HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-02/13/2019 ° s � Town Hall Annex
Michael J.Domino President o�', _ ° .
John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President '�� �'%'? s` ' 54375 Route 25
Glenn Goldsmith tL �- P.O.Box 11 k
I � � Southold,New York 11971
A.Nicholas Krupski �\ � Telephone(631) 765-1892
Greg Williams Fax(631) 765-6641
COUN
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECE1 v
IED
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MAR 2 8 2099Q tt-q Av'l
Minutes S rA thold Town ,erk
Wednesday, February 13, 2019
5:30 PM
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, March 12, 2019 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 5:30 PM at the Main
Meeting Hall
WORK SESSIONS: Monday, March18, 2019 at 4:30 PM at the Town Hall Annex 2nd
floor Board Room, and on Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 5:00 PM
at the Main Meeting Hall
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of January 16, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good evening and welcome to our Wednesday, February 13th,
2019, monthly meeting. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order and ask that
you stand for the pledge.
(Pledge of Allegiance).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to recognize the people on the dais. To my immediate
left is Trustee John Bredemeyer; Trustee Glenn Goldsmith; Trustee Nick Krupski, who is
now the proud father of a young baby girl. Congratulations; and Trustee Greg Williams.
To my right is Assistant Town Attorney Damon Hagan; Senior Clerk Typist Elizabeth
Cantrell and Court Stenographer Wayne Galante. And also with us tonight is
Conservation Advisory Council member John Stein.
I would also like to recognize in the audience tonight, Eleanor Smith, the wife of
longtime Trustee Henry Smith.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I had the pleasure of serving with Henry, many years.
Board of Trustees 2 February 13, 2019
I don't know if Eleanor can give the exact number because his term in office
preceded me, but it's nice to see you here this evening, Eleanor. I understand you
carry the interest of your creek forward, and having lived on the town creek for
some time, and are here to participate.
p TRUSTEE DOMINO: Agendas are located on the podiums and also in the hallway.
! At this time I would like to announce the postponements.
Postponements are set for a number of reasons, usually because
the application is not complete.
On page five we have number two, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of
MILDRED M. PASCUCCI requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#8920 to install
an IA/OWTS septic system (Hydro-Action AN400) within the established 15' wide
non-disturbance buffer area that runs along King Street, utilizing ±300 cubic yards of
clean fill retained and surrounded by a 160 linear foot long retaining wall with a top
Celevation of 65; and to install a native planting scheme featuring the planting of beach
i grass over an 88'x20' area running along the easterly portion of the premise and
over the septic system.
Located: 305 Narrow River Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-3-11, has been postponed.
r' On page six, we have number four and number five are postponed. They are listed
as follows:
Number four, Docko, Inc. on behalf of LCMG FINY, LLC, c/o LESLIE GOSS
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to retain and reconstruct±151
linear feet of existing 8'wide fixed wood pier with handrails on each side, of which ±120
linear feet is waterward of the AHWL; install 32 new pier support piles; maintain the
r landward most stone-filled timber pier support crib; remove the outermost four(4)
support crib timbers; replace three (3) tie-off piles and install one (1) new tie-off pile.
!° Located: 3773 Clay Point Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-2-1-14.1.
Number five, 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 4-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.
On page ten through 13, we have numbers 16 through 27 are postponed. They
are listed as follows:
Number 16, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ROBERT & BARBARA LEWIS requests
a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 104 linear feet of existing bulkhead with new
vinyl bulkhead in-place with a raised elevation of 18" above existing top cap.
Located: 700 West Cove Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-2-10
Number 17, Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc. on behalf of MICHAEL
KREGER requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing one-story dwelling, brick
stoop, wood deck, shed with wood steps attached to west side of dwelling, shed with
wood ramp, brick walkway, A/C unit on slab, and remove existing septic tank and
leaching pools; construct new 1,895 sq. ft. two-story dwelling to be located 55' from
wetlands with two (2) roofed porches, one 50 sq. ft. roofed porch on the front southwest
side of dwelling and one 21 sq. ft. roofed porch on the northwest side of dwelling with
approximately 30 sq. ft. of stairs leading down from the roofed porches to the ground;
new 13 sq. ft. outdoor shower; new 740 sq. ft. infinity pool with spa; new 670 sq. ft. pool
terrace; new 45 sq. ft. pool equipment area on concrete slab; new 32 sq. ft. generator of
concrete slab; new HVAC equipment on 43 sq. ft. concrete slab; new pool enclosure
Board of Trustees 3 February 13, 2019
i
i
fencing to be located 13.5' from landward edge of wetlands; install a new septic tank and
leaching pools; reconfigure the existing driveway increasing its area from 2,350 sq. ft. to
2,765 sq. ft.; existing garage with wood stoop and steps to remain; install a system of
gutters to leaders to drywells to the dwelling and garage in order to contain stormwater
runoff; expand the existing 5,385 sq. ft. Non-Disturbance Buffer by adding another
2,925 sq. ft. area to the buffer, including 1,342 sq. ft. of existing native vegetation and
1,583 sq. ft. of proposed native'vegetation which will be planted to the northwest of the
j proposed dwelling in order to establish and perpetually maintain an 8,310 sq. ft.
Non-Disturbance Buffer area.
Located: 1085 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-3-13.1.
Number 18, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of MURRAY& MAXINE
GAYLORD requests a Wetland Permit to replace existing timber sheathed bulkhead
with a new vinyl sheathed bulkhead in-place measuring ±156.5' in overall length
including a ±30.5' seaward return at westerly terminus, and is to consist of vinyl
sheathing secured by 6"x6" @ 2 tiers timber walers, 4"x6" timber clamps, ±8" diameter
timber pilings, and a backing system comprised of±8" diameter timber dead-men and 8"
diameter lay-logs.
Located: 765 Beachwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-116-4-20.1.
' Number 19, Docko, Inc. on behalf of R. B. BURNHAM III requests a Wetland
Permit to construct±66 linear feet of 4' wide fixed wood pile and timber pier of which ±48
linear feet is waterward of the AHWL, including hand rails on each side, electric and
water utilities; install a 3.5'x22' hinged ramp to a 6'x20' float with four (4) 8" diameter
restraint piles.
Located: Right of Way off Peninsula Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-4-10.
Number 20, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of DONALD L.
CLEVELAND, JR. requests a Wetland Permit to remove all remains of existing old
dock; construct a 4'x55' fixed dock; and install two (2) tie-off piles.
Located: 1305 Winthrop Drive, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-9-8-6.
Number 21, En-Consultants on behalf of EVAN AKSELRAD &YASMINE ANAVI
requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place approximately 37 linear feet
of existing timber bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead and backfill with approximately 15
cubic yards clean sand fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source; remove and
replace existing 4'x10' wood steps off bulkhead to beach with 4'x4'wood landing and
3'x7' aluminum stairs; remove and replace existing 459 sq. ft. wood deck with 394 sq. ft.
(17.5'x22.5) on-grade, semi-pervious masonry patio (stone set in sand with gravel
joints); install 2'x4' stone paver between proposed patio and wood landing; install 4' high
i wire mesh fence with gate; supplement existing vegetation on face of embankment with
i, native grasses and shrubs; establish and perpetually maintain.a 10'wide non-turf buffer
along top of bank; remove non-native/invasive vegetation and establish native plantings
within approximately 1,650 sq. ft. area along northerly property line; establish
approximately 855 sq. ft. of native plantings along southerly property line; and remove
existing well, concrete cover, flag pole, split-rail fence, and four(4) trees landward of
bank.
Located: 9920 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-6-10.
Number 22, CEDARS GOLF CLUB, LLC, c/o PAUL PAWLOWSKI requests a
Wetland Permit to make the existing ponds larger in order to create a better ecosystem
by digging the ponds 1-2 feet deeper while removing the Common Reed (Phragmites
i australis) that is in and around the ponds; the three ponds that currently exist will be
excavated'in order to create one large pond which will allow the ponds to circulate better
with the creek to the south and improve drainage; no large trees will be removed; all fill
is to remain on site; and any disturbed areas around ponds will be revegetated with
i�
Board of Trustees 4 February 13, 2019
native plant material.
