HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-12/18/2018 Michael J.Domino,President '®f so Town Hall Annex
®� 54375 Route 25
John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President e�
i=_ r P.O.Box 1179
Glenn Goldsmith e
Southold,New York 11971
A.Nicholas Krupski Telephone(631) 765-1892
GregWilliams ~ _A��® Fax(631) 765-6641
'k-
17 OWN
n
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RECEIVED
a
Minutes 2� ��: ��M
Wednesday, December 12, 2018 (.G?l j"
5:30 PM Southold Town Clerk
Present Were: Michael J. Domino, President
John M. Bredemeyer, Vice-President
Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Greg Williams, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist
Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 5:30 PM at the Main
Meeting Hall
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 4:OOPM at the Town
Hall Annex 2nd floor Board Room
WORK SESSIONS: Monday, January 14, 2019 at 4:30 PM at the Town Hall Annex 2nd
floor Board Room, and on Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 5:00
PM at the Main Meeting Hall
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of November 14, 2018.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good evening and welcome to our Wednesday, December 12th,
2018, monthly meeting. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order and
ask that we stand for the pledge.
(Pledge of Allegiance).
I would like to recognize the people on the dais. To my left, Trustee John
Bredemeyer, Trustee Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee Nick Krupski and Trustee Greg
Williams. To my right I have Assistant Town attorney Damon Hagan and Senior
Clerk Typist Elizabeth Cantrell. And also with us tonight we have our stenographer
Wayne Galante. And the Conservation Advisory Council member is James Abbott.
Agendas are located in the hall as well as on the podium, if you have not picked
Board of Trustees 2 December 12, 2018
one up yet.
I would like to announce the postponements right now. Starting with page eleven
of our agenda. They are listed as follows:
We have number three, Bulkhead Permits by Gary, Inc. on behalf of HARRY
BASHIAN & HAYKUHI BASHIAN requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to replace all existing 41' long, 41.5' long and 61.5' long navy
bulkheading in-place with new navy bulkheading using vinyl sheathing; along the
61.5' long bulkhead section, install (1) one 61.5' row of toe armor stone
using a minimum of >18"x18"x18" and (1) one ton stones with geotextile filter
fabric placed underneath; replace existing 12'x26.4', 12'x26.4' and 15.5'x61.5'
sections of"U" shaped decking with new decking in-place using untreated lumber
and supported by 30 new 10"x20' pressure-treated timber piles; under the ±20'x61.5'
deck area add approximately 125 cubic yards of clean beach sand backfill from
an authorized upland source; and for the existing 26.4'x36.3' two-story dwelling.
Located: 58425 North Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44-2-15, has been postponed.
Number four, Docko, Inc. on behalf of DONALD W. YOUNG REV.
TRUST & KELLY C. YOUNG REV. TRUST requests a Wetland Permit and
a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a ±160 linear foot long by four-foot wide fixed
wood pile and timber pier including railings on both sides, water, and electrical utilities
of which ±132 linear feet of the pier to be waterward of the Apparent High Water Line;
install an 8'x20' floating dock supported by four(4) piles with associated 3.5'x24'
hinged access ramp off of seaward most end of fixed pier; and install three tie-off piles.
Located: Off East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-3-2-2, has been postponed.
On pages 15 and 16, we have numbers 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 have been
postponed. They are listed as follows:
Number 13, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of CHARLES & BRENDA
GRIMES requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 15'x24' bluestone patio on sand;
stepping stone paths; 4'x6' steps; a 4'x158' fixed dock utilizing "Thru-Flow" decking; a
3'x12' ramp; and a 6'x20' float secured by two (2) piles.
Located: 4145 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-12.6
Number 14, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of ROBERT & MARY KATE
DIGREGORIO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x87' fixed catwalk with a
3'x16' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6'x20' seasonal floating dock situated in an "L"
configuration; install four 8" diameter float anchor pilings; proposed floating dock to be
chocked 1' off bottom at mean low water; install a 3' wide crossover catwalk stairway;
and construct a 4'x8' platform and 3'x8' steps landward of masonry wall.
Located: 1000 Oak Street, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-136-1-36
Number 15, Isaac Clay Coffey on behalf of CHRISTOPHER TAENDLER requests a
Wetland Permit for the existing set of bluff stairs consisting of a 3.3'x6' top landing to a
3.3'x16' set of stairs to a 6.9'x6.3' middle landing to a 3.3'x15.4' set of stairs to a 3.6'x3.4'
cantilevered landing off retaining wall to a 3.3'x7.3' set of stairs to a 7.3'x13.8' (100sq.ft.)
brick patio between retaining wall and bulkhead; and for a 3.6'x4' cantilevered platform
off bulkhead with 3.3'x7.3' steps to beach.
Located: 6725 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-15-8.1
Number 16, Brett Kehl on behalf of SCOTT & SUSAN AMBROSIO request a
Wetland Permit to demolish existing one-story residence; existing foundation to remain
and be raised approximately 2' in order to meet FEMA elevation requirements; extend
foundation approximately 10' landward; construct a proposed 34'1"x34' two-story
dwelling with 34'1"x2'10.5' front porch; raise existing 30'8"x22'waterside patio
approximately 2' and modify/lengthen existing T wide steps to ground off patio
to accommodate new height; remove existing outdoor shower and construct a 4'x10'6"
Board of Trustees 3 December 12, 2018
l
outdoor shower with two (2) new steps to grade; abandon existing septic system and
install new septic system on the landward side of the dwelling; add 900 cubic yards
of clean fill landward of dwelling for the proposed sanitary system; move existing
8'4"x12'3" shed closest to the dwelling approximately 7' landward; replace existing wood
tie planter with new 3'wide by 28" high wood planter around waterside patio
and re-vegetate; install a raised 4'x8' platform for two (2) A/C units on westerly side of
dwelling supported by a 12" Sona tube on an 18"x18"x12" concrete footing; install
gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff, and install a line of silt
fencing prior to and during construction, as per Chapter 236 of the Town Code
Stormwater Management.
Located: 1940 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-7-16.1
Number 17, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of THOMAS V. PERILLO;
JR. & CHRISTOPHER PERIL'LO requests a Wetland Permit to remove
the'existing block wall and install 100 linear feet of rock revetment consisting of.4-5
ton lower course stone and 2-3 ton upper course stone placed in an interlocking
manner, landward of the Mean High Water line; and to install and perpetually
maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the rock revetment.
Located: 1400 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-145-2-17.4
Number 18, Cole Environmental Services, Inc. on behalf of SALLY COONAN
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' high by 15' long timber retaining wall with
a 10"easterly return and a 12' westerly return; the top or filled area of the retaining
wall to be vegetated with native beach grass and other salt tolerant coastal plant
species; create a 6" earthen berm along the landward edge of the property scarp;
add two (2) 4' wide by 6' deep dry wells to collect surface and roof runoff from
dwelling and patio 'interconnected to a 4'x24' French Drain; add two (2) 8'x12' deep
storm drains in the middle of the property to contain runoff emanating from adjacent
properties; install 6" to 8" earthen berm within property lines and install three (3)
8'x12' interconnected storm drains with drains to be installed slightly below grade; and
install a 2'x16' trench drain at the entry point of storm water coming from the road and
surrounding properties.
Located: 2662 Paradise Shores Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-80-1-4
And Number 19, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of ALISON BYERS
requests a Wetland Permit to construct 400' of low profile rock revetment on west beach
area to match previously installed 230' section; fill void areas landward with
excavated materials; regrade areas and revegetate with Cape American beach grass;
remove 155' of existing rock revetment on south beach area and reconstruct in new
configuration west of present location; construct 22' of new vinyl bulkhead as a
continuation of existing sheet steel bulkhead's south return; fill void area landward and
regrade as needed; construct beach access stairs consisting of landward ±3' wide by 4'
long sections of terracing steps leading down to a set of±3'x10' steps with handrails to
bottom of bluff; construct±3'x3'4" steps with handrails off bulkhead to beach; and to
mulch balance of walkway to top of bluff.
Located: 1033 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-119-1-14.1 & 14.2.
Those have all been'postponed.
I wish to announce at this time that under Town Code Chapter 275-8(c), the files
were officially closed seven days ago, and submission of paperwork after that date,
including tonight, may result in the delay of the processing of the application.
At this time I'll entertain a motion to have our next field inspection Tuesday,
January 8th, 2019, at 8:00 AM at the Town Annex.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
Board of Trustees 4 December 12, 2018
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to entertain a motion to hold the next Trustee meeting
Wednesday, January 16th, 2019, at 5:30 PM at the main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'd like a motion to hold the next work session at the Town Annex board room,
second floor, Monday, January 14, 2019, and on Wednesday, at 5:00 PM, January
16th, at the main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Also, that our organizational meeting be held on Wednesday,
January 2nd, 2019, at 4:00,PM at the Town Hall Annex, second floor board room.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. -
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
At this time I'll entertain a motion to approve the Minutes of the November 14th,
2018, monthly meeting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for November 2018. A check for
$13,667.90 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 IX Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, December 12, 2018, are classified as Type II
Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review
under SEQRA:
i
Board of Trustees 5 December 12, 2018
Pasquale Sicuranza SCTM# 1000-53-3-9
Christopher Taendler SCTM# 1000-111-15-8.1
Sigurdsson Baldur, LLC, c/o Wade Guyton, Manager SCTM# 1000-50-1-4
Drouzas Real Estate Development Corp. SCTM# 1000-52-2-20.1
David Schultz SCTM# 1000-139-2-3
Andrew Semons SCTM# 1000-64-3-2.2
Robyn Romano 2015 Family Trust & Joseph P. Romano 2015 Family Trust
SCTM# 1000-71-1-14
Scott & Susan Ambrosio SCTM# 1000-104-7-16.1
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town
of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in
Section IX Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday,
December 12th, 2018, are classified as Unlisted Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules
and Regulations:
Dennis Ude SCTM# 1000-70-5-36
Michael Mutsakis & Evelyn Capassakis SCTM# 51-4-16.1
Robert & Mary Kate DiGregorio SCTM# 1000-136-1-36
TEAMC99A Properties, LLC SCTM# 1000-77-1-6
Laurelwood Estates Property Owners Association SCTM#
1000-145-2-18
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS - OTHER:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: WHEREAS, there has been presented to the Town Board of
Trustees of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 12th day of
December, 2018, a desire to close certain waters within Mill Creek in the Hamlet of
Greenport now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED that the Town Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold will hold a public
hearing on the aforesaid resolution at Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold,
New York, on the 16th day of January, 2019, at 5:34 p.m., at which time all interested
persons will be given an opportunity to be heard.
BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold as follows:
I. Purpose
The purpose of this proposed closure is to preserve our natural resources and shell
fisheries to allow for replenishment and growth.
Board of Trustees 6 December 12, 2018
II. Amendment
RESOLVED, that,the Southold Town Board of Trustees in an effort to preserve our
natural resources and shell fisheries hereby designates the following,waters a restricted
area pursuant to Chapter 219-16 (Shellfish) of the Code of the Town of Southold where
shell fishing shall not be permitted for the years 2019 and 2020:
The waters of Mill Creek in the Hamlet of Southold located within the following boundary:
West of an imaginary line commencing from a point at a painted yellow 4"x4" stake
located at 410 5'67.245" North 72° 24' 46.92" West running northward to a point at a
painted yellow 4"x4" stake at the foot of Beverly Road at the corner of a concrete
retaining wall located at 410 5' 18.52" North 720 24' 45.46" West; and
North of an imaginary line commencing at a painted yellow 4"x4" stake at the foot of
Meadow Lane at a point located at 410 4' 58.62" North 72° 24' 55.37" West running
westward to a painted yellow 4"x4" stake in front of a large rock at a point located at 41°
4' 58'.9" North 720 24' 46.00"West.
