is the premise we were working on.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, or which are removed in the fall of
each year, less than 200-square feet. So if it was nominally
less --
TRUSTEE KING: So it would be an inch less.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think that's what we also pointed out in the
field, looking at all these, is the fact that we need to keep
those decks 200-square feet or less in order to be consistent
with the code, and I think that was primarily the only concern
we had with most of these. Is there anybody here who would like
to speak to this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello on behalf of the applicant. Sounds
like you are doing fine. We reduced it to 200-square feet.
That's the only thing being done. And it's not going to be
removable. You pretty much already said everything.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: They all got beat up pretty good.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is a retaining wall there. The notes here
are pointing out a retaining walla I wanted to know if we were
going to add that as an as-built. Let me see if I have another
picture on there.
TRUSTEE KING: That's the retaining wall up back.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This retaining wall here was recently built. Do
you know anything about that?
MR. COSTELLO: There was a permitted return. The bulkhead was
left at a higher elevation, that was one the of the reasons it
failed, but all that new vinyl was permitted four or five years,
it's not a very old application, I don't think. And this is
just coming back and basically fixing the damage.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. It looked fairly new. I was just curious
because it was not on this application. I don't think any of us
had a problem with it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. The only thing, I'm a little fuzzy whether
it was this property or not there also appeared as though the
Board of Trustees 25 February 20, 2013
downspout that was there from the house also was, which had been
removed because of the storm, there was a hole in the bulkhead
that met the diameter of the downspout, so it looked as though
the water coming from the downspout prior to Sandy was being
directed through the bulkhead and on to the beach. So I would
just ask that it be noted in the record that when things are
rebuilt, it has to comply with the Storm Water Runoff Code.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Leaving the water on their own property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aside from that, I don't have any further
comments. I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application
and to just stipulate once again that any rebuilding of the
decks not be any larger than 200-square feet. With that we would
deem it consistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of SUZANNE
MOYSE, MARY GUERRIERA & JENNIFER BLACKHALL requests a Wetland
Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove and replace 86
linear feet of storm damaged bulkhead; install new 12' bulkhead
return; and reconstruct decking all in same location as
pre-Hurricane Sandy. Located: 150 Rabbit Lane, East Marion.
This is the same situation, I believe. Storm damage, once
again. It was found inconsistent and consistent. The proposed
replacement to reconstruct the decking seaward of the Coastal
Erosion Hazard Area is inconsistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
and recommends all runoff is contained into drywells. The
Conservation Advisory Council has a concern with the location of
the sanitary system also.
think we wanted to see the new bulkhead put as close to
the concrete as it can get, with the vinyl up against that
concrete. If I remember right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I have that in my notes.
TRUSTEE KING: That was the game plan there. Once again, with the
decking now, we want to see a deck 200-square feet or less.
Other than that, I don't think we had any questions on it.
We want to see that tight to the concrete.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So you'll want to specify removal.
TRUSTEE KING: The old bulkhead has to be removed.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Remove existing and replace bulkhead in exact same
position. It won't be. It will be a little bit landward,
because there is quite a bit of space between. That's going to
be removed and the concrete.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you understand what we are talking about?
MR. PATANJO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: And as far as the decking goes, you'll have to go
Board of Trustees 26 February 20, 2013
with the smaller decking. Is there anyone here who wants to
comment about the application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. And we
have no problem moving the bulkhead as close as we can, from a
construction standpoint, to the retaining wall. We can't remove
the concrete retaining wall, it's going to cost more than the
value of the house.
TRUSTEE KING: Sure. We understand that.
MR. PATANJO: And it will be in line better with the house to the
east, which will be fine. We still want to do that return. That
is shown on the plans. There is no problem with that, I assume.
And I will modify the drawings to limit the area of the deck to
10x20', or 200-square feet, within the Coastal Erosion Zone.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just as a point of clarification, the
regulated beach area includes the entirety of the property zone
of Rabbit Lane because the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act defines
the beach as 100-feet landward of the unconsolidated zone. So
that the overall decking on the property to be unregulated has
to be less than 200-square feet. And we, this Board, as does
the reading of the Town Attorney and those of us who worked with
Coastal Erosion, we don't have the authority at this level, it
would have to be at the appellate level to go more than
200-square foot deck on these properties. That's our
understanding.
MR. PATANJO: My understanding, and you guys know more than I do,
but, I thought it was on the water side of the Coastal Erosion
Zone on the plan. So this Coastal Erosion Zone line is not,
doesn't mean anything.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the LWRP coordinator, in his
determination of inconsistency, spelled it out very specifically
on all these properties as well after review with the Trustees
Town Attorney Lori Hulse, that that is a limitation on the deck
size in the beach area. The homes are pre-existing. There may be
additional discussion concerning homes through the Building
Department if they come in for additional work, but as far as
the code, the coastal erosion hazard act specifically favors
properly built coastal erosion structures, such as bulkheads
built to a 30-year standard, but there is a limitation in beach
areas to less than 200-square feet for decks, and the entirety
of the property by definition is beach area, it's what we have.
It's not something that we have any choice in when the town took
these codes from the state.
MR. PATANJO: So 200-foot from the rear of the property?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 200-square foot of deck on the property in
totality, unless you were to go to the appellate and appeal to
the Town Board.
MR. PATANJO: Does that include walkways around the house?
TRUSTEE KING: They would not include walkways.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Walkways are typically grade level. They are
not part of the deck.
TRUSTEE KING: There is a process to appeal this.
Board of Trustees 27 February 20, 2013
MR. PATANJO: 200-square feet.
TRUSTEE KING: If you so desire. Any other comments from anybody?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve the application with the
stipulation that the deck is 200-square feet or less and the new
.vinyl bulkhead is placed as close to the concrete retaining wall
as possible.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: And give us a set of plans showing that.
MR. PATANJO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, number four, Jeff Patanjo on
behalf of JOHN LUSCHER requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to replace 28 linear feet of Hurricane Sandy
damaged bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead; replenish sand fill
behind bulkhead and replace 28.2'x12' timber deck lost during
storm to pre-storm dimensions and location. Located: 110 Rabbit
Lane, East Marion.
So essentially in all other manners this is the same as the
ones we just discussed.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support the
application also outlining their concern for the sanitary
system. I don't know if these issues will come up during the
course of Building Department reviews on some properties that
may have to come in under issues surrounding Building and Zoning
that we will not see until after they go to those departments.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. Again,
we agree with moving the bulkhead closer to the concrete wall,
in line with 150, and agree to 200-square foot of decking. One
thing the applicant came to me too late before I could get to
you guys, they would like to do a 12-foot return on the west
side of the property.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I had spoken to Lori before, so we did know
about that when we went out on the field inspection. She
E-mailed today and said you couldn't get the drawings fast enough.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So if we could get drawings that would show
that and the 200-square foot deck. It seems straightforward and
seems in keeping with what everyone has seen. Any additional
comments? Board members?
(No response).
Okay, hearing no additional comments, I'll make a motion to
close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
Board of Trustees 28 February 20, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve the
application subject to submission of a new plan which shows a
deck not greater than 200-square feet and the addition of a
return of 12 feet. And that would bring this application into
consistency with the LWRP. So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of KIRK
O'FARRELL & DENISE CERASANI requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to construct approximately 131 linear
feet of vinyl or fiberglass bulkhead partially in the same
location as, partially landward of, and up to +/-12" higher than
existing storm damaged (Hurricane Sandy) concrete seawall to be
removed; construct two 16' returns; maintain as stone toe armor
at south/west end of proposed bulkhead the existing stone
previously emplaced pursuant to Wetlands Permit#6841 and
Coastal Erosion Management Permit#6841 C; maintain or remove as
necessary existing concrete retaining walls exposed by storm
erosion at south/west end of property; reconstruct storm damaged
12.5'x14.5' deck and three-foot wide stairs landward of new
bulkhead; reconstruct storm destroyed 3.5'x3.5' platform and
3.5' wide steps to beach on seaward side of new bulkhead;
backfill/re-nourish storm eroded area landward of bulkhead with
approximately 500 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be trucked
in from an approved upland source; and plant restored sloped
embankment to north/east of reconstructed deck with native
vegetation. Located: 11292 Main Road, East Marion.
This was found consistent and inconsistent under the LWRP.
Which,just bear with me, it's a long determination from the
Conservation Advisory Council. It's found consistent, the
construction of the bulkhead, 131 feet of bulkhead. The two
16-foot returns, three-foot wide stairs, the reconstruction of
the platform, and the stairs to the beach. Re-nourishing,
backfilling behind the bulkhead. Again, this is all found
consistent.
Found inconsistent is, under the-LWRP, specifically the
Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, that the decks subject to less than
200-square feet should be removed annually. Therefore the deck
as proposed is inconsistent. And no decks or platforms shall be
permitted near the bluffs. On or near the bluffs. So that's
what was found inconsistent.
It was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council. The
Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application. The CAC had a concern with the location of the
sanitary system.
The Board did go out and look at this. We have received two
letters. The first letter is from Vicki Papson from Stamford,
Connecticut. It's short, so I'll read it in.its entirety. It is
Board of Trustees 29 February 20, 2013
dated February 15th, 2013.
My property, 11120 Main Road, is west of the subject
property. We share an adjacent wall on the east side of the
property. The O'Farrell side has large rocks against my wall.
The previous owner has the same wall, which was not sufficient,
as evidenced by Storm sandy. As a result of storm, my adjacent
wall collapsed and brought down a portion of my retaining wall.
I would like to recommend a better option to protect my walls.
The second letter is from the desk of Debra Kusa, 11360
Main Road, East Marion. It is rather lengthy, so I'll stipulate
the entire letter will be entered into the record. What I'll do
is go through this and try to highlight the points.
That there was a site visit there on the 13th of February.
She states that she did not receive notice of the hearing that
was taking place. So she has not had sufficient time to review
the application. Her concerns, her one, the request to build the
entire 131' shoreline structure and new vinyl bulkheading and
16' returns at either end, how can the Trustees justify the
approval of ripping down the remaining still-standing eastern
wall which withstood Sandy's wrath, and replace with modern
vinyl that can only be accomplished by digging out earth that is
very much intact and abutting my property. How can the placement
of 16' returns at the property line possibly be installed
without compromising the integrity of my current shoreline
structure. The proposed 16' return would be very disruptive to
the integrity of the existing intact embankment which still
stands on the eastern property line. The construction of 16'
returns will most certainly damage the integrity of the
still-standing portion of the remaining structure.
The remaining seawall on the eastern end of the O'Farrell
shoreline, although it appears to match O'Farrell's, may very
well be partially on my property if you strictly observe the
meets and bounds of the property. I strongly object to removing
the remaining portion of the seawall and to the construction of
the return on the eastern end of the proposed structure. With regard
to meets and bounds, I don't see a surveyors mark on the .
remaining portion of the seawall itself showing where the
O'Farrell property actually begins. The only onsite surveyors
mark is well above the seawall and the angle of the actual meets
and bounds up to the seawall itself is not apparent.
My great-grandfather and his brother cooperatively
connected the walls, and the definition of where the O'Farrell
wall begins and ends on the eastern end is not clearly marked
and should not be mistaken simply by using a visual observation.
I respectfully ask that the Trustees strongly suggest to
the O'Farrell's that they re-apply instead to install rock
revetment to secure what remains of the remaining seawall to
ensure its integrity.
Thereafter allow partial rebuilding of the structure
revetment, of the shoreline structure, far removed from my
property line. It is more than obvious that the rock revetment
Board of Trustees 30 February 20, 2013
in front of the main part of my seawall is the major reason my
seawall is still standing and the partial rock revetment
protecting the Papson property is the reason why that wall is
mostly in an intact condition.
The 16' return on the eastern property line would be hard
to create without certainly damage to my property integrity and
would require a senseless removal of the still-standing portion
of the O'Farrell seawall.
In closing I feel that the fact the O'Farrell's did not
consult with me on their application and specifics were perhaps
intentional. I previously had a conversation in Autumn 2012,
pre-Sandy, regarding their plans to rebuild their waterfront
structure prior to Sandy. I clearly explained I would be
objecting to any plan that would compromise the integrity of my
seawall and potentially create an expense that I would be unable
to afford to fix any damage caused as part of a chain reaction
of heavy earth movement, and three, potentially cause
de-evaluation of my property by erosion and damage if my
shoreline structure was damaged. Signed by Debra Kusa.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Good afternoon, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on
behalf of the applicants. Both Kirk O'Farrell and Denise
Cerasani are here, as is Angelo Stepnoski of Greenport Dock.
Let me try and summarize the project quickly and then I'll
try to respond to the various comments that Dave has outlined
both from the LWRP coordinator and the two letters.
Some of the details I will defer either to the owners or to
Mr. Stepnoski, but I'll cover as much as I can.
Before we prepared these plans or filed an application, as
the Board knows, we invited the Board out as part of a formal
pre-application field inspection to look at this property. We
had discussed the plan that we were setting forth. We did the
same thing with staff in the New York State DEC, and basically
appeared to have favorable feedback both from this Board and the
DEC for the project that has been put in front of you.
It does have a complication to this site because you are
trying to tie into two concrete seawalls on either side of the
property with a new structure. So no matter what kind of
structure you put here, you have the issue of having to remove
remnants of the existing failed seawall, and it will include
some substantial footings beneath it. And you also have the
trick of trying to tie in as best as humanly possible to both
seawalls. In fact that's one of the reasons why the vinyl or
fiberglass bulkhead is proposed as opposed to a revetment, in
part because it will allow at least something close to a
marrying of the two structures that the stone is will really not
going to afford you the ability to do. And also the fact that
excavation that would be required for revetment would actually
be more substantial than putting in what has been proposed here.
There is obviously a great deal of urgency to this application
Board of Trustees 31 February 20, 2013
as there has been to all these similar applications where it
looks like a surface to air missile hit the properties, and the
Board has been looking at them by the dozens over the past
couple of months, and more will come in next month.
One of the things the O'Farrell's tried to do here was to
meet, first of all, the requirements of the New York State DEC
Hurricane Sandy General Permit Requirements, which would include
the replacement of the structure in place and/or landward of an
existing structure, without any seaward encroachment or new
structure seaward of what was there. That's what we have done
and that's the permit we have already obtained from the DEC.
So at the moment the O'Farrell's ability to move ahead lies with
this Board.
With respect to the LWRP review, I think the Board just
addressed this in a prior application. It would not be in my
professional opinion a correct interpretation of the Coastal
Erosion Hazard Area Law that you would have to actually
seasonally remove a deck. The purpose of that section is to
allow up to 200-square feet of permanent deck. This is roughly
180 or so. The Board pointed that out while we were at the site
and in fact left us with the caveat to make sure the deck was
less than 200-square feet. I'll mention that Jim and I did the
dimensions and came within about a foot of being correct.
With respect to the two letters from each neighbor, one
saying we are doing too little, the other saying we are doing
too much. I think Ms. Papson may be confused as to what is
proposed, because a number of years ago before property was sold
this Board granted a permit to put in effect a small sandwich of
stone between a portion of the wall and the property that had
failed at that time and the Papson wall. I think Ms. Papson
feared that our proposal was to do that again and then we'll
have the same result. She may not-- and I don't know if she is
here tonight-- but she may not be seeing in the plans the
proposal for the bulkhead itself and then simply re-using the
stone that is already there, in effect leaving it more or less
in place as toe stone, where this wall will tie into a somewhat
landward section of her wall.
So I think the more substantial approach she is asking for
is in fact what is being proposed here.
With respect to the letter written from the neighbor, I
think you said Ms. Kusa, to the east, notice was sent to her as
is required. A certified letter was sent out on February 8. We
of course have proof of that receipt from US Postal Service. We
can submit it if needed.
The notion that we should maintain any part of that wall
that has failed, I'm not going to get into a long discussion.
think it's clear to the Board, anyone with a professional eye
for that wall that we would not want to leave the wall on this
property standing. It failed. It failed pretty miserably. And I
think the O'Farrell's are doing what is ultimately going to have
to be done with both of the adjacent properties at some point,
Board of Trustees 32 February 20, 2013
to replace those walls.
The stone on the property to the east that covers virtually
the entire beach from the bulkhead almost out into the tidal
waters certainly provide protection for that wall. I don't know
when that stone was placed, if there were ever permits issued
for it, but it's not a viable option here. We would never obtain
permits from this Board or anyone else to completely cover the
beach here with stone. So we have to do something here. We have
to replace the wall.
The letter writer raises certainly an understandable
concern about the integrity of her wall, because it's in pretty
awful shape. I have various photos that I'll hand up in
connection with my next response with respect to the markings of
the property line, but that wall, as I'm sure the Board saw in
our field inspections, has been patched, patched again and
re-patched. There are new cracks in it right near the property
line. It's a matter of time before that wall fails itself.
I think the concern probably from the letter writer is that
that would somehow be accelerated due to the construction here.
Which does leave us in a difficult spot. But the only option is,
the other option would be do nothing. And what is adjacent to
the property line now is a failed section of concrete seawall
with no fill behind it. Which is obviously one storm away from
becoming an even bigger problem for the neighbor to the east.
Again, we have brought Angelo here, if there are questions that
the Board has about how we'll try to tie up there. Certainly if
there was damage to that seawall during a connection, it would
have to be repaired and it would have to be repaired at these
owners' expense. That I'm not sure creates a difference here
from any other application that is before the Board every month
where you are trying to tie into an adjacent structure there is
some risk of disturbance of damage next door, and the common
practice that the owners would pay to repair that damage; if
there is fill lost, they would replace the fill; if vegetation
is disturbed, they would replace the vegetation. And I'm sure
the Board can include conditions to effect in the permit.
With respect to the question of the survey markings, when
we were made aware of the concerns we did, the O'Farrell's had
Peconic Surveyors go out and set some markers, which you don't
have the benefit of seeing. I saw them today for the first time
and I don't know what the easiest'thing to do, here are several
pictures. And I can try to lay them out on the table, then I can
hand them up and you can pass them around. This is the O'Farrell
seawall and that is the property line to the east. That's marked
in pink. You can see the damage to that wall. This is a shot
from behind it, which actually shows one advantage that we have
here is the storm actually receive moved so much of the fill
behind the wall that Angelo doesn't have to do as much
excavating as he would normally have to as a lot of that has
been done for him. This again is the general condition of the
O'Farrell wall. Now I think probably -- here is the picture of
Board of Trustees 33 February 20, 2013
the adjacent wall. This is the Kusa seawall. You can see the
cracks and various cement patches in it and stone in front. This
is a picture I just took this afternoon. You'll remember this is
not a return. This is, I mean it's not an engineered return that
is part of the seawall. It's like a low-lying wood -- I'm not
sure what you would call it.
TRUSTEE KING: Whose property is that on?
MR. HERRMANN: It's on the Kusa's property. You can see right
where this buttress is to the seawall there is a survey mark set
here, which you can see from the back side right here. So it
goes six inches up right after that buttress in front of the
wall. And the pink marker referenced in her letter that you saw
when you were out there is farther up. What Kirk is doing in
this picture is running a tape back between the two survey marks
that shows that wood wall is about a foot or so on to her
property. So the way the plan is drawn now is the return would
basically run up here and end about where Kirk is sitting. Which
again, is this whole area. You can see the sand bags here.
This whole area has already been excavated out. It's already
scoured back to the landward end of the return. In fact that's
the philosophy behind where the return would end.
So we are not trying to go in and disturb her property but
if the O'Farrell's make the investment in this wall, which as
you know won't be a small one, and they don't put in any kind of
return that is a shore perpendicular return, then Ms. Kusa's
wall fails, the same thing will happen not only to her but to
this property again. You have heard it tonight over and over
again, you heard it last month, all these applications are
either extending or adding returns along the property line
because so many people suffered catastrophic damage because of a
failure not of their own wall but because of a neighbor's wall.
And it would be wonderful if everybody could hold hands and
invest all at the same time and put a wall in all in one
continues stretch, but the reality people are seeing after this
event is they have to put in a return on their own property.
It's an additional and otherwise unnecessary expense, but it's
necessary to protect this property.
So other than to say the utmost care would be taken to make
sure there is not damage to her property and that if there is it
would be repaired at the O'Farrell's expense, I'm not sure what
the alternative is for the O'Farrell's.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there a way to work around that buttress and
leave the buttress there?
MR. HERRMANN: That's a perfect segue where I'll ask Angelo to
respond to see how he would marry into that corner. We stared
at this for quite a while today.
MR. STEPNOSKI: Angelo Stepnoski, Greenport Dock. Perhaps when we
dig it out we'll have a better understanding of what the footing
is, the shape of the buttress. The buttress is in bad shape.
You can tell from the pictures. We'll attempt to tie into it,
not disturb it. We'll crib in front of it before we do anything
Board of Trustees 34 February 20, 2013
so it doesn't push seaward. And once you get it apart and start
working on it, then you'll know. But to that point there is no
way of knowing whether you can attach to it, use it, whatever.
If we don't have to, we'll replace it with something that is
comparable or better.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would anybody else like to comment?