Located: 305 Cases Lane Extension, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-109-5-16.3.
Number 23, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of SIGURDSSON
BALDUR, LLC, c/o WADE GUYTON, MANAGER requests a Wetland Permit to
j, construct a 41.96'x57.28' (1,712 sq. ft.) two-story dwelling; a 40.5'x14' (680 sq. ft.)
in-ground swimming pool with a surrounding 680sq.ft. Terrace; and to resurface an
approximately 1,668 sq. ft. asphalt driveway.
Located: 1800 Hyatt Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-50-1-4.
Number 24, 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 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.
Number 25, 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;
i 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.
Number 26, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of THOMAS V. PERILLO, JR. &
CHRISTOPHER PERILLO 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.
i Located: 1400 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-145-2-17.4.
Number 27, 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.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Excuse me. So if it's postponed that means we'll be notified
at a later date?
MR. HAGAN: No. The matter will be on for the next Board meeting. Which the date will
be voted on in a matter of minutes.
i
Board of Trustees 5 February 13, 2019
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: In theory, it should be on the next meetings agenda unless it
gets postponed again. Yes?
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Sorry, did you say page seven number four?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Page seven, we did not.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Okay. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to announce under Town Code 275-8(c), files were
officially closed seven days ago and submission of paperwork after that date may result
in a delay of the processing of the application.
At this time I'll entertain a motion to have our next field inspection Tuesday,
March 12th, 2019, at 8:00 AM at the town annex.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
j TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll entertain a motion hold next Trustee meeting Wednesday,
March 20, 2019, 5:30 at the main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
i
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like a motion to hold the next work session, Monday,
March 18th, 2019, at 4:30 PM at the town hall annex, second floor, and on Wednesday,
March 20th, 2019, at 5:00 PM at the main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time I'll entertain a motion to approve the Minutes of the
January 16th, 2019 meeting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
i
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for January 2019. A check for$25,905.48 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.
i
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the
following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, February 13, 2019, are classified as Type 11 Actions
Board of Trustees 6 February 13, 2019
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA:
Timothy Casamento & Kleo King SCTM# 1000-52-9-1.2
Mildred Pascucci SCTM# 1000-26-3-11
Oregon Cliffs, LLC, c/o Martin Soja SCTM# 1000-83-2-10.13
Stuart Thorn SCTM# 1000-1000-51-1-20.1
Suffolk County, c/o Cornell Cooperative Extension SCTM# 1000-93-2-2.4
Marc Zupicich &Tonya Hurowitz SCTM# 1000-78-2-26
Ann Aguanno & Gerald Gleason SCTM# 1000-31-17-3
George & Maria Rigas SCTM# 1000-70-4-28
Andrew& Linda Toga SCTM# 1000-51 -6-40
Albert & Frances Trotter SCTM# 1000-97-2-9.1
Lynn McMahon, Marie Basile & Henry Hintze SCTM# 1000-53-1-15
Robyn Romano 2015 Family Trust & Joseph P. Romano 2015 Family Trust—
SCTM# 1000-71-1-14
Robert & Barbara Lewis SCTM# 1000-111-2-9
Robert & Barbara Lewis SCTM# 1000-111-2-10
Michael Kreger SCTM# 1000-53-3-13.1
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 VII Public
Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, February 13, 2019, are
classified as Unlisted Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations:
James H. Rich III, Leslie E. Rich & Craig B. Rich SCTM# 1000-64-3-2.1
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS -OTHER:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman number IV, 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
ALEXANDRA JONES;
Located: 1230 Bayberry Road, Cutchogue; SCTM# 1000-118-2-9
That's the resolution.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONSITRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
Board of Trustees 7 February 13, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral V, applications for
extensions, transfers and administrative amendments. In order to
simplify our meeting, the Board of Trustees regularly groups
together actions that are deemed minor or similar in nature.
Accordingly, I make a motion to approve as a group numbers one,
two, three, five, six, seven and eight. That's a motion, and
they are listed as follows:
Number one, En-Consultants on behalf of EVAN AKSELRAD &
YASMINE ANAVI requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#8251 from
9820 Nassau Point, LLC to Evan Akselrad & Yasmine Anavi, as
issued on July 17, 2013.
Located: 9820 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-6-10
Number two, ANN AGUANNO & GERALD GLEASON request a Transfer
of Administrative Permit#7858A from David Korchin & Joan Rentz
to Ann Aguanno & Gerald Gleason, as issued on July 18, 2012.
Located: 2085 Bay Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-17-3
Number three, Winston Ely &Tricia Martin on behalf of OLD
SALT ROAD, LLC request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#9355 from
Joan O'Leary to Old Salt Road, LLC, as issued on November 14,
2018; and for an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#9355 to demolish the entire existing dwelling in lieu of
constructing additions and alterations to existing dwelling with
proposed new construction dimensions to remain the same as
originally permitted.
Located: 770 Old Salt Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-144-5-14
Number five, McCarthy Management, Inc. on behalf of TOMOTHY
CASAMENTO & KLEO KING requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit#9164 to construct a one-story, non-habitable
22'x46' (1,180 sq. ft.) garage with two (2) 6'x9' roof-over
corners for two covered entry porches (108 sq. ft.) for a total
footprint of 1,288 sq. ft. in lieu of the previously proposed
28'x46' garage.
Located: 2667 Long Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-9-1.2
Number six, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of
TIMOTHY & NANCY LEE HILL requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit#9297 to reconstruct the 12.3'x26.2' seaward side
deck in-place and in-kind.
Located: 360 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-2-2
Number seven, WBL and Associates, LLC on behalf of VIRGINIA
A. BONTJE requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#8943 to relocate the front porch and walkway further to the
northwest and to construct a 318 sq. ft. front porch and permeable
paver walkway in lieu of the originally proposed 145 sq. ft. front
porch and walkway; construct a 60' long retaining wall for the
driveway in lieu of the originally proposed 55' long retaining
wall; and to construct a 37 sq. ft. outdoor shower in lieu of the
originally proposed 16 sq. ft. outdoor shower.
Located: 805 Island View Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-57-2-23
Number eight, D.B. Bennett, P.E., P.C. on behalf of KUPARI,
LLC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9309
Board of Trustees 8 February 13, 2019
to modify the proposed set of bluff stairs by constructing the stairs at a
minimum height of 3' above grade; overall size of staircase to be 83'
long x 4.5' wide in lieu of 65' long by 4.5' wide; top landing to be 23" long
by 4.5' wide in lieu of 8' long by 4.5' wide; top steps to be 14'4.5" long x 4.5'
wide in lieu of 13.5' long x 4.5' wide; middle landing to remain as 8' long x
4.5' wide; middle steps to be 14'4.5" x 4.5' wide in lieu of 13.5' long x 4.5'
wide; lower landing to remain as 8' long x 4.5'wide; and lower steps to be
14'4.5" long x 4.5'wide in lieu of 13.5' long x 4.5' wide.
Located: 4115 Rocky Point Road, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-1-30.3
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item four, Young & Young on behalf of
ROBINSON ELIODROMYTIS requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit#9307 and Coastal Erosion Permit#9307C to
construct a two-story dwelling consisting of a first floor area
of 922 sq. ft. that includes living, storage & mechanical space in
lieu of the originally proposed 850 sq. ft. first floor area that
includes living, storage & mechanical space; construct a
1,138 sq. ft. second floor for living space in lieu of the
originally proposed 1,106 sq. ft. second floor for living space;
construct 570 sq. ft. of seaward side deck which includes a
10'x20' pool in lieu of the originally proposed 640 sq. ft.
seaward side deck and pool; install 48 sq. ft. of a proposed
seaward side 3.5'x8' (28 sq. ft.) platform with 3.5'x5.8'
(20 sq. ft.) stairs to ground; and from the dwelling to driveway
construct a 3.5'x8.7' (30 sq. ft.) timber platform to a 3.5'x15.1'
(53 sq. ft.) timber stairway to ground.