III. SEVERABILITY
If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this resolution shall be adjudged
by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not affect the
validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be
unconstitutional or invalid.
IV. EFFECTIVE DATE
This shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Town Clerk as provided by law.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number two, RESOLVED, the Board of Trustees
of the Town of Southold, after coordination with the other
appropriate agencies, hereby declare itself Lead Agency in
regards to the application of ALISON BYERS; Located: 1033 Nassau
Point Road, Cutchogue; SCTM# 1000-119-1-14.1 & 14.2
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and.seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO NEW
YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT NYCCR PART 617:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under Roman numeral V, number one,
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of ALISON
BYERS requests a Wetland Permit to construct 400' of low profile rock revetment on
west beach area to match previously,installed 230' section; fill void areas landward with
excavated materials; regrade areas and revegetate with Cape American beach grass;
remove 155' of existing rock revetment on south beach area and reconstruct in new
Board of Trustees 7 December 12, 2018
configuration west of present location; construct 22' of new vinyl bulkhead as a
continuation of existing sheet steel bulkhead's south return; fill void area landward and
regrade as needed; construct beach access stairs consisting of landward ±3' wide by 4'
long sections of terracing steps leading down to a set of±3'x10' steps with handrails to
bottom of bluff; construct ±3'x3'4" steps with handrails off bulkhead to beach; and to
mulch balance of walkway to top of bluff.
Located: 10335 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-119-1-14.1 & 14.2
S.E.Q.R.A. POSITIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2018 the Southold Town Board of Trustees found that the
application of ALISON BYERS is to be classified as an Unlisted Action Positive Decision
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations. A Short Environmental Assessment Form
and a field inspection have been completed by the Board of Trustees and it is hereby
determined that it will have a significant effect on the environment, and;
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with this project having
visited the site on October 10, 2018 and having considered Costello Marine Contracting
Corp. Plans for this project dated June 26, 2018 showing the proposed revetment,
bulkheading, terracing and bluff stabilization, and the January 6, 2012 topographical
survey prepared by Robert H. Fox showing the existing bulkheading and water depths,
and;
WHEREAS, in reviewing the project plans dated June 26, 2018, it has been determined
by the Southold Town Board of Trustees that not all potentially significant environmental
concerns have been addressed as noted herein:
Existing rocks or boulders are to be utilized, moved, or relocated on the beach.
Access to the site for construction.
Vegetative, non-structural measures may be capable of stabilizing the erosion of
the bluff alone.
Reconstruction and relocation of the existing 155 foot rock revetment has not
been shown to be necessary.
As time progresses, continued soil loss at the toe of the proposed 22 feet of new
vinyl bulkheading may lead to complete loss of bluff stability.
A site inspection by the Southold Town Board of Trustees on October 10, 2018
did not recognize severe erosion on this property and questions the need for bluff
stabilization/erosion control plan.
THEREFORE, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees
Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Positive Declaration pursuant to
r SEQRA for the aforementioned project. Located: 10335 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
Alice son buyers. SCTM# 1000-119-1-14. 1 and 14. 2 stabilization. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:
En-Consultants on behalf of TEAMC99A PROPERTIES, LLC requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock with water and electricity consisting
of a 4'x8' landward ramp leading to a 4'x39' fixed elevated catwalk constructed with
open-grate decking; a 3'x14' hinged ramp; and a 6'x20' floating dock situated in an
"L" shaped configuration and secured by four (4) 8" diameter pilings, and equipped
with chocks to support float.
Located: 980 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-1-6
Board of Trustees 8 December 12, 2018
S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
WHEREAS, the Southold Trustees are familiar with this project having visited the site on
December 5, 2018 and having considered En-Consultants plans for this project dated
November 5, 2018 showing the proposed dock and water depths by Hydrographic Map
of Robert H. Fox dated October 4, 2017; and;
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2018 the Southold Town Board of Trustees found the
application of TEAMC99A PROPERTIES, LLC to be an unlisted action negative
decision pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations. A Short Environmental
Assessment Form and a field inspection have been completed by the Board of Trustees;
and it is hereby determined that it will not have a significant effect on the environment;
and
WHEREAS, in reviewing the project plans dated November 5, 2018, and water depths it
has been determined by the Southold Town Board of Trustees that all potentially
significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein:
Navigation: The proposed dock meets standards and does not extend beyond 1/3
across the water body. Depths for the dock terminus are within Town Trustees,
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and United States
Army Corps. of Engineers guidelines and there is no recognized Federal/New
York State/Town navigation channel in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
structure.
Scope: The proposed dock is comparable to docks on neighboring properties in
areas where docks historically are used for commercial and recreational
purposes;
Scope in relation to the riparian rights of shell fishers: The plan allows a standard
ramp to float design that will not impede access for those seeking shellfish and
crustacea in season.
Scope in relation to view shed: The seaward end of the proposed dock will not
extend appreciably beyond the existing docks and as such the perspective will
not be discernibly different from the existing view.
Environmental upkeep: The dock design projects a usual lifespan of 30 years
with limited pile replacement so as to minimize disturbance of the bottom.
THEREFORE, on account of the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees
Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to
SEQRA for the aforementioned project.
Number three, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Costello Marine Contracting Corp.
on behalf of ROBERT & MARY KATE DIGREGORIO requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 4'x87' fixed catwalk with a 3'x16' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6'x20'
seasonal floating dock situated in an "L" configuration; install four 8" diameter float
anchor pilings; proposed floating dock to be chocked 1' off bottom at mean low water;
install a 3' wide crossover catwalk stairway; and construct a 4'x8' platform and 3'x8'
steps landward of masonry wall. Located: 1000 Oak Street, Cutchogue. SCTM#
1000-136-1-36
S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
WHEREAS, the Southold Trustees are familiar with this project having visited the site on
December 5, 2018 and having considered Costello Marine Contracting Corp. Plans for
this project dated August 22, 2018 showing the proposed dock and water depths by
Hydrographic Map of Robert H Fox dated September 27, 2016; and;
Board of Trustees 9 December 12, 2018
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2018 the Southold Town Board of Trustees found the
application of ROBERT & MARY KATE DIGREGORIO to be an unlisted action negative
decision pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations. A Short Environmental
Assessment Form and a field inspection have been completed by the Board of Trustees;
and it is hereby determined that it will not have a significant effect on the environment;
and
WHEREAS, in reviewing the project plans dated August 22, 2018, and water depths it
has been determined by the Southold Town Board of Trustees that all potentially
significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein:
Navigation: The proposed dock meets standards and does not extend beyond 1/3
across the water body. Depths for the dock terminus are within Town Trustees,
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and United States
Army Corps. of Engineers guidelines and there is no recognized Federal/New
York State/Town navigation channel in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
structure.
Scope: The proposed dock is comparable to docks on neighboring properties in
areas where docks historically are used for commercial and recreational
purposes;
Scope in relation to the riparian rights of shell fishers: The plan allows a standard
ramp to float design that will not impede access for those seeking shellfish and
crustacea in season.
Scope in relation to view shed: The seaward end of the proposed dock will not
extend appreciably beyond the existing docks and as such the perspective will
not be discernibly different from the existing view.
Environmental upkeep: The dock design projects a usual lifespan of 30 years
with limited pile replacement so as to minimize disturbance of the bottom.
THEREFORE, on account of the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees
Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to
SEQRA for the aforementioned project.
And number four, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Costello Marine Contracting
Corp. On behalf of MICHAEL MUTSAKIS & EVELYN CAPASSAKIS requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a 36' west return onto
bulkhead; install 30' of 1,000 to 2,000 pound rock landward of and along the west
section of existing bulkhead; fill and regrade face of bluff with approximately 150 cubic
yards of clean trucked-in fill; install jute matting down face of bluff in eroded area; and
re-vegetate slope with Cape American beach grass. Located: 20985 Soundview
Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-16.1
S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2018 the Southold Town Board of Trustees found the
application of MICHAEL MUTSAKIS & EVELYN CAPASSAKIS to be an Unlisted Action
Negative Decision pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations. A Short Environmental
Assessment Form and a field inspection have been completed by the Board of Trustees;
and it is hereby determined that it will not have a significant effect on the environment,
and;
WHEREAS, the Southold Trustees are familiar with this project having visited the site on
December 5, 2018 and having considered Costello Marine Contracting Corp. Plans for
this project last dated November 26, 2018 showing the return onto bulkhead and
install 30' of 1,000 to 2,000 pound rock landward of and along the west section of
Board of Trustees 10 December 12, 2018
existing bulkhead; and;
WHEREAS, in reviewing the project plans dated November 26, 2018, it has been
determined by the Southold Town Board of Trustees that all potentially significant
environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein:
No existing rocks or boulders are to be utilized, moved, or relocated on the
beach.
Access to the site for construction will be by barge.
Vegetative, non-structural measures are not capable of stabilizing the erosion of
the bluff alone.
Protection of the toe of bluff using hardened structures including rock revetments
is necessary.
As time progresses, continued soil loss at the toe of the bluff may lead to
complete loss of bluff stability.
A site inspection by the Southold Town Planning'Board recognized severe
erosion on this'property and requested a bluff stabilization/erosion control plan.
THEREFORE, on account of the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees
Approve and Authorize,the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to
SEQRA for the aforementioned project.
Those three have all been deemed to be unlisted negative declaration pursuant to
SEQRA rules,and regulations, and therefore I make a motion to approve these as a
group,
MR. HAGAN: So I'm clear on the motion, it's a motion to have all three
of these applications declared as negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Pursuant to SEQRA and as described in the agenda.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral VI, administrative permits.
In order to simplify the agenda, sometimes we group together
items that are minor or similar in nature. Accordingly, I make a
motion to approve as a group numbers two and four. They are
listed as follows:
Number two, JOSEPH ZITO requests an Administrative Permit
to install an 8'x11'6" storage shed.
Located:_3600 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-1115-17-8
Number four, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of
LAUREN McCALL-requests,an Administrative Permit to construct an
approximately 100' long natural boulder wall along the landward
edge of the non-disturbance buffer area line; install pool/deer
fencing around property; and create a 3' wide mulched path to
marsh edge.
Located: 10643 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-116-1-6
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number one under item VI for resolutions and
Board of Trustees 11 December 12, 2018
administrative permits, Robert Wilson on behalf of DAVID CASSARO
requests an Administrative Permit for the existing 892sq.ft.
(71'2"x36'4" overall dimensions) wrap-around seaward side deck;
and to convert a portion of the existing seaward side stairs to
94sq.ft. Of additional deck space.
Located: 3345 Cedar Lane, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-37-7-10.2
The Board, during the course of field inspection on December
5th, noted that there were items on the property that appeared
not to have been covered by Trustee wetland permits. A
subsequent review in the Office of Trustees found there was no
permit for a patio grill construction or deer fencing. There in
fact was a permit for a bulkhead pool and pergola denoted built
at the time the house was built, was not jurisdictional.