MS. KUSA: Yes. I'm Debra Kusa. I live to the east of the
O'Farrell's and I wrote the objection clearly because the
seawall was never marked until today. I was not invited to even
look at that marking. The plans.were never shared with me.
I received a letter a couple of days ago after the Trustees
actually showed up to my property asking if they could look at
the O'Farrell's because the O'Farrell's don't have an address
marker outside of their home and so they came down and I
welcomed them because I wanted to express. My concern. This is
not showing the wall, so it's very hard -- I mean this is
showing, I don't even know. I know what it's showing, but for
anyone else how could they see the wall. The wall should be
taken, the photograph from below to clearly understand that it
was not marked, and I would like to have the opportunity for
John Ehlers to update my survey so I could agree to this kind of
clear-cutting of the seawall.
Angelo says he can do this tie in but clearly he said "if
we can." And "if' is not really something I'm interested in.
I'm interested in him bonding himself to anticipate there is
going to be a problem here. And I mean this is a cement seawall
that continues without damage for several feet past my property
line. So do they have a system where they know how to cut a wall
and they are not going to damage my wall? I never heard of a
machine like that. Is there a machine that can cut a seawall in half?
TRUSTEE KING: They have machines that can do about anything.
MS. KUSA: I want to know if he has a machine that can do that.
If that's where it's going, I need to know it's not just a
demolition crew coming in and removing the cement and burying
it, is my understanding, from the application. You know, it
says 131 feet. So clearly they are saying they are going to do
the entire stretch under this application. There is no mincing
that 131. 1 see it in front of me. Vicki Papson's objection,
believe, has to do with the fact that the O'Farrell's western
wall collapsed under the previous owner after her wall and her
excavation and the pile drivers led to a very weak section and
it collapsed soon thereafter. Robert Ungerly (sic) is not here
to confirm that but it was always his suspicion because it
collapsed right away after the work was done on Vicki Papson's.
So she is probably terrified of the pile drivers because she
knows her own work led to a failure to the structure next door.
don't have the means to repair a seawall even one foot,
okay. I live here full-time. I have two children. So if that
matters at all, if there is some way to bond the construction to
protect me, I'm all for it. But I'm not for tearing apart
something that is still standing and then being told it may or
Board of Trustees 35 February 20, 2013
may not be able to be removed correctly.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. I would welcome you, since we just saw
these and you have not had a chance, to come up and take a look --
MS. KUSA: I haven't. I was home trying to prepare for this.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I wanted to give you an opportunity to see these
pictures. As you can see they've marked, surveyors came out and
marked exactly where the property line is.
MS. KUSA: And I would like John Ehlers to also confirm that. I
had a survey done 1.7 years ago. He's out of town, I called him
right away, can you come to my office. He left on a trip with
his son.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Referring to what? Sorry.
MS. KUSA: This line on the wall. These are not my surveyors.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: She is questioning the survey done to the wall.
MS. KUSA: If you want to approve 131 feet, I want to confirm it
down to the inch, quite honestly. I'm just disappointed that the
O'Farrell's did not include me in this, sharing the plan,
because we would not be wasting time and I would be on vacation
with my children this week.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
MS. KUSA: Thank you.
MR. O'FARRELL: I'm Kirk O'Farrell. I'm not sure which pictures actually --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would you like to take a second to look at the
pictures?
MR. O'FARRELL: I have some other pictures as well. I want to
make sure they show the state because she is making a comment
that our wall --well, here is a picture that shows the section
of wall that she says is intact, which clearly is not intact.
This section of the wall here, this is the one whole section
between this buttress and that buttress, which is hardly in tact
and certainly very old and weak structurally. You can see, I
think this picture, which is taken from the other side, you
know, it's cracked there, it's got other cracks. It's in the
same shape that the rest of the wall was that washed away all at
once in that other storm.
So, as I said, I think as we were looking at it, and Angelo
commented you know that's just not a salvageable piece of our
seawall, we can't really continue to retain that. So we are
trying to put up a wall that will adequately protect our
property as well as try to minimize any damage on our
surrounding property.
I think a couple of other points, I think one reason why we
have not been consulting with our neighbor is that, I mean the
very first time we met her, which we bought the property in
July, and I think the very first time I met her was probably in
August, she asked us, this was pre-Sandy, and we were already
realizing we needed to do something about our seawall. And she
asked us what we were doing, and we told her, and she said well,
I'll fight you on that, without ever really asking us what our
plan was. We didn't have a plan at that time. And so it didn't
seem like the kind of thing we were dealing with somebody who
Board of Trustees 36 February 20, 2013
was going to be very cooperative with us since she was already
talking about fighting us even before we came up with any sort
of plan.
You'll note in the other letter you read from our neighbor
to the other side, which I think there was a sentence you left
off at the end, where she said we are very forthcoming about
sharing our plans with her and we have been in discussions with
her. You know, and again, I think she is telling us she thinks
we need to do more than just put rocks. I don't think she is
terrified we are coming in with construction equipment. She is
terrified we are just going to put rocks and everything will
wash away again, as it just did a few months ago.
I guess the other thing I would like to just say, we have
been now four months since Sandy, completely unprotected, and I
think these pictures here and I think the pictures you have
don't really do justice to the amount of damage there is, that
the chunks of concrete scattered all over the place, and a good
portion of our property already washed away, and we are probably
looking at at least another two months after we receive approval
before we can get the work done. By the time we have contractor
lined up. And so, you know, every storm that comes in just has
the potential to make problems worse. And'the next storm could
wash away the rest of our already damaged seawall and then start
eroding our neighbor's property as well. I mean we are all kind
of at risk here. So we need to come up with a solution to
protect ourselves and protect everybody else. Unfortunately,
from the first time we started talking with our contractor, with
Angelo, which is again, probably sometime in September, we
talking about wanting to do things in a way wanting to be
respectful to our neighbors and not cause problems, so we have
kind of considered a number of different possibilities, but this
seems the only one to be a viable option.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I want to first off clarify a couple
of matters that were brought up under the LWRP.
MR. O'FARRELL: Sorry, if I can just--we did a survey done in
July when we bought the property. So it's a brand new survey.
It ties in with the marker you saw on the property, the stone
marker that has been there for I don't know how many decades. So
what they did today is came down and ran from along our property
line to that marker, which it goes right over that marker and
down to the wall. So it's just basically a very recent survey.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Just for the record, who was the
surveyor that did the survey, Rob?
MR. O'FARRELL: It was Peconic Surveyors.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Now, before we get back to some of
the questions that the property owner has brought up, just to
address some of the LWRP issues, you are absolutely right, Rob,
we have in the last couple of hearings ago did resolve the issue
regarding it does not have to be a removable deck to be
consistent under the LWRP.
Second, the deck that is proposed, I see is proposed to be
Board of Trustees 37 February 20, 2013
landward of the bulkhead, so it's not going to be cantilevered
out in any fashion of a bulkhead.
MR. HERRMANN: No, it will be a small platform but the deck you
are describing is behind the wall.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I see the platform is associated with the
stairs to the beach. So that would address those
inconsistencies. I wanted to get that on the record to start out
with.
Now, first, is there anybody else who wanted to speak--
then if one of the previous speakers wants to come back, that's
fine, but is there anybody else who wants to speak for or
against this application first?
(No response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Also as a paint of order can I request the
chair limit some of the discussion if it starts to ber repetitive
because we have a huge agenda tonight and I think some of the
issues have been very cogently presented already.
MS. KUSA: It won't take me any more time than it took to fix my
driveway the other day.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sorry, I need you to be a little more clear.
didn't hear that.
MS. KUSA: Sorry, the driveway you guys muddied up. Anyway.
Sorry, it was a joke.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, go ahead.
MS. KUSA: Is there a way -- I know the permitting process is
- different from the contractor? Is there any way to compel'the
contractor to indemnify me with some kind of concrete bond to
protect --this is a different type of seawall than you'll see
mostly around anymore. This is not any small shakes. Despite the
fact everyone says it's in terrible condition, quite honestly
it's over a hundred-years old and I think it looks great for a
hundred-year old anything. So what it looks like and what it is
underneath are two different things. It's re-enforced rebar, as
far as I know. My great-uncle was an engineer. So this is not
just a bunch of sand mixed together. And I cannot afford to fix
it, as I said, if it becomes compromised. I would like to know
where the new structure is going to be relative to what is still
remaining. I don't see a drawing that is actually showing me
that. I see a line that follows a seawall saying that's where
the new structure is going to be exactly as opposed to landward.
I have looked at it quite carefully. So I just, I like the
O'Farrell's. I like that they are going to restore the house
next door. I need to protect myself and I need to protect my
children and I need to protect my property. That's simply why
I'm here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. The agent Mr. Herrmann already put on
the record that if there was any damage to your retaining wall
-- if you let me finish -- if there was any damage to your
seawall or to your property as in if land fell down or whatever,
that the agent has already said that they would make the
necessary repairs at his client's expense. He's already said
Board of Trustees 38 February 20, 2013
that in his presentation. Am I correct on that, Mr. Herrmann?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. "They," of course, refers to the O'Farrell's,
the homeowners. Not me.
MS. KUSA: That's the point. A verbal guarantee --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Ma'am, we are not going to get into an open
discussion here. You made your point on the record. I asked a
question now of the agent. He's responded on the record. And
just briefly, also, I want to also.state, because I know the
returns have been brought up here, that you already heard me in
a previous hearing state the returns are beneficial here to
protect the property owners on both sides. All of the property
owners in an event of another catastrophic event where a
bulkhead falls down, the return can be beneficial to both sides.
have a question for Mr. O'Farrell. Mr. O'Farrell, would you
back what your agent Mr. Herrmann stated with regard to taking
financial responsibility for any damage caused to your
neighbor's property as a direct result of the construction of
this bulkhead and the return?
MR. O'FARRELL: Well, I think, you know, the answer is yes, we
would feel responsible if during the construction process. I
mean the problem is that buttress is partially on our side of
the line, partially on her side of the line. According to our
surveyors, anyway. And it's going to be difficult to do work --
we were never planning to take that buttress out. We were always
planning to leave the buttress there. Because even before we
had the surveyors come in and show us exactly where the line was
we realized that buttress was kind of essential to the integrity
of our neighbor's wall. And so which actually, you know, it just
complicates our job really, makes it more expensive, but we
always felt we would do everything as responsible as possible. I
don't know if whether as part of the permitting process, I mean
this is my first time going through this and hopefully my last,
but, you know, is that a typical thing you can ask one owner to
actually indemnify the adjacent owner?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I didn't ask you that. I was very specific in my
question. You answered it so I'm satisfied with your answer.
MR. O'FARRELL: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm concerned about the lateral support
also. The Board has a process where they could compel bonding,
but the fact is, and generally I think this is a tool to be
considered as we go forward in some difficult situations. But
it would be much more beneficial if the adjacent property owners
and neighbors would work something out, because the time
necessary to properly execute plan modifications and go through
a bonding process essentially leaves both neighbors at the
disadvantage for the next large coastal storm that may come
along so that it would be sort of the thing that surely I would,
I feel uncomfortable without seeing a little bit more of a work
plan concerning the lateral protection of those properties, but
for the fact if the neighbors are both willing to quickly work
Board of Trustees 39 February 20, 2013
together and work out issues surrounding a surety or a plan
that, where they work together, I mean, the process goes
quickly. But if it bogs down, and people may not be aware of
it, but this recent Coastal Storm Charlotte had initial tidal
projections by the National Storm Weather Service that equalled
Tropical Storm Sandy. We only got lucky again. So this is
something, I lived it in '91 and '92 as a member of the Board.
don't appreciate living it again. But I also don't appreciate
where neighbors can't work together as a common interest. That's
what I would like to say.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In terms of bonding I'm not so sure we can
insist on bonding to protect the neighbor anyway. We can only
insist on bonding to protect Trustee and town and public interest.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good point. And unfortunately tonight due to
another commitment we don't have the benefit of our attorney
here. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from anybody in the audience?
MS. KUSA: Does that include me?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, if you have something new. And come up to
the microphone, please, so we can get it on the record.
MS. KUSA: Okay, so a direct question to Mr. O'Farrell.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Ask us.
MS. KUSA: Okay. Directly to Mr. O'Farrell via you, he did not
directly say, yes, he would be responsible. He said he would
consider being responsible. Is he going to be responsible? He
has deep pockets, I do not.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, that question was asked and answered at
this point.
MS. KUSA: Well, he didn't say it directly. He qualified it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's really not an issue for us.
MS. KUSA: Okay, so it's not an issue. Is that correct?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on just a second, Denise. I just want to
make sure you were through first before we went to another
speaker
MS. KUSA: He said it's not, Mr. Ghosio said it's not an issue. So
if it is, then I'll --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's not an issue that we can legislate or make
part of our contingency to the application from the Trustees
whether or not he'll be financial liable to you should there be
damage to your wall. That would be a civil matter.
MS. KUSA: So what if I have to wall sit, like tree hug?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That would be up to you.
MS. KUSA: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. If you would just introduce yourself for
the record, please.
MS. CERASANI: Denise Cerasani, the property owner. I'm sorry to
belabor, this has taken a great deal of your time and those
behind us. I just would say I think we have tried to be very,
very thoughtful and deliberate throughout this process. We
tried to do the steps in a very concerted way. We think we have
Board of Trustees 40 February 20, 2013
the right plan. We think it's respectful of not only protecting
our property but of our neighbors', and we welcome after
hopefully you being inclined to approve this, we are more than.
welcome continued discussion with our neighbors as it's every
interest of ours to do this the right way for all of us.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Being no other comments, I'll make a
motion to close -- I'm sorry, go right ahead.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't know how the rest of the Board feels.
Maybe it would be beneficial to stipulate that that last
buttress, the one we are talking about, would be preserved as
part of the project. I know that, you know, it seems to be where
the crux of the matter is. I mean the less work that is done
that can encroach on the existing wall to the neighbor, I think
the happier they'll be. I see the return coming up the side will
protect that other so-called return that we see in the
photograph here, which is on Ms. Kusa's property. So I don't
have an issue with that. But I think cutting the buttress may
be a problem.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. For myself, I'm not an engineer, I'm not a
professional dock builder. I want to leave that up to the
professional, that being the successful contractor on this job,
to make that determination. Because I think he or she is the
best one to make that type of determination.
TRUSTEE KING: Rob, is Mr. Stepnoski going to be the contractor
on this job?
MR. O'FARRELL: That's our plan. We have been talking with him.
We have not signed any contract with him or anything, but we
have been talking with him since September. So that's our plan.
TRUSTEE KING: Well, we have had problems in the past where we
had contractors come in here where we had a lot of experience
with and they are very knowledgeable, then sometimes the owner
chooses somebody else and the work is nowhere near as well as
what we expected to be done by the contractor we assumed was
going to do the job. I have seen Mr. Stepnoski's work for many
years now and I have never seen anything fall apart that he's
built yet. So that's just my kind of a, I have a concern .
sometimes. This has happened to us on more than one occasion
where a very credible person comes in with plans and everything
for us and the owner picks somebody else and everything falls
apart. That's just one of my concerns.
MR. O'FARRELL: I mean I can only tell you I have every intention
he's going to be our contractor. We have just not signed a
contract yet. He's the only person we have been talking to since
September, so. And I think he's come out to our property a
number of times, he's here today. That shows he's committed to
do the work. I think you can expect he'll be doing the work.
TRUSTEE KING: I can only tell you what has happened to us in
past issues and sometimes it turns into a nightmare when another
contractors come out.
MR. O'FARRELL: We have heard good things about his work and we
want someone to do a good job and we don't want to have someone
Board of Trustees 41 February 20, 2013
come back again for more permits because of something that was
not done right, so.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm kind of getting hung up on the buttress.
Rob, can we save the buttress? I mean half the buttress is the
Kusa's property and half is on O'Farrell's property. I'm not a
seawall engineer, but I'm in construction. It seems to me
something with a big footing and a buttress that's been there
for a 100 years is not a bad thing. Can you tie up to it?
MR. O'FARRELL: We always planned to leave that buttress in
place. If you want a stipulation we are going to leave it in
place, that, you know, the one difficulty is, and again, let me
see if I could show you. Well, I mean here, this is the
buttress. You can see it's cracked, cracked, cracked. If you
look at it from the top down, here, you can see this is from the
side. You can see it's cracked. If you look from the top down,
this is actually a hole in the top. We want to do everything we
can to preserve this buttress but I think what we are hearing
from Angelo is he's going to be taking the rest of this concrete
out and he's going to support this and, you know, I guess we
would try to probably do something to re-enforce it after the
work is done. But I guess what I have heard from Angelo is you
can't say what is going to happen to the buttress while he's
doing the work. Just that our plan is to leave it in place. I'm
not sure how we can promise that it won't be.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The problem with that, correct me if I'm wrong,
is that if it can't be saved and you go to cut it, then you are
impinging on your neighbor because you could be breaking part of
what she owns. And I kind of do have an issue with that.
MR. O'FARRELL: We are not planning to cut it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If you can't cut it, what are you going to do?
If you go and disturb it, it will fall over, right?
MR. HERRMANN: This has been the difficulty with, an unavoidable
difficulty from the start. And I think what Angelo -- everybody
is trying to be as honest about this as possible. I think that's
the reluctance to make the promise about the buttress. Because
they can state they'll keep the buttress, and if Angelo brings
the wall up and the buttress fails because the footing
underneath collapses, they don't want to end up in violation of
two permits due to an unavoidable act. So then what's the
alternative. If you just leave that wall and that section of
wall there, it's going to fail. You have, I don't know how many
dozens of feet of previously-standing concrete seawall that we
are all celebrating the hundred years of life of, that is gone.
Literally gone. I don't even know where it is. So that buttress
and that section of wall, and with all due respect to Ms. Kusa's
great uncle is eventually all going to go. Everybody sitting up
at that table knows that to be true. It will eventually go. So
each owner can only do what they can do within their property
boundaries. If there is damage to her section of wall, they will
replace it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER:.What about the consideration, I'm not an
Board of Trustees 42 February 20, 2013
architect or marine construction person either, but what the
consideration of a goodly distance, eight, ten feet from that
buttress, the bulkhead there then have an angled return so that
the remains of the wall at the property will in fact live out
their life as they might. I just think --
MR. HERRMANN: We had discussed today all sorts of alternative
options in terms of how do we just stay away from that section.
And when I mentioned that to Angelo he said, well, the problem
is if you leave that section of wall standing, it's going to
fall and it's going to bring down her section of wall, and then
now instead of repairing, you know, a couple of feet of her wall
now you have to bring her concrete wall eight or ten feet on to
the O'Farrell's property. I mean otherwise you leave either a
gap or notch or step out. They also talked about what if we went
landward. Just pull the whole wall back. Now, if we did that,
then that leaves that notch, which this Board is always trying
to make a point of removing as much as possible.
So we understand it's a difficult situation, and we are not
trying to, you know, I feel like there is some air in the room
the O'Farrell's are trying to get away with something. They are
not. They are just trying to replace the wall. And as with
every other property, they be going to go from corner to corner
and build a return. The difficulty comes with the fact that we
are trying to figure out how do we not accelerate the collapse
of an already deteriorating structure. That is the main problem
here. And Ms. Kusa has stated on the record that that is frankly
her concern. Because if it fails she doesn't have the means to
replace it. Which is completely understandable. And I don't
think the O'Farrell's would question that for an instant. But
they on the other hand can't be held hostage because of that.
I'm not a professional engineer, so I can't answer Bob's
question any better than any of you can. I can only rely on
somebody who has been doing this for a long time. So for one
last shot, let me ask Angelo try to respond to Bob's question
and see what the Board wants to do.
MR. STEPNOSKI: We'll attempt to save the buttress. Everything
that is humanly possible to do, we'll do. But the buttress is in
bad condition and there are definite engineer flaws in this
wall. They didn't use rebar, they used pipe. The pipe filled
with water, the pipe rusted. Everyplace the wall failed is where
the pipe rusted. So if the buttress is secure, we'll attach to
it, make a tight closure. That's what we'll do. But if we
can't, we'll have to do something else. Like I said before,
we'll put something back either as good or better than what was
there originally. And we'll take every precaution not to hurt
Ms. Kusa's wall.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you have something new you would like to
provide?
MS. KUSA: If the buttress comes down, they are now doing a
return on my property. Let's be clear about that. Because you
Board of Trustees 43 February 20, 2013
are saying it has to be on continuous line. So if the buttress
is down, now you are on my property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would be a civil matter between the two
property owners to resolve.
MS. KUSA: Well, I like Mr. Ghosio's suggestion, maybe having the
continuation of the ten feet, as he suggested, would be a better
idea, so they don't come near the buttress. Because I think that
it's a 50/50 here. I see them 50/50 saying that, yes, it just
might have to, you know, fall down. But yes, it is the
neighbor's and oh, well, what can we say. Then you are having a
return that is on my property. So maybe I would like to suggest
the return be at least five-feet into their property. And keep
that remaining wall there. And maybe allowing a stone toehold
there in front.