Located: 600 Leeton Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-1-7
The Board performed an additional extensive review of this
project after the original project was approved in September,
noting that the applicant had also included an innovative
alternative sanitary-system to protect the waters of Long Island
Sound. The additional proposed changes are minor and behind the
Coastal Erosion Hazard Area line and behind the wetland.
Accordingly, I would move to approve this application as
submitted, requesting a roll call vote.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HAGAN: Hold on. You wanted a roll call vote.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. HAGAN: There was a motion and a second. Now you need to do
the roll call vote. You all voted at the same time. So one at a
time, please.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Call for a roll call vote.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Trustee Goldsmith, yes.
Board of Trustees 9 February 13, 2019
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, no.
MR. HAGAN: Motion passes.
VI. MOORINGS/STAKE & PULLEY SYSTEMS/DUCK BLINDS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral VI, moorings, stake & pulley systems and
duck blinds.
Number one, KRISTOPHER OCKER requests a Waterfowl/Duck Blind Permit to
place a Waterfowl/Duck Blind in Narrow River, west of Browns Point using public
access.
Located: Off Narrow River Road, Orient located off Narrow River Road, Orient.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roman numeral VII public hearings. At this time I would
like a motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and enter into the public hearings.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: 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.
Concerning comments, please keep your comments organized
and brief, five minutes or less if possible. Also I would ask
you to speak loudly. We do not have microphones with us here
tonight. They are not operating:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, under Amendments, McCarthy Management, Inc.
on behalf of TIMOTHY CASAMENTO & KLEO KING requests an Amendment to
Wetland Permit#9228 for a proposed one-story 2,844 sq. ft. dwelling with crawl space;
attached 519 sq. ft. covered porch plus a 318 sq. ft. screened in portion with three sets
of stairs to grade, each with three treads covering 49 sq. ft., 28 sq. ft. and 27 sq. ft.;
attached 69 sq. ft. covered rear porch with stairs to grade of three treads covering
18 sq. ft. with an open 24 sq. ft. rear landing with 21 sq. ft. of stairs to grade for a total
footprint of 3,917 sq. ft.; install a new sanitary system; construct a 144 sq. ft. shed;
construct a 702 sq. ft. impervious stone terrace at grade with outdoor kitchen/barbeque
equipment; construct new 2,495 sq. ft. impervious driveway at grade with drainage
provided; construct 340 sq. ft. and 305 sq. ft. impervious walkways to dwelling; provide
silt fencing around construction area to be installed prior to and to remain during
construction; construct a fence or small stone boundary delineating the landward edge
of 50' wide non-disturbance buffer area; provide new topsoil and landscaping, including
Board of Trustees 10 February 13, 2019
irrigation using public water; provide underground connections to power, telephone and
water; install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof/stormwater runoff; and to
provide vegetation up to the 50' buffer with lawn.
Located: 2667 Long Creek Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-9-1.2
The Trustees did an inhouse inspection February 4th, noting that the plans are
essentially the same environmentally as previous plans. The garage is slightly larger, but
having minimal impact.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application.
The LWRP coordinator found it to be consistent.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(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 as
submitted.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing, under Wetlands & Coastal
Erosion Permit, number one, 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
And we are in receipt of new project plans that were
discussed at the Board's work session.
The Conservation Advisory Council had voted in support of
this project.
The project has been deemed to be inconsistent under the
Town's LWRP in that the principal structure and deck that were
as built did not receive Trustee permits and Trustee coastal
erosion permits. Also, the proposed as-built deck is located
within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area and also within the FEMA
VE zone.
I
Board of Trustees 11 February 13, 2019
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. MOSES: Scott Moses, Bulkhead Permits by Gary.
Long story short, I met with the Trustees at the project
site and I believe I made all the modifications that you
requested. I relocated the front section of the bulkhead to be
at more of an angle, to be, my understanding, more of a --
MR. MOSES (Gary): To tie into the two adjacents.
MR. MOSES (Scott): (Continuing) in conformance with your coastal
erosion preferences.
The stones that are located in front of the bulkhead, the
toe armor, we, for lack of a better word, updated the weight
between two and four tons, as per your recommendation.
The other major point was that you wanted significantly
more clean soil fill, so we gladly met those requirements. And,
what else. I believe the decking was the other issue. The
original section of the decking that is ten foot by
36-and-a-half feet was originally permitted by whoever the
original homeowner was, and when we discussed at the project
site that a small section of that can in fact be cantilevered
over the bulkhead. The two sections I was not too clear about
was the west and east side yards. Those two pieces of decking.
And if you look at the plans on the western side, I designed it
so it cantilevers over and kind of connects with the large ten
foot by 36-and-a-half foot section. My thinking was that we need
to be able to access the side yards, and if there is another
section there you can easily just walk around.
MR. MOSES (Gary): Gary Moses. It doesn't interfere with any type
of navigation, and we've done what you wanted. We are more than
willing to do any more modifications that you want to recommend
tonight,just to resolve the issue. As you are aware, the
dwelling is in disrepair and there is no way of inhabiting it.
So this issue has been resolved and it's been a while and we
would really like to clarify everything tonight and resolve this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board did again visit the site on field
inspection this month and we discussed it extensively at work
session. A concern remains that the decks on the side for which
are not permitted will need additional approvals from the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
And I know we are very concerned, we appreciate the plans
showing the proper tie line between the neighboring structures
so that the proposed bulkhead is in keeping with what would be
good coastal practice. But I think the Board doesn't want to
hold the project up on the horns, if you will, of another agency
in the Town for the side decks, and we would want to have
specific concerns of the LWRP coordinator concerning those decks
also addressed.
But for us to approve the decks now it would not be
consistent with the Town's coastal policy and it would delay you
before the Zoning Board of Appeals. With their current backlog
of work it would be a number of months and we would want to make
Board of Trustees 12 February 13, 2019
sure that you could move quickly toward protecting the house.
MR. MOSES (Gary): So we are waiting for the Zoning Board of
Appeals; is that correct?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So -- no. It would be your option if you
would want to table this for submitting a plan that didn't
include those side decks and then return to the Board for
consideration so that the Board can consider approving the
bulkhead only and the small cantilevered section in front which
includes the previously permitted deck. But it would also be
your option if you wanted --
MR. HAGAN: (Inaudible).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Understood. Okay. I believe the Board is
not inclined to approve the side decks at this time, it's my
understanding, based on the review, and that the Board would not
be able to move forward with the project with the side decks
still in play.
MR. MOSES (Scott): So the recommendation is just to remove the
two side decking, obviously, and we would have to resubmit?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You have to resubmit plans to show that they
were removed, and that would not preclude you from submitting or
detailing them in a future application before this Board or the
Zoning Board. But at this time, the Board after thorough
discussion, we don't really like the side decks. They are rather
too large for the site, and not having been built with permits
and they also run afoul, if you will, they do not, are not
consistent under the Town's LWRP. So we have trouble approving
them and we would have trouble bringing the project into
consistency under the LWRP rules.
MR. MOSES (Gary): I understand. Is there any way we can get this
approved? Am I beating a dead horse in coming back?
That's really where it's at.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: You may want to consider doing the bulkhead as
a standalone project.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board is not able to approve a project
without completed plans before it,under the current policy and
procedures that we have in place.
MR. MOSES (Gary): Right. Okay. So if we remove the two side
decks, my question to you is how do we come back to you? That's
what we are asking. We do about 90% of the stuff in Nassau
County, sometimes we come out here for a request from our Nassau
County clients. So I'm just not that familiar with your procedure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So if you go back and take your plans and
remove the side decks, then just come back to us next month for
the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Then we can vote on it. It's the side decks
that are the issue.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are legally being held up by the side decks.
MR. MOSES (Gary): We'll remove the side decks. I'll tell my
client they have to go.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We would table the matter at your request
for submission of new plans since we need new plans certain
Board of Trustees 13 February 13, 2019
before we can vote on the matter. New plans that do not show the
side decks.