Based on the fact we have structures without a permit and
the existing wraparound deck is not fully permitted, the
Board -- it will be necessary to table this application to
secure an amended application to include all structures that are
previously not permitted.
Accordingly, I would move to table this application.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number three, WALTER MILLER, JR., requests an
Administrative Permit to remove 4 trees to be cut down to ground
level; and to trim off tops of shrubbery/trees at a height
projected from top of fence railing (approximately 3'6") from
ground level (top of bluff).
Located: 2398 Hyatt Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-1-16
On December 6th, I did a field inspection of the property,
noting that the Trustees were at the location earlier this year,
and that it was deemed then and now that it's okay to cut the
four large black locust trees, as they are an invasive species
anyhow, and it's okay to judiciously prune the trees on the bank
which would probably promote growth.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from his concern that vegetation on the top
of bluff provides important erosion control, and that cutting
the trees might promote erosion.
As noted before, a certified arborist explained to us that
judiciously topping some of these trees actually promotes new
growth and avoids the possibility of the tree becoming tall and
gangly and falling over and undermining or upsetting the bluff.
Accordingly, I make a motion to approve this application
with the understanding that the action taken will in fact
address the inconsistency noted by the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 12 December 12, 2018
VII. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral VII, again, in order to
simplify the meeting, I'll make a motion to approve-as a group
items one through eight and items ten through 13. They are
listed as follows:
Number one, WBL and Associates, LLC on behalf of VIRGINIA
A. BONTJE requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#8943,
as issued on January 18, 2017.
Located: 805 Island View Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 10000-57-2-23
Number two, Richard Boyd, R.A. on behalf of CHRISTINE HOWLEY
requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#8939, as
issued on January 18, 2017, and Amended on August 16, 2017.
Located: 320 Sailor's Needle Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-144-5-29.3
Number three, Martin Finnegan, Esq. on behalf of RICHARD &
PAMELA HEUS requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#382 from
Donielle Cardinale McKinnon to Richard 8, Pamela Heus, as issued
on October 3, 1966, and Amended on March 23, 2000; with the condition
that any replacement of float must comply with standard 6'x20' size.
Located: 615 South Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-11-22
Number four, MICHAEL J. GIACONE & NICHOLAS A. GIACONE
request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#4210 from Paul J. Carey to
Michael J. Giacone & Nicholas A. Giacone, as issued on July 29, 1993.
Located: 270 Park Avenue Extension, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-8-27
Number five, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of RICHARD SACHS requests
a Transfer of Wetland Permit#9087 from Carole Rich & Donald Wilder to
Richard Sachs, as issued on September 20. 2017.
Located: 2435 Laurel Lake Drive, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-121-4-17.1
Number six, En-Consultants on behalf of JOSEPH ORLANDO &
BARBARA CATALANO ORLANDO requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#9313 from Solution East, LLC, c/o Anne Marino & Bernard Telsey
to Joseph Orlando & Barbara Catalano Orlando, as issued on
September 19, 2018.
Located: 900 Goose Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-8-2
Number seven, BRENNAN & CARLY ALBANO request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#8976 from Blue Horizons Bluff, c/o Richard J.
Principi, Jr. to Brennan & Carly Albano, as issued on March 22, 2017.
Located: 4690 Blue Horizon Bluffs, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-74-1-35.53
Number eight, MICHAEL & LORI MINASI requests a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#4375 from Leonard Rosen to Michael & Lori
Minasi, as issued on September 29, 1994.
Located: 3145 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-12.1
Number ten, LANDERS FAMILY TRUST, c/o JAY LANDERS & DESPINA
GIANOPULOS LANDERS request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#8940
from Douglas & Michelle Gerowski to Landers Family Trust, c/o Jay Landers &
Despina Gianopulos Landers, as issued on January 18, 2017.
Located: 5705 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-4-4
Number eleven, North Fork Pool Care on behalf of ORA & ELLIOT HEATH
requests an Administrative Amendment to Administrative Permit#9270A to
Board of Trustees 13 December 12, 2018
relocate the hot tub 15'1" towards the dwelling but not move past edge of dwelling
with waste water drain to remain.
Located: 500 Hippodrome Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-66-2-13
Number 12, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of
PARADISE POINT ASSOCIATION, c/o DOUGLAS CIAMPA requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9262 to install
Gabion Mattresses (Reno Mattresses) along a section of the
westerly shoreline of the canal, above Mean High Water, in order
to prevent further erosion thereon; the Gabion Mattresses will
typically measure 1' high by 6'to 8' wide by 6' to 12' long, and be filled
with 6" diameter rocks; the Mattresses will be installed into the face of the
shoreline embankment, covered with a t4" layer of clean sand, secured
with a layer of Jute matting, and subsequently planted with Cape American
beach grass (Ammophila breviligulata) @ 1' on-center within the upper and
middle sections of the Mattresses, and Saltmeadow Cordgrass
(Spartina patens) @ 1' on-center within the lower sections of
the Mattresses; and the upper portions of the Mattresses will be
staked out temporarily.
Located: 225 Briar Lane; Inlet Leading into Boat Basin, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-81-1-16.10 & 16.11
Number 13, KAREN & TOM PALMER request an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit#9069 for the as-built 11'5"x11'10"
seaward side deck in lieu of the proposed 7'x10' deck.
Located: 2200 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-4-5.1
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number nine, ANDREW TERRONO & SHELLEY CHARNOFF
request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#3754 from John Dempsey to Andrew Terrono
& Shelly Charnoff, as issued on June 23, 1989, and Amended on October 17, 2018.
Located: 387 Wood Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-6-29
Upon Trustee inspection of the property, the floating dock exceeds the plans on
the permit, permit number 3754, and until the project is brought into compliance of
the permit, we cannot transfer the permit. I make a motion to deny the transfer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VIII: MOORINGS/STAKE & PULLEY SYSTEMS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under agenda Roman numeral VIII,
Moorings/Stake & Pulley systems, number one, PATRICIA BUERKLE
requests an On-Shore/Off-Shore Stake & Pulley System Permit off
of private property in Jockey Creek for a 17' outboard motorboat.
Access: 340 Private Road #3, Southold.
I move to approve as submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 14 December 12, 2018
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral IX, Public Hearings.
At this time I make a motion to go off our regular agenda
and enter into the public hearing's.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is a public hearing in the matter of the
following applications for permits under the Wetlands Ordinance
of the Town of Southold. I have an affidavit of publication from
the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may be read prior to
asking for comments from the public.
We ask you to please keep your comments organized and brief
and five minutes or less if possible.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, under Amendments, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting on behalf of DENNIS UDE requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit
#5234 to install a 3'x16' hinged ramp and a 6'x20' floating dock situated in an "L"
configuration supported by four(4) 8" diameter pilings off of the seaward end of catwalk.
Located: 1227 Pine Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-5-36.
The Trustees did a field inspection on December 5th, at 11:33. All were present.
And the notes indicate that the staking showed it was, the project was within the pier
line.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved on December 5th, to support this
application.
The LWRP coordinator found it to be inconsistent. The inconsistency arises from
the fact, or the statement that the dock will interfere with public use of the water way as it
extends beyond the pier line. The dock structure will extend further into public waters
resulting'in a net decrease in public access to or on public underwater lands.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting.
It's our feeling that the dock is appropriately laid out and so we would agree with you
it's within the pier line.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay. Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application, noting that it is
within the pier line and that will address the inconsistency.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES). -
Board of Trustees , 15 December 12, 2018
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application under Wetland &Coastal
Erosion Permits, number one, Costello Marine Contracting Corp.
on behalf of MICHAEL MUTSAKIS & EVELYN CAPASSAKIS requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a 36' west return
onto bulkhead; install 30' of 1,000 to 2,000 pound rock landward of and along
the west section of existing bulkhead; fill and regrade face of bluff with
approximately 150 cubic yards of clean trucked-in fill; install jute matting down
face of bluff in eroded area; and re-vegetate slope with Cape American beach grass.
Located: 20985 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-16.1
The Board of Trustees in performing their-monthly field inspection on December
5th, noted that it was standard marine construction for a heavily-impacted high-energy
site, suggesting the possibility of stone on the larger size of the range, possibly even
larger than,2,000 pounds, given the current state of high-impact and high-energy storms
we are receiving.
The LWRP had deemed this project is consistent with the Town's coastal policy.
And the Conservation Advisory Council supports this application. They did request
verification of where the source is of the trucked-in fill.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello on behalf of the applicant, here to answer any
questions. And the fill will come right from a local sand pit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Local source, okay. Straightforward. Any
questions from the Board members?
(Negative response).
Any additional questions? Anyone else who wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no one, I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES). f
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted,
noting that the larger 2,000 pound rock is a recommendation of the Board. Move to
approve as submitted, with deference toward the larger stone.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ROBERT & EITHNE PISCIONERI
for a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to install 70 linear feet of proposed
rock revetment along pre-storm damaged shoreline; proposed revetment to consist of
4-5 ton lower course, and 2-3 ton upper courses placed in an interlocking pattern placed
with an excavator; upon completion of revetment install approximately 350 cubic yards
of clean sand fill from upland sources landward of proposed revetment with an
approximate size of 20' long by 50' wide and 8' deep; replace storm damaged storm
drain pipe in its' pre-storm location and coordinate with Town of Southold Engineering
Department requirements; all work to be completed landward of the Mean High
Water line.
Located: 21865 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-135-1-9
The LWRP found this to be consistent, provided verify that
the mean high water line is accurately depicted and that the new
Board of Trustees 16 December 12, 2018
structure will not extend more seaward than the concrete sea
wall to the west. The structure should not extend further
seaward than the mean high water line. Such an extension would
impede public access along the foreshore.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
the application. Conservation Advisory Council does not support
the application because this a high-risk, high-energy area,
showing a history of failing, and has the potential to have an
adverse effect on the property to the east.
The Trustees most recently revisited this site on December
5th, noting, suggest to the owner the revetment run from the
cement wall to the large boulders on the eastern most property,
not to use boulders already on the beach.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. And
revised plans were submitted to the Trustees on December 6'
After the Trustees' field inspection, we did modify the plans to
include the extension of the proposed rock revetment, to meet
existing structures of the property to the east, protect that
land, and provided a letter stating approval from the landowner.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
We have a letter in here noting that we did get the letter from the neighboring
property owner._
Hearing no further questions, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
based on the newest description which reads: The project includes installation
of 70 linear feet of proposed rock revetment along pre-storm damaged shoreline.
Revetment to consist of four to five-ton lower course and two to three-ton
upper course, placed in an interlocking pattern, placed with an excavator.
Upon completion of the revetment, install approximately 180 cubic yards of
clean sand fill from upland sources landward of the proposed revetment at the
approximate size of 15 feet long by 50 feet wide, and eight feet deep; replace
storm drain pipe in its pre-storm location and coordinate with Town of Southold
engineering department requirements. All work to be completed landward of the
mean high water line.
So I make a motion to approve this application based on the newest description.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Under Wetland Permits, number one, Jeffrey
Board of Trustees 17 December 12, 2018
Patanjo on behalf of BARBARA HAZARD requests a Wetland Permit to
install a 4'x70' fixed dock using thru-flow decking and supported with 8"
diameter piles; install a 30"x16' aluminum ramp; install a 6'x20' floating dock
using un-treated decking, supported by four(4) 10" diameter piles, and the use
of cross-braces to support the floating dock a minimum of 30" off bottom at all
times; clear and establish a 4' wide by 125' long pedestrian path that leads to the
proposed docking facility; and to perform limited tree limbing within the 100' buffer
area, and as per covenants and restrictions established on the property.