MR. HERRMANN: The problem is if we construct, if we end the wall
and construct the return five feet inside the property line, or
however many feet, the remaining section of wall is going to
fail, and then there will be a gap between the two properties
and there will be absolutely nothing to prevent all the fill on
Ms. Kusa's property from getting sucked right out through the
O'Farrell's property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
MR. O'FARRELL: Sorry, she keeps saying we'll put a return on her
property. Under no circumstances are we putting a return on her
property. We are not going --we are going to be putting a
return along our line. And that buttress, as we said, is shared
between the two of us. We won't go over our property line onto
her line to put a return in. It is just not going to happen.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
If not, 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 application of
Kirk O'Farrell and Denise Cerasani, as described, and noting
that the deck is going to be landward of the bulkhead to address
the consistency issue under LWRP. That will then bring this into
consistency under the LWRP. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number six, En-Consultants on behalf of
SOUNDFRONT HOLDINGS, LLC, requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to construct approximately 65 linear feet
of steel bulkhead with 20' and 10' returns at toe of bluff
inplace of (and +/-12" higher than) existing storm damaged
concrete seawall t be removed; remove existing collapsed steel
sheet piling wall from behind concrete seawall; construct
approximately 47 linear feet of vinyl retaining wall with +/-9'
and +/-10' returns at top of bluff and backfill with
Board of Trustees 44 February 20, 2013
approximately 15 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be trucked
in from an approved upland source; remove collapsed steel sheet
piling retaining wall from face of bluff and re-use materials to
construct retaining wall landward of proposed vinyl retaining
wall to retain upland soils during construction; construct
timber terrace retaining walls on face of bluff to retain
proposed fill and plantings; re-nourish bluff face with
approximately 130 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be trucked
in from an approved upland source; re-vegetate bluff face with
native vegetation; remove collapsed stairway and construct new
4x50' stairway with landings down bluff face; construct 5x6'
landing and 4x12' steps to beach off proposed bulkhead; replace
collapsed brick patio on grade behind proposed retaining wall;
and establish approximately 10' wide non-turf buffer seaward of
Coastal Erosion Hazard Area boundary. Located: 20275 Soundview
Avenue, Southold.
The LWRP coordinator found this consistent. The memorandum
was received on February 13th, and in his findings we noted, I
would like to state this for the record, that due to the
property size, the relocation of the existing structure is not practical.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted not to support this
application and recommended that the house be moved back,
landward, 25 feet.
The Trustees visited this property on the 13th of February
and noted the application is well described and straightforward.
It had one comment, and that would be that we questioned the
re-nourishment of the bluff at 130 cubic yards, if that would be
sufficient. It looks to us as if that is quite optimistic. Other
than that, as I said, it was straightforward. Is there anyone
here to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. The owner is also here. I'm going to try and make up
some lost time from the last application and just state that
would agree with what Trustee Domino has just described. It is a
straightforward application. It is actually an application that
was in affect approved to some extent by this Board in the past.
You can see there has been failure that we are looking to
correct. A similar job was just done on the property next door
to the east.
The volume estimation, Mike, came from Jeff Butler
Engineering, and that is based on their calculations based on
the topography of the bluff. There has not been a lot of soil
that has actually.been lost. I mean the place looks like a bomb
hit it. But the actual failure, the crack, the opening, if you
will, of the concrete seawall at the bottom, is just actually
recent. They have been contemplating how to deal with this
property for a couple years, actually. The DEC has been out
here a couple of times. We have a DEC permit for replacement of
the seawall. Most of the rest of the stuff behind it is out of
their jurisdiction. I'm happy to have the Board allow, provide
some allowance in the permit for an additional hundred yards of
Board of Trustees 45 February 20, 2013
fill or something as needed. But again, the calculations on this
one were not my own but from Butler Engineering. I mean,
without Jeff here I would have to defer to their calculations.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Duly noted.
TRUSTEE KING: Can we just put plus or minus on the 130, Rob.
MR. HERRMANN: Do you want to say at least 130 cubic yards or as
needed to properly backfill the terraces, something like that?
Obviously there isn't going to be any fill here except on the
bluff face. So there would not be any fill other than at, you
know, at the very top where that retaining wall is.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this
application?
(No response).
Any other comments?Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: No next door neighbor?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no other comments, I'll make a motion to
close the application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this as submitted,
with the note that if 130 cubic yards is not sufficient, that
we, the Board, would welcome the addition to bring the bluff to
the correct angle.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number seven, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc., on behalf of DEAN STEFANIDES requests a Wetland Permit and
a Coastal Erosion Permit to replace the existing timber bulkhead
that was catastrophically damaged during Hurricane Sandy, with a
new timber bulkhead; extend the returns on either side of his
property in order to increase the structural integrity of the
bulkhead as a whole; in total there will be 130'+/- of
reconstructed bulkhead and returns; after construction has
finished, roughly 200 cubic yards of clean sand fill will be
deposited behind the bulkhead; re-establishing the grade of the
property to pre-Hurricane Sandy specifications. Located: 780
Rabbit Lane, East Marion.
This again, we are going back to Rabbit Lane, and it is the
same situation as we found with the other homes we've had on
Rabbit Lane. This one is to replace the existing bulkhead. This
has been found to be consistent with LWRP.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application. Again, noting they have a concern with the location
of the sanitary system. As I noted on other applications that
will be the case on all these homes.
The Board was out there. And again, we are going to
stipulate a maximum 200-square foot decking. Aside from that,
it's pretty straight forward. Is there anybody here who would
Board of Trustees 46 February 20, 2013
like to address this application.
MR. IVANS: Matt Ivans, Suffolk Environmental. All I want to do is
clarify on the plans that were submitted, with the old timber
bulkhead going to new timber bulkhead, we would like to have
that as vinyl. That was an error on our part. So I would like to
submit more plans. .
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I haven't done the measurements on the wood
deck. Is this more than or less than 200-square feet?
MR. IVANS: At this point we are not dealing with the deck, we'll
take care of that in a separate application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, so this application, just to be more
specific, is just for the bulkhead. You'll be coming back for
the house and for the deck?
MR. IVANS: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: And extension and returns.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any comments from the Board?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted noting the change of wood to vinyl.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number eight, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting, Inc., on behalf of VALERIE MICHELSEN requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to replace the
existing timber bulkhead that was catastrophically damaged
during Hurricane Sandy with a new timber bulkhead; additionally
the applicant proposes to repair the damaged deck that abuts the
damaged bulkhead; in total there will be 162+/- of reconstructed
bulkhead; after construction has finished, roughly 150+/- cubic
yards of clean sand fill will be deposited behind the bulkhead,
re-establishing the grade of the property to pre-hurricane Sandy
specifications. Located: 860 Rabbit Lane, East Marion.
This is a house in the same vicinity on Rabbit Lane. The
construction here also should be amended to reflect a new vinyl
bulkhead as opposed to a timber bulkhead. The application had a
prior permit on this.
This was considered consistent by the LWRP, and the
Conservation Advisory Council voted to support it with the
concern that they have advanced for all of Rabbit Lane
concerning sanitary systems. As a matter of fact that concern
is one we all have had, and recent discussions on approved water
treatment we actually advanced the notion that some of these
areas in the town such as Rabbit'Lane and/or down at Fishermen's
Beach or the Park Avenue Extension, could possibly have new
systems or systems elevated so there is better treatment. That's
Board of Trustees 47 February 20, 2013
a different subject. I just wanted to mention that. I know there
has been concerns of Trustees attending meetings as part of the
discussions concerning better water treatment. And this project
has a small amount of damage to an existing deck so that it was,
the LWRP has not raised the flag concerning as it relates to the
deck. I want to bring that to the attention of the Board.
Otherwise this essentially remains the same as all the other
applications we saw for Rabbit Lane. So is there anyone to speak
to this application?
MR. IVANS: Again, Matt Ivans from Suffolk Environmental. Again,
we have to clarify the timber bulkhead will go to vinyl.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I can verify the damage to the deck is
fairly minimal. I ended up cataloguing all the damage all along
Rabbit Lane fairly quickly after the storm because I was
concerned we did the proper thing with the Coastal Erosion Act.
And I was there for a compliance inspection on the second floor
addition. I was not able to get out two weeks ago, so I just
completed a compliance inspection under the prior permit there,
so.
Any additional comments, concerns of the Board?
(No response).
Not hearing any, 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 would make a motion to approve the
application with the amended description that it will reflect a
new vinyl bulkhead. I would so move.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number nine, JMO Environmental Consulting Services
on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND YACHT CLUB requests a Wetland Permit
and a 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; and plantings to provide visual screening of area for
abutting property. Located: Central Avenue, Fishers Island.
This was an application we reviewed a long time ago, for
the septic system.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, we did, during the summer, on two
occasions.
TRUSTEE KING: There were some questions from the neighbor on it.
There is a letter in the file. The original, it was originally
found inconsistent, I believe.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There were some concerns about
archaeological materials.
TRUSTEE KING: There is a letter in the file here. There are
plantings to be proposed, so the neighbor doesn't, it doesn't
Board of Trustees 48 February 20, 2013
interfere with the neighbor, and also they have agreed on an
archeologist will be present during the excavation because of
the question of possibly artifacts being in this location. A lot
of this quite frankly is out of our jurisdiction. Is there
anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this?
MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just from JMO Consulting, on
behalf of the applicant. The project is basically the yacht club
is used very heavily during the summer. The existing septic
system is outdated and is located probably less than 20 feet
from apparent high water.
TRUSTEE KING: The new system itself is basically out of our
jurisdiction. It's just a lot of work taking place within our
jurisdiction.
MR. JUST: Right,filling the old system in.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think the Board had any issues with it.
It's an improvement over what they have now.
MR. JUST: Like I said, they agree to have an archeologist during
the digging, and fencing to screen off the adjacent neighbor.
TRUSTEE KING: Does anybody else have any comments on this
application?
(No response).
Board?
(No response).
No comments, I'll make motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number ten, JMO Environmental Consulting Services
on behalf of RALPH CARBONE requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to remove approximately 335' of concrete
seawall and approximately 30' of exposed CMU wall damaged by
Hurricane Sandy; install on filter fabric, crushed stone and
compacted granular fill approximately 400' of rip-rap revetment;
a portion of the bank will be excavated, several layers of
compacted 9"thick lifts of granular fill will be installed and
galvanized wire forms with filter fabric will be installed; the
forms will then be filled with plantable soils and then planted
forming a reinforced vegetated slope. Located: 6227 Castle Road,
Fishers Island.
This is found consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation
Advisory Council did not make an inspection, therefore no
recommendation was made.
The Board did not have a chance, we have been trying to get
to Fishers Island for two months now. The weather has simply
been killing us. We have not been able to get over there. This
place was severely damaged. It's to the point where something
has to be done. I took everything home with me over the weekend.
Board of Trustees 49 February 20, 2013
Very extensive plans. I don't have any issues with it.
MR. JUST: They got hit really bad, the whole portion of the
island. At this site is actually a built-in pool, that the
retaining wall, underground retaining wall is exposed now.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What's the plan with that? Just to rebuild it?
TRUSTEE KING: It's a very extensive rock revetment.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I figured. Are they going to lose
the pool?
MR. JUST: I don't think so.
At the bottom they want to build a rock revetment up above,
I think like the 19-foot contour.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from anybody?
(No response).
Board?
(No response).
No other comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Fishers Island, number 11, JMO Environmental
Consulting Services on behalf of NORTON A. DAVIDSON requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to re-stabilize a
shoreline damaged by Hurricane Sandy by removing and stockpiling
existing rocks, re-grade and place geotextile material on grade;
provide a 24 layer of crushed stone and then place the
stockpiled stone (2' minimum) on top of the crushed stone layer
creating an armored rip-rap revetment; place native material
fill and plant with native grasses and shrubs. Located: 806
Wilderness Point Road, Fishers Island.
Same thing here; severe, severe storm damage. This was also
found consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory
Council did not make inspection so they don't have any comments.
MR. JUST: I don't know if you could see from those photographs,
there were these concrete slabs probably 3x3x10 feet long that
just got rolled right over by the wave action, that had been
fortifying the property initially.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
(No response).
Being none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
TRUSTEE KING: We'll take a ten-minute break before we get into
the Wetland Permits.
Board of Trustees 50 February 20, 2013
(After a recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one under Wetland & Coastal Erosion
Permits, BARBARA & SETH EICHLER request a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit for the in-place replacement of the
existing retaining wall. Located: 17915 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The
Conservation Advisory Council voted unanimously to support this
application.
During the field inspection on February 13th, the Trustees
had questions concerning the seaward bulkhead on the western end
of the property, which was leaning out a little bit. We were
wondering if that were to be rebuilt also. Other than that, it
seems straightforward.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. EICHLER: Seth Eichler, 17915 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
My wife and I are here for a permit to replace in-kind the
retaining wall on the bluff which is collapsing. We are also
very concerned about the erosion taking place on the bluff and,
not just on our property, but affecting the very long line of
houses. In some properties stairs are washed away and erosion is
serious. What kind of guidance can you give us to prevent
further erosion which jeopardizes our own stairs to the beach
and can the town help with vegetation or on our own place
vegetation as an attempt to decrease erosion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We can address your application but I'm not sure
we can give you guidance or design a system in that regard.
TRUSTEE KING: I think as far as the erosion goes they could
contact soil and conservation in Riverhead. They can help you
out on that, show you some different ways to help the situation.
MS. EICHLER: I'm Barbara Eichler. Do you need a permit to do
plantings? Do you need a permit to plant on the bluff?
TRUSTEE KING: We would probably want to see some kind of
planting plan if you went that route.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this
application?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What about the question on the other wall you
had mentioned? I thought you mention the field notes there is
another wall that was bowed out a little bit. Is there an
intention of--
MS. EICHLER: There are two walls, the right and left. We are
doing the entire thing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The upper wall.
MR. EICHLER: And the lower wall, too. We are doing both.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So it's actually two retaining walls. What you
could do is just put an "S" at the end of the wall on the
project description.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And are both walls on the plan?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, both walls are on the plan, but the plan
only shows that the existing, the northerly wall is to remain.
It doesn't specify -- if you approach, I'll show you. It's to be
Board of Trustees 51 February 20, 2013
replaced. It says existing.
MS. EICHLER: This one.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This one you are saying replace it right here.
So what he's suggesting is you make it plural, but the plans
don't reflect that.
MR. EICHLER: So what do you want us to do?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This plan says existing bulkhead to remain, see?
This is the one --
TRUSTEE KING: This is to be replaced inplace. You are also
planning on replacing this in place?
MS. EICHLER: I thought that's what he marked.
TRUSTEE KING: Rather than have these all drawn up, I can draw
this in and just put existing wall to be replaced. We can do that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So make this plural as per corrected plan.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, why don't we do that. It's just a simple
modification.
MS. EICHLER: Okay. All right, thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
If not, 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 with the correction of existing retaining walls, is
plural, and reflecting the corrections that will be made to the plan.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We'll now jump into Wetland Permits. Number one,
ANDREA PARKS requests a Wetland Permit to repair and/or replace
existing failed bulkhead sheathing with vinyl sheathing; repair
and/or replace top caps, timber pilings (12" diameter x20"),
timber waters, stringers, tie rods, and deadmen; repair and/or
replace existing 3' wide staircase and platforms (3x4'); and
replace seasonal aluminum 3x15' stairway due to Hurricane Sandy
damage. Located: 3925 and 3995 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
This has been found to be consistent with LWRP. And the
Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application and recommends a bluff stabilization plan.
Notes from our field inspection, we were all out there, the
only notes I have here is suggesting less cutting of the trees
on the bluff, letting those.trees start to come back a little
bit. Aside from that, again, another straightforward application
to deal with Hurricane Sandy damage. Is there anybody here who
would like to speak to this application?
MS. PARKS: Andrea Parks. I just want to thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You're welcome. Any comments, questions from the
Board of Trustees 52 February 20, 2013
Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Replacing what was there, essentially. There is
no other comments or questions, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: 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: The next hearing,.Lark & Folts, Esgs., on
behalf of ELLEN F. EMERY requests a Wetland Permit to replace
100' of failed bulkhead with two 8' returns; replace 100' of
failed retaining wall; and replace beach access stairs, all
destroyed by Hurricane Sandy. Located: 5925 Nassau Point Road,
Cutchogue.
This is similar to many applications both in the area and
elsewhere in the town that we have viewed. The project is
considered consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory
Council tabled the application because the project requires a
site plan. I believe that may have been an error in the part of
separating the application and sending it out because we have a
project plan here dated January 30th. If the two, Stein and
William McDermott went and did the inspection. You could take a
look at the plan here. The Trustees looked at this project and
it may have gotten lost due to the large volume of paperwork
going back and forth between the offices.
Basically this is a request to replace what was there. The
only thing I would note, I didn't see on the plans with respect
to the bulkhead that it be vinyl. So, anyhow, I want to bring
that up, we maybe need a point of clarification, because it says
100-feet of inkind replacement at the beach for the bulkhead.
Anyhow, I'll open the hearing up. Is there anyone here to speak?
MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, for the
applicant. I didn't understand your question.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, we had a little background noise. The
project plan which was submitted by Seacoast Construction as
part of the application indicates an inkind replacement for the
bulkhead but the, only the vinyl faced bulkheads are currently
permitted by code. So it could be steel also. CCA is not
allowed.
MR. LARK: They know that. I have talked to them about that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So it would be a matter of getting that as
clarification before we move forward.
MR. LARK: That's no problem.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the Trustees during the course of our
inspection, we were concerned that the, there is an area there
in front of the fence, that it be left as a non-turf buffer that
Board of Trustees 53 February 20, 2013
it not be maintained as lawn area. It had been the subject of a
previous review when the fence was removed.
MR. LARK: Other than the zoysia grass being white, that
weathered Sandy quite well. That has not been fooled with
forward of the fence.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's been cut. We can see it's been cut and
maintained. And it was to be left to grow up naturally.
MR. LARK: No, it was supposed to be left to grow up. That's
correct. It's my understanding it was. When I looked at it, of
course it was after the storm, it was white and all matted down,
so I couldn't tell if it was cut or not. I couldn't get that
close. But, yes, that should be. That was part of the permit for
that one deck. That's correct.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want to stipulate an inspection at some
point?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess we could stipulate an inspection. It
was a straightforward replacement of the bulkhead and retaining
wall. I don't think anyone had a problem here.
Any additional questions or concerns of the Board members?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under the previous permit we had a question
about the retaining wall that had been constructed already to the south.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I had looked that up in the field. That was
permitted.
MR. LARK: That was approved. That was a subsequent revision to
protect that portion of it on the southerly side. That's correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was that, because turf had been planted in there
also. Grass had been planted in there and has been maintained.
MR. LARK: No, that was natural. Nothing was planted on the top
there. That, I do know.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We could make it subject to inspection.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can make it subject to inspection. Good
point. Any further questions?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application as submitted with the stipulation that an additional
inspection be ordered for the spring just to verify the non-turf
buffer area is, in connection with this property, are being
maintained as non-turf areas and not being mowed or fertilized.
MR. LARK: In fact that will happen automatically because there
will be another application to change the stairway construction
from where it broke off on the lower deck down. That whole thing
has to be reconstructed now. But it will be a separate
application because you have amended the law and we are not
constricted to the 32-square feet. So they'll extend that out,
lower it and extend it, so you'll get.all of that. I just don't
have all that engineering done because they wanted to get this
bulkhead in right toot sweet, then go from there after they get
Board of Trustees 54 February 20, 2013
the retaining wall and bulkhead and we'll be back for that section.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, so I'll move the application with that
stipulation and presumably if we approve this you can then come
in for an amendment.
MR. LARK: We certainly will.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Creative Environmental Design on
behalf of DANIEL DEVITO requests a Wetland Permit for the
installation of a 20x40' pool, pool patio and pool fence on the
bluff; a 16x20' pool house; and selectively prune trees and
removal of trees as per plan. Located: 750 Paradise Point Road,
Southold.
This was reviewed under the LWRP back in November-- excuse
me. December 4th. And it was found to be inconsistent because
it required ZBA approval. Since that time they did obtain ZBA
approval, so that would address the inconsistency.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
the application because the landscaping plans provided lack of
sufficient information regarding stability of the bluff and
recommends a geo-survey submitted for further review.
Is there anybody here with regard to this application?
(No response).
have looked at the ZBA's recommendation, as part of their
decision there be a drywell associated with the pool and plans
do depict a drywell associated with the pool. And the pool is
51 feet from, as we measured, from top of bluff to the edge of
the deck. The pool is even farther landward than that. So I have
no questions regarding this application.