MR. MOSES (Gary): Okay, then if we want to apply for the side decks --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would be a separate application.
MR. MOSES (Gary): And we would have to come back to the Board.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: After the ZBA would be appropriate.
MR. MOSES (Gary): So it's the proverbial we wasted our time, I
mean, is basically what it comes down to.
MR. MOSES (Scott): Well, clearly the question is, say we do
exactly as you say, remove the two side yards, I suppose that is
not really, say at a later date, so we can inform our client
about the issue of the side deck, can we come back, how likely
is it that it will be approved is my point.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can't answer that question. But I can
tell you there are key indications of thoughts before the Board
that we want you to protect this house and if you can get the
set of plans in before our next field inspection we'll make
certain we get it on the March calendar for consideration.
MR. MOSES (Scott): Excellent. My final question, the cantilever
that was approved, should we or not include that?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board is inclined --
MR. HAGAN: There has not been an approval.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There has not been an approval on this
proposal, so the cantilever in front, if you still maintain to
have that or would like to have that, should be on that new set
of plans that arrives before field inspection.
MR. MOSES (Gary): And the side yards we would have to come back
to you for, the side decks.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would be advisable to go to the ZBA
first on the side decks.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we can expedite this process and get a
bulkhead up.
MR. MOSES (Scott): I understand. So to be clear, we'll resubmit
without the side yards, the bulkheading as depicted in the plans
right now and the cantilever section of the front that is
previously approved. Or am I missing something.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There was a previous approval on the deck,
but that's not approved now. You can apply to have that
cantilever section.
MR. MOSES (Gary): Then if we go to ZBA first with the side yards
we can then we can return to you for the side decks.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Yup.
MR. MOSES (Gary): Thank you.
MR. MOSES (Scott): Thank you, for your time.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, for working with us. At this time
I'll make a motion to table the application at the applicant's
request for submission of new plans.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 14 February 13, 2019
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number two, DEA Engineering on behalf of
OREGON CLIFFS, LLC, c/o MARTIN SOJA requests a Wetland Permit
and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct 14 linear feet of new
bulkhead with a 20' return at easterly end using vinyl sheeting,
20' long 12" diameter piles, and 12' deep 8" diameter deadmen
set 12' behind bulkhead; install stone armor protection against
seaward side of bulkhead consisting of 2' to 3' (1-2 ton) cap
rock, 2' of core stone and filter fabric; add approximately 185
cubic yards of clean fill to be placed behind the bulkhead and
on the bluff face; the slope restoration area (1',399 sq. ft.) will
be graded, backfilled and restored with a mix of beach grass,
rosa rugose, bayberry, Virginia rose, and pitch pine; slope
stabilization shall incorporate board and stake terracing with
vegetation, panted in accordance with recommended procedures of
the N.Y.S.D.E.C. Saratoga Tree Nursery.
Located: 13457 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-83-2-10.13
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on February 4th,
noting that there was already a bulkhead in place. There was
significant erosion outside of the bulkhead, and we were
questioning the access of how you'll get the material in and do the
work.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. ADAMS: Hi, Doug Adams, professional engineer and geologist,
DEA Engineering, on behalf of the applicant. I'm here to answer
any questions you have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Our only question was the access.
MR. ADAMS: I have to look into that. Can I have a few minutes
to take a look at that?
I didn't have it on the plan. I'm guessing it's going to be by
seaward. I don't know.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is clear there. There's no rocks or anything.
MR. ADAMS: I can find out how the other portion of the project
was built. This is a previous application. Honestly, I'm not
sure why they didn't continue. They were permitted to go to the
property line and they stopped 14 feet short. That is really
what this is all about.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: If you want we could give you, we can come
back to this if you want to answer that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Or we can just condition it that it's water
access only.
MR. ADAMS: Yes. I think a lot of times when we go out to bids
sometimes we get sort of ideas from contractors. I don't
know if we can explicitly say that. But there is no other way
to do it. So it's not on the plans, but if you want it
explicitly conditioned on that, that's not a problem. And if
it's not okay with the applicant for whatever reason, I'll have
to come back and straighten it out. I don't see how else we can
do it.
Board of Trustees 15 February 13, 2019
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, anyone else is to superior speak to
this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that access be limited to barge, seaward only.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number three, Robert Wilson on behalf of
STUART THORN requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit for the as-built removal and replacement of existing 2,468 sq. ft.
on-grade seaward side stone patio in-place except the area along
the portion of the northern edge where the new patio will be set
back from the top of bluff to allow for new plantings and a
decorative split-rail fence; and to remove and replace the
existing garden wall with new 21'6"x6'0" masonry wall.
Located: 19375 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-20.1
The Trustees first visited the site on the 14th of February. The notes
are as follows: The patio proposed presents environmental issues;
a five-foot patio portion is more appropriate; should incorporate a French
drain to keep gutter water from impacting the bluff; home already very close to
bluff; will be at risk if erosion continues existing under construction; drywells
too close to bluff and in coastal erosion.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be an inconsistent action. Permit for
the patio is not located within Town records. Patio proposed to be made of bluestone
will be more compacted than natural soils, and drainage is a concern.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
this application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. Patricia Moore. I actually did a lot
of research on this property and I'm giving you just a little
memo so that, because there are a lot of permits on this
property. And the patio shows up --
MR. HAGAN: Are you speaking on behalf of the applicant?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MR. HAGAN: We need an agent on file.
MS. MOORE: I have it here actually in my file. I'll give it to
you after the hearing. Not a problem.
I have originally been contacted because I'm working on the
violation and then also trying to move this process along. The
permit expediter had already been hired so he had already been
paid to put in the application. So rather than have him double
billed, I'm here for the hearing. They put in the application.
So that is just paperwork.
Board of Trustees 16 February 13, 2019
1 wanted to go over the permit history. I wrote it out in
big print so I can read it and hopefully it's easy to follow.
This property, the original house and the bulkhead --the
original house was probably pre-existing. It's been there prior
to zoning. Then there were bulkheads added in '86 that were the
first time that the bulkhead was replaced. The original bulkhead
was there prior to '77. It had already been a bulkhead property.
In 1995, Chuck Bowman submitted an application for the
replacement of the timber bulkhead, so that's about ten years it
lasted, and they got another bulkhead. They also extended the
bulkhead in order to provide additional protection. The property
as well as the adjacent property, there had to be a connection
and a continuation of the bulkheads. Everything is there now and
those are the permits that are existing.
In 2000, November 27th, 2000, Chuck Bowman again
made the application. Permit 5244 is the permit for additions
and renovations to the single-family dwelling. At that point the
house is almost doubled in size. The original house is what you
see there in -- and I attached the survey, that I.highlighted.
The last dated survey of the proposed construction is November
8th, 2000. At that time, the patio was already there. It was all
pre-existing.
Remember, the Board, the Trustees, did not have
jurisdiction over these structures, so therefore a patio is,
particularly patios on grade, are the equivalent of a non-turf
buffer. In this case you have a patio that is in sand. These are
brick patios, patio pavers that are in sand. And actually I
have a picture of, that I'll show you which also includes the
replacement or the cutting back and replacing of a, like a
retaining wall that is on the seaward side of the house. And
we'll talk about that next. But I have a good picture to help
show everything. Sorry,.) don't know that I have seven, but I'm
sure you can share.
So what, originally, well, my client hired Connie Cross--
Connie is here --to check all the drainage. They were getting,
they were noticing that water was running over the bluff and
they were noticing that the drainage was not working and they
were getting water in the basement. So what Connie did is she
had to expose the drywells and gutters that are on the house. Do
you need a memo or, do you need anything?
MR. HAGAN: No, I'm fine.
MS. MOORE: All right. So I showed you the addition, and you can
see that the patio is attached, and that continues on with the
other survey that I have that is a later survey that shows the
balance of the patio with the finished construction of the house.