Located: 1575 Harbor Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-2-1.2
This application was tabled from last month's meeting due to the original plan
having the catwalk in a covenanted non-disturbance area. We are in receipt of
new plans, received December 3rd, showing a shorter catwalk that is approved.
And originally the LWRP coordinator showed an inconsistency. With the
submission of the new plans, it will bring the property into consistency.
Is there anybody here wishing to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. As you know, vire have
revised plans which meet the comments that were addressed at last month's hearing.
If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anybody else here wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll make a motion to approve the application
as submitted with plans, most recent plans dated December 3rd, 2018,
with the newly submitted plans satisfying the concerns of the LWRP
coordinator, therefore bringing the project into consistency. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HAGAN: Are there any recusals on number two on the agenda?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Yes. I need to recuse myself from number two, based
on a personal relationship with the president of the property owners association.
MR. HAGAN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number two, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
LAURELWOOD ESTATES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests a
Wetland Permit to construct 15 linear feet of rock revetment along storm
erosion line utilizing 4-5 ton lower course stone and 2-3 to upper course stone;
and to establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the'revetment.
Located: 1436 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-145-2-18
The Trustees last visited the site on December 5th, they noted it was a
straightforward application. It was a continuation of a project from the neighboring
properties along a storm-eroded area, and questioned what was going to happen to
the old concrete wall.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. Just noted that we maintain
adequate and safe public access to the park/beach design.
Board of Trustees 18 December 12, 2018
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application.
And they recommend the concrete block is incorporated into the hardened structure.
Is there anyone here wish to speak regarding this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. There will be access to
the beach area as such with the other applications that are adjacent to this.
We'll stack native -- I said native last time --they'll stack some of the stones to
actually make stepping areas out of the stone. The revetment stone will be
stacked to allow you to walk down it.
As far as other questions, the concrete wall will be removed as part of the DEC —
DEC requires us to remove existing --the concrete structures, they don't allow concrete
in that area, so it will be removed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding
this application?
(Negative response).
Any further comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve the application as submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
Trustee Krupski, aye. Trustee Williams, recused).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number three, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
ANDREW SEMONS requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
ten linear feet of bulkhead in-place using vinyl sheathing; and to establish
and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge
of the new bulkhead.
Located: 1580 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-2.2
The Trustees did a field inspection on December 5th and noted the following:
That second jetty or groin shown on the plans is nonexistent. I believe there was
a board sticking out of the water, but no structure other than that. We questioned
the permit for the southerly jetty, the second jetty. and it was difficult to coordinate
the plans with the structures that did exist. There seemed to be a need to
question why only ten foot of the bulkhead is referenced in this application.
Because it seemed as if the entirety of the, about 20 feet of the bulkhead, was failing.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and suggests a 20-foot non-turf
buffer rather than the ten-foot non-turf buffer referenced in the plans.
And the Conservation Advisory Council voted unanimously on December 5th to
support this application.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. With regard to the second jetty,
I'm just looking at the photographs and I believe I have to agree with you. I drew this
off of a survey, and that was surveyed years ago, whenever the survey was
prepared. So that's why I had a second jetty on there. And if I look at that date on
the survey which was provided, 2008. So in 2008 there was a jetty there at one point
because it's on the signed and sealed survey. So it does show it.
As far as the length of the bulkhead to be removed, I have an application
coming in to you in the next couple of weeks for the neighboring property Leslie
Richards and James Richards property, for a continuation of that entire bulkhead
Board of Trustees 19 December 12, 2018
area with a new dock. So they only wanted to go up to this existing jetty. That's all
the applicant Andrew Semons wanted to go on his property as far as the new
bulkhead replacement in combination with the neighbor.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is the property line -- currently there is two different bulkheads
there. Is the property line not off from where that bulkhead meets?
You can see there is one newer section of bulkhead and one older section of bulkhead.
MR. PATANJO: I have to look at the photos. I have not been out there in a couple of
months. The property line is as it's shown on the drawings. It's ten feet to the north of
that existing jetty. It's really where that wetlands line,starts. So this is nothing more
than remove and replace ten feet of existing wall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that part was simple. It's just a matter of the property
lines I don't think matched the plans over there.
l TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It appears to me at one point somebody put in a new bulkhead
and the new bulkhead did not go all the way to the northern end or western end of
Mr. Semons' property. At this point they are looking at put in a new bulkhead, the
neighbor of Mr. Semons is looking to patch in that section that is on his property.
I could be mistaken.
MR. PATANJO: I'm looking at the survey now, and the survey is pretty clear as far as
where the block wall is. There is two different scales so it might throw you off a little bit.
But scale-wise we are right there. We are going from the jetty to the north. It's the same
layer of footage. And I have it, if you want me to show you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Patanjo, we'll come back to that point. I want to point out
also there is a shed or boat house on this survey for which we could not find any
permit history.
MR. PATANJO: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And I would ask that you approach the dais because I can show
you, what my question is, this is the ten feet you are talking about. But what about all
this?.
MR. PATANJO: They don't want to replace it: That's all he wants to do is ten feet and
that's it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay. And I would note that the Assistant Town Attorney asked
me about the gazebo, but we did find a permit for the gazebo.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response). -,
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Okay, hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application, with the
understanding that the second jetty referenced before, which does not exist, is not
part of this permit. In other words, we are not going to bless that non-existing jetty.
MR. HAGAN: It's not part of the description.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's correct. It's not part of the description, but it's in the
plans that were referenced. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next item, number four, under Wetland Permits, Jeffrey
Board of Trustees 20 December 12, 2018
Patanjo on behalf of ROBYN ROMANO 2015 FAMILY TRUST & JOSEPH P.
ROMANO 2015 FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove the two
existing retaining walls and associated steps and platforms; construct a 125 lineal foot
lower vinyl retaining wall; construct a 125 lineal foot upper vinyl retaining wall; construct
a 40 lineal foot long westerly vinyl retaining wall return; construct a 421ineal foot long
easterly vinyl retaining wall return; construct two (2) sets of 4' wide by 11' long steps with
cantilevered platform, one on the lower and one on the upper retaining walls; and to
construct an 8'x10' un-treated timber platform constructed on-grade between the
lower and upper levels.
Located: 1415 North Parish Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-71-1-14
This project has been deemed to be consistent with the Town's coastal policy by the
LWRP coordinator.
The Conservation Advisory Council has voted to support this project.
The Trustees visited the site on December 5th noting that the construction as
proposed was standard, but a question exists because of the reconstructed retaining
walls. There was no discussion in the project description concerning fill that might
be necessary to fill behind the newly constructed upper return. And there is also concern
that we have a non-turf buffer along the front of the construction.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. Some fill will be required.
Duly noted, it was excluded from the plans. And we can add that to the plans.
I have a letter of non-jurisdiction from the DEC. So we do have their approval.
As far as non-turf buffer, the non-turf buffer would be in way of the 22-foot wide
area which is between the actual bulkhead and the lower level,retaining wall. So we
have more than adequate non-turf buffer. We can add something to that saying
that that needs be a non-turf buffer, if you would like that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There will be soil disturbance to recreate the upper
retaining wall. Just to put that out. I don't know if the Board has questions or concerns.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we talked about a buffer on the top, right?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A small buffer. It's not unusual under these circumstances.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Ask for a ten-foot non=turf buffer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the Board is inclined to ask for a ten-foot
non-turf buffer.
MR. PATANJO: If you look at the plans, we have 22 foot of separation from the
bulkhead down by the water, as well as another five foot. So I would be okay with
representing a 27-foot wide non-turf buffer, which is inclusive of the 22-foot
between the lower bulkhead and the first wall, as well as five foot between the two walls,
which would give you a 27-foot non-turf buffer, which is well above and beyond which is
typically requested by the Board. We can give that whole 27 foot,of non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm confused. Is this going to fill in this?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That will get filled in. He's matching the neighbors. Okay?
Questions or concerns?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm a little concerned about that because I have been to this
property many times. Locating the vinyl retaining wall where you wish to put it and
backfilling, is extending the lawn five foot further seaward. So if that's going to be your
application I would still like to see a ten-foot non-turf buffer landward of the new retaining
wall.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: On that property there is already an existing
ten-foot non-turf buffer from the top of that first retaining wall; am I correct?
MR. PATANJO: There is plantings on the top end of that, however they are trying
to obviously increase the use of their backyard for their enjoyment purposes --
Board of Trustees 21 December 12, 2018
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Because I have field notes I would like to see the turf stay where
it is. So whatever scope of work they do beyond the grass, you know, I did not want to
see the grass move more north. I wanted to see that grass stay where it is.
MR. PATANJO: In an effort to get some sort of agreement here can we say that it's
not going to extend beyond that, and if we put an establishment of five foot on the top of
the wall, in addition to the 27 foot, which equals 32 foot, if my math is correct, and that
will give you a 32-foot wide non-turf buffer on this project.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So it's actually 22 and then eight, right?
MR. PATANJO: I'm blind, wow. Yes. 30 foot. You are getting-a huge buffer. That's way
too big.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would make it a total non-fertilized area --
MR. PATANJO: Yes. Let's go to 30 foot non-turf buffer from the existing bulkhead. I'll go
with that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 30 plus five. If it's 35 feet then you would have a non-turf
area that would be five-feet landward of your newly constructed bulkhead, which is
where the soil disturbance will be for construction.
MR. PATANJO: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that will do it:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
MR. HAGAN: It's my understanding this would have to be'tabled-for new plans?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, that would be correct, to include the
installation of a non-turf buffer. Accordingly, hearing no additional comments, I make a
motion to table this hearing based on the need to have submission of new plans,
including an additional five-foot of non-turf buffer in addition to the existing area of
22-feet, proposed 22-feet and eight feet. I move to table this application subject
to new plans.
MR. PATANJO: Is that the only revision you want, showing the five-foot non-turf buffer?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's my understanding from what I heard from the Board.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number five, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting
on behalf of PASQUALE SICURANZA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
1,557sq.ft. two-story, single-family dwelling with porch and a 486sq.ft. seaward side
deck to be located 100' landward from the edge of tidal wetlands; install an associated
sanitary system landward of dwelling; install a gravel driveway; install public water;
install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff; approximately 50 cubic yards
of clean fill will be excavated from area of sanitary system, foundation and
dry wells and be used for re-grading the site greater than 75' from the tidal wetlands line;
install a line of staked silt fencing at the 50' buffer area line prior to and during
construction; upon completion of construction, install either an 8" high rock wall or wood
fence along the landward limit of the proposed non-disturbance area in order to
permanently establish the 50' buffer line; establish and perpetually maintain a 50'
wide non-fertilization, non-disturbance buffer area along the landward edge of the
wetlands; remove invasive and damaged/dead vegetation from entire site which has
been flagged; remove grape vines, wisteria, cherry, ailanthus trees within buffer area as
flagged; perform selective clearing to within 50' of the tidal wetlands line; cut and
maintain Phragmites australis at a height of 12" with no mechanical clearing within the
50' buffer area, only hand trimming; and to clear and maintain a 4' wide mulched
Board of Trustees 22 December 12, 2018
access path to water:
Located: 705 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM #1000-53-3-9
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application.