MR. STEIN: John Stein from the CAC. Dave, all of us in
conjunction with, all seven of us, were just concerned, the only
reason we raise this is because, (a), it's on a sloping bluff
and it has some room, but a 20x40' pool, just doing basic math
on this, roughly, is, you know, 5,000-square feet, and, you
know, thinking that it's half eight feet, half four-and-a-half
feet, a gallon of water being roughly 8.34 pounds, it's going to
be about 42,000-square feet of surface pressure. What was
submitted was just really a mere planting site plan for the
hedges and screens. We were not privy to what the ZBA was
reading on it. But not having that bluff supported and putting
in 51 feet, roughly, 43,000 pounds against it, in three to five
years that will probably be a spill way with that type of
surface tension pressure, and I don't know what type of support
or retaining walls will be put in there. And just as a case in
matter, previously with one of the Fisher Island applications,
you saw some of the retaining walls are now exposed. I'm not
saying this could possibly happen but seeing that the property
has that amount of,feet, we were just concerned how close it was
being that the 51 feet away from the bluff, and there is really
Board of Trustees 55 February 20, 2013
an open end of pruning trees and removing trees and that being
the root systems on that bluff. I don't have to go into what has
happened with Paradise Point with the yacht club and the deck.
I'm just saying not having a supported bluff area, putting that
in, really would possibly be prudent to have a geo done.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sorry, I just want a clarification. What is the
5,000-square feet about?
MR. STEIN: Just a 20x40 foot pool. We were just doing rough
surface area for that. That being four-hundred feet by eight
feet is 32 hundred gallons. Just 20x4,800 square feet and taking
half of that being eight foot, four-hundred feet times eight
foot would be 3,200. Then four-and-a-half of four-hundred being
1,800 square feet. 3,200 plus 1,800 would be 5,000 cubic feet.
Then a normal gallon of water it's another 1,500 pounds of sea
water. A gallon of sea water is 8.55 and regular water is 8.34.
That being all of 51 feet on the slope, even on a natural bluff
having removal of trees and pruning selectively and a patio and
putting in also a 16x20' pool house of 320 square feet, I think
was a little bit too much and too much on the edge, we'felt.
That's why we made that determination. It's just for your
consideration.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: And has you had seen earlier, this was really just a
planting site plan for the planting screen hedges and stuff.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Daniel Devito as described, noting that with approval by the ZBA
and the conditions set forth by the ZBA of appropriate drainage
for the pool that it will be found consistent under the LWRP.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't want the Conservation Advisory Council
to feel that we totally ignored you. It was outside 50 feet for
a reason. Usually we look to push it past 50. They did make the
effort to do that..) don't think you to think we totally blew
you off but it is consistent with our policy.
MR. STEIN: I just want to the put that on the record in three to
five years if that does become a spill way and a two-tier system
has to be put there, we should have been prudent enough to ask
the homeowner to put it back another 30 feet.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number four, Meryl Kramer on behalf of.DINA
MASSO requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing elevated
deck; new one-story addition; construct approximately 100 linear
Board of Trustees 56 February 20, 2013
feet of vinyl bulkhead inplace of(and up to +/-12" higher than)
existing storm damaged (Hurricane Sandy) timber bulkhead to be
removed; reconstruct storm damaged 10x10' deck and associated 3'
wide steps landward of bulkhead; remove and replace
inkind/inplace lower portion of bluff stairway as needed,
reconstruct three-foot wide steps to beach; and
backfill/re-nourish storm eroded area landward of bulkhead with
approximately 325 cubic yards of clean fill to be planted with
native vegetation. Located: 5705 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
This again is to address storm damage from Storm Sandy. The
LWRP has found this to be consistent, and the Conservation
Advisory Council tabled the application because of lack of
information. They recommended a stabilization plan for the slope
and a site plan.
When we were down there, we were all there, sorry, we were
there the other day, we were actually looking to include the
stairs and the platform. There is a question here about the
beach house septic and electric. We noticed that the beach house
that was there, we just wanted to stipulate it was not habitable
I guess is the point we wanted to make, that the beach house was
not set up to be habitable residence.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That there was no septic in it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. Is there anybody here on behalf of this
application?
MS. KRAMER: Meryl Kramer on behalf of the applicant. I'm going
to have to ask Rob Herrmann, who is not representing the client
here tonight, but En-Consultants did do the drawings for the
structures down on the water. As far as I know, there is no
septic system for the beach house.
Rob, do you have any information on that?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants. I don't.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, very much, Rob.
MS. KRAMER: As far as I know, but I would have to go back to the
owner and check, because it was not in my purview, it was not
having any construction associated with it, it didn't even come
up in conversation. I just want to make sure that you fully
comprehended the application because you didn't mention the
architectural portion which has do with the house proper. It's a
two-part application. It includes the one-story addition.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The one-story addition, from what we could tell,
is you were taking that small deck out, that triangular bump out
area, taking that out and moving, I assumed it was the kitchen,
but it--
MS. KRAMER: It is the kitchen and the adjacent den and extending
less than the existing deck is projecting.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We didn't have any issues with that. We were
mostly concerned with what was down in the damaged area. So I
mean that would certainly be well upland of that. Being no other
questions, the only question we really had was about the beach
house and making sure it was not a habitable space. But that's
not even being addressed in this application, really.
Board of Trustees 57 February 20, 2013
MS. KRAMER: I know they have more than enough room in their
house for all their family members, and it's never come up in
conversation, but.
MR. HERRMANN: I was just going to respond about the separate
question about the stairs, and from speaking to the contractor
they were just going to replace the bottom portion as it was
necessary, but if the Board wanted to include the whole stairway
in the permit so that it becomes a permitted structure, I'm sure
the Masso's would --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was one thing we said as we were walking down
and I was getting splinters in my hands, that we would probably
want to address this sooner than later, so.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So, if there is no objection, we'll add that to
the application.
MS. KRAMER: I have no further comments.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any comments from the Board?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with the addition of the rest of the stairway going up to the
top as depicted in the drawings that have already been submitted
so that if they should need to or want to replace those, they can.
MR. HERRMANN: Are you going to need a revised plan on that, Bob?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think so. I think what we have here
shows the whole thing all the way up to the top.
MR. HERRMANN: It's just the note only shows to the bottom, but
if you want to make a notation or use it as a condition, that's
easier for us.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Can we stipulate the use, that there is no
sanitary associated with the beach house at this time or we can't?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure, we can.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The sense of the Board is that you should add
that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only reason I didn't bring it up is because
I don't know if it's even a permitted structure at this point.
There is no permit in the file here and they were not applying
for anything on that. I would be a little nervous to stipulate
something that may or may not be permitted, number one; and
being able to use that to justify --
TRUSTEE KING: Let's not kick a sleeping dog.
MR. HERRMANN: It was not damaged so there was no proposal to do
anything, that's why we didn't really look at it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second the motion as submitted.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number five, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of
JACK CIPRIANO requests a Wetland Permit for the construction of
Board of Trustees 58 February 20, 2013
a single-family dwelling with covered porch, deck, drainage,
sanitary and water line. Located: 8150 Main Bayview Road,
Southold.
This was found consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation
Advisory Council voted to support the application with the
condition of a hay bale line as designated on the site plan as
well as creek detection plan during construction.
There is a short letter here, I guess I might as well read
it. To whom it may concern. I am conveying my concerns about the
building construction proposed just south of"The Cove"
condominiums on Bayview Avenue in Southold. Corey Creek is one
of the cleaner creeks in Southold. Southold has building
ordinances requiring "green,buffer zones" on the shoreline.
These buffer zones protect the integrity of the creek as well as
reduce flooding and damage from storms such as Hurricane Sandy.
"The Cove" suffered almost no water damage in part due to these
buffer zones. Unfortunately Southold has not enforced their own
building ordinances and several neighboring structures exist
nearby where grass runs right to the water.
I encourage Southold to enforce their ordinance with regards to
the buffer zone and also to ensure that septic systems in the
new home are built to code.
Finally, I would like to encourage the builders to landscape in
a way that reduces the need for fertilizers and pesticides that
can run into the creek. Again, my major priority is to preserve
the quality of water in Corey Creek. It's from Charles Peck, a
neighbor.
I believe this is exactly the same plan that we approved
previously when the permit expired.
MS. MOORE: Correct. It's exactly the same plan, which actually
does include a 60-foot non-disturbance buffer; drywells, before
even drywells were required; and the sanitary systems more than
a hundred feet from the creek. So it's just the economy tanked,
the property, no one was interested in buying it, so.
TRUSTEE KING: Probably what we want to see, Pat, is just a line
of hay bales during construction.
MS. MOORE: It actually, in the permit that was issued
originally, I noticed that there was.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think there was any requirement.
MS. MOORE: No, they actually paid for two inspections, because
it shows on the receipt, hay bale inspection $50, and final
inspection, new plans, for final inspection, $50. So somewhere
along the line this is, I'm reading from --
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking in the old permit. It was not a
requirement of the old permit.
MS. MOORE: Somehow you must have included it as a standard
construction technique that, because they certainly paid for it, so.
TRUSTEE KING: There is nothing on the old plan either indicating
a hay bale line, which we should have, really.
MS. MOORE: We would need it at this point, just a storm water
process, protection requires it. But.
Board of Trustees 59 . February 20, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: Do you have a proposed limit of clearing line
here?
MS. MOORE: It already has -- yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we put hay bales on that proposed limit
of clearing line during construction.
MS. MOORE: Okay, that's fine. Well, just along the waterfront,
otherwise you'll be going all the way.
TRUSTEE KING: On the seaward side. Maybe just wrap it up a
little bit, maybe ten feet on either side.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. Ten feet.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else have any questions on this? It was
exactly what was approved previously. Any other comments from
anybody?
(No response).
MS. MOORE: Do you want me to have Mr. Wolchik give me a plan for
your files?
TRUSTEE KING: I'll put it on.
MS. MOORE: Okay, that's fine. It will be a condition of the
permit anyway, and we'll just carry over the fees that he's
already paid on inspection, since it is still there. I assume
you carry on the --
MS. CANTRELL: It's a common process for the office to not
recharge an applicant for something they didn't begin.
MS. MOORE: So they paid $100 for the inspection, so we would
carry that on?
MS. CANTRELL: The inspections were not made and the project has
not begun and expired, we do not charge again for a fee.
MS. MOORE: So we are both in agreement. So, I guess the answer
is yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve the application with the
stipulation there will be a hay bale line on the limit of
clearing line on the seaward side of the house.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number six, Mark Schwartz, Architect, on behalf
of PHILIP MILOT requests a Wetland Permit to raise the house to
elevate height of foundation by five courses of concrete block
(40"+/-), and alterations to foundation for flood zone
compliance; deck posts to be replaced with new concrete piers;
replace stairs, adjusted for raised height; repair/replace any
structural members of damaged interior/exterior materials as a
result of raising house. Located: 4185 Camp Mineola Road,
Mattituck.
The LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation
Advisory Council voted to support this application with the
condition of a non-turf buffer.
Board of Trustees 60 February 20, 2013
This application was before us in January. There was a
question at the time about ZBA authority or requirements that
has been addressed. Is there anyone here to speak to this
application?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz, architect for the project. We did
verify that the deck was legal as shown, so that took care of
that issue. Last month we did bring up a question about the W"
zone and I went back to the surveyor and it actually is in a W"
zone so we altered our site plan to show we will design and
construct a proper foundation for a W"zone.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this
application?
(No response).
Any comments or questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: A question I have when you say it will be
redesigned to meet "V" zone requirements, what is being done to
do that?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Either a piling system or a reinforced concrete
piling system.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. I was just curious if it was going to be
concrete block if it has to be some type of area, breakaway or
whatever, to allow for water to flow underneath.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, we'll be hiring an engineer to take care of
this in the W" zone.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought they could do it with blocks in this
area.
MR. SCHWARTZ: That's the "A" zone.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing in no further comments I'll make a
motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number seven, Mark Schwartz on behalf of
ROMEO & ANN SOLON requests a Wetland Permit to raise the house
and remove existing concrete at porch and locust posts
supporting house and posts at back deck; construct new concrete
piers for house, porch and rear deck; house to be elevated 4'
more (6' high foundation), repair, replace and add new
structural members and exterior work as necessary. Located: 485
Rabbit Lane, East Marion.
Unlike the other applications for Rabbit Lane, this was one
on the north side of Rabbit Lane that fronts Marion Lake. The
project has been deemed to be consistent under the LWRP. The
Conservation Advisory Council has supported this application
Board of Trustees 61 February 20, 2013
with concerns surrounding the sanitary system, and the Trustees
visited the site and indicated that the application seemed in
order at the time of the inspection.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz, to answer any questions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think it was pretty straightforward. I
think because of the extensive amount of work involved in
raising a house, though, we would probably want to have a hay
bale line at the lake frontage so it would prevent -- I didn't
see it on the plans, I was not sure. It's a bit of a distance
and it is sandy soils but it can be quite a bit of activity
there.
It shows on the survey that is marked up for the plan, that
'the deck is about 78 feet from the edge of the wetlands. If we
could get a hay bale line that would be, let's say within 30 or
40 feet of the lake frontage, would allow for construction
equipment to move around, do you think that would be a problem?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No, no problem at all.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments or concerns from
Board members?
(No response).
Therefore 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 subject to the installation of hay bale and silt
fence some forty feet from the wetlands of Marion Lake to
protect the lake. So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number eight, JMO Environmental Consulting
Services on behalf of ROBERT HORVATH requests a Wetland Permit
to reconstruct inplace 125' of Hurricane Sandy damaged retaining
wall; to construct two 10' returns; to reconstruct and relocated
a 10x15' lower deck; to re-install utilities; reconstruct and
relocated 4x25' stairs with landing; reconstruct and relocate
4x4' landing and beach access stairs; install 94' of deer fence;
place ten cubic yards of sand on face of bluff and plant with
native plants. Located: 4550 Paradise Point Road, Southold.
This application has been found to be exempt from the LWRP
and also found to be consistent with LWRP, and also found to be
inconsistent with LWRP. We did hit the Trifecta. The
inconsistency has to do with reconstructing and relocating the
10x15' lower deck; finds it to be inconsistent because it was
not constructed pursuant to a Southold Board of Trustees permit,
and generally, in this particular case, is not permissible under
Board of Trustees 62 February 20, 2013
275 Wetlands and Shorelines regulations.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application and again recommends an engineered stabilization
plan for the slope.
When the Board was out there, we didn't really find there
to be any issues. It was'a pretty straightforward reconstruction
of what was already there. Is there anybody here who would like
to speak to this application?
MR. JUST: Glen Just, JMO Consulting. I did go to the ZBA about
the lower deck and they said it's something, a building permit
is not needed, so it would not be-an issue through the ZBA. As
long as it was not touching the bulkhead, wasn't attached to the
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have allowed decks like that in the past.
It's really not--
TRUSTEE KING: A it's okay with the new code.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: On those decks I always recommend when you build
the deck, you give a distance between the slats so the water
will run through it and into the sand, but aside from that, how
big is this deck? It's only 10x15. It's really not that large,
so. Is there any other comments from the gallery? Any comments
from the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 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 this application
as submitted noting that with our approval that would give the
bottom part mentioned as inconsistent with LWRP, make it
consistent by virtue of the fact we give it a permit.
TRUSTEE KING: It's smaller than is standard now for decks
attached to stairs.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number nine, JMO Environmental Consulting Services
on behalf of GWENDOLIN,E ANNE HARRIS requests a Wetland Permit to
demolish existing single family dwelling, shed; and existing
sanitary system to be pumped and filled with sand; and to
construct a new single-family dwelling, shed, deck, porch,
retaining walls, gravel drive, re-grade area, install drywells,
utility and water lines, and install a new sanitary system.
Located: 1140 Old Well Drive, Fishers Island.
This was found consistent with the LWRP, and the
Conservation Advisory Council did not make inspection therefore
they have no comments to make. We were over there a long time
ago. We have not been over recently.
MR. JUST: I believe that was June when you initially inspected it.
TRUSTEE KING: Was it? I didn't see any issues with it. It's
really quite a ways from freshwater wetlands. It will be a new
Board of Trustees 63 February 20, 2013
septic system. You can see the original house is here. They kind
of turned it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is this the one on Barlow Pond?
MR. JUST: No, this is on East Harbor, I believe.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I remember this property now.
TRUSTEE KING: It's barely jurisdictional. I looked at the plans
at home. I don't have any issues with it. The only thing, the
LWRP recommended a non-disturbance buffer to the edge of the
lawn area that is shown on it and I felt if you increase that,
what we would like to see is just a 30-foot non-disturbance
buffer from the wetlands. It's more and it's less in some
places, but it would be a little more consistent with the
wetland line. The edge of the lawn comes in tight here. If they
just go 30 feet, follow that, it would be a better job of it.
That's the only suggestion I had. Or the only change.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Does that make sense?
MR. JUST: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from anybody?
(No response).
I'll make -- I did draw it in. Here it is. That would be the new
line. If there are no other comments, 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 with
the stipulation the non-disturbance area will be 30 feet from
the freshwater wetland line as flagged by Rob Marsh from the
DEC. I can draw that on the plans. It's just a very minor
change. That's my recommendation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second..
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. Have a good evening.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Michael Kimack on behalf of BRUCE BEANEY
requests a Wetland Permit for the existing wood bulkhead
(100+/-) including existing wood platform (120-sq feet +/-),
existing deck (200-sq ft +/-) and existing staircase from
platform (4'+/-) and staircase to beach (4'+/-); replace two
stepped retaining walls at approximately 66' in length each at
approximately 4' in height from grade; repair slope and bank
with approximately 200 cubic yards of sand, covered in burlap
and planted with Cape Ann Beach Grass at 1'oc, with bayberry as
needed; walls will be constructed with 6x6" pressure treated
from and sheathed with Shore-Guard 225 O/E. Located: 6200 Indian
Neck Lane, Peconic.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and was found to be
consistent and inconsistent. And I'm just reviewing the LWRP
form here and all he says it's the above actions were
consistent. He doesn't list what is inconsistent. So I don't
know where the inconsistency ended up here. I do not see it in
Board of Trustees 64 February 20, 2013
his report at all.
TRUSTEE KING: Is this the one that work was started without a
permit?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It started without a permit and stopped.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, it's not noted on his review. The
Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with a condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer on the
top of the bluff and a stabilization plan for the bluff.
The Board did go out and looked at this. Is there anybody
here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, for the applicant.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, this was just to address the two
retaining walls. In other words the bulkhead is not being
rebuilt at all.
MR. KIMACK: The bulkhead is fine and survived. Basically the
permit includes all the existing facilities, the structures, in
order to get them all permitted.
MR. KIMACK: As a point, though, there is a planting plan in
there for the buffer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking here for a size of either this
platform number one or platform number two.
MR. KIMACK: There are four-foot in height, 66-foot in length,
approximately, and buried about a foot.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I'm looking for is the square footage of
them, of the platforms. Platform one and platform two.
MR: KIMACK: The first one is about 200 foot, the lower one just
above the bulkhead, is about 200 foot. The secondary is
120-square feet on the top, I believe.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now I'm asking the Board's opinion on this. This
is a deck that exceeds 100-square foot, which is what our limit
is, I'm talking about deck number one. Exceeds, the one up top,
exceeds our 100-square foot of decks associated with stairs to
the beach. It also cantilevers over the bank. You can see in the
picture there. We have before said that those need to be back
behind the landward of the top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE KING: This doesn't show top of bluff.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I don't know how we could include them in the
description when they don't meet code. See, we are looking for a
detailed drawing of this.
TRUSTEE KING: It might be less than 100-square feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, sir, deck number one you said was how
many square feet?
MR. KIMACK: Deck number one is the one immediately above the
bulkhead itself.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: On the plans here that I'm looking at, deck
number one is at the top of bluff. Deck number two is right
adjacent to the bulkhead.
MR. KIMACK: Deck number one is 120-square feet on the top.
That's the one at the top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Gotcha.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So we are saying the upper deck is 120.
Board of Trustees 65 February 20, 2013
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
TRUSTEE KING: It's probably about 120.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what it says in the description.
MR. KIMACK: It's accurate. I scaled it off and it's also from
the survey plan.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's already pre-existing. How old is it?
MR. KIMACK: I can't give you an answer to that one.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: For 20-square feet, I don't know.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think granting a variance as opposed to
tearing the place up to try to reduce it would be defeating the
notion of protecting the bluff by the construction needed to
bring it down 20-square feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was going to suggest not requiring the
applicant to tear it down. What I was going to suggest is that
because it doesn't meet code, we cannot permit it, so he can --
it's there. And when it gets to the point where it needs to be
replaced, you know, we can address that.
MR. KIMACK: To replace at 100-square feet or less.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And it has to be landward of the top of the
bluff.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We can stipulate that, I guess.
MR. KIMACK: Fair enough.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But since it's not permitted, understand that
means no work can take place. There can't be any repairs done
to it. It's a non-permitted structure. You can only do repairs
to permitted structures.
MR. KIMACK: At the present time it is in relatively good shape.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We didn't have any problem with the retaining
walls down below. They looked fine.
MR. KIMACK: At least you have a sense of what it's going to
look like.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments from anybody else
in the audience?