But let me go back to the reason why the application is
before you now. The existing house was built, the renovations of
the house were 19 years ago. You know that that is about the
life expectancy of window. We have old windows, partly old
windows, partly new windows. The house was in need of
maintenance and repair. The issue of the drainage was creating a
Board of Trustees 17 February 13, 2019
real problem for my clients because, again, they were getting
the water in the basement. So what Connie had to do is bring up
the brick patio so that she could identify where those gutters
and leaders were going. And in fact what she was finding, she
didn't like, um, they were not built properly; in many cases the
drywells had filled up, they were not working properly, and some
of the pipes were not properly connected to drywells. So that
was what the activity was all, when you went out there, there
was a lot of activity in the back, and that was to address the
maintenance of the existing property.
The reason they didn't think they needed Trustees permit is
because it was all existing. It was all part of the original
permits. Um, this one, again, was trying to maintain the
property. Um, now we have been able to, and what I did just for
my own kind of, you know, I like stupid, silly, simple. What I
did is, in color, I, we were out there and I identified in color
the red, which is some of the work that is a part of your plan
already, but for my own sake just understand very clearly, the
patio that goes back in is actually being cut back so that she
can plant some additional native vegetation along that area
where I say "plants added." So there will be planting involved.
The patio remains on sand as it always has. That is not
changing. And all those stars that I put on the corners of the
house, that is where the gutters and leaders, those have been
replaced and are being connected to proper drywells.
The drywells are being either connected to where they are
already existing underground, because if they are checked for
functioning, if they are functioning, they'll continue to be
connected. If they are not functioning then the drywells are
proposed in the front yard of the house, to keep them away --
keep the water, again, away from the top of the bluff.
The goal here was to pitch the ground so that you don't
have it going over the bluff and you have it pitching over to
the west around the back, around the side of the house, so the
water doesn't pitch back and flood the basement as it has been
doing.
So all of this is remediation work to try to maintain the
existing, the conditions, you saw the bluff is in very good
shape, it's very well vegetated, and it's been properly
maintained, and these are, the bulkheads and retaining walls
that are in place have been there for a long time, but because
the plants have stabilized there it's all in very good
condition. We just don't want to see any damage to the bluff
being caused by the water runoff. And that's precisely what the
coastal erosion law is about. It says the goal in the coastal
erosion area is to pitch water away from the top of the bluff.
So that's what they were, this whole project was about.
The photograph I showed you, because the grade pitches back
to the house, when the addition was built, it built that, looks
like a well, it's behind that are the basement windows with,
what do they call, the window wells. You don't really see
Board of Trustees 18 February 13, 2019
the window wells because there is shrubbery in front of it. But
what the plan is, is to again clean out that area, connect, have
the drywells properly connected, and that retaining wall in
order to pitch the ground away from the bluff, because you have
such inconsistent grades there in the back, is to raise the
height of that little retaining wall so it's seating level.
Right now it's on grade, to raise it slightly, 18 inches, I
think you described it. Very short, very small, little rock wall
that will allow then the pitch to be graded and again pushed
away from both the bluff and back of the house. So it's pitching
the grade to the side of the property.
It's a tight area and the grading has to be carefully done
on site so that it pitches it away from, it kind of, I visualize
it, it's like this, then over this way. So again, keeping the
bluff, the top of the bluff, the highest point, without
compromising the grade of the land adjacent to the house.
Are you following all that?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, we are.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Very closely.
MS. MOORE: Okay, very good. The other thing, the addition that
was all in the front, it was already a doorway that got sealed
up. So I don't think that created a problem for anybody. I
think it just got wrapped up in the Trustees permit.
I'll try to answer any questions that you might have. As I
said, I have given you the permit history here and all of this
is existing, and as far as coastal erosion you are allowed to
maintain structures that are in existence. So that's why it's
important to the client to maintain the patio area, because
that's really the only rear yard that they have, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So for starters, because that was certainly a
lot to take in. On the plans there is another drywell that is a
newly installed 15-foot hole in the ground to the east that is
not listed anywhere on this plan that I have in front of me.
MS. MOORE: That is going to be abandoned. That is not going to
be a new drywell. The hole, there is a hole there right now.
When the project was stopped, everything stopped, including that hole.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: That was a 25-foot hole.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's been partially filled in. I mean, that
should probably be included under the remediation plan here --
MS. MOORE: But we don't want one there. Unless you want us to
keep it there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Or it should probably say to be removed with
the other one. I'm looking at one in red ink, right now, 2019,
drywell to be removed. And it's on the west side.
MS. MOORE: Oh, the one-- yes. Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, so roughly, directly in line with that on
the east side, possibly even closer to the crest of the bluff.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Within the coastal erosion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well within the coastal erosion.
MS. MOORE: I saw that. Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is another one that it should probably be
Board of Trustees 19 February 13, 2019
listed on a set of plans, it says to be removed, so we have
clarification of that.
MS. MOORE: I think what you want to say is to be filled.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Fair.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Should be filled with soils prescribed by an
engineer. That should be filled with the recommendation of an
engineer or geologist. That is within the coastal erosion area
and that was, I didn't get quite so close to get my nose bleed,
but that was 15 or 20 feet deep.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: At least.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It was over 20 feet deep. I sent my tape down
there and my tape didn't reach the bottom.
MS. MOORE: It's sand. Once you hit the first layer, it's all sand.
MS. CROSS: It's sand. It's six-and-a-half feet. One guy dug it
by hand.
MS. MOORE: Maybe let's put it on the record, Connie.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If you want that to be officially -- it is
advisable, that the notion of what kind of material was placed
in there so it doesn't lead to a blowout of the bluff.
MS. CROSS: It's there. The material.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: The concern is very much the fact that if that
is not abandoned and properly sealed up, if we do get a heavy
rain, that will blow out the bluff. If that blows out the bluff--
MS. MOORE: We don't want it to blow out the bluff.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: (Continuing) that property will have a severe
issue and the neighboring property will have a severe issue.
MS. MOORE: Well, the neighboring property is also our client.
He owns both properties. So yes, we agree.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That doesn't matter, though.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: He does today. He may not next week. And the
problem is, this is why the Board of Trustees exists, to make
sure the work is done with use of best practices so we don't
have these problems.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. We'll have -- Mr. Butler has been doing
all the engineering on the property, so I don't think there will
be any problem with him taking a look and advising what
material, whatever material he would suggest. So.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So who is doing the work in the back of the
house?
MS. CROSS: Bridgehampton Stone.
I'm Connie Cross. I'm the designer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're the designer. Okay. And are you aware in
Southold Town doing any work in our jurisdiction requires a
coastal contractor license?
MS. CROSS: Yes. Actually, the contractor got the ticket.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. So that was not you. Okay.
All right. The other issue is, I mean this is quite a large
patio that you are applying to put back in place here.
Unfortunately when I visited the site in the field with the
other Trustees, it was non-existent. So I'm not sure fully what
was there. You can't really call it maintenance if it's all
Board of Trustees 20 February 13, 2019
gone, unfortunately.
MS. MOORE: I have the survey. I can give you endless pictures,
if you want, showing it. I mean, I don't think there is any
question that the patio, the brick patio was there. There are
multiple surveys.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If you are going to have the professional
engineer review this with respect to the drainage, that can
certainly be added.
MS. MOORE: Sure, that's fine. In fact we were not suggesting
French drains because that is what I think was tried last time
and it was not advised.
MS. CROSS: They are coming out on the bluff
MS. MOORE: Yes. What looks like was done previously is a
corrugated pipe, the black pipe.
'TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I was going to bring that up. That's another
concern we have.
MS. MOORE: The recommendation was to remove that, not use it,
and that's why we are pitching it all back to put all the
rainwater going into a proper container. So that was something
that was done under previous permit. We don't know when, so.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: You said proper container or proper drywell
twice. Can you identify for me on this plan which one of the
drywells you are going to use?