The Trustees reviewed this inhouse. We were in the field, most recently on
November 7th, noting this is basically a straightforward application.
We also have a letter in the file here that I'll read from Bill and Chris Eisenreich,
who would just like to point out that the applicant is planning to install public water.
The map shows this line is very close to our property line and is also shown
going directly through a PSE&G utility pole. We are concerned the applicant will try
and ask for an easement for the water line to move to the east and go over our property
line and on to our property so they would not have to move their driveway. We
want to let it be known we will not give permission for that. We feel the water line to
the house should be moved to the west, left of the utility pole. Should PSE&G deny a
request to relocate the pole, and water line be moved toward their driveway
rather than our property. We do not have the exact measurements in feet or inches
but,it appears very close on the survey. We would simply like to ward off the possibility
of a water main being placed on our property as we'll have much landscaping along the
property line as well as our minimum ten-foot setback from the property line.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. JUST: Good evening. Glen Just, JMO Consulting, for the applicant.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else wish to speak regarding this application?
MR. OSDOBY: We are the neighbors to the west, Jackie and Steve Osdoby,
605 Bayshore Road. We are new to this, so we had a couple of questions on the
westerly side of the property concerning the cesspools that are over there,
all those circles over there. They seem to be pretty close to the line. We don't
know the rules, but we wanted to, you know, bring that up to you.
And also there is a drywell further northerly that we saw that is pretty close to
the property line, and wanted to bring that to your attention. And I think the other
thing that I guess is not something you take care of, I'm not sure, is we wanted to
be sure that the fence, if it be moved or be set, that it be coordinated with our
surveyor as well so that it's right on the line, you know. And anything further, Jackie?
MS. OSDOBY: No. And just to clarify that last point when we had our house surveyed,
we were told that the fence was not exactly on the property line, that it should be moved
further over to give us more property. But we have not had that done as we really didn't
see the need to move it. But now that somebody is actually building, we just want to
make sure it's in coordination with our survey so that they don't--
MR. OSDOBY: And bring it to your attention.
MS. OSDOBY: And is the five-feet that is shown for the cesspool effected by that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just a note on the survey, dated September 12th, 2018, it
shows that the four-foot fence is on the property line and the Suffolk County Health
Department controls the septic system. But again on that same survey it shows a
Minimum of five feet off the property line. It might be a little confusing because a couple
of those circles say "FE", future expansion. So. And that would still be five-feet away
from your property line.
MS. OSDOBY: And that's the requirement? It just seemed a little bit close with
everything else ten feet or 15-feet requirements.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That's a Health Department thing, ma'am, not us.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And just for your information, with you being
Board of Trustees 23 December 12, 2018
hooked up to public water, the Health Department takes that all into consideration. So.
MR. OSDOBY: We are looking forward to the house being built.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And I make a motion to approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in4avor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number six, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of
JUSTIN & ELIZABETH MIRRO request a Wetland Permit to demolish existing
one-story dwelling, decks, detached garage, and abandon existing sanitary system;
construct new two-story dwelling with attached four-car garage with a footprint of
4,227sq.ft. (approx. 6,700 total sq. ft.); construct an attached 45 sq. ft. covered porch,
attached 135sq.ft. covered porch, and attached 525 sq. ft. covered porch onto dwelling;
construct 190sq. ft. of open decks with exterior stairs attached to dwelling; install a new
sanitary system; construct a one-story, non-habitable 748 sq. ft. pool house with a
713 sq.ft. covered porch (included in terrace area); construct a 50'x22' gunite
swimming pool with infinity edge totaling 1,443sq.ft.; construct an 8'x10 (80sq.ft.) spa;
install 4' high pool enclosure fencing; install 2,839 sq. ft. of stone terracing at grade;
maintain existing 175 linear feet of timber tie border between lawn and
non-turf buffer, and increase the height by approximately 18" at filled areas;
construct approximately 121 linear feet of new timber retaining wall at south
edge of property; install approximately 3,635 cubic yards of clean,fill;
install new topsoil and landscaping, including an irrigation system; install a new
gravel driveway; reconstruct existing 27 sq. ft. cantilevered platform off bulkhead
with 21 sq. ft. stairs to beach in new location; install gutters to leaders to drywells
to contain roof/stormwater runoff; provide 15-closed loop geothermal wells; install
a line of silt fencing around construction area; and perpetually maintain the existing
approximately 2,272 square foot area of non-turf buffer along the bluff face between
timber border tie and bulkhead.
Located: 2455 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-13-6
The Trustees last reviewed this file on the 5th of December. It was an inhouse
review. Prior to that we were on location on the 10th of October. At that time we were
looking to move some things around and wanted an engineering report on the
property.
As stated in the prior hearing, the LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent.
He recommended the structures be moved landward to the greatest setback to avoid
FEMA flood zones. He recommended an IA septic system and that the non-turf buffer
Is vegetated with native 'salt tolerant vegetation.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application.
It should also be noted that we are in receipt of new plans dated November 29th, that
move the pool house back 50 feet from the bulkhead.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
Board of Trustees 24 December 12, 2018
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore. 'And I have Tom Samuels here as well.
Yes, at the last hearing we received some comments which Tom did modify the plans.
He did review the plans, the drainage, with Jamie Richter. So everything that was
discussed last time, I believe has been incorporated into this plan. The sanitary
systems are already an approved system and upland, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, is there anyone else here who wishes to speak regarding
this application?
MR. SAMUELS:,Tom'Samuels, on behalf of the applicant. And I believe the'hearing
was closed last time?.
MR. HAGAN:. No, it was tabled.
MR. SAMUELS: Okay. Only to,answer questions, then.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We redacted the closure and tabled it.
MR. SAMUELS: Thank you. I didn't realize. Anything I can do to answer questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any further comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Other than we appreciate you working with us.
MR. SAMUELS: Our pleasure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It should be noted that I have a new project description revised on
the 11th'of December, and I will read that into the record.
Project description, the Mirro residence, 2455 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue:
Provide silt fence around construction as per town-approved details; demolish
existing one-story frame residence, decks and detached garage and abandon existing
sanitary system; construct new two-story frame residence with flood compliant crawl
space --
MR. HAGAN: I'm sorry.] don't mean to interrupt you. You are going to have to read it
twice if you are planning on voting on the new description, so you may want to close,
the public hearing and then --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Fair enough.
MR. HAGAN: So that you don't have to read the description twice
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. A much-appreciated interruption. I
make a motion to'close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I make a motion to approve this application
noting that the project has been --the boat house has been
pulled 50 feet from the bulkhead, which would bring it into consistency with the
LWRP coordinator. And with the new plans dated November 29th, and the
revised project description dated the 11th of December, which I'll now read into
the record -- again.
Project description, Mirro residence, 2355 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue:
Provide silt fence around construction area as per town
approved details; demolish existing one-story frame residence,
decks and detached garage, and abandon existing sanitary system.
Construct new two-story frame residence with flood compliant
crawl space and four-car garage, approximately 6,700 square feet
with footprint of 4,227 square feet, with three attached,
covered porches of 45-square feet, 135-square feet, 525-square
feet totaling 705 square feet, with open decks and exterior
stairs attached to residence, totaling 190-square feet;
one-story non-habitable house of 748 square feet with covered
porch included in terraced area of 363-square feet; 55'x25'
Board of Trustees 25 December 12, 2018
gunite swimming pool totaling 1,443-square feet; 8x10 spa
totaling 80-square feet; stone terrace at grade of 2,839-square
feet; outdoor fireplace at grade included in terraced area
above; maintain existing 175-foot timber-tied border between
lawn and non-turf buffer, increase in height approximately 18-inches
in filled areas; reconstruct 27 square foot platform and
21-square foot stairs from top of bulkhead to beach; maintain
existing non-turf buffer between bulkhead and timber border
approximately 2,272-square feet; four-foot high pool enclosure
fence; bulkhead access portion of pool enclosure; construct
timber drainage control curb at south edge of property,
approximately 121 If(linear feet); construct two retaining
walls approximately 15-feet long for access to crawl space;
provide clean fill contoured per site plan, approximately 4,000-cubic
yards; provide new topsoil and landscaping including
irrigation using public water; provide new gravel driveway;
provide new sanitary system for Suffolk County Department of
Health; provide leaders and gutters connected to new drywells to
contain roof/storm water runoff; provide 15-closed loop
geothermal wells for conditioning interior space.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. SAMUELS: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number seven, PAUL & SUSAN WACHTER
request a Wetland Permit for a Ten-Year Maintenance Permit to trim the
Phragmites and removal; and to install and perpetually maintain
'a 30' wide non-disturbance buffer along the landward edge of the
beach. Located: 2295 Bay Shore Road, Greenport.
SCTM# 1000-53-4-15
The Trustees visited the site on November 7th, 2018. We met
with the property owner and we discussed the need for a Trustee
flagged wetland, and we did flag the work with the property
owner to put some flags in to identify the wetland area.
The LWRP coordinator found this project to be inconsistent,
with the inconsistency being the buffer with the 30-foot ignores
the value and extent that wetlands on the property, historically
referred to as the flooded area. The non-disturbance buffer
proposal will not work; the activity proposed will be
disturbance in itself; the method of removal is not identified
and should be clarified.
The Conservation Advisory Council did review the
application and they support the application with the
recommendation that the 30-foot buffer is distinctly established.
Is there anybody here who wishes to speak to this application?
MS. WACHTER: Susan Wachter. I'm here to speak, if you have any
questions.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Does anybody have any questions?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Have we received the new flagging, have we
Board of Trustees 26 December 12, 2018-
updated,the file with the plan that shows the flagging from our
visit-- I know we held this over at your request.
MS. WACHTER: Right. So you have the survey that shows the
flagged wetlands.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. We are checking the file now.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Since we met with you in November, we have met
on the property and we had put some flags in. We do need
updated plans showing that --
MS. WACHTER: I think I spoke to Mr. Domino and he mentioned he
had everything he needed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. I believe we do. We are just clarifying.
Thank you.
MS. WACHTER: It's really not a 30-foot buffer. It's really the wetlands.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The two flags remain on either side of the
property, I think the Board was disposed of that was going to be '
sufficient protection there.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So how do I move forward?
TRUSTEE.BREDEMEYER: We may need new plans showing those two
flags to show, because they want a straight line for maintenance,°otherwise
it would be the flagged wetland line. We may want to request new plans that
would show point to point. If they want -- because they put the flags on the survey.
Unless we want to --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can we just base it off the survey and it can be a ten-year
maintenance for the wetlands area of phragmites only? _
TRUSTEE DOMINO: You had indicated to me in the future you were
planning to put a retaining wall there?
MS. WACHTER: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: In another application at some point?
MS. WACHTER: Yes
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's why you wanted to straighten it across.
MS. WACHTER: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So it's actually for us, so.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any other questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anybody else here wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
I would like to make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I would like to make a motion to approve the
application noting that we are going to be working off of the
flagged, wetland flag line on the survey received June 11th, 2018.
By moving back to the wetland flag line that will address
the inconsistency with the LWRP and bring that into compliance.