MR. SCOPAZ: John Scopaz, I'm the neighbor to the immediate east
of this property. I just would like the Board to take a look at
this plan in the context of in December you approved secondary
bulkhead being built on our property, which is basically in line
with the 66-foot fence that is being proposed here. But it
leaves, between the existing deck number two and our secondary
bulkhead, a six-and-a-half foot space of unprotected bluff on
the Beaney property. So it appears to me that we would be
creating a situation where if the water came over the original
bulkhead, as it did with Sandy, that it would simply funnel in
this six-and-a-half foot space and get behind both the new
Beaney fence and my recently constructed bulkhead. So that, you
know, the Beaney work should somehow be extended behind the
existing deck and to our property line to ensure there is not
unexposed bluff.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, you had mentioned -- I'm looking at the
plans here also. And I don't see where either of the proposed
retaining walls extends over to your property.
Board of Trustees 66 February 20, 2013
MR. SCOPAZ: It doesn't. You're exactly right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought I heard you say one does and the other
doesn't. But neither one does?
MR. SCOPAZ: Exactly. That's my first concern, it leaves a gap,
water would just be funneled into that would be detrimental to
both properties and both fences.
MR. KIMACK: May I comment on that?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure.
MR. KIMACK: I believe they stopped there simply because there
was no damage to the slope beyond that staircase, going to the
right, I imagine, to your property, Mr. Scopaz. And it was
stopped there simply because there was no need to go further to
rebuild the slope behind it.
MR. SCOPAZ: It's not a matter of rebuilding the slope but now
you are building that fence and we have a bulkhead you'll create
a powerful surge in that spot.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mr. Scopaz, the comments need to be addressed
here. We don't get into conversations between people here.
MR. SCOPAZ: Sorry.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have heard your concerns and my question for
the applicant, it is the applicant's property so it's up to him,
but is the applicant willing to consider extending the one
retaining wall that is at the same distance from the bulkhead as
the Scopaz' so that it would connect into the Scopaz retaining
wall to protect both your properties?
MR. KIMACK: Is it the lower retaining wall or the upper
retaining wall, Mr. Scopaz?
MR. SCOPAZ: The secondary, the one further up the bank, yes
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is that something your client would entertain?
MR. KIMACK: I believe my client would entertain that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you want time to go back and consult with
your client and come back to us? We would be glad to table this
until you can talk to your client.
MR. KIMACK: That would probably be preferable, to the March 20th
meeting, and I can chat with my client.
TRUSTEE KING: Just one question on the construction. On the plan
it shows proposed 6x6 retaining wall with vinyl Shore-Guard 225
sheathing and cap. You are using both 6x6 and vinyl?
MR. KIMACK: That's what he plans to do
TRUSTEE KING: Wow. Is the vinyl going on the outside?
MR. KIMACK: Yes. I know it's a bit of an oddball but most of the
retaining wall is already up, so rather than tear it down, he'll
put it back up again with that, and for the second one, too.
TRUSTEE KING: He has a brand new vinyl bulkhead here, along
here.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm trying to see if--
MR. KIMACK: This will give me an opportunity to go back to the
property and take a look at it to see exactly what Mr. Scopaz is
referring to.
TRUSTEE KING: The second retaining wall has not been built yet.
MR. KIMACK: No, not at all. It was just the lower one.
Board of Trustees 67 February 20, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know why he wouldn't just go for vinyl
like a regular retaining wall, that he wants vinyl, rather than
ran than use 6x6, too. I don't understand it.
MR. KIMACK: That's what the contractor told me. I asked what he
wanted to do with the lower wall and upper wall. He said he
would do retaining wall and sheath it.
TRUSTEE KING: It just doesn't make sense to me.
MR. KIMACK: It's pretty strong. It's not going anywhere.
TRUSTEE KING: Does he have any type of deadmen behind that that
has been built already?
MR. KIMACK: Yes, he does.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is nothing in the cross-section to depict
any type of deadmen supporting structure. I think what I would
recommend for, in preparation for coming back to us next month,
is a more detailed set of plans that has exact dimensions on the
plans for the decks, and also details the backing system for
these retaining walls.
MR. KIMACK: So you are looking for a detailed plan of exactly
how that wall is backed up with the deadmen.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, the backing system for the two walls that
are proposed.
TRUSTEE KING: I know what's there now, the ends of the 6x6 that
protrude through. They extend into the bank, but I don't know
what's under there because it's all buried.
MR. KIMACK: There was something else you asked for, too?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Also the plans would depict one of the retaining
walls tying in the Scopaz retaining wall, if that's something
your client is willing to do. And also the dimensions on the
plans for the decks, both deck one and deck two. This will also
give an opportunity to talk to your client'about the option, he
does have the option if he wants that deck up top to be
permitted, he could move that back so it's on the bank, it's not
cantilevered over the bank and it's 100-square feet. It's just
something for him to consider.
MR. KIMACK: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments from anybody in the
audience?
MR. SCOPAZ: Yes, you just touched on the second comment I was
going to make. Maybe it's being clarified now. I was concerned,
for those of you who have been there, there are six properties
that were several impacted by Sandy. The easterly most property,
two years ago, rebuilt their bluff face and built a retaining
wall that looks similar to what was started next door here. That
did not hold up in Sandy. And in fact all five properties were
damaged by debris that came off of that most easterly wall that
was not a bulkhead but simply timbers that were put there. And
when you had the picture of my bluff there, before, you could
see part of the debris that was down here that actually wiped
out our stairway when it came through. So I just wanted to be
sure that we were not creating another situation with the .
low-spec bulkhead that was going to break up in the next storm.
Board of Trustees 68 February 20, 2013
But it sounds like more than what is shown, what has been built
so far is being planned so, and, you have touched on that topic
as well.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why I'm requesting that the plans include
the diagram of the backing system that's going to be put in
place. Because I can tell you retaining walls are not meant to,
they are not designed to keep the bluff from falling down in the
event of a total failure of the bulkhead. You know, what we have
found is in many places where there is retaining walls in close
proximity to the top of the bulkhead, if the bulkhead goes, and
all that fill behind the bulkhead goes, normally the retaining
walls come down also.
MR. SCOPAZ: Interestingly enough, the bulkheads east held. There
was really no erosion on the top of the bulkhead, but the
retaining wall that was built was rather flimsy, and as a result
it broke up.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Probably what happened, we found, where the
bulkheads did hold up is the sea level rose so high that it Was
up above and it would do damage and scour the bluffs behind and
it did not take the bulkhead out because it was so high above
the bulkhead. And some of the bulkheads were built very well and
that's why they didn't come down.
Okay, with that there is no other comments, I'll make a
motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, Michael Kimack on behalf
of JOAN M. KEATING QPRT c/o STANLEY J. KEATING requests a
Wetland Permit for the existing wood bulkhead (100'+/-)
including return and stairway from bluff; replace approximately
18' of retaining wall approximately eight feet in height at
tallest point using pressure treated posts and whalers with
Shore-Guard 225 O/E sheathing; replace approximately 10x10'
platform and inground support joists; decking of platform to be
Trex O/E; joists to be pressure treated; replace damaged stairs
and railing at platform with Trex O/E; replace landing and
railing with Trex O/E; replace aluminum stairs from landing to
beach. Located: 9275 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
The project has been deemed consistent with the LWRP. The
Conservation Advisory Council supported the application with the
recommendation a stabilization plan be developed for the slope.
And the Trustees, in viewing the application, we thought that
the applicant may wish to consider a new return on the south end
of the bulkhead because the failure there seemed to be across
the property of the applicant as well as the neighboring
property.
MR. KIMACK: That's the one we are looking at right now, sir?
That's the south side? That's the 18-foot return.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are thinking you might consider that
MR. KIMACK: That's the 18 foot. That's the 18. That was
Board of Trustees 69 February 20, 2013
completely obliterated.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, we must have mistaken that for the
other. Okay.
MR. KIMACK: The slope has been stabilized prior with about 650
yards burlapped and planted one foot on center with beach grass.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: True. This was the property that had the
very large tree that was still intact and had not blown over yet.
MR. KIMACK: Surprise, surprise.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Other than that concern, which was addressed
by the application, I don't know how we missed that. At that
point we might have been freezing. It was Sunday some time, I
think. We went out Sunday to make the inspection there. Other
than that, we had no other concerns. Are there any additional
comments or questions?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, we did note there had been a restoration
done, and unfortunately in the nor'easter some of that
restoration went out to sea. In other words, you know, where
that picture right there is showing, that was all restored and
planted, and then the nor'easter took it away because
unfortunately they restored the bluff before they had done the
bulkhead and returns, so.
MR. KIMACK: I'm only the messenger.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The previous restoration with the jute
matting and I think American Beach Grass was certainly workman
enough. I don't think we need to ask for a separate planting plan.
MR. KIMACK: No, it's Timothy Coffey's work.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
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).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you, very much, I'll see you on the 20th.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 12, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on
behalf of MICHAEL & GRACE ANN GRIFFIN requests a Wetland Permit
to remove existing 4x50' seasonal catwalk; construct new 4x50'
fixed dock inplace; install two eight-inch diameter anchor
pilings for existing 6x20' seasonal floating dock. Located: 435
Pine Place, East Marion.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. One of
the comments, the plans failed to show the vessel and is
concerned that it might impinge upon navigation.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this
application.
The Trustees during the inspection questioned there would
Board of Trustees 70 February 20, 2013
be a letter from the property owners association in the file
shows on February 16 we received a letter from the homeowners
association approving the request provided that the dock does
not extend any further than the previous dock into Spring Pond.
The Trustees noted essentially this was a replacement in place
of what was there and seemed straightforward.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello on behalf of the applicant. It is
straightforward. This dock was done back when the seasonal docks
were all the rage and DEC liked them. DEC got away from them.
The guy doesn't want to take it in and out every year. There is
really no need for it. So we are just looking to make it a
permanent structure.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there any else to speak to this application?
(No response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: What's the decking on that? Is it open-grate or--
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Doesn't say anything in the description.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Doesn't show, Jack.
MR. COSTELLO: We didn't specify. He was considering maybe using
the old pieces of the decking but just making permanent piles to
go in just to keep the cost down.
TRUSTEE KING: As long as the rest of it is untreated, that's all.
MR. COSTELLO: Right.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion
to close 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: We have to make it consistent.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: In order to make it consistent we have to
address the question of the vessel.
MR. COSTELLO: Right now he has like a 21-foot Grady White. The
only person that would object --
TRUSTEE KING: It's hard to put a vessel size in because people
buy and sell their boats and change sizes.
MR. COSTELLO: The dock has been there every season for the past
ten years. It's just what we are doing is making it permanent.
TRUSTEE KING: The structure is exactly the same size as what has
already been there. It's certainly far less than one-third of
the way across the waterway. It meets all the dock
specifications.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: To me if it meets all the criteria, then it's
consistent.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's consistent with the size vessel that
has been there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Again, I make a motion to approve this
application as submitted. And the Board finds it consistent
under the LWRP.
Board of Trustees 71 February 20, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What I'm going to do is open 13 and 14 together,
since they are contiguous property, essentially amounting to one
project, as I understand it, right, Jack?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll open up number 13, Costello Marine
Contracting Corp., on behalf of SHELTER ISLAND SOUND, INC., c/o
MARK MILLER requests a Wetland Permit to construct 120 +/- of
new bulkhead; fill void area landward with clean trucked-in fill
(approximately 100 cubic yards); re-grade areas and re-vegetate
providing ten-foot wide non-turf buffer; modify and/or
reconstruct lower portion of existing stairway as required to
accommodate new bulkhead. Located: 900 Paradise Point Road,
Southold.
And number 14, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of
MARK MILLER requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing
stairway to beach; remove 160' of existing bulkhead; construct
173' +/- of new bulkhead inplace, extending bulkhead to south
property line; re-install existing stairway to beach inplace;
fill void areas landward of bulkhead with clean trucked-in fill
approximately 125 cubic yards; re-grade areas; provide ten-foot
wide non-turf buffer and re-vegetate with native plantings.
Located: 1000 Paradise Point Road, Southold.
Both of these applications have been found to be consistent
with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council has resolved to
support the application, recommending a ten-foot to 15-foot
non-turf buffer landward of the crest of the bluff on 1000
Paradise Point Road and also the same thing on 900, except that
they are recommending on 900 Paradise Point Road 120' foot low
sill coir log bulkhead.
The Board of Trustees was out there. We did look at them
together. We found that there is existing functional retaining
wall that is being extended, suggesting replacing it at the same
height. And of course on the other one, we had no comment
because we are actually creating it. Is there anybody here who
would like to address these applications?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello on behalf of the applicant. In the
proposal we do include a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That addresses that concern. These are
basically, it will extend in a straight line, right?
MR. COSTELLO: Actually it will extend to the boat house in a
straight line and then actually move landward with the stairs,
so actually where the toe of the bulkhead is, it will actually
go back closer to the bluff.
TRUSTEE KING: It doesn't say in the description it's vinyl
sheathing, but it is on the plans.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We can include that in the description. Do you
plan on using vinyl sheathing?
MR..COSTELLO: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What kind of plantings,will you be using?
Board of Trustees 72 February 20, 2013
MR. COSTELLO: Cape American Beach Grass. Maybe bayberry up top.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think the LWRP coordinator has the concern
whether or not the plantings would help keep make the slope
stable or not. But it's been our policy pretty much in this area
to insist on plantings.
TRUSTEE KING: I think rather than say a ten-foot non-turf buffer
behind the bulkhead, I would just rather say natural vegetation
landward of the bulkhead to the top of the bluff.
MR. COSTELLO: That's fine, too.
TRUSTEE KING: It's all just natural vegetation from the bulkhead
on up to the top of the bluff. That whole area is just a natural
area. It's pretty much what we have now. If they want to plant
American Beach Grass behind the bulkhead, that's fine. But just
have that whole area up to the top of the bluff as a natural,
vegetated area.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think the Conservation Advisory Council was
saying at the top.
TRUSTEE KING: If they want it further landward, but I don't
think it's necessary.
MR. COSTELLO: That bluff has to be a pretty substantial place to
absorb any issues.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions from the Board?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing on both these
applications.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve both these
applications as submitted.
TRUSTEE KING: With the stipulation that the area landward of the
bulkhead up to the top of the bluff is to remain in a naturally
vegetated state. On both.
MS. CANTRELL: Along with the buffer?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is no ten-foot non-turf buffer. Just
stipulating the whole area is non-turf and it will be vinyl
sheathing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do we want to refer to this as a retaining wall
on the Mark Miller property rather than a bulkhead?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We had discussed that out in the field, didn't
we.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because the code does not allow any new
bulkheads.
MR. COSTELLO: It's definitely a retaining wall.
TRUSTEE KING: It's more like a retaining wall because it's well
above the high water mark.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would amend the motion.
TRUSTEE KING: Because of the storm, there has been excessive
erosion. So. I believe it's in there, unless erosion can be
shown. I think there has been a lot of erosion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So the motion is to be as it was except we are
just changing the description. We'll change the description to
Board of Trustees 73 February 20, 2013
reflect vinyl sheathing, that these be called retaining walls,
not bulkheads, because that's what they are; and natural
plantings on the bluff to replace the ten-foot non-turf buffer,
make the whole bluff a buffer. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number 15, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc.,
on behalf of BARBARA KELSEY requests a Wetland Permit to repair
the existing bluff staircase that was damaged by Hurricane
Sandy; to construct a five-foot high retaining wall, roughly 16'.
landward of the existing bulkhead; and reconstruct damaged bluff
stairs; construct a 6x4' wooden platform on top and seaward of
the existing bulkhead which will allow for the installation of
2' wide retractable aluminum beach access stairs; in total there
will be 115'+/- of new retaining wall; after construction of
the retaining wall and stairs has finished, roughly 100 cubic
yards of fill will be deposited behind the retaining wall and in
the space between the retaining wall and existing bulkhead.
Located: 4000 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
- The LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation
Advisory Council resolved to support the application as written.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MR. IVANS: Matt Ivans, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. I'm
here were to answer any questions, but I also have to ask the
Board a question. We earnestly did not include, there is an
existing deck out there. It was existing before the hurricane.
We would like to include that, if possible, with this
application. To reconstruct. If not, we could do an amendment,
but.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because it was notified this way, that this
happened before, according to Lori we can't just do that. It has
to be re-notified to the adjoining property owners.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had any huge issues with it. One
question was why was the big locust tree cut down. On top of
that bluff was a big locust tree.
MR. IVANS: When Bruce and I went out there, it was like that. I
don't have an answer for that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We were really hoping you had an answer.
MR. IVANS: I have none.
TRUSTEE KING: We thought you could even make something up.
MR. IVANS: Elizabeth, can you help me.
MS. CANTRELL: You're the creative one. '
TRUSTEE KING: There are no other comments on our worksheet, on
the site visit. I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application.
You'll be coming back for the deck?
Board of Trustees 74 February 20, 2013
MR. (VANS: Yes, we'll be doing an amendment for that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 16, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc., on behalf of SEAN MCCOYD requests a Wetland Permit to
elevate the existing single-family dwelling and garage (1,360sq
ft +/-) and deposit/grade.clean fill (115 cubic yards +/-)
thereon; the dwelling is proposed to be elevated to 9' and that
garage is proposed to be elevated to 8'. Located: 3360 Minnehaha
Boulevard, Southold.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found it consistent
noting the action is located within the AE elevation six flood
zone.
The CAC supports the application with the drainage plan be
included on the site plan. The Board did go out and looked at
this. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. IVANS: Mat Ivans, Suffolk Environmental, here to answer any
and all questions.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: As the Conservation Advisory Council mentioned,
I'm looking at the survey and/or site plan, and I don't see any
drainage noted there. Drywells, gutters.
MR. IVANS: Okay, we could have the survey revised, put in some
drywells, leaders, gutters.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: About how much of this building was going to be
torn down or demoed?
MR. IVANS: Well, none of it, except for the garage. Did you see
the letter from Joe Fischetti? What will happen is the house
itself can be elevated. It's on locust posts. There is no
problem with that. We'll hopefully maintain 100% of that. The
garage is on a slab. There is really not much we can do to save
it, so we'll basically have to reconstruct it. But it doesn't
meet th 75% threshold for demolition.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Have you applied yet to the building department
for permits?
MR. IVANS: No, but I believe Bruce Anderson and Joe Fischetti
met with Mike Verity on this already, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Given the scope of the project, would you have
any objection to a hay bale line? I'm looking at the four-foot
contour line. Actually, you'll need a little more room than that.
MR. IVANS: I see where you are saying, toward the northwestern
end of that four-foot contour line, take it out a little bit?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. You would need more room than the four-foot
contour line would allow. Looks like you have 35 feet there
between the concrete wall and the house, so how about would 20
feet be enough for construction?
MR. IVANS: I would think so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So 15-feet landward of the concrete wall we have
hay bale and silt --
MR. IVANS: Do you want that all the way across.
Board of Trustees 75 February 20, 2013
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, if we could have that all the way across
the property.
Is this going to be something that requires ZBA approval?
Because it's within 75 feet of retaining wall there.
MR. (VANS: I don't believe so. Bruce is, again, I think he met
with Mike on this.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: He's just raising the house up in the air.
I would just want to reflect in the Minutes that the Board
does have a concern about ZBA approval and that the applicant
has stated you have already entered into discussions with ZBA,
correct?
MR. IVANS: Yes, I believe so. I can confirm it with Bruce.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience who wishes
to comment on this application?
(No response).
Any other comment from the Board?
(No response).
Motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Suffolk Environmental on behalf of Sean McCoyd with the addition
of appropriate gutters leading to downspouts, leading to
drywells, so it conforms with Chapter 236 and that a hay bale
silt fence line is included approximately 15-foot landward of
the retaining wall or bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number 17, Horton
Dredge & Dock on behalf of CYNTHIA O'LEARY requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a bulkhead the width (approximately 90') of
the remaining and only un-bulkheaded waterfront section of the
property; the west end of the proposed bulkhead will tie into
the existing bulkhead on the property; the eastern end will tie
into the existing bulkhead of the property adjacent to the east;
to construct a 35' return on the western end of the property;
add clean fill (100-150 cubic yards) from an upland source.
Located: 280 Park Avenue, Mattituck.
The project is deemed consistent with the LWRP coordinator.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection,
was unable to make inspection.
Trustee President Jim King had reviewed this project and
done an inspection and the field notes reflect a request to cut
down the landward end of the groin to the top of the whaler.
That would be the existing bulkhead section. And I guess there
was a question concerning the right-of-way. It's apparently
O'Leary.
TRUSTEE KING: It's on her property. What I was talking about, I
tried make a little drawing. The bulkhead is along the
Board of Trustees 76 February 20, 2013
shoreline,'then it actually comes out at 90 degrees on top of
this groin. So what you want to do is remove this section.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So it's no longer an extension of the
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KING: Right.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That said, is there anyone here to speak to
this application?
MR. HORTON: Good evening. Joshua Horton on behalf of the
applicant.