MS. CROSS: None. The basement was backing up and water was
getting in, and when it would rain, the basement entrance was
backing up. So the reason I had them dig, you know, dig out the
pipe and follow it, because there was no location on any of the
plans of where they were. So I had them dig it, and they are
filled up. They are not functioning. So I thought to myself
that's crazy, that it's not working, the basement is getting
flooded, and the French drains are emptying onto the bluff
because the patio is pitched to the bluff.
MS. MOORE: So it's getting new drywells. The answer is it will
be out of your jurisdiction. The plan was to place a new
drywell in the area of the front yard where the driveway is.
MS. CROSS: Past the hundred-foot mark.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's the only one indicated. It's on the
western side of the driveway there.
MS. MOORE: Why don't you show me which one you're talking about.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The plans we are having are missing the current
hole for the drywell on the east and then they are missing the
relocation for the future drywell that-- I'm looking at the
form you just submitted to me.
MS. MOORE: Mine. Okay, sorry. So the new one, here you see,
this is going to be the area of the new drywell.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's one, correct.
MS. MOORE: Okay. That's it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That handles the entire house and patio?
MS. MOORE: To the extent that others are there. This is to
handle any that are not working.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So why is there another new drywell that was
i
Board of Trustees 21 February 13, 2019
installed on the east side then?
MS. CROSS: I can explain that. Like I said, I was horrified when
I saw the, coming out of the bluff, big pipes. So I just said
dig a hole there. And we were going to, before we got stopped,
just take that downspout from the northeast corner, and just
connect it there. Because it was pouring off the bluff.
Temporarily. Period.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Temporarily.
MS. CROSS: Correct. And the other one was dug up because it was
existing. I couldn't find any drywell that was taking the
downspouts on the east side. There was, except going to the
French drain and pouring off the bluff. So I thought that was,
to me, albeit be there a long time, a problem.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So you have addressed the western side.
What about the eastern side?
MS. CROSS: That's the eastern side I'm talking about.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. You�l are removing that. Where are you
going to contain that runoff on the eastern side now?
MS. CROSS: Beyond the driveway:
MS. MOORE: They are going to be;on the street side. I didn't
have a location of that one because it was out of jurisdiction, so.
MS. CROSS: I want to get a recommendation from an engineer where
to put the replacement. But we are,going to,in the future,
near future, put an application for a;garage over here. So
rather than dig up his whole driveway now, we are going to try
and tie it in. I think the hundred-foot mark is about here. So
it would be out of jurisdiction. There is a, currently, in the
corner of the house, we believe there is a drywell, but they are
not functioning.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So you addressed pitching it to the west, but
we have this whole eastern side that we have not addressed.
MS. CROSS: Yes, out this way.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where does iwater go there?
MS. CROSS: Into a drywell. It doesn't go anywhere.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now that we'are here, we are going to have to
see the drywells. Where they are.
MS. MOORE: Do you see drywells;that are out of your
jurisdiction? If you want those, I can provide them. We can
provide engineered drawings. You'll need them anyway for the
Town engineer. That's fine. We can show them, but generally you
guys are not concerning yourselves with drywells that are out of
your jurisdiction. And that's why I only wanted to address those
things that we were addressing within your jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The issue is!the water is landing within our
jurisdiction in this case, and because everything is ripped up, I
think we'll want to see the complete drainage plan to make sure,
so that going forward there is not so much gray area on this.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The issue is,!you have 'X's showing gutters and
leaders. And the ones on the eastern side of the property are
not connected to anything. At least'not on the plans I'm looking at.
MS. CROSS: I didn't think they should be connected to the
i
J
Board of Trustees 22 February 13, 2019
existing which is going over the bluff.
MS. MOORE: I didn't give you a drainage plan.
MS. CROSS: If it can be in the jurisdiction of the Trustees, I
would put them on the west --
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It doesn't have to part of our jurisdiction.
We just need to know where they are.
MS. MOORE: My concern is putting where the sanitary system is.
The sanitary system is on the east side, I'm not engineer and I
didn't think it was prudent for me to show you potential
drywells in an area where you have sanitary. So I didn't want to
put it on my plans because I didn't think that would be accurate. So.
MS. CROSS: The intention was get an engineer to say where to put
them. Do a roof calculation and decide how much the roof
calculation, I don't know in that was every done.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It needs to be tabled.
MS. MOORE: We'll be tabling it. It's just helpful to get
interaction of what you want.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you and your client can go to engineering
Chapter 236 and submit your drainage plan to them.
MS. MOORE: You want us to give it to the Town engineer now?
Before you guys look at it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Please.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And then we obviously want to see the new plans
depicting the removal and where the water will end up.
Does anyone else have any other comments from the Board on this?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Perhaps one thing. If we can read the notes
that we had written as a guideline.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Not a problem on that. So the other thing
in the notes,just so, you know, fair warning here, that I did
read earlier, is that it was recommended a reduction on the
patio especially where it comes closest to the bluff there,
because typically that's not something we like to approve. Just
so you are aware. That's in the notes.
MS. MOORE: I understand, but generally a patio on sand is, one,
it's a non-turf buffer. And I have been before this Board lots
of times where a patio, as long as it's considered a non-turf
buffer and it's on sand, it is a surface that can be used and
the Trustees have approved. So in fact this plan has it being
cut back, and since we are providing all the drainage, it would
be controlled with the pitching and the grade.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: First of all, I mean, you are not wrong, it's
non-turf, but it is at the top of a fairly steep bluff. So that
is obviously going to come into play. It's not like it's in
someone's backyard on a creek where, yes, it's non-turf, it's a
win. And then the other thing is if that is what you want to go
forward with your application, you should probably submit that
to the engineer, because the water will hit that patio. So it
would not just be gutters to leaders to drywells, it would be
where will that water go on the patio as well.
Board of Trustees 23 February 13, 2019
MS. MOORE: So we'll show the patio area as well for the drainage
plan.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. And I know some members of this Board
are not so inclined to approve a heavy, compacted patio on the
bluff. Just so you are aware.
MS. MOORE: I understand. It's been in existence now over 20
years and it seems to not impact the bluff in any way. So I
don't think the clients want to improve and spend money on
drainage and lose what has been an amenity they have enjoyed
throughout. So, unless the client is willing to reduce it, I
think they are looking to maintain --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm just letting you know, that it might be
worth a discussion.
MS. MOORE: I mean there is some reduction of the existing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Be aware when we visited the site it was not
sand underneath that the patio. It very much looked like crush
bluestone blend.
MS. CROSS: Oh, no. It's sand.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's hard to tell. Is there anyone else here
that wishes to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. CROSS: Thank you, very much.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Under wetlands permits, number one, Samuels &
Steelman Architects on behalf of JONATHAN BABKOW& MARIA RUBIN
requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing 2,543 sq. ft.
dwelling with 1,567 sq. ft. of decking; remove existing 2,236 sq. ft. of
vinyl pool, terrace and retaining walls; remove existing 2,830 sq. ft.
concrete driveway and walkway; construct new 2,861 sq. ft. two-story
dwelling with attached 2-car garage; construct a 352 sq. ft. landward terrace
and a 675 sq. ft. seaward side terrace attached to dwelling; construct a
620 sq. ft. trellis; construct a combined 2,972 sq. ft. gunite swimming pool
(20'x40') and pool terrace seaward of dwelling; install pool enclosure
fencing around perimeter of property; install a new well and sanitary system,
2,255 sq. ft. of new gravel driveway and parking area and new 322 sq. ft. entry
walkway, all to be located landward of Trustee jurisdiction; and to install gutters
to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff, and in accordance with Chapter 236
of the Town Code Stormwater Management.
Located: 360 Private Road#8, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-23-1-18.1
The Trustees visited this site several times. The first
time we visited the site was on January 18th, 2019, with notes
that like to see a ten-foot non-turf buffer.
The second time we visited the site was February 4th, 2019.
We met with the architect or agent and discussed the trees
marked for removal. We discussed a 15-foot non-turf buffer
Board of Trustees 24 ' February 13, 2019
landward of fence and seaward of fence be maintained as a
non-disturbance area. And hold for Administrative Permit
application for landscaping and tree removal.