And also to allow the trimming of the phragmites by hand and the
phragmites must be removed by hand, no heavy machinery. That's
my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?°
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 27 December 12, 2018
MS. WACHTER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eight, LAZARUS ALEXANDROU requests
a Wetland Permit to construct a 16'x32' gunite swimming pool in
the side yard with a cartridge system and a pool drywell, all
landward of existing non-turf buffer; construct an 18" high by
65' long retaining wall; and construct a 700sq.ft. on-grade
permeable patio seaward of pool.
Located: 2700 Sound Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-33-1-11
The Trustees did a field inspection on December 5th. The
notes read as follows: Drywells not noted on the plans. Also
needed grade and elevation on the plans for the patio. Needed
detailed plans on the specification of what is a pervious patio.
And suggest a patio reconfiguration, and discuss also at work
session the deer fence which is shown on the bluff.
In addition, on the November 9th, we received a letter from
Eleanor Kopek. And I won't read the entire letter but it
expresses deep concern for the fence along the bluff. And
essentially that's it.
And the Conservation Advisory Council on October 15th voted
to support this application.
And the LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. ALEXANDROU: Lazarus Alexandrou, I'm the homeowner.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can you address the concerns -- I would like to,
concerning the patio area is permeable, and the drywells, which
were not shown on the plans.
MR. ALEXANDROU: The only thing that changed, as far as I know,
because this was originally approved, but I was supposed to have
-- I missed --the permitting had expired. I had not changed
anything on the plans that were originally approved. The only
thing that I had, the only reason I resubmitted the plans was to
expand the permeable patio. Other than that, all the other plans
had already been approved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just for clarification, I do remember the
application, and I'm pretty sure we mandated a drywell plan to
the pool on the side of the house. So that might have gotten
lost in translation between sets of plans. But I do recall that.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: To help you out with that, in the past we have
the ability to approve a plan with the notation that new plans
be submitted. Unfortunately we can no longer do that. All plans
we approve have to be, so in the past we could have said we
approve the plans with the addition of a drywell. We
unfortunately are unable to do that anymore. So all the plans
have to be as we approve them.
So as Trustee Domino had suggested, we had some questions
on the grade. You may want to come to a work session to discuss
it, to help us understand exactly what is going on there. Or we
can possibly, we have been to the house three times, the first
few times we went it was not staked. But, you know, we need to
see a drywell on the plans and we have some questions on the
Board of Trustees 28 December 12, 2018
grade, and concerns for the fence.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The fence also, typically the Board does not
approve additional fences in bluff areas that exist in a natural
state. Regardless of what the Board may have done previously, it
did come up as discussion. Typically--we want to revisit
that. There again, it might be appropriate to do that in a work
session setting or in the field, during the course of field
inspection, just to take another look at that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Additionally, and very importantly, there is no
fence in the project description. And it's my inclination to
table this application to address that. Along with concerns as
stated by Trustee Williams about the, in a sloped area, how can
you construct an on-grade patio without a retaining wall or
digging into the,grade.
So, anyone else have any questions or comments?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just for clarification point while we are here.
You know, you have an on-grade patio. So are you going to scour
out material to make it on-grade or add material? I'm just curious.
MR. ALEXANDROU: Honestly, I hired Dave Chicanowicz to do the
work. So I couldn't tell you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Maybe we could meet with him out in the
field.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Or perhaps come to a work session.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. And then also, this is the one that said
permeable. So what is the patio made out of?
MR. ALEXANDROU: It would be stone. I don't know the
construction. I sell insurance. I have idea.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: We would need that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So maybe meet with Dave then.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this
application?
TRUSTEE'WILLIAMS: Before we table the public hearing portion,
did have you any questions? Did you understand --
MR. ALEXANDROU: I understand.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to
table this application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number nine, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting on behalf of SIGURDSSON BALDUR, LLC, c/o WADE GUYTON,
MANAGER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 41.96'x57.28'
(1,712 sq.ft.) Two-story dwelling; a 40.5'x14' (680sq.ft.)
In-ground swimming pool with a surrounding 680 sq.ft. Terrace;
and to resurface an approximately 1,668sq.ft. Asphalt driveway.
Located: 1800 Hyatt Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-50-1-4
This project has been deemed to be consistent by the LWRP.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with a pervious or permeable driveway and drywell for pool
backwash.
Board of Trustees 29 December 12, 2018
The Board, during the course of field inspections, had
raised a number of concerns, the foremost being the proximity of
the house to the west property line. The Board felt that they
did not have the expertise as professional engineers might
concerning the stability of soils and the slopes involved, and
we're inclined to suggest a review of the town engineering
department prior to proceeding with additional consideration of
approvals.
The Board also, given the site, was suggesting possibly a
smaller, pool to shift the house eastward. There are in fact
engineering concerns. And the Board would be would want to have
a ten-foot non-turf buffer. The location of pool drywells, I
believe was on the plans. I'm trying to make sure that we have
the pool drywell here that was discussed. And the limits of the
pool fence, I don't see it in the description.
So there were a number of questions that the Board had for
this project, mostly surrounding the scale of the house in
relation to the severe slopes. Obviously, I'm seeing the roof
drywell. I'm not seeing a pool equipment drywell and pool
fence. So that and the engineering.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
for the applicant.
Let me explain to you where we are. There was an existing
home here. The home was 40 feet from the bluff. And we had
those; I can provide you with all these surveys, but I'll do so
at a later date, because I do understand your concerns. But I
want to.walk you through this so you-have an understanding of
what has transpired here. And I'll go back and put it in
writing, if that helps you. But since I have the floor.
We have a house that is 40 feet from the top of the bluff.
We have a retaining wall that is 20 feet from the top of the
bluff. Although I dislike the way the town does these things,
because they send,you to the Zoning Board and we have been to
the Zoning Board for six months. And you'll find in your
application jacket a variance for that. Which is a shame because
it would have been easier for me had I known these concerns
ahead of time.
Be that as it may. So that's where we started from. When
we initially laid out-- and initially what we wanted to do,
what the client was going to do, was going,to refurbish the
existing home and propose a pool between the existing home and
the water. He wanted to get a swimming pool. And we went in and
we started with the house, and the architect obtained a building
permit and commenced renovating his house. A week later, the
house burns to the ground, presumably some sort of electrical
failure. It was very hard for the fire department to get up
into that area because of the nature of Hyatt Road. If you went out
there, you know what I'm talking about. So the house burns to
the ground. Then what ensues is a fight with the insurance
company, which took a year-and-a-half. Once we knew we had to
Board of Trustees 30 -December 12, 2018
build a new house, we came in with an application and the
surveyor or architect Young & Young had thought that we would
have to be 150 feet between the well and the septic system. So
they placed the septic system, new septic system between the
house and the water. At that time, the house was 64-and-a-half
feet from the top of the bluff. The Health Department, because
of the same slope problem, says our concern is you won't be able
to access it there. And because the land is so high there, we
believe we could do a deep well. We can reduce the setback from
150 feet to 100 feet.
So at that point, they did that, leaving the septic system
there. And the Zoning Board said we want you to try to move the
house back further. To 75 feet. Which we were able to do by
relocating the well closer to Arthur Leudesdorfs house, which
is next,door to the east. And once we did that, it freed up room
to the, you know, to the front yard. So because of the 100 foot
and the relocated well, we were finally able to move the house
back from 64-and-a-half feet to 75 feet. And we are able to put
the septic system in an area where it can be accessed, thereby
avoiding those slopes. So that is what has been done in this
application.'
There is and there has to be a storm water plan, and it
.sounds to me that it would be worthwhile for the applicant to
develop such a plan, including by an engineer, including
whatever measures are needed to protect the property next door.
Because obviously you don't want the slope sliding into the next
door neighbor's house. Right now, there would be setback 15 feet
from that side lot line, which is a compliant setback. Okay, and
I think the engineer should be able to do that, and I'm happy to
table it for that purpose. And in fact put the engineer in touch
with the Town engineer and let the two of them work to their
satisfaction, because that is not an unreasonable thing for this
Board to ask. So I'm okay with that.
As to the pool, it is sort of overlaid in a location that is
landward of the concrete pond that is already there. And I
would suggest that if a house 40 feet from the top of the bluff
apparently poses no impact to the bluff as a natural feature,
that a pool, the cavity of which is more like 80 or 81 feet
could not possibly have such impact. So we would like to keep
the pool where it is.
And then finally, as to the buffer, we are willing to
increase that buffer if that is something the Board is
interested in doing. And I have mentioned, I thought that we
were going to propose a buffer of 15 to 20 feet, something in
that area. And I'm happy to come back with some sort of
landscape plan to show how that would be done.
So that's basically the history for this property.
Obviously we never encountered any objections from the neighbors
who have been noticed twice on this. Through the Zoning Board
and you. So there is not really that neighborhood concern. It
doesn't mean your concern is not warranted, and out of abundance
Board of Trustees 31 December 12, 2018
of caution I have no problem sending this to the engineers and
letting them sort of work this out. And I'm confident that they
can. So that would conclude what I have to say tonight. Sounds
like we are going to table it, so let's go ahead and do that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll recap for the record during the course
of the table resolution. But are there any additional concerns
of the members of the Board? Questions?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not 'at this time.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else at this time who wishes
to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Based on the request of, the applicant's request to table
this application, I move to table with the following information
that the Board would request on a new set of plans. A proposal
for a non-turf buffer, we appreciate, in excess of ten to 15
feet, which the Board normally asks for. The placement of the
pool mechanicals and pool drywell on the plans; placement of a
pool safety fence or construction details if it's not needed
because of the elevation of the pool or some other. And then
along with it, an engineer's review of the drainage and slopes to
address the Board's concern, as you offered, the Board's concern
about the construction details. And I would add it's my
understanding, in offering this motion to table also, it's my
understanding, the Board did not have environmental concerns
about the pool per se. It just had to do with concerns about
whether the house needed to reconfigured if an engineering
concern arose because of the very steep slopes between that 15
feet, although it appears to have met the Zoning Board approval
and it's compliant, it's almost nosebleed territory when you go
to 15 feet.and overlook that edge.
MR. ANDERSON: I understand that completely. I think that's
thoughtful. '
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Accordingly, I'll move to table this
application for these items to be submitted on a new set of
plans, and engineering review.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
One question. When we say table, do we mean to a specific
time? Is there a date?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Our next meeting.
MR. ANDERSON: So if we can't do it and kick it over an
additional month, that's okay?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Just request a postponement prior to the
meeting.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number ten, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of
DROUZAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORP. requests a Wetland Permit
for the as-built 42'x60.3' two-story dwelling with as-built
Board of Trustees 32 December 12, 2018
16.5'x21.5' deck attached to the seaward side of the dwelling;
for the relocation of drywells to contain roof runoff, to be in
accordance with Chapter 236 of the Town Code Stormwater Runoff;
for the as-built 7,342.91 sq. ft. gravel driveway; as-built
addition of 10 cubic yards of clean fill to grade driveway and
parking area; and for a 4' wide mulch path through the
Non-Disturbance area to the water.
Located: 54120 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-52-2-20.1.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent and consistent. The
proposed action has been reviewed to Chapter 268, waterfront
consistency review of the Town of Southold town code and LWRP
problem policy standards. Based upon information provided on
the LWRP consistency assessment form submitted to this
department as well as the records available to me, it's my
recommendation that the as-built structures and activities are
inconsistent with policy standards 6.3 and therefore is
inconsistent with the LWRP.