TRUSTEE KING: That section can be cut right down to the top of
the whaler. You have a section of bulkhead going seaward on top
of the groin, about 12 feet long. Cut that down even with the
top of the groin into where the new-bulkhead is going.
MR. HORTON: Understood. I'm just here to answer any questions
you may have.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It seemed pretty straightforward. It got
hammered. It's the last piece between two pieces of bulkhead so
there is no real opportunity to revet or put another structure in.
TRUSTEE KING: It looks like there was a nice stand of cedar
trees, all gone. Which probably would not have happened if there
was a bulkhead there. It's a shame.
MR. HORTON: One thing I might mention is that there are steps
that will be rebuilt. We didn't include them in this application
and we'll come in for an amendment to this permit, should it be
granted, to have those dealt with properly.
TRUSTEE KING: There is a deck there, too, on the end of that
right-of-way. Did you plan on doing anything that?
MR. HORTON: What I plan on doing with it is making sure whatever
is applied for to ensure that the steps are permitted. They have
been existing and are on several surveys. What we plan to do is
bring all of that into conformance with what you deem fit.
TRUSTEE KING: I would put the deck and the stairs on an
amendment application to this bulkhead.
MR. HORTON: Will do.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comment, questions?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve the
application as submitted with the stipulation that the section
of the bulkhead which goes out and over the groin be reduced in
height to match the top of the whaler.
TRUSTEE KING: They'll want to see a non-turf buffer behind the
bulkhead, ten, 15-foot non-turf.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And require a ten to 15-foot buffer behind
the bulkhead. So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll draw the buffering in.
Board of Trustees 77 February 20, 2013
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 18, Horton Dredge and Dock on behalf of
SAL VARANO requests a Wetland Permit to restore the bluff
damaged by Hurricane Sandy; install a 200' long by 4' high
retaining wall; backfill with approximately 200 cubic yards of
clean fill. Located: 6600 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent,
recommended a splash pad landward of the bulkhead.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection therefore did not make any recommendations.
The Trustees on February 13th did a field inspection. The
only comment seemed very clear to us, the only comment was to
clarify the terms "bulkhead" and "retaining wall."As Trustee
Ghosio said before, we have -- these are retaining walls, not
bulkheads, and on the plans the proposed construction is
described as a bulkhead. So other than that, everything seems to
be straightforward. Is there anyone here to speak to this
application?
MR. HORTON: Joshua Horton on behalf of the applicant here to
answer any questions and noted, understood, it is designed as a
retaining wall, intended to be a retaining wall. I appreciate
the comment.
TRUSTEE KING: This is east of the Scopaz property, isn't it.
MR. HORTON: This property is three -- it's immediately east and
adjacent to the Riccio property that was here last month.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this
application?
(No response).
Any other comments or questions from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, 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 with the clarification of the term of"bulkhead"
and "retaining wall" on the plan.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 19, Horton Dredge & Dock on behalf of
RUTH E. MILLER RESIDENCE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a retaining wall the width (approximately 90') of the
property upland of the bulkhead; the west end of the retaining
wall to tie into the recently constructed adjacent retaining
wall; the eastern end of the retaining wall will have an upland
return 6'to 8' in length; backfill with approximately 200 cubic
yards of clean fill; upon completion of the retaining wall and
Board of Trustees 78 February 20, 2013
deck stabilization, the steps will be repaired and possibly
re-routed slightly to account for the new retaining wall.
Located: 6400 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic.
As has been the theme for the last couple of meetings, this
is storm damage. This application has been found to be
consistent with LWRP, however he is recommending that a splash
pad be constructed or be integrated into the design constructed
of natural materials, located landward of the bulkhead. It's not
a terrible idea.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with no further comment.
And the Trustees, when we were out on our inspections, were
curious to how we were putting lay logs under deck and whether
you would be using helical screws.
Aside from that, is there anybody here who would like to
address this application?
MR. HORTON: Joshua Horton on behalf of the applicant. Trustee
Ghosio, to answer your question, and your well-placed wonder,
would say bruit force and ignorance is how we'll install lay
logs underneath the deck. No, actually, we plan to hand dig
those in underneath the deck once we have fully supported the
deck and stabilized that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Looking in the cross-section here, what's the
distance between the bulkhead and that lay log?Approximately.
MR. HORTON: Approximately ten feet. Between the retaining wall,
the new proposed retaining wall --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry. Yes. And the.lay log.
MR. HORTON: And the lay log supporting that. Approximately ten
feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, it's such a steep slope there, even
digging them in, because you have a system here with deadmen,
then a ten-inch lay log going horizontally there, to dig that
in, I'm just concerned for the integrity of that bank and going
back that far, it seems like helical screws are the way to go here.
MR. HORTON: Quite frankly you could simply use deadmen without
lay logs. It's not uncommon.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: From an engineering perspective -- .
MR. HORTON: I would prefer not to do that. Actually if you look
at the, I believe that is mostly trumpet vine, just to the east
of the deck, along the bluff, that, you know, from this
perspective and the vantage point of the photographer, it
appears to be, you know, quite a steep drop there. It's actually
up to that first sort of snow line, if you will, the remaining
snow line along the trumpet vine, is probably about ten feet
back. The bluff is still fairly low there. You would not be
digging out a tremendous amount.
In fact we looked at the Scopaz job next door to the west
as a reference for dealing with that matter because they were
well underway with their construction as we were discussing this
with the client.
My first concern was obviously how to install backing
Board of Trustees 79 February 20, 2013
system deep into the bluff and that's, the bluff there is really
quite low, beneath that little snow ridge and trumpet vine.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The summertime pictures do reflect that,
looking at the pictures from the summertime. And you'll be tying
into the Scopaz retaining wall with this?
MR. HORTON: Yes, in fact I had a conversation with him again out
in the hallway this evening.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. You've got that drawn into this photo,
kind of makes sense.
MR. HORTON: And also we'll disturb as little of the trumpet vine
that is hardily grown there right now and quite mature, is our
intention.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Does anybody else on the Board have any
questions or comments?
MR. HORTON: Vinyl sheet pile?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would just caution the applicant, I just have
a concern, and I'm not an engineer, but from an engineering
perspective, particularly with the lay logs going in there, the
structural integrity of that bluff when you start trenching all
the way along the length of that bluff for these lay logs and
going underneath that deck, I just think helical screws are the
way to go. I really do. But it's obviously up to the applicant
which way you want to go with this.
MR. HORTON: I discussed with him at length, helical screws,
particularly underneath the deck area, for many obvious reasons.
And I'll continue to have that dialogue with him.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know the deck is not in the description here.
Is,that deck permitted?
MR. HORTON: The deck is permitted by this Board, yes. I was
delighted to find out, actually.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I do have a permit from 1999 for that deck and
gazebo. Any other comments or questions?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HORTON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to approve the
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Jim, sorry, since I have the next group, can we
start with de la Vega-Higgins so these guys can go home? Because
I don't have anyone else here.
TRUSTEE KING: Sure.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next item, number 24, En-Consultants on
behalf of.FREDERICK de la VEGA & LAWRENCE HIGGINS request a
Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock equipped with
water and electricity and consisting of a 4x95' fixed, elevated
Board of Trustees 80 February 20, 2013
walkway, a 3x14' hinged ramp; and a 6x20' float secured by two
6" diameter pilings. Located: 15437 Rt. 25, East Marion.
REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AS OF 1/14/2013: To construct an
elevated 484' fixed catwalk with 6x10' step-down platform at
seaward end, comprised entirely of untreated materials;
including open-grate fiberglass reinforced decking.
I had returned to the site to confirm the staking of the
revised plan, which we have copies of here. And I did make some
photo entries of the revised structure, which may have made it
in the file. I don't know whether they were being printed today.
And the entirety of the revised structure is within the general
outline of-- it's landward of those rocks that you see there
now. I believe that this is a pre-photo when we were during the
field inspection.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I got your photos but I couldn't put them on.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the proposed catwalk is also landward of
a row of erratic boulders that were lined up to make a makeshift
natural groin that would be on the west side, so that it
actually, the entirety of the structure, which is proposed now
to be non-toxic materials, is now landward of the land form.
There are some letters to the file here which I believe are new.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you have the plan, Jay, excuse me.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, there is a revised plan. There is a
letter here from the Group for the East End that I will
paraphrase, but we can have a copy entered into the record here.
On behalf of the Group for East End I would like to provide the
following comments: Regarding the updated wetland application,
the updated application is amended to address size, the proposed
use of CCA material and proposed water, electricity, and that it
still poses a risk to environmental quality and condition of Dam
Pond. Dam Pond is located within the state designated
significant fish and wildlife habitat. It is also designated
New York State Department of Critical Environmental Conservation
CEA's. According to the DEC, Dam Pond possesses several rare
plant and animal species including Golden Dock, Marsh Straw
Sedge, Woodland Agrimony, Green Paris Feather, Little Leaf Tick
Foil, Large Grass Leaf Rush and Short Fruit Rush.
The original application was found to be inconsistent with
the town's LWRP. Impacts to wetland, lack of demonstrating the
need for a structure at Dam Pond, restricted navigability,
potential water quality impacts. It goes on to quote the
Southold Code provides the Board of Trustees with the authority
to deny the proposed structure in critical environmental areas
such as Dam Pond. For the above reasons we support the Board of
Trustees denying the proposed dock application in order to
ensure the environmental quality of Dam Pond. Thank you, for
reviewing the comments and concerns.
There is also a letter here, which I believe the Board
members also got, that comes from Michael Delano, the adjacent
owner.
After carefully examining the original dock structure and
Board of Trustees 81 February 20, 2013
after a very careful reading of the LWRP program document, I
object to the plan. After very carefully examining the revised
plan in great detail and after researching the subject matter
quite extensively I am even more than before adamantly opposed
to this or any new dock structure in Dam Pond. While the revised
plan submitted by En-Consultants has eliminated water,
electricity and treated lumber, it does not in any way address
the criticism of the LWRP's recommendation and denial and is
also somewhat misleading in what it says and does.
For example, the revised plan claims the overall seaward
intrusion of the structure has been reduced by 31 feet, but
fails to mention that the revised structure begins one foot
closer to Dam Pond, and more importantly it has been rotated 12
degrees to the south. The revised structure would now cover and
disturb more wetland than the previous structure and would have
several unaddressed ecological consequences.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I believe that letter was just in support of
what he already testified to last time.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. This is an extensive letter. We can
amend this to the record of the meeting without me continuing to
read it.
Then there is another one that we could also submit to the
record. This is from an E-mail address and it says from a Joan
Barrett. So we can append these as the record is collected.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: To summarize, is she for or against this
application?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: She is against this application.
When I went back to visit the site I didn't have the
benefit of a camera to take a picture. The first time I went,
that was some two weeks ago, I managed to catch some knee-high
snow. I did go back, though, and had an opportunity to review
the revised staking yesterday; excuse me, the day before
yesterday. And the proposed staking is in an area which has the
least amount of emergent'tidal wetlands from the property down
to the water's edge. There are none of the plant species other.
than the usual emergent and continuous tidal wetland vegetation
which would include Spartina Alterna Flora, maybe some
Distichlis spicata, maybe some Salicornia and High Tide Bush and
maybe some Iva frutescens, but none of the rare plant and animal
species that are noted on the group's description, which are
more apt for the upland and freshwater and contiguous woodland
and wetland areas of the preserve that is on the western shore.
And the fact that it's non-toxic, the structure has been
reduced to the size that is strictly, it would be fairly
difficult for anyone, from what I could see, to use any power
boats, so it will be largely for non-powered vessels that would
not even require a boat registration. It would seem to meet the
requirements to be consistent with the town's proposal because
it's extremely minimalistic in its approach. I just can't see,
haven't seen anything here that would, to my mind, that I have a .
problem with this. I visited it a number of times.
Board of Trustees 82 February 20, 2013
Any how, I went way ahead of the application here because
have been out there a number of times. Is there anyone here who
wishes to speak to this?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants. I would say I'm
not sure I could have summarized that better than John just did.
I don't have anything new to present that was not presented last
time. We could respond to some of the comments in the E-mail but
I'm not sure that it's completely necessary unless the Board
wants me to.
The slight change in angle of the dock actually brings us
to a band of vegetated tidal wetlands that is actually a little
bit narrower than the one before, while still maintaining that
disturbed path. And that was really the one thing that the
owners had asked me or wished that I had mentioned on the record
last time. So I'll do that now, just for the purpose of it.
It is just the notion that if there were not some sort of
.catwalk here, they could still take their rowboats and their
kayaks and canoes and continuously drag them through the marsh
and the town would not be able to prevent them from doing that.
And the end result of that would be to have a much more greatly
disturbed area, more devoid of mussels and wetland vegetation
and whatever other, as you described them, the usual suite of
plants and animals that of concern here.
And I would say it's worth noting that many, many years
ago, the Town of Southampton in certain areas had considered
prohibiting docks in some of these enclosed embayments like in
Sag Harbor. And that was the conclusion they eventually came to,
was that to allow a minimally-sized, minimally-scoped structure
like this, elevated above the marsh to allow sunlight through,
now we are using no chemically-treated wood, open-grate decking,
that this basic one time disturbance to an area that is already
through foot traffic been disturbed, is going to cause less
impact, although they are pretty minimal in either case, less
impact to the environment that fronts the shoreline than if
there was really no guided use of that area.
So that would be the only thing else that I would add. And
again, in the groups' letter they described general conditions
throughout Dam Pond but don't actually make any specific
assertions that this dock at this location would have any impact
on any of those species of concern.
So unless the Board has any other questions, we have made
now four or five modifications to the dock, which contrary to
that letter you mentioned, I think does respond to the LWRP
concern, because it seems to me one of the, if not primary
concern of that, was the chemical treatment of wood.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional questions or concerns?
TRUSTEE KING: It looks like these are four-inch untreated posts
you are using?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Also, sorry, I handed up to Jim as you were
opening the hearing a copy of the tidal wetlands permit that was
issued by the DEC for this plan, the one that is in front of you now.
Board of Trustees 83 February 20, 2013
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This one now.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is also private bottom and it is
interesting, but the applicants for this dock could put an
application in for any number of pilings or structures to be
aquaculturist and the LWRP would probably find it consistent and
encourage the activity and it would have many more impacts, and
a big, strong healthy bay man would move more soils in one
morning of clam digging in Dam Pond than the entirety of all the
pilings that will construct this dock that may last for 20, 30
or more years. I just want to point that out as a point of
observation that I have made. And the concerns that there is
extensive eelgrass in this location are not well founded because
I have the collection of bent eel spears from when I was a kid
spearing eels up there. It's a very hard, gravelly bottom that
was disturbed and was a mining operation of Latham Sand & Gravel
for some time to provide material. So although it's beautiful
and it's obviously a very vibrant ecosystem, it has a history of
disturbed soils and use and it's not a place to find eelgrass.
MR. HERRMANN: It's not a suitable habitat for Zostera. I don't
have anything else to add.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, structural question. With 4x4 posts in
here and given the depth and the width of Dam Pond, do you think
that will hold up to ice in Dam Pond? I'm just afraid in the
wintertime without some cross-bracing maybe on the 44's, this
will lift up in the wintertime.
MR. HERRMANN: I would think they would probably be constructed
that way.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ice out there is not particularly violent in
that upper corner, but just the up and down. It might be a
thought, too, because it is highly affected by Long Island Sound
because of the barrier beach there allows considerable flow, so
occasionally the tides go very high in Dam Pond. So I guess if
having ice flow under it, Dave's concern might be true, you
might want to have some cross-bracing for the smaller.
MR. HERRMANN: We were trying to use the minimally-sized post to
keep it--
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just thinking of the structural integrity
given the ice heaving that could take place there in the
wintertime. I would hate to see the applicants go through this
expense and in the first winter get all busted up by ice.
MR. HERRMANN: It's a good point.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think we've seen it yet, but there
is also the possibility of the fiberglass pilings that the
Pearson Company has now come out with that are non-toxic and
they are apparently very good with not getting lifted up in the ice.
MR. HERRMANN: Do you want to see how it works out? I think they
would be happy to have a dock to fix at this point. But the
advice is well taken.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You can always come back for an amendment to the
permit later on. Consult with your dock builder and see what the
Board of Trustees 84 February 20, 2013
dock builder thinks. They are the professionals.
TRUSTEE KING: You can always put a bubble system in. If you get
a severe cold snap.
MR. HERRMANN: Not without electricity.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 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 the
application as submitted with the amended set of plans which
relocates and downsizes the dock and uses non-toxic materials,
thereby addressing concerns of inconsistency, and I would so
move to approve the amended plan that we have stamped and dated
stamped into the Trustee office December 12 of 2012.
MR. HERRMANN: 1/10/13 is the plan date.
TRUSTEE KING: This has been previously approved by the DEC.
MR. HERRMANN: That can't be the right day, Jay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, not the standalone revised.
MR. HERRMANN: Liz may have put the date on the re-notice.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, on the January 14th, 2013, and as
approved by the DEC.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer,
aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Ghosio, nay).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm voting nay on this. I'm not 100% comfortable
with it, that's all.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll go back to number 20. En-Consultants on
behalf of CAROLINE & DOUGALL FRASER, JR., requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a +/- 50' low-profile vinyl groin in-place of
existing +/- 64' groin and remove most seaward +/- 14' of
existing groin. Located: 7955 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
MR. HERRMANN: Jim designed this one, so I hope you all have some
good feedback.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll make some changes to my design. This was
found consistent with the LWRP.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support the
application as written. There is a letter in here from David
Kilbride. It's a fairly lengthy letter. I'll see if I could
just get the high points and the rest of it will just be put
into the record. He just talks about groins and how they affect
the littoral drift. This replacement didn't appear to be low
profile. The bottom line, we favor your approving for Fraser a
low profile jetty, provided that a low profile jetty per your
specifications and dimensions is the final outcome of the
project. That's basically what they have to say. They want to be
assured it's a low profile groin, basically.
Is there anybody here to speak-on behalf or against this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
Board of Trustees 85 February 20, 2013
Dougall Fraser. This groin was previously approved back, I think
in 1999, by the Trustees, and it was supposed to be a low
profile groin. And I think it was supposed to be cut back from
64 feet to 60 feet, if I recall correctly.
TRUSTEE KING: That's correct.
MR. HERRMANN: As I understand it, that work was done. I did
meet Jim out there because originally I think it was the subject
of a violation because when work was done on the adjacent
property, they started replacing the wood sheathing with the
vinyl, before Hurricane Sandy. And so I met Jim out there and I
may be telling the story wrong. I think Jim may have been out
there first and contacted me, and had stated that-- I think we
had both looked at the plans and the old plans from 1999 were
not very clear about what the heights and all were supposed to
be. There was a height shown from the top of the groin to the
top of the bulkhead, which I think was close to being observed,
but there was no end height at the seaward end. And I'm not sure
if the most outer part was ever replaced or not. In any event
Jim stated it should be cut back an additional ten feet to 50
feet. So I went out and at low tide on my own, thinking I might.
prove Jim wrong, but, again, I have to admit that I went out at
a dead low tide and measured exactly 50 feet. So I then
subsequently met Jim because I want to make sure we had the
design straight. And what we had discussed in the field was a
top height of the landward side of the groin being 42"from the
top of the existing bulkhead to the top of the cap. Which is
also something that I'm not sure was discussed as much 15 years
ago because they were not using the vinyl corrugated sheathing,
so there was no need for a cap. And now you are adding another
couple of inches or whatever to the top.
So I prepared the plans to show the 42" up top. I think the
height of the end of the groin at 50 feet is like four feet
above grade or something like that now, and so we had discussed
dropping that down two feet. And that is about it. I drew that
up on the plans and we filed the applications and that's what
you have in front of'you. I just handed up to Jim now revised
plans not having anything to do with the groin, but the owner
asked if we could include reconstruction of the 3x10 beach steps
in the center of the property, so we were hoping that the Board
might be amenable to including beach steps in this application.
TRUSTEE KING: The old permit was for a 60' groin and the top of
the groin was to be no less than 3'6" below the top of the
bulkhead. I .think it's higher than that now.
MR. HERRMANN: It is.
TRUSTEE KING: When we were out in the field and started looking
at it and measuring it,_you'll have to knock that down a Little
bit. We would like to take it down to four feet from the top of
the bulkhead. It has to be pushed down anyway. Everybody felt
pretty strongly about this. David had some issues, he didn't
think 50 feet was short enough.
MR. HERRMANN: 50 feet was legitimate.
Board of Trustees 86 February 20, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: I made a note to check the tide chart. We were
there at nine o'clock in the morning and the tide was at 10:55,
so we still had almost two hours to go. So I feel the 50 feet is
accurate.
MR. HERRMANN: I do, too.
TRUSTEE KING: My feeling is make the top of the groin four feet
to the top of the bulkhead and low profile it 50 feet long. I
don't think any of us have a problem with the stairs.