The LWRP coordinator found this project to be inconsistent.
The inconsistencies were the property slopes toward Dam Pond;
establish a vegetated non-turf buffer landward of the tidal
wetland. Remove existing tougher. Require that the buffer be
planted with native vegetation.
Number two, 15 trees are proposed to be removed, including
four on the bank slope. It is recommended the cherry trees on
the bank and the significant greater than,1,8-inch diameter
cherry tree in the rear yard be retained. Trees provide
important nutrient uptake and stabilize soils.
Number three, require the installation of an IA OWTS due to
close proximity to high quality surface waters. Any activity
that would substantially degrade water quality in Orient Harbor
would affect biological productivity of this area. All species
of fish and wildlife would be adversely affected by water
pollution such as chemical contamination including food chain
effects resulting from bio-accumulation, oil spills, excessive
turbidity or sedimentation, storm water or road runoff and waste
disposal, including boat waste. It is essential that high water
quality be maintained in the area to protect the bay scallop and
shellfish fishery.
The Conservation Advisory Council did review the
application and they do not support the application due to.the
location of the proposed pool and patio does not conform to
required setbacks.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application?
MS. STEELMAN: Nancy Steelman, Samuels & Steelman Architects.
Based on this is our second public hearing, we submitted
drawings now, this last week, I believe were reviewed at your
work session, showing the non-turf buffer, showing the
non-disturbance zone. On that we have now taken off all the
trees currently shown to be removed in the current application,
as was suggested at our meeting, that we would then submit in an
Administrative Permit application for the removal of those trees
and would be reviewed separately. I think we have complied with
your request.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anything else?
MS. STEELMAN: We discussed the IA system in that meeting where
we are beyond your jurisdiction with that, where we located our
current sanitarysystem which is in the process of now being
reviewed by Suffolk County.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anybody else here that wishes to
speak to the application, any questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
MS. STEELMAN: One other,point, I'm concerned that the
Conservation Advisory Council said we did not meet the pool
setback. I believe it's 50 feet. We are at 75 feet. So I don't
know where that is corning from. I just want to make that point
Board of Trustees 25 February 13, 2019
that we are beyond your setback.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Understood. I make a motion to close the
public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted, noting that the addition of the, from the initial
application, the change to have the 15-- let me just read this.
Hold on one second. 15-foot non-turf buffer landward of fence
and seaward of fence is to remain non-disturbance, does address
the issues of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
coordinator. In addition, by limiting trees and saving the one
tree that is also addressing the second concern of the LWRP.
The third concern of the IA OWTS does fall outside of the
Trustees jurisdiction, and that will satisfy the third concern
of the LWRP.
And there is a submission of new plans we received on
February 6th, and the plans are dated February 6th, and the
project will be according to those plans. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, LAZARUS ALEXANDROU requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a 1'6'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 700 sq. ft. on-grade
permeable patio seaward of pool.
Located: 2700 Sound Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-33-1-11
I'll read the new project description since it does not
match what is printed in the agenda. Requests a wetland permit
to construct a 15'x30' gunite swimming pool in the side yard
with a cartridge filter system, plus the pool drywell located
landward of the proposed pool; construct a 505-square foot patio
adjacent to the pool; 185-square foot permeable patio seaward of
the pool; proposed pool fence will be installed no closer than
three feet from the top of the bluff as per the Nathan Corwin
Land Surveyor plans, revised plan dated January 29th, 2019. This
is located at 2700 Sound Drive Greenport, SCTM# 1000-33-1-11.
The Trustees' most recent inspection was on January 8th.
We questioned the fence location, requested it be near the top
of the bluff. And on February 4th, revised plans, the fence
Iodation as requested by the Board of Trustees was received.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The
recommendation was made of the following assessment. That
locating the pool 100 feet from the top of the bluff could not
be adequately achieved therefore the action has been mitigated
through Zoning Board of Appeals conditions to the greatest
extent practicable, thereby furthering the LWRP'policy.
Board of Trustees 26 February 13, 2019
And the second condition was that the bluff face is
currently stable.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted unanimously to
support, on October 15th, 2018, to unanimously support the
application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Dave Chicanowicz, representing the client. I
think we have kind of reviewed over the last couple of months
all of what we had to address. I believe we satisfied all your
requirements. If there are any other questions, I'm happy to
answer them.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no comments, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I make a motion to approve this application as proposed and
written into the record.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number three, Christopher Pickerell on
behalf of SUFFOLK COUNTY, c/o CORNELL COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
requests a Wetland Permit to install a living shoreline, a form
of green infrastructure, as a means of preventing erosion,
increasing wildlife habitat and improving water quality; the
living shoreline demonstration project will focus on combining
Spartina plantings and choir logs with hatchery cultivated
ribbed mussels; to demonstrate these techniques for shoreline
stabilization, a series of different substrates for ribbed
mussels will be used and applied in five (5) different 60' long
plot sections of the wetlands along the shoreline of a dredged
canal in Cedar Beach Creek to determine which are most effective
for creating a multi-species living shoreline; all of the
demonstration plots will incorporate natural material to provide
a "hardened" component along the seaward edge of the plots,
backed by a vegetated component (cordgrass) extending from mean
sea level to mean high water; none of the proposed "hardened"
structures will extend above the sediment surface by more than
2' (24"); any un-vegetated areas upland of the "hardened"
structures will have cordgrass plugs planted 1' on-center
spacing up to mean high water; the plots will consist of one (1)
coir/coconut fiber log section, one (1) shell bag section, one
(1) rock section, one (1) single natural wood terrace section,
and one (1) double natural wood terrace section.
Located: 3690 Cedar Beach Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-93-2-2.4
This project was reviewed by the LWRP coordinator and found
Board of Trustees 27 February 13, 2019
to be consistent with the LWRP.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted to approve this
project.
The project was reviewed by the Trustees. As for myself, I
had worked with Matt Sclafani and Chris Pickerell getting a
grant from Suffolk County for this project. And the Board is
generally pleased,that we are finally going to be seeing the
living shoreline demonstration project as we discussed at our ,
work session.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
(Negative response).
Seeing no one coming forward, any comments or questions or
concerns?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a good project.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: The project seemed straightforward.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Okay, that being said I'll make a
motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve the
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number four, Eastern End Pools on behalf of
MARC ZUPICICH &TONYA HUROWITZ requests a Wetland Permit to
install a 16'x32' in-ground steel wall vinyl swimming pool with
coping; install a 4' high pool enclosure fence extending from
deck 38' seaward, returning to easterly property line 46.7', and
along property line extending landward; and to remove trees.
Located: 800 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-26
The LWRP found this to be consistent, noting the following:
Clarify why the pool dewatering well is located so far from the
pool. And two, to retain trees proposed to be removed that are
located closer to the wetland boundary and within Board
jurisdiction.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection most recently on
February 4th, noting the location of the pool was okay, fencing
is appropriate, that the two large cedar trees closest to pool
are to remain. It's okay to remove the large locust. Okay to
remove the down tree by the creek, and save the two large cedar
trees nearthe shore.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. DELVAGLIO: Good evening. Jennifer Delvag'lio, Eastern End
Board of Trustees 28 February 13, 2019
Pools. I'm here to answer any questions, if there are any that
are still remaining.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The one from the LWRP, I see on the plans
that the drywell is on the other side of the yard. Is there a
reason for that?
MS. DELVAGLIO: The reason we put it all the way over there is
because we wanted to get it as close to the house as possible,
but we didn't want to disturb in front of the deck area. If you
think there is a better location for it, we are happy to do so.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And on the plans it notes the trees that want
to be removed. We discussed in the field that some of them have
"X's" on them that we discussed with you in the field that we
would like to remain. So I don't know if it's a good idea to
meet with the local Trustee just to make sure when those go to
get removed someone doesn't mistakenly take one down with an "X".