The relocation of the drywells and construction of a
four-foot wide path to the water is consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this.
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection December 5th,
discussed the need for town engineer review of the drainage for
the house and driveway on the seaward side of dwelling. Also
the need for a split-rail fence to delineate the non-disturbance
buffer. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Good evening. Patricia Moore on behalf of the
applicants. I knew that, well, after our work session, field
inspection, pardon me, I sent a letter, a long list to the
architect to ask them to add to the plans, and he was away that
week, so it delayed receipt of the plans. So I told my clients
don't come because we'll be here again next time. So they all
wanted to come but I said don't.
What I have from our field inspection, and I'll just recite
it so I make sure I get everything that you want on it. The
first thing you asked that rather than the row of evergreens to
delineate the non-disturbance buffer, the owner will install a
split rail fence. So I'm having that changed on the plans. The
driveway going back to the house, the lower level seaward side,
must be pervious. As I stated at the hearing, I already got the
DEC approval, it has to be pervious otherwise lot coverage would
be of issue. So any material that,is from, during the
construction that may.have been CCA or non-pervious, he's going
to excavate out. He's very familiar with the construction. He
built the house. That's his business, his personal home. So he
knows construction. But I asked the architect to please put a
cross-section of how to build a pervious driveway. That way it's
clear on the plans that's he's building a pervious driveway.
That's the portion of the driveway that is on the seaward side
of the house. The driveway along the North Road, that area was
Board of Trustees 33 December 12, 2018
always identified as asphalt and that was not a problem.
I'd remind the Board here that we are more than 100 feet,
we are 150 feet from the edge of wetlands. The only area is a
fresh water pocket which was from neighbors they told us that
was excavated out by the adjacent properties that was used as
fill to fill in some of the adjacent properties, and the reason
the wetlands have been created there is those houses are
draining their roof runoff on my client's property. Nevertheless
it is a pocket of fresh water wetland and there is a 25 foot
non-disturbance vegetated buffer around it that was established
by prior permits. Prior to construction.
The other item here I have, we are going to -- oh, the town
engineer, asked the town engineer to review this. I had
actually met with the Town engineer and we pulled out the plans
that he had approved originally. He says,,great, more drainage
is always welcome. But when I get the final design from the
architect, I'll submit it to the town engineer, Jamie Richter
just said give him a set of plans with calculations and he'll
review it. So there should not be any issue with that.
So I talked to you about the asphalt portion of the
driveway, on the street side. I would also point out that this
house is on County Route 48. There is no ability to park any
vehicles on County Route 48 so all parking has to be on this
property.,He has, I think, four children. It's a big family, so
there is a lot of cars. So, um, he wants to have certainly
enough'parking so that all the family can come on weekends.
They are a very close family, they all come in. And there is no
parking to be had, that is available on County Route 48.
Aside from that, I think I've, those are the comments that
I got from you at the field inspection. If there is anything
else let me know now because I would like the get the architect
to get me a complete drawing for the next meeting.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I can't speak for the entire Board, but I'm a
little uncomfortable with a deck that is previously denied that
is currently in a place where it should not be.
MS. MOORE: Okay, I respect your opinion. Here are the facts.
When you are dealing with decks or structures, certainly an
accessory structure like this that is ten feet off the ground,
so it is elevated, it creates absolutely no environmental
impact. The wetland distance is more than 100 feet. The 25
non-disturbance buffer is maintained. I would remind you and the
Board that when this property owner bought the property, there
was a letter of non-jurisdiction that was issued. So the client
bought the property believing that the jurisdictional limit was
100 feet. The entire house including the backyard would have
been completely out of the Board's jurisdiction. During I guess
at some point after he bought the property, when there was an
inspection for the house, because I believe the original
application would have been non-jurisdiction 75 feet. He needed
a non jurisdiction for 100 feet. The Board went back out there
Board of Trustees 34 December 12, 2018
and discovered this pocket of fresh water wetlands. I believe
that's the chronology. I provided a letter with my objections
how he was treated with the, you know, as I believe penalties and
making this a full application, when ordinarily this would be
considered an amendment to a permit. Here I am. But it does
give me the opportunity to put on the record the entire history
of this file as well as the important point that your
jurisdiction and your concerns are environmental concerns. And
as I pointed out, a pervious, this is a deck, built normally as
any other deck, with water comes through. The house was made
smaller. So the deck is,,actually, if you consider the original
permits that were issued on this house, the deck is still
partially within the original construction or design of the
house. The house was significantly larger when it was originally
approved, and it has shrinking, shrinking until it was
ultimately built this way.
So as far as the environmental impact, which is the concern
that you should always consider as a Trustee, there is no
environmental impact. And while I respect your opinion, and it
would always be nicer if a client asked for the amendment prior
to the change, he quite frankly believed that he had the
approval because he had made so many revisions, and there were
so many permits that had, the two permits that had been issued,
it was his mistake. Now, he paid for his mistake because he's
paying for me, he's paying for the double fines, the penalty
applications, the whole bit. But nevertheless, it is a very
standard, simple application. Considering also the size of this
property compared to the surrounding community, which are tiny,
tiny little lots with houses that have no drainage, no
protection from the wetlands, their sanitary systems are pretty
much right next to Hashamomuck Pond. This house is for the most
part a significantly conforming house. So.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'm a little confused. So are you saying the
deck in its present location is a permitted structure by some
other agency?
MS. MOORE: No, a prior permit had granted approval for a much
larger house, and when he came in for an amendment, the
architect, rather than give a design of the deck, showed the
shrinking of the house. It also shows the silhouette of the
larger house..That was one of the prior permit maps that you
have in your file. So when he built this, he was still
visualizing the large house that he was approved, and that this
got much smaller. So the size of this, I mean I can go through,
it was a screw up. It was a screw up.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: But it was not approved by this Board or any
other Board.
MS. MOORE: Well, the deck never got an approval, because -- I
take that back. The width of the house was a full foundation and
it was going to be, a full foundation of the house, and I
believe that, let me go back to one of the drawings..I think the
deck was originally to be on the side yard. What you find when
Board of Trustees 35 December 12, 2018
you live out on Hashamomuck is, it's extremely windy. And to be,
to not be protected from the Sound to Hashamomuck, it was so
windy there when'he was building he said it's go be to be very
uncomfortable, you can't even have umbrellas up most of the day.
In the summertime after 3:00 all your umbrellas go down because
of the wind. So he relocated the deck to the.back. This was
before the deck was built. Should he have come here and gotten
an approval from this Board before he relocated the deck? Yes.
Would it have been approved? Most likely. I'don't see any
reason why it would not have been approved then, because.again
it was maintaining the setbacks 63 feet from the edge of the 100
foot setback from the wetlands. So we are 163 from the
Hashamomuck wetland. Where you are, the only reason that it's
regulated is again because of this pocket of wetlands on the
side. And that pocket of wetlands was not a mapped wetland, it
was discovered through field investigation. Again, that wetland
is, I want to say manmade in that it was an excavation, and also
being fed by natural drainage from all the neighbors. From the
neighbors on the, directly to the west. We saw from the
field, I don't know if some of you saw it; but I showed it to
Mr. Bredemeyer, that the two houses showing on this survey
actually have pipes that are draining right on my client's
property. That you actually see pipes of this size (indicating).
There are pipes also that are draining into that wetlands as
well. It's out of our control. But-- and he bought it that
way, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just have a question. Just for point of
clarification. So having the deck on the side which is, you
know, essentially facing the Sound, is an inappropriate location
for the deck because of weather conditions?
MS. MOORE: Well, you have multiple reasons. One, you are right
on Middle Road, so you have no privacy. Two, the wind coming
from the Sound, and I can testify and swear to you because I
live by Hashamomuck, and I can tell you with absolutely
certainly it's extremely windy and --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because in prior applications we put decks on
the Sound before. And recently.
MS. MOORE: Yes, if you have no choice. If you have Sound front
property and you put a deck in the back, you don't have a
choice. There are lots of times you have decks on the Sound
because that's the only location they have.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ms. Moore, of course, this application, I
think started before I resumed public,service as a Trustee in
2010. It went back to 2004, 2005. So it's gone through a number
of Boards. My question is if you took an overlay of the prior
approvals of this Board, are you saying that the deck, the
as-built deck as proposed would be within the bounds of the
prior approvals of the Board?
MS. MOORE: In looking, it's very hard to tell. Because I want to
say within a foot or so, because when -- I would have to have
the architect do an overlay. But from the prior maps, I was able
Board of Trustees 36 December 12, 2018
to identify -- let me pull out the map for you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So that would be something, in light of your
request to table on behalf of the applicant, that would be
something you could in fact show us. I know I was involved in
measuring off, during the course of the prior approvals, I think
two iterations, because I think very quickly after being on the
Board in 2010, 1 was out looking at that pocket wetland of which
you speak, and I would tend to agree, based on what we have seen
there with that. But it would be most helpful if we could have
that overlay, an overlay from an architect or engineer at least
in my mind would be valuable piece of information, the whole
Board could look at it in light of this as-built situation that
we are uncomfortable with.
MS. MOORE: That should not be too difficult for the architect to
provide. He's the one that provided all the prior drawings. So
I'll ask that of him. Very simple. I'll try to make it a simple
silhouette, so.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's based on vegetation so it's --
MS. MOORE: Pardon me? It's based on vegetation, therefore it's
fresh water. Therefore, it's fed by non-salt water, right?
Non-tidal. It's not a tidal wetland, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, and there may be subject to further
review. We have not walked that in the current iterations. So
that carried over. It was not strongly a fresh water wetland. I
don't remember a lot of indicators there, to be truthful, with
my own impression of it. At that time. We had not gone into
that pocket, and is there is this issue with the neighbor
drainage.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I want to point out that deck was, I came on the
Board in 2011 and this was a contentious application at that
time. There was a deck that was requested at that time on the
seaward side of the building, but on the eastern --
MS. MOORE: Western.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Eastern side of the building. And it was denied
by the Board at the time.
MS. MOORE: No, I would again correct you --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Please don't correct me. Let's not argue back
and forth. That's my recollection of it. And I think the files
will prove me correct.
Also I want to point out that the builder's confusion is
not a reason to bless something, whatever is done as built. He
should be aware of what was applied and what was approved. And
lastly, I don't know of any data that shows that a deck that is
on, a foot above the ground or ten feet off as you state, is any
less of an environmental impact. And the environmental impact of
that deck is what we were considering when we denied it.
Because we were trying to maximize the distance from the
wetlands. So another point--
MS. MOORE: Okay. Please let me correct the one point you keep
repeating that is wrong. The application was --
Board of Trustees 37 December 12, 2018
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can I finish my point--
MS. MOORE: (Continuing) to 25 feet from the wetlands.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I was allowing you to speak and I didn't
interrupt you. And I'll ask you not to interrupt me.
MS. MOORE: I apologize. I don't want you to be under the
impression where facts are, there is a basic factual error. But
go ahead. I'll listen.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I think that's the point I'm trying to make,
that you are making basic factual errors. With regard to the
wind, the wind tends to follow the contours of the ground. This
house and the property is in a very low lying area. And which is
why the wind,is funneling through there. But I find that no
reason to allow a person to move a deck that was denied wherever
they want to put it. So I'm disinclined to approve any changes
that would not be blessed by this Board.