MR. HERRMANN: Why not push the whole groin down six inches, then
you end up with 18 inches at the end, too.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We measured it pretty accurate that day. I'm of
the belief that 48 inches is the way to go. It will still give
you the 50 feet and then it will be a low profile.
MR. HERRMANN: Going down six inches will get to us 48, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll voice my comments now. I'm obviously very
familiar with this area. And as I discussed many times with
applications for groins, I'm not a proponent of groins because
groins benefit one property owner to the detriment of another
property owner. That meaning the property owner down drift gets
robbed of the sand. So the answer is, I have been told by
engineers. Well, that property puts in a groin. That then robs
from the next property owner. Well that person should put in a
groin and what you get are groin fields like you see in Little
Peconic Bay where my personal feeling is you eliminate the
groins all together and let Mother Nature do her thing, you have
a nice even beach and nobody getting robbed. This groin here
and the next groin that is depicted in this picture have
resulted in the adjacent property owners, their beach is gone.
And it's partially because of these groins.
Now, for myself with this groin, Jim, you are right, we did
look at it at nine and I looked at the tide charts and I thought
it was about eleven. You said 10:55. Because I initially thought
this was not low tide, or this was approximately low tide,
sorry. So the groin at 50-foot would be too long. It was unusual
tides. We have had unusual tides this past week because the
northwesters has been blowing the bay out. As a matter of fact
there has been low tides this week that have been so extreme
that creeks have been dried up. So I had thought that this
should be limited to a maximum length of 40 feet out in the
field, and but given the fact that we were there two hours
before low tide, I can live with the 50 foot.
As far as the height goes, I feel this can be dramatically
reduced in height to be truly a low profile. I feel as though it
has to come down so that it's 4'6"from the top of the bulkhead
to the top of the cap. Again, then that would be truly low
profile. And when you think about what low profile, the purpose
is, it's to allow the sand to build to certain minimal level for
that property owner and then subsequent to that, sand flows over
the top and goes to the next property owner, rather than robbing
the property owner of all the sand. And so for myself looking at
this in the field, plus my experience out there, I feel'as
Board of Trustees 87 February 20, 2013
though this groin should go down 4'6"from the top of the
bulkhead to the top of the cap in order to truly be functioning
as a low profile bulkhead and not resulting to the detriment of
the property owners down drift. Those are my comments.
I mean when I stood there at this one, it was well above my
west. Now, everyone here has agreed it has to come down but I
was, the groin was up well above my waist. That is not low
profile. That requires stairs to get over it.
MR. HERRMANN: The way I would respond to that, Dave, and I think
this is why we need the second component, which was lacking in
the older plans. You can start at any height at the bulkhead and
if the groin is built completely level, it can end up any height
above the end of the beach. So to me the trick, and this
actually, and I'm realizing this as I'm looking at this plan,
the rule of thumb that this Board has been using for as long as
I could remember and what the DEC has been using is 18 inches
above low water at the end. And I realize when I revised this I
ended up with 24" and was trying to get it in in the midst of
all these storm damaged things and I didn't give it much
thought. Because I was so focused on the 42 inches Jim and I
were talking about. That's the trick. As long as we build the
groin so it's 48", which I would agree with, at the bulkhead,
and keep it no higher than 18" at the end, that is a truly low
profile groin. You could build it 48" down, sorry, 54" inches
down from the top, but if they go out level it won't be a low
profile groin. It will end up higher.
So I think as long as you have the reference at the
beginning and the end, which pushing this entire structure down
six inches, at which point the middle of this thing would almost
be flush with grade now, you would have a low profile groin. And
I'm just speaking consistently with what the Board's policy has
been.
So all I can say right now is if the Board would be so
moved to approve it at 48" down from the top of the bulkhead and
no higher than 18" at the seaward end, I would agree to that and
give you revised plans, and I think that's probably right.
I think if you start to go lower than that, remember, the
idea of replacing just the functional part of a groin is so that
you don't recreate a theft of littorally transported sand that
once existed and exists no more. But you also don't want to take
away the function the groin has now.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there any need -- I put this question to the
Board --for stairs for public access?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think if the new configuration would be --
I think from the storm there has been some loss of sand in the
corner. That's obvious. I think once that gets filled in and the
groin gets lowered another six inches you would be able to step
over it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would think so.
MR. HERRMANN: As a point of reference, I mean this was the groin
prior to 1999.
Board of Trustees 88 February 20, 2013
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, so in time this will all actually be
buried.
MR. HERRMANN: Quite likely.
TRUSTEE KING: It should. I think if we had all low profile
groins, the whole beach would look different. It's tough to have
low profile here and you have two older groins on either side
that are sticking up in the air three feet. It takes away the
function of low profile.
Anybody else?
(No response).
Nobody else, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a,motion to approve the application with new plans
showing the top of the groin at the bulkhead to be no less than
four feet below the top of the bulkhead. And to be constructed
as a low profile groin.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: At a length of 50 feet.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: One question here.
TRUSTEE KING: Discussion?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. There is four pilings sticking out of the
sand there that are not part of the structure. I would ask that
those four pilings be removed.
TRUSTEE KING: Those were pilings he removed during construction
of the vinyl. He's going to put them back in place. They took
piles out from one side of the groin so they could put new
sheathing in, then they'll replace the piles. They will be
incorporated into the structure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So they'll be removed from the present location.
Because I realize exactly what you are saying.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just want to make sure they are removed.
MR. HERRMANN: They don't just end up staying there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have seen stranger things happen. And also
to make sure we include the stairs to the beach in your
description.
MR. HERRMANN: Remove and replace 3x10 steps to the beach.
TRUSTEE KING: That will include stairs to the beach and all the
remnants on the old groin to be move offsite. Second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(Trustee King, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer,
aye.Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Bergen, nay).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Note for the record I vote nay.
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 21, En-Consultants on behalf of MARY
MCFEELY requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 97
linear feet of vinyl bulkhead inplace of existing storm damaged
Board of Trustees 89 February 20, 2013
(Hurricane Sandy) timber bulkhead; construct +/- 12' easterly
return; backfill storm eroded area landward of bulkhead with
approximately 200 cubic yards of clean sandy fill; and construct
4x8' steps to beach. Located: 5900 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard,
Laurel.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be
consistent. And the Conservation Advisory Council voted to
support the application.
This was reviewed by Jim King out in the field and they
have on his notes here one condition of a non-turf buffer,
15-foot non-turf buffer landward of the proposed bulkhead, and
the remnants of an old groin on the property line to be removed.
So those are the comments. Is there anybody here to speak
on behalf of this application.
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. I'm just trying to find pictures, unless you have
them, so I can see -- oh, Jim, are you talking about that sort
of tattered --
TRUSTEE KING: I'm not sure whose property it's on. Looks right
on the line.
MR. HERRMANN: That?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, that's just a hazard.
MR. HERRMANN: I was wondering if the Board would be accepting of
a ten-foot non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem with that. It will be same
next door, too.
MR. HERRMANN: For O'Shaugnnessy.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. HERRMANN: Other than that this is a straightforward Sandy
application. And I don't think there are any letters from the
neighbors.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from anybody in the audience?
(No response).
Any comments from the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not hearing any, I'll make a motion to close
this hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the condition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer immediately
landward of the bulkhead and the removal of the remnants of an
old groin on the beach in front of the property.
MR. HERRMANN: Before you move on that, Jim, is it east or west?
I'm looking at the picture.
TRUSTEE KING: The groin?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I was not sure whose property it was on, so I
think I put the same notes in O'Shaughnessy. It looks like it's
right on the property line between those two. So it would be on
Board of Trustees 90 February 20, 2013
the west side of McFeely.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, I think it is McFeely. I wanted to make sure
you weren't talking about the one that's on Rozanski (sic).
TRUSTEE KING: No.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay. Understood.
TRUSTEE KING: I imagine they'll do both projects at once, so
whoever is doing the job, just take that stuff out.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's my motion. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, number 22, En-Consultants on
behalf of STEPHEN & ELIZABETH O'SHAUGHNESSY requests a Wetland
Permit to construct approximately 1,12 linear feet of vinyl
bulkhead inplace of existing storm damaged (Hurricane Sandy)
timber bulkhead; remove existing storm damaged westerly return
and construct new +/-36' return; backfill storm eroded area
landward of bulkhead with approximately 350 cubic yards of clean
sandy fill; and construct 4x8' steps to beach. Located: 5800
Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
This has been deemed consistent under LWRP. The
Conservation Advisory Council supported it. Jim King performed
the inspection. The comments are the same as the preceding
application, identical, recommending a non-turf buffer ten to 15
feet, and to remove the remnants of the groin on the east
property line.
Having discussed the prior application, are there any
questions concerning this?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants. I would say if
the conditions are the same as McFeely, it sounds good to me.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further discussion of the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application with the stipulation of a ten-foot non-turf buffer
and to remove the remnants of the old groin on the east property
line. So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 23, En-Consultants on behalf of SUE K.
ODELL requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
(inkind/inplace) existing 3' wide stairway and associated
landings. Located: 6500 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic.
The LWRP finds this to be exempt. The Conservation Advisory
Council was split. Doug Hardy found the bluff to be severely
eroded and recommends the application be resubmitted after the
Board of Trustees 91 February 20, 2013
bluff is stabilized. And others voted to support project.
On our field inspection, the Trustees recommended to reduce
the size of the mid-wade platform from 10x4' shown on the plans
to 8x4' to bring it into compliance with the code.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants. Mike's comments I
think date back to the hearing that was originally opened in
November. One of the issues we left this open for actually
responds to Mr. Hardy's comments, because it was that the time,
the original application was filed before Sandy. The Board
eventually heard it after Sandy. And so one of the things we had
set out to do was to propose a re-nourishment of the soil that
had been eroded behind the bulkhead. The bulkhead had been
recently permitted and recently reconstructed. It held up fine.
I met with Peter Sterling of Plantings By The Sea at the
property, and what you can now see on the property are those
various little terrace walls and the exposure of that concrete
retaining wall.
Given the, what Peter and I agreed, was more or less of a
lack of true functioning of that wall now, and both the cost and
disturbance that would be associated with removing it, Peter had
recommended basically replacing more or less in the same
locations those terrace walls that are deteriorating, and
basically re-nourishing the bluff or the bank, whatever you want
to call it, with sandy fill material that would in effect bury
the retaining wall.
During the summer you really can't see any of those
structures, and before Sandy you couldn't really see any of
those structures. So what we submitted was a revised plan dated
February 19th which shows the removal and replacement of those
timber terraces and replacement of re-nourishment material on
the bank face, which in effect responds to the one Conservation
Advisory Council concern about doing something with the slope,
while doing the stairway.
The other issue had to do with the size of the platform,
which my inference correctly or not seems to be the Board didn't
have a huge problem with the deck, but it would not have
conformed with the 32-square foot limitation in the code. We
were advised by Lori Hulse during that hearing that there had
been some discussions about changing that limitation. I
understand those changes have been passed by the Town Board and
so with respect to the stairs we are just back to the original
request of asking you just to allow us to replace what is there inplace.
So the plans that are in front of you now are different
from the ones that were in front of you in November, only for
the bank stabilization components. And for point of reference,
this property is adjacent to the Miller application that Josh
Horton was here for earlier. Miller is to the left of where Mike
is standing on the steps.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else to speak to this
application?
Board of Trustees 92 February 20, 2013
MR. HERRMANN: I think --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on, this is on Indian Neck Lane. This is
not adjacent to Miller.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Ruth Miller.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Oh, I'm sorry. We have various Miller's tonight.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Ruth Miller. The one Josh Horton was just
here for.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments or questions from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
per the plans submitted February and received February 20th, 2013.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Sorry, didn't get it out fast enough. Dave, at the
last hearing you had responded to a request, and it was a point
of bookkeeping basically, that the steps that come off the
bulkhead are at a slightly different configuration of what the
prior permit has shown from the steps off the beach. And
think we talked about as part of this application would you
simply say and for the beach steps as existing or something like
that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are we talking about O'Dell?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. So that as a point of bookkeeping there is a
consistency between the way the steps were built and how the
prior permit read. That got lost in the conversation. Basically
the steps there now, if that picture that Mike was standing on
the steps, go out perpendicular to the bulkhead, on the permit
the Trustees approved several years ago, the Trustees were kind
of--the Trustees weren't doing anything. The stairs were kind
of going along the side of the bulkhead. This is as minor--
TRUSTEE KING: The platform's sticking out and then steps down to
the beach.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is that what you want?
MR. HERRMANN: We want it the way it is here. This is as minor as
it gets but it was like, you know, we are getting to the point
now if anything is slightly different --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's what the plans show.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, they do.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We are good to go.
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, for all your time tonight. Seriously.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 25, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of MATTHEW
D. VOLPE requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 55
linear feet of storm damaged bulkhead in its original location
with new vinyl sheathing; stabilize existing deck with new
timber posts; deck dimensions to remain 12.5'x20.5'. Located
Board of Trustees 93 February 20, 2013
1700 Oak Drive, Southold.
This is found to be consistent with the LWRP, provided that
the applicant gains permission of the property owner to conduct
the action. I reviewed this as new construction as the action
does not have an existing permit. It was also found the part
stabilizing the existing deck for new timber posts and the deck
dimensions to remain 12.5'x20.5' is exempt from LWRP.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with the condition of a professionally rendered stabilization
plan for the slope and the deck is removed or moved landward to
the top of the bank.
When the Board was out there doing the inspection we also
noted we needed to move that deck landward, and we were also
recommending flow-through decking. This would be typical. We
don't like to see these decks cantilevered over the edge of the
bluff. Is there anybody here who would like to speak to this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. The
deck right now as it sits is obviously hanging over the bluff.
The client would like to keep it where it is, obviously, but if
we do need to move it, I would probably need to discuss that
with my client before just jumping to say that he's going to
move it. Is there any --. before I even say that, is there any
possibility what needs to happen for them to keep it where it
is, since it's pre-existing. Is there any even chance to come
back at all next month with the possibility of keeping it. ry
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would say probably not.
MR. PATANJO: So if there is no possibility of ever getting, I'm
going to say, I'll be okay with moving it back to the landward.
I'm going to change my answer.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's probably the one we are talking about in
the background. I think we'll also be discussing the same thing
on this. Which is not Volpe, actually, but Cosola. We had the
same issue with both of them. We come across these from time to
time. These were built prior to any kind of regulations. We
really need to bring these back. They are not supposed to be
cantilevering over the bluff. In fact they should be smaller
than this as well. But we have had those discussions, too, in
the past.
MR. PATANJO: Would the Board be opposed to keeping the same
size, same deck, just moving it back so it doesn't extend beyond
the crest of the bluff?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think that would be a step in the right
direction. How does everybody else feel?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I think it would be a step in the right
direction. And also suggest spacing so that sunlight passes
through the deck. One of the issues we have is you don't have
vegetation under the deck because of the lack of sunlight.
MR. PATANJO: What about the idea of putting some sort of
stabilization fabric with pea gravel under the deck to limit
erosion? Spacings and decks don't work out great especially if
Board of Trustees 94 February 20, 2013
you have a party with high heels.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How do you feel about using flow-through
decking?
MR. PATANJO: If it were me, I can't speak for my client.If it
were me, I would not want it on a deck right there. If it's
something over wetlands, I would agree with it. That is
typically, from what I have seen in the past, used over
vegetated wetlands, for the most part, yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In this particular case we are looking at it in
terms of being able to get sunlight through. If we move it back
off the bluff it would not be critical.
MR. PATANJO: If it moved back toward the bluff isn't it in
essence now a non-vegetated buffer?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If it goes back.
MR. PATANJO: You are allowed pea gravel on a non-vegetated
buffer.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Regarding the size of the deck, I mean earlier
tonight we adjusted somebody's application to 10x20 immediately
adjacent to the top of a bank or bluff. So for myself I would
like to see this downsized to 10x20. We are only talking about
two, roughly two-and-a-half foot coming down from one dimension.
That's just myself.
MR. PATANJO: For the record, I have a DEC permit for this
project. A full DEC permit, not an emergency. The emergency
ones are easy.
TRUSTEE KING: There isn't a hell of a lot of room. If he has to
come back four, it's going to be pretty close to the other deck.
MR. PATANJO: I was looking at that, too. It's extending the
other deck out.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So again, downsizing that to 10x20 would help a
little bit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And bringing it back off the bluff.
TRUSTEE KING: A couple feet anyway.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is that something you want us to move on tonight
or do you want to table it? How do you want to do it?
MR. PATANJO: I would like to walkaway with the permit, and if
need to come back with an amendment. So we can, I'll agree to
moving the deck back off the bluff and making it 10x20. And do
we still need to do pea gravel under it? Or since the deck is
part of the non-turf buffer, is that not required.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think we would be all right without it.
MR. PATANJO: When you say 10x20 can they go 8x22? Do you want a
maximum of 200-square feet?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sure. Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: Is there zoning on this?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Liz was saying it probably has to go to Zoning
because of the deck going over the bluff, but if.they move it
back, he may not. I don't know. That's up to the Building
Department, I guess. Any other comments?
Board of Trustees 95 February 20, 2013
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with the stipulation that the deck will be moved off the bluff
so it's not cantilevering over the bluff edge, and that the size
of the deck will be reduced to 200-square feet at a maximum.
MR. PATANJO: And you want revised plans?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, please. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number 26, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of HENRY
GOETZ requests a Wetland Permit to remove 77 linear feet of
existing timber bulkhead damaged by storm and replace with 77
linear feet of vinyl bulkhead and 15 linear feet of return in
same location as existing; remove existing timber deck supports
to construct bulkhead and replace with new timber supports;
existing deck (29'x31.5' overall) to remain undisturbed.
Located: 645 Richmond Road East, Southold.
This was found consistent with the LWRP. He wants a
non-turf buffer and a low sill bulkhead. The Conservation
Advisory Council supports the application, however recommends
all structures including the deck should be landward of the
bulkhead and the house should have gutters leading into drywells.
We didn't fill out any field notes. Is there anyone here to
speak on behalf of or against this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. With
regard to all the structures, keeping them all landward of the
bulkhead, we have no objection to moving the wooden shower
setup. We would like stairs down to the beach area, if possible.
Just a three-foot wide stairway going down in the face of the
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This was the one we couldn't get in there
because it wasn't plowed.
TRUSTEE KING: Oh, we couldn't get in there because of the
weather.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
MR. PATANJO: I got in.
TRUSTEE KING: I can't even picture the location.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was off 48 in Southold.
MR. PATANJO: Right across from the town beach, next to the
condominium place.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We saw Aviancha (sic) but we couldn't get into
Richmond.
TRUSTEE KING: Right. That's why there's no notes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's down on the water, right?
MR. PATANJO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: It looks like a timber retaining wall.
Board of Trustees 96 February 20, 2013
MR. PATANJO: Right now it's timber sheathing going the wrong
way. It's horizontal and it was blown out, a section due to this
hurricane, so they want to replace it the right way. And the
adjacent one just to the east is an existing bulkhead right
there to the east. We'll match the height on that one. And I
don't believe, I don't recall if that is --'I don't have photos.
TRUSTEE KING: Where do you stand with DEC on it?
MR. PATANJO: I have an emergency permit from the DEC right now.
TRUSTEE KING: You do, okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This was two properties over from --
Aviancha had one with an old structure that was creosote and
then there was a section they wanted to add that was not.
MR. PATANJO: Aviancha, I actually wrote the letter for Ann and
had her mail it in with a check for you guys. I was hoping to go
there with you to talk to that one and she's like, they were
here. Okay. And we could talk about that.
TRUSTEE KING: We did a pre-submission on that.
MR. PATANJO: I wanted to go there to get your ideas with that.
And I actually have the property one over to the east from the
vacant one from Aviancha that I'm working on, too.
TRUSTEE KING: I guess the light-colored area is the deck. I
think we need to look at it, really. I would feel more
comfortable if we looked at it. Maybe it was an all concrete
walkway or do you think that might have been a concrete
retaining wall that fell over at some time.
MR. PATANJO: I believe it's a walkway because it is consistent
down the road. There are some other ones over there.
TRUSTEE KING: That's something we would probably would want to
see removed. I would be more comfortable if we tabled this and
look at it next month.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree.
TRUSTEE KING: Is that agreeable with everybody?
(Affirmative response).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Closer to Spring, anyway.
TRUSTEE KING: Hopefully there will be no snow. I'll make a
motion to table this application to inspect it next month.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 27, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of MANNING
CREDIT SHELTER TRUST MANNVIEWE LLC, c/o PHILIP MANNING, requests
a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 100 linear feet of
existing bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; raise bulkhead top cap
elevation four feet above existing; import 130 cubic yards clean
sand fill behind bulkhead; plant disturbed bluff with beach
grass; reconstruct 32-square foot timber platform and steps to
beach. Located: 1470 Jackson Street, New Suffolk.