MS. MOORE: Let me correct one thing, because I don't want to end
up in court over this. This is the Drouzas' application that was
made that the Board denied. It asked that, the application was,
in order to, was moving the house away from the North Road, to
25 feet from the 100-foot setback. 25 feet from the 100-foot
setback. What they have now is 60-some feet from the 100-foot
setback. I'll give you this. And please make a photo copy of
it. That is why I want you to understand, add the wetlands, so.
Let me see. 100, which meant that it was now much closer to the
freshwater wetland that you identified. That is the application
you denied. Not the deck.
MR. HAGAN: Can you give the date of the denial, for the record?
MS. MOORE: Yes. (Perusing). Sorry, you would have it in your
files, but.
MR. HAGAN: If you don't have it, that's fine.
MS. MOORE: No, I'll give it to you, for sure. (Perusing).
I have 15, it goes back. Sorry. Okay, so the application to
amend the permit was to build a smaller house 25 feet away from
wetland. That was in 2013.
MR. HAGAN: Okay.
MS. MOORE: So the application for an amendment was 10/15/13.
That is the application that you guys said no, you can't move
the house 25 feet from the wetlands. So that's the only
application I'm aware of that had, it was the house with the
deck. It has a deck, I don't even'see the deck, I apologize. It
was drawn by, I don't know, Zambrano Architectural Designs. I
think that's it. Anyway.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions or comments from the
Board?
(Negative response).
Am I correct you are requesting to table this on behalf of the ,
applicant?
MS. MOORE: Yes. I'll get you the plans that are revised in
accordance with the field inspection, and I will ask the
architect if they could provide me or he could provide me with
an overlay to see exactly what the original house was, where its
Board of Trustees 38 December 12, 2018
location was, and then the size of it, and try to make sense of
the placement of the house, the footprint, and where we have the
application, where the structures are now, so I can give you a
comparison. An easy, simple comparison.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And also that overlay would include the
current proposed driveway in relation to that, so in other words
you have a driveway that wraps around --
MS. MOORE: Well, the driveway is new driveway around the back.
That was during construction, the contractor created a stable
base. But now it's proposed -- it's showing on the plans now.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would be most helpful if you have a top
down view showing the prior permit history in that top down
architectural rendition that we see the extent seaward how far
the deck may or may not go from prior approvals, and that driveway.
MS. MOORE: Okay, let me see, I just want to make sure I have it.
Overlay house, deck, and driveway. Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: One last question, the new plans are going to
show a deck?
MS. MOORE: The new plans show the existing deck, yes. That is
what he's asking for. That's why I'm here. That's why we paid
for the full application, because he wants to --we need to
legalize the deck that was built behind the house.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So based on the applicant's request I make a
motion to table this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number eleven, En-Consultants on behalf of
DAVID SCHULTZ requests a Wetland Permit to raise in-place
existing one-story, single-family dwelling 24 inches to a
proposed FEMA compliant first floor elevation of 11.1' on a new
FEMA compliant foundation; remove existing cellar entrance, and
fill basement; demolish and reconstruct existing chimneys;
construct new roof addition over existing first story to remain;
construct±8'x23' one-story addition on southwest side of house
in place of'existing wood deck to be removed; construct 6'x10'
porch on southwest side of dwelling with attached 5'x10' steps
in place of existing landing and steps to be removed; construct
a 5.3'x4.5' porch with attached 3.5'x5' steps at rear of house;
remove existing nonconforming sanitary system from southwest
side of dwelling and install new S.C.D.H.S. approved sanitary
system on landward side of dwelling; remove existing concrete
block wall from landward side of dwelling; install a drainage
system of leaders, gutters and drywells to dwelling; and
establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer
along the landward edge of the tidal wetlands.
Located: 2745 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-139-2-3
The Trustees last visited this location on the 5th of
December. Noted it was straightforward, previously approved.
Board of Trustees 39 December 12, 2018
Septic is 100 plus feet from the wetlands.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. He did
note however that the tax map parcel configuration'and the
survey boundary of the parcel do not match. The lawn area
extends on to town-own land. The surveyor drew the boundary
line past the concrete marker found on the north property line
effectively extending the property boundary; require a survey
correction and installation of a vegetated non-turf buffer
within this area. The dock is located entirely on town-owned
lands.
And Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.,
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
Application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of the
applicant David Schultz. This is•a straightforward application
at this point. It is the same application that had been approved
most recently by the Board pursuant to an amendment that was
granted to previously issued wetlands permit 8652 which was
granted on December 13th, 2017. It's actually the third time the
Board is looking at this project. We had originally obtained a
permit in 2011. Anyway, after a series of different personal
circumstances and timing going through other permits, you are
now looking at a scaled down version of what used to be a
two-story addition originally when the permit was approved.
Yes, just noting the comments in the LWRP report, I'll hand
up a copy of the deed to Damon. I had also sent a copy of the
deed to Diane. I don't really know why the LWRP coordinator is
dabbling in land surveying based on a,tax map. But the deed
chain going back to 1941 clearly indicates that the property's
depth extends from the road down to the high water line of Long
Creek, runs along Long Creek, then back up to the road. Actually
with a similar distance to what is there currently.
So I don't know. That's never come up before. I don't know
why that came up. But the survey is correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak
to this application, or any comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Five favorite.number 12,, En-Consultants on behalf of TEAMC99A
PROPERTIES, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed
timber dock with water and electricity consisting of a 4'x8'
Board of Trustees 40 December 12, 2018
landward ramp leading to a 4'x39'fixed elevated catwalk
constructed with open-grate decking; a 3'x14' hinged ramp; and a
6'x20'floating dock situated in an "L" shaped configuration and
secured by four(4) 8" diameter pilings, and equipped with
chocks to support float.
Located: 980 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-1-6
The Trustees visited this site on December 5th at 11:47 AM.
All the Trustees were present, with no significant notes in the field.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed the application
and they support the application with the condition that
lighting is Dark Skies compliant.
The LWRP coordinator reviewed the application and he found
this application to be inconsistent. Note on the review that
configurations or lengths of dock structures on adjacent
parcels, 77.-1-9, 77.-1-8 and 77.-1-7 don't comply with Board
permits and should not be considered in any'decision.
In addition, water depths are shallow in the area, 1.8 feet
to 2.3 feet at mean low water at dock terminus. And may not be
conductive to operation of vessels capable of disturbing bottom
sediments and increased turbidity. He also had a note regarding
the intensity of docks in Goose Creek and the effect on water
quality and the environment has not been provided.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicant.
You can see you have the slide up that shows the stake
location of the dock. This application is nearly if not
completely identical to the dock to the north. Which was
approved by the Board pursuant to permit#8430 that was issued
to Ledonne on May 21 st, 2014, and then later amended in 2016.
The length of the catwalk, 39 feet seaward of the bulkhead is
actually identical, the length of the ramp is identical, the
float is identical in size. So you should have seen that that
aligned nearly exactly with the dock to the north if that float
still was in the water. The dock to the west, sorry, to the
south, is also a Trustee permitted dock. That's at 1050 Oak
Avenue, and that was, I think that permit was transferred in
2013, was determined based on your inspection to be consistent
with a letter I believe of amendment that was issued in June of
1993.
So to my knowledge, those are both legally permitted docks
on either side of this property. There is an existing non-turf
buffer behind the bulkhead. Otherwise I don't have too much to
say about it.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Are there any questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: What's the water depth at the end of the
dock?
MR. HERRMANN: Oh, I'm glad you asked that. The quote from the
LWRP report is not 100% correct. I think it was read that it was
2.3 feet at mean low water on the outside of the float. It's
actually 2.3 feet at mean low or low water, which is a lower
Board of Trustees 41 December 12, 2018
standard than has typically been used by this Board because that
was the policy that the DEC got into a number of years ago when
they were trying to sort of see these worst-case scenario water
depth situations.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: As a point of correction, I did misread this.
It is mean low low water.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mean low,low is higher standard where the
waters are typically lower.
MR. HERRMANN: Correct. It's a more conservative standard from a
water depth perspective. So you would have over two'and-a-half
feet of water there at an average low water event on the outside
of the float. Which is consistent outside of the float to the
north is shown as 2.4.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: And you are planning on chocking the float?
MR. HERRMANN: No, I don't believe -- or do I have. (Perusing).
Sorry, I do. Sorry. Greg, you are correct.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: No worries. Another question I have. The
Conservation Advisory Council did bring up Dark Skies compliant
lighting. I don't see any consideration for lights in the plans.
I'm assuming there are no lights?
MR. HERRMANN: That's a topic I have never been quite sure what
the right answer is. We include in the permit water and
electricity so they can bring water and they can bring a light.
And Jay may know, there is technically some code required for
lighting at the end of the dock under Coast Guard, and I have to
admit I don't have any idea whether that lighting environment is
consistent with Dark Skies compliant.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a navigation light requirement,
typically like a green light or amber light. And the other
thing we got involved in, because running electric near water
can be rather hazardous, so we typically get an electrical
certificate on it.
But you can look up that lighting requirement, typically
ends up being Dark Skies compliant because most of the dock
lights now have a solar, a lot of the ones just put a solar
light up there and it collects and dispenses the light to the,
you know, visible to the sides
MR. HERRMANN: I think the Board has conditioned other permits
that had electricity or lighting included as being Dark Skies
compliant. I assume the intent is nobody wants the person to go
out and light up the dock.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Like put a flag pole out with two spots --
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, and like a show me, look at my dock at night
type thing. So I don't think that is anybody's intention, but I
don't have a problem if you include that condition in the permit
so you can control it if it was a problem.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's code the lights have to be Dark Skies
compliant.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's code.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So you don't, because it's based off mean low
low, you don't actually need the chocks?
Board of Trustees 42 December 12, 2018
Can we take those out if they are not needed?
MR. HERRMANN: Typically what I have seen lately with the DEC is
if you are somewhere between two and two-and-a-half feet, either
DEC or the army Corps has been requiring chocks. So what has
happened, and I think happened, had it might have been
Blanchard, where we went through the whole permit process and
then I had to come back here and go through a whole permit
amendment process because the chocks required a second pair of
pilings. I mean the chock itself is really underwater most of
the time. It's really just, it's an aquatic bed frame. But it's
the second pair of pilings. So now having seen it frequently
enough from the DEC and the Corps, I anticipate they are going
to ask for it. That's why we show it so we don't have to come
back. If for some reason they don't ask for it, we could reduce
the number of poles to two and leave off the chocks. I don't
think that would violating the permit. But if we didn't show it
and added them, I think it would violate the permit. So I would
err on the side of caution, since there is really no additional
impact. The idea is to protect the bottom from the float sitting
on it at extremely low tide.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Point well taken.
MR. HERRMANN: If you look at the section we show it so that the
elevation of the 6x6's that are bolted to the piles are actually
below the elevation of mean low or low water. So in theory, the
float should very rarely be sitting on those chocks but a
handful of times during the year.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any other questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anybody else here to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted, noting the neighboring docks have historically been
there and are permitted structures, and they do not violate the
one-third rule of navigation, thereby satisfying the
inconsistency on the LWRP report.
I make a motion to approve the application as submitted.
And the Dark Skies is a Town Code issue, I don't think we need
to make a note of it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 43 December 12, 2018
Respectfully submitted by,
m
Michael J. Domino, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
JAN 24201 @ U 111P"�
S uthold,Town Clerk