The Board did go out and looked at this one. Hiking through
the deep snow to get there. And it was reviewed under the LWRP,
found to be consistent, noting that no permits were found for
the structures proposed to be replaced. The Conservation
Board of Trustees 97 February 20, 2013
Advisory Council supports application to replace the bulkhead
however does not support raising the bulkhead to four foot in
height. Conservation Advisory Council further recommends runoff
from the top of the bluff is addressed and the installation of a
20-foot non-turf buffer. Is there anyone anybody here to speak
on behalf of this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. Your
comment from the Conservation Advisory Council does not support
the raising of this bulkhead. Right now the bulkhead is, was a
little taller than it is, but there was a lot of sand brought
up, or brought down, I should say. During the storm, all of the
stairways, all the bluffs, were severely eroded. The raising of
the bulkhead would be consistent to the bulkhead to the west.
Their bulkhead sticks out of the water, I should say the series,
because I'm doing three in a row right here. Three of these
applications are in a row on Jackson. The furthest most property
on Jackson, I believe it's 1370, there is a bulkhead, they will
tie into there, that is approximately three feet out of the
ground already. Three to four feet. So we are trying to
maintain consistency with the elevated height. And during the
storm it was noted from the homeowners that the tide and the
waves were crashing over the bluff, that the tide raised
approximately four or five feet above where the existing
bulkhead sits right now. So the whole intent of this is during
future storms to stop the erosion due to the wave action by
means of raising the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have a question here in that I'm looking as at
the survey for this property and the proposed set of plans. It
shows that the part of the existing stairs and landing actually
goes across the property line on to the joining property.
MR. PATANJO: That's correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So in your description here to reconstruct a
32-foot timber platform and steps to the beach, that would be
that lower landing?
MR. PATANJO: The lower one, correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. This is, again, I wish we had legal
counsel here because this is all one structure. It's not a
separated structure. In other words, stairs to the beach and
that lower platform are clearly on the applicant's property. But
they're attached to stairs further going up the bluff with two
platforms that are clearly not entirely on the applicant's
property. So I don't know how we could approve that structure
since we would be in essence approving,a total structure that
would be across the property line, pieces of it would be across
the property line.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So you'll have to go and get permission from the
adjoining --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't think permission will do it. I think he
has to move the permitted structure so it's on the applicant's
property.
MR. PATANJO: They actually own the adjacent property as well.
Board of Trustees 98 February 20, 2013
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Which is probably why they didn't make a big
deal about it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm kind of familiar with the history here. I
know it was two brothers originally. But the property to the
west I thought had been sold and is under, I think is Brusco at
1600. I'm not sure, but you have Brusco and you have Bellando.
Neither one of them are Manning anymore.
MR. PATANJO: And I'm representing those two applications as
well.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it's not owned by the same family any longer.
So what I would recommend, again, is that if we are going to
approve the stairs to the beach and the.platform that is also
connected to the stairs going up the bluff, that at the same
time that entire stair structure be moved over so it's all on
the applicant's property.
MR. PATANJO: I can agree to that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want to move it 15 feet?
MR. PATANJO: I'm not familiar with the exact code for this area
but 15 sounds a little much.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The code for docks is 15 foot. I'm just not sure
for the code for stairs.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we have anything in the code for
stairs.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because I remember that one on Paradise Point.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm just using it as a reference point.
MR. PATANJO: I think just for the applicant and the expense of
moving it over, moving it 15 feet will be a lot harder to do
than moving it five feet over, for instance, just to get it off
the property line. Moving it five feet, they can easily build
the other structure and slide it over to the other one. 15 feet
is a little more work.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They could possibly move it to use the set
of, depending on how it's constructed, they could use some of
the same supports, just flip it.
MR. PATANJO: Put another set and slide it over. That's the five
feet idea.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we don't have on here is what the size of
those landings are that are associated with the stairs to the
beach, so they would have to conform with code, which is
100-square feet maximum.
MR. PATANJO: No problem.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We'd need a revised set of plans, I suppose.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. With regard to the bulkhead, again, since
it's raising it to an elevation that would equal the bulkhead to
the adjoining property, I don't have a problem with that at all.
MR. PATANJO: Right now the one next to the adjoining property is
approximately three to four feet high. We wanted to, and there
is scouring behind that. We wanted to go to five-and-a-half feet
out of the ground, which is raising it approximately four feet
from the existing top cap elevation, and we are trying to create
a consistency through all the bulkheads there.
Board of Trustees 99 February 20, 2013
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Raising it that high, I don't see, or-- I'm
sorry, you do have in here to bring in 130 cubic yards of sand.
That would be a sufficient amount of fill?
MR. PATANJO: Approximately, like in the previous application if
we could put a plus or minus with that. And in addition, any
disturbed bluff area will be planted with Cape American Beach
Grass for stabilization.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: How does the Board feel about the need for a
non-turf buffer up at the top of the bluff?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm never against non-turf buffers.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Looks like currently your elevation is six foot
at the current level, going up to approximately 18 foot at the
top of the bluff, so if you are raising that up by four feet,
roughly, it will be new elevation will be ten, raising to 18, so
you have an eight foot rise there of bluff is what it will
result in.
MR. PATANJO: Which will be planted with the beach grass.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would seem to serve the purpose of a
non-turf buffer in itself.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think if the entire area between bulkhead and
top of bluff were to be remain planted with Cape American Beach
Grass or native species, I think that's fine, because again we
are only talking an elevation of eight foot total there over
that distance. Six to eight foot, actually.
Is the Board comfortable with that?
TRUSTEE KING: Sorry, Dave, I missed what you said.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We were just talking about the need for a
non-turf buffer and with the raising of the bulkhead from an
elevation from six to approximately ten, actually a little lower
than that, and top of bluff elevation going from 16 to 18, there
is a rise there six to eight feet total on the bluff. If that
was just maintained with Cape American Beach Grass and native
species, is there a need then for a non-turf buffer at the top
of the bluff.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Not really. Not if it's not sloping, you know.
The problem is sometimes you get that mowed area.
TRUSTEE KING: Lots of times they mow to the top of the bluff.
Even if they just a couple of feet landward of the top.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Like we did on that one in Nassau Point we just
did tonight. You couldn't mow in front of the fence.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, it was like two or three feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would you be comfortable with ten-foot non-turf
buffer there at the top of bluff.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sure, he has plenty of backyard. He could do
it. It would actually look pretty nice.
TRUSTEE KING: Works for me.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
If not I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 100 February 20, 2013
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make motion to approve the application of
Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of Manning Credit Shelter Trust
Mannviewe LLC with the conditions that the platforms and stairs
leading to the top of the bulkhead be moved so that they are all
on the applicant's property; that a ten-foot non-turf buffer be
maintained or be included at the top of the bluff, landward of
the top of the bluff; and the bluff be vegetated with Cape
American Beach Grass or other native species. This would be
subject to the receipt of a new set of plans. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 28, Jeffrey Patanjo
on behalf of JOSEPH O. BRUSCO requests a Wetland Permit to
remove and replace 130 linear feet of existing bulkhead with
vinyl bulkhead; raise bulkhead top cap elevation four-feet above
existing; import 130 cubic yards of clean sand fill behind
bulkhead; plant disturbed bluff with beach grass; remove and
re-install existing timber walkway and stairs in original
location and dimensions. Located: 1600 Jackson Street, New
Suffolk.
The project is determined to be consistent and inconsistent
under the LWRP. The reason for the inconsistency is the top
platform associated with the stairs scales out at 105-square
feet on the plans. It had a prior permit and was actually a bit
smaller under the prior permit.
The Conservation Advisory Council supported the application
but they had problems with the height. I think we addressed that
with the discussion of the neighboring one that just preceded.
And they were recommending, the Conservation Advisory Council is
recommending a 25-foot non-turf buffer in total.
We did the field inspection. It was simply'a concern on the
inspection concerning what appears to be a metal groin, a groin
almost of galvanized or aluminum that was on the beach and there
is additional notes here, I guess Jim or Elizabeth performed an
office permit survey and says there is no groin permit, that we
only found the sold survey, which is included in the file, but
there was a permit for the stairs and platform. So that new
groin construction, the Board may wish to discuss issues
surrounding that. Is there anyone here to speak to this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. I have
nothing to say about the groin. I didn't put it in. We'll agree
to a ten-foot non-turf buffer and that's all.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We figured you didn't put it in since it's
attached to a tree.
TRUSTEE KING: It's been there a while, from the size of the
tree.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The tree is having trouble growing out over
it.
Board of Trustees 101 February 20, 2013
MR. PATANJO: I think it would be tough to ask my client to
remove that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Why?
MR. PATANJO: The cost associated with it, I think.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It might be a case where the, this is up to
discussion, to have it conform and get a permit on it and get it
low profile.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's a question of need, too. You can't just
throw groins up wherever you want. I mean there is a ton of them
there already.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I think it should come out.
MR. PATANJO: Is it hurting anything being there? If it's steel,
it's steel bulkhead, I mean, they would be used for 60, 70 years
now.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, that's not what it is.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It appears it might even be aluminum.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It didn't look that old. It looks like it was
put up a couple of years ago, the tree is trying to grow, so
it's kind of sticking out.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's having a huge impact on the
beach.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The old survey showed two groins across the
front of the property. Under a previous property owner it shows
here, the name was Gerards, I guess we had here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have to agree with Bob, I mean it was never
permitted, you know, I don't think we can just ignore it, and
then the message we are sending it, is go ahead, just build them
without permits. I think it should be taken out, or if they
want to apply for it, they could apply for it as a low profile
and it would have to be adjusted accordingly with the dimensions
to match a low profile groin.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The other aspect, too, is it's not constructed
the way it would normally be constructed. You can't cut that. It
seems to be, I mean there no cap on it or anything. It's just
railing with corrugated --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's dangerous.
MR. PATANJO: What about the option of adding a condition to the
permit we can cut it and put a standard bulkhead untreated with
a cap on it, with say 3x8 on each side with top cap on it. Leave
it where it is and lower it to the elevation you would like.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't want to seem like I'm breaking chops
here, but the thing is not even 90 degrees off the bulkhead.
It's sticking like this. Give me a reason for it. It's just there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's exactly what I was going to say. It's not
doing anything now. It's not functioning.
MR. PATANJO: Would you be all right with the idea of cutting it
down, like I believe Jim said?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No.
MR. PATANJO: You want it removed entirely.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You can't attach it to a tree.
MR. PATANJO: Do I need a tree removal permit?
Board of Trustees 102 February 20, 2013
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe there is a permit history there with
the DEC or something else that maybe to allow the applicant
additional time to research this and talk with the owner. Maybe
it was a prior owner of the property.
MR. PATANJO: I have no history or it's not showing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's difficult to approve a bulkhead here
and have this hanging out as an issue, but if the applicant is
willing to have us table this and have an opportunity to
research the issue surrounding, maybe he has some legal status,
they could always apply as an as-built with modifications.
MR. PATANJO: How about I say we'll add a condition to remove it.
That gets me out of here with a permit?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have to work through other issues first.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The deck is 105-square feet to 100-square
feet. Hopefully that would be --
MR. PATANJO: That's the upper deck?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's the upper deck. The LWRP coordinator
scaled that being just a little over the size, the permitted size.
MR. PATANJO: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would address the inconsistency and
then the concern over the illegal groin construction would seem
to be addressed by its removal as a condition of this permit.
MR. PATANJO: There was another application earlier today that
was 120-square feet and that was okay. Is there a possibility of
keeping this one?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was a deck that was landward of the top of
a bluff. This is a deck associated with stairs to the beach and
that the code was 32-square feet and was just recently moved up
to a hundred.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The difference there was trying to get that
20-square feet was going to cause more damage than it was worth.
MR. PATANJO: So shrink that by five-square feet. Which is a foot
off of it, maybe nine inches off one end.
TRUSTEE KING: That's a deck seaward of the bulkhead, right?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Appears.so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments or concerns?
(No response).
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 would make a motion to approve the
application as submitted with the stipulation that the upper
deck be reduced to 100-square feet; that there be a ten-foot
non-turf buffer at the top of the replanted bluff; that the
metal groin found on field inspection on February 17th be
removed in its entirety; and that a set of plans depicting the
proposed removal of the groin, which did not show on our plan,
and that 100-foot top square deck and ten-foot non-turf buffer
be submitted, thereby bringing this application into consistency
with the code and also consistent under the LWRP. So moved.
Board of Trustees 103 February 20, 2013
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 29, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JOHN W.
BELLANDO requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 100
linear feet of existing bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; raise
bulkhead top cap elevation four-feet above existing; import 130
cubic yards of clean sand fill behind bulkhead; plant disturbed
bluff with beach grass; replace existing deck and stairs to
pre-hurricane location and dimensions. Located: 1370 Jackson
Street, New Suffolk.
This is very similar to the previous application in that it
is inconsistent and consistent. The inconsistency is the size of
the platform, the wooden platform associated with the stairs.
And the Conservation Advisory Council voted to support the
application. They have a question about the height, which was
addressed in previous applications. And they recommended a
20-foot non-turf buffer. Is there anyone here to speak to this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. I'm
just trying to confirm where that platform is. I believe it's
beyond the top of the bluff. I do not identify the bluff line on
the plan, unfortunately.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I don't see it either.
MR. PATANJO: I think that's -- yes, that's on the bluff,
actually. That's going to be overhanging the bluff, so.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It would appear to be because of the number
platforms above it.
MR. PATANJO: Yes, it got knocked down during the storm.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else to speak to this application?
(No response). .
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, 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
with the stipulation that the upper deck, that the deck be
reduced to comply with present code of 100-square feet or less.
And the addition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer, thereby bringing
it into consistency with LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 30, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of NSHE
WILLIAMSTON LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
88 linear feet of deteriorated bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead
in same location; stabilize bank with Cape American Beach Grass;
remove and replace existing 6.4'x3.2' stairway and 8x4' platform
as required to construct bulkhead. Located: 220 West Shore
Board of Trustees 104 February 20, 2013
Drive, Southold.
The LWRP found this to be consistent with LWRP. It does
note that permits for the proposed structures were not found.
They were reviewed as new construction. The Conservation
Advisory Council resolved to support the application.
When we were out in the field and we took a look at it,
this was at the road end, this is a road end view to the
property right next door, which was a common area for the
community, looks like. And we didn't find any issues whatsoever.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's not a picture of the property.
MR. PATANJO: If I could add one thing. I have a DEC permit for
the project and the client would like to add a return on the
east end. He's doing 1700 Oak, which is the Volpe property, and
this is right next door. Sorry, we are tying into a good
bulkhead on the west side and the person between this one,
Cosola, is not doing a bulkhead, and it's in poor condition so
we want to protect our property with a 15-foot return.
TRUSTEE KING: This wasn't the one where the garage door was
open, is it?
MR. PATANJO: Yes, it was. And I called them. I'm friends with a
cop and he went over there and checked it out.
TRUSTEE KING: The door was open, all the doors were unlocked
MR. PATANJO: I called her and the caretaker was supposed to be
watching the house. She.was just there on Tuesday, so. He went
there. They looked at it.
TRUSTEE KING: Good thing it wasn't further west. But the other
door right into the house was unlocked, too.
MR. PATANJO: He said he went in, nothing.-was taken and she knows
about it. So I appreciate the call.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Here we go. That's the one. It's
straightforward. This is not at the road end. This is not a road
end view. This is just a stair replacement due to storm damage.
MR. PATANJO: And the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Correct. And we did not have any issues out in
the field. So any comments, questions from the Board?
(No response).
I don't have to make any changes to this, right?
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: 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 KING: Number 31, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of 430 WSD
LLC, c/o PETER COSOLA requests a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace 100 linear feet of existing bulkhead with new vinyl
bulkhead; install 20' long returns on both sides and an
additional 100'long by four foot tall vinyl retaining wall set
Board of Trustees 105 February 20, 2013
back ten feet landward on top of proposed bulkhead to be
replaced; remove and replace existing 7x18' lower deck;
stabilize upper 18.25'x27' deck with new timber supports;
establish a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer along the top of the
bank; and to legalize the "as-built" 24.5'x20' stone patio and
associated walkways. Located: 430 West Shore Drive, Southold.
This was consistent and inconsistent.
MR. PATANJO: That previous application, do we have an amendment
on there for the return in your reading.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: On the Williamston?
MR. PATANJO: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, I didn't add that.
I'll make a motion to reopen the hearing of NSHE Williamston.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So I'll just re-do the motion, that's all.
Motion to approve the application as submitted with the addition
of a 15-foot return and the submission of revised plans. Which
side will you be putting it on?
MR. PATANJO: On the east side.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: On the east side. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
-TRUSTEE KING: Now going back to number 31, the LWRP coordinator
found replacing the bulkhead and additional retaining wall ten
feet landward from top of the bulkhead, all that is consistent
with the LWRP. It's my recommendation that the proposed action
to remove and replace existing 7x18 lower deck, stabilize upper
18.25'x27' deck with new timber supports and to legalize the
as-built 24:5'x20' stone patio and associated walkways are
inconsistent with LWRP.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application, establish a ten-foot non-turf buffer along the top
of the bank and legalize as-built 24.5'x20' stone patio and
associated walkways.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. And
there were a couple of comments, sorry, I was trying to review
what I had here. Did they, were there any issues that needed to
be addressed on this one?
TRUSTEE KING: I think the decks are the big issue.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Same as the other one.
MR. PATANJO: Yes, the deck is hanging over the bluff, obviously.
There is a lower portion of the bluff that is over the hundred
square foot limit.
TRUSTEE KING: Our field notes were to downsize the deck and move
it landward.
MR. PATANJO: Is it a possibility of making the lower deck that
Board of Trustees 106 February 20, 2013
would be in between the bulkhead and the new retaining wall to a
hundred square foot and utilize that as a platform for stairs?
And then we'll, we can move the upper deck back?
TRUSTEE KING: That sounds reasonable.
MR. PATANJO: You should have a set of revised plans dated
1/27/13 in the revision box showing the patio and all. And it
does include a ten-foot non-turf buffer on the plans already.
TRUSTEE KING: These are the plans we need.
MR. PATANJO: There was the original application, then a revised
application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The ones in front of me dated December 10, 2012,
stamped received January 29, 2013, they show a ten-foot non-turf
buffer. I just want to make sure we are on the same page here.
MR. PATANJO: I have, I added walkways and the deck dimensions to
the latest drawing. I only have a copy of what I sent you. I
don't have multiple copies.
TRUSTEE KING: I think this is up to date.
MR. PATANJO: That's it. 1/27/13
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I also have in my notes, retaining wall,
location of the retaining wall was not staked. So we didn't know
exactly where this retaining wall was going.
MR. PATANJO: It's ten foot directly behind the bulkhead, and
it's dimensions are on the drawing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I see that here. It was interesting for us
coming up the stairs and looking underneath this deck that is
cantilevered out, completely devoid of any type of vegetation,
and it's a classic example of why we do not want to see this
happening, because it is actually harmful for the property
owner. He ended up putting in looks like sacks of Sacrete
concrete in there, whatever, and, you know, this is just a
perfect example of why we don't want these decks cantilevered
out.
MR. PATANJO: No vegetation is exactly what causes the erosion.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't see the second deck down on these plans.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Right here, 18x7.
TRUSTEE KING: All right, so -- so that could be 100 square feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it's associated with stairs.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have an issue with that. The top deck.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Pull it back, maximum 10x20.
TRUSTEE KING: So --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 200 square foot, move it back, just lake the
neighbor's --
TRUSTEE KING: That's the best we can do.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it's landward of the top of the bluff and
combine that with ten foot non-turf buffer up there that is
already proposed.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That should be good.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Did anybody have any issues with the
existing stone patio, 20x24?
Board of Trustees 107 February 20, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: I don't feel there is a big issue with that.
don't think it's causing any problems.
It was built without a permit. We had some problems on this
property.
MR. PATANJO: That's why I added to clean up. From what I
understand, the original permit was not closed out properly, so
this was all added.
TRUSTEE KING: I think there was a violation here in the old
file.
TRUSTEE KING: There was this clearing done and things brought
without permits. There is a little history with this 'piece. If
I have in my mind right, approve the bulkhead, retaining wall,
lower deck needs to be 100 square feet. Upper deck to be moved
landward and no larger than 200 square feet. So that will be my
motion. We'll approve the bulkhead 20-foot return with a
proposed 100-foot upper retaining wall. The lower deck shall be
downsized to 100-square feet, and the upper deck will be moved
landward from the top of the bluff to be no larger than
200-square feet, with a ten-foot buffer long the top of the bluff.
I'll make a motion to close the hearing first.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING.: And my motion is for a 20-foot return, no
retaining walls, lower deck downsized to 100-square feet; upper
deck no larger than 200-square feet, and be moved landward of
the top of the bluff, with a ten-foot non-turf buffer from the
top of the'bank-landward. And a new set of plans showing, to
indicate that. And existing stone patio and walkways are all
included in this permit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Let it be noted we all approved to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: That's my motion. That brings it into consistency
with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BERGEN:-I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor.?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
RECEIVED
James F. King, P esident
MAY 1 6 2013 Board of Trustees
Soul old Town Clerk