MS. DELVAGLIO: Perfect.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: Very simple. I represent Mr. Gottlieber, who is the
neighbor next door. And they have no objections to your pool.
They just ask if you could put sound-deadening material around
the pool equipment so it doesn't create noise next door. That's all.
MS. DELVAGLIO: Which property is he?
MS. MOORE: To the east, I believe. Next to the pool equipment.,
MS. DELVAGLIO: The pool equipment is proposed in two locations.
There is an A and a B.
MS. MOORE: I only saw the survey, sorry.
MS. DELVAGLIO: A and B. The preference is here (indicating).
MS. MOORE: That's his property. If you put it here. It's just a
request. Sound deadening.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just to clarify, which area?
MS. DELVALGIO: A is the first choice. B was just a second
option, if anybody was opposed to location A.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Is there anyone else here who wishes to
speak regarding this application?'
(Negative response).
Any other questions or concerns from the Board?
(Negative response).
Is it okay to meet in the field with the local Trustee?
MS. DELVAGLIO: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Just give us a call.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you open to some sort of sound deadening?
MS. DELVAGLIO: That's fine.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that sound deadening material is used on the side
of the pool equipment and that you meet in the field with the
Board of Trustees 29 February 13, 2019
I
local Trustee prior to removing trees. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of ANN
AGUANNO & GERALD GLEASON requests a Wetland Permit to install an
8'x12' (96sq.ft.) Shed; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 3'-12' wide,
280 sq. ft. non-turf buffer between the freshwater wetland boundary and
existing fence.
Located: 2085 Bay Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-17-3 j
The Trustees visited, Trustee Bredemeyer visited this
location, noted a good project. He visited on the 6th of
February, suggested a five to six-foot non-turf buffer be conditioned
landward of the fence, and a non-disturbance buffer seaward of j
the fence.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have new plans reflecting that in the
project description.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For this, yes. Right. And then an amended
project description depicting that.
The LWRP found this to be consistent. {
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
All right, so just for the record, in the file I have a new
project description which I'll read when I make my motion. And I
have new plans dated February 11th depicting what the Trustees
asked for.
All right, is there anyone else that wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? {
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
based off the plans submitted to the office February 11th, 2019,
and with the following amended project description: Install an
a
8'x12' 96-square foot shed and establish a 3'x12' wide
280-square foot non-disturbance buffer between fresh water
wetland boundary and existing fence; and establish a five-foot 1
wide non-turf buffer on the landward side of the existing fence,
all depicted on the site plan prepared by Nathan Taft Corwin
III, land surveyor, last dated February 8th, 2019. That is my
motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? .
(ALL AYES).
1
Board of Trustees 30 February 13, 2019
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number six, Cole Environmental Services, Inc.
on behalf of GEORGE & MARIA RIGAS requests a Wetland Permit to j
install 110' of coir log (biolog) at mean high water mark;
backfill with +/-15 cubic yards of clean up-land fill; grade as
necessary; plant intertidal and high marsh vegetation; add fill
to eroded bank landward of mean high water; remove invasive .i
plant species along top of bank; plant upland areas with species
form N.Y.S.D.E.C. plant list; install '1'x8' wide planted berm landward
of the existing fence and install 4" pvc trench drain landward of planted
berm to collect and recharge stormwater; existing tidal wetland vegetation
along the creek is to remain undisturbed.
Located: 675 Hill Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-28
The Trustees visited this site on February 4th. Field
notes, did previous owner transfer permit to new owner. Area
seaward of fence needs to be C&R'd non-disturbance as per survey
stamped received December 26th, 2019. I'm assuming that's a
typo. It should be 2018. Provisions should be made to protect
the trees previously planted.
The LWRP_coordinator found this project to be inconsistent. i
The inconsistency was a declaration of covenants was filed on
the property on June 13th, 2016, establishing a 20-foot wide
non-disturbance buffer. This condition can be modified following
a public hearing and then opted resolution.
The Conservation Advisory Council did review this project
and they resolved to support the project.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this i
application? .
MR. COLE: Dennis Cole, for the applicant. For the owner.
So there is a C&R on this. What do we have to go back to the
Town Board for the C&R?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: That I don't have in front of me
MR. COLE: Was it put on by the Trustees?
MR. HAGAN: It should be on file. C&R's are filed with the j
county. {
MR. COLE: Because essentially what we want to do is repair the
shoreline. It's overgrown with invasives. a
MR. HAGAN: The declaration of covenants that was filed would
have been filed with the county on June 13th, 2016.
MR. COLE: From the Trustees?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: No, the property owner would have filed it
with the county. 1
MR. COLE: I know, but--
MR. HAGAN: It would have been a Trustee one, yes.
MR. COLE: Okay, so can this application be request to amend the 1
covenant to allow this remediation plan?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Most likely not. So what I would recommend is,
based on this finding from the LWRP coordinator, that if we want j
to discuss it we can discuss it, but ultimately we should,
probably table this and we need to figure out--
MR. COLE: What the procedure is.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: We need to figure out new plans to incorporate
1
I
i
i
Board of Trustees 31 February 13, 2019
the 20-foot non-disturbance buffer that has been obviously violated.
MR. COLE: I see. Okay. Because essentially this plan establishes
quite a lengthy non-disturbance area, and it addresses a lot of problems.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: The other thing we discussed at work session
is we have some --there is obviously an issue with runoff there.
MR. COLE: Yes.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: And putting a berm in is not, in my opinion,
the proper fix because what you are going to do is you'll retain
the water onto the grass and you'll create a swampy area in the
grass and kill the grass.
MR. COLE: No, there is a drain landward, and that drain goes
back to the drywells that are onsite.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: In addition to that, if the drain becomes
non-functional, over time drains become non-functional with silt
and runoff, so at the point in time when that drain becomes {
non-functioningand is not maintainedproperly, the berm will 1
also endanger the trees that are growing along that area,
especially the two new trees just planted there right next to
where the berm is supposed to be. So if you raise the soil up
there. So at the work session, the Trustees felt that a more I
substantial non-disturbance area would really handle the runoff
best.
MR. COLE: So another ten feet beyond the fence, something like
that?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I think we should probably look to the 20-foot
and see where that puts you on the plan and incorporate that. j
MR. COLE: Does the Trustees consider, because part of the
state's storm water runoff manuals recommend water gardens,
things like that, and this is essentially, you know, in line
with that. There is existing turf grass now that we are
basically going with native vegetation, eliminating invasives,
et cetera. But if you guys want a 20-foot buffer beyond the fence.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think there was a misunderstanding in the ask
there. j
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: At work session, Mike just brought to my !
attention, we also discussed doing a non-turf buffer landward of-
the fence would help with your runoff as well. With the proper
materials in there. -
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think this was in lieu of, instead of the
berm.
MR. COLE: Okay.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: At this point I'll --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The 20-foot non-disturbance has to be seaward of j
the fence. And it has to be shown on your plans. The eight-foot
non-turf is landward of the fence in lieu of a berm.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was the confusion in the initial --
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: The other thing,,too, is the fence. I didn't
measure but is the fence definitely 20 feet out of the sea?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would have to be depicted, too. So it
would be 20, from the wetland line it would be 20 foot up fence,
and then an additional eight foot of non-turf. And you can
i
1
i'
Board of Trustees 32 February 13, 2019
probably get away without doing the berm to control the runoff
in the area.
MR. COLE: Okay. I think I need to get a copy of that C&R and go
through it. I was not aware there was a C&R on this property.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: One last point, the PVC pipe you show going
through the berm would not be needed, of course.
MR. COLE: No, I understand that. All of the drainage would not
be required at that point. So in order to find out how to fix
the violation of the C&R, do I come back to the Board for that
or just amend the plans accordingly?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think you just amend the plans, correct, to
depict--
MR. HAGAN: You need to incorporate in the next plan the
Declaration of Covenants that depicts --
MR. COLE: That shows the covenanted area.
MR. HAGAN: That is to be there.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: And if you want to come in at work session to
discuss this with us, that would be an opportunity to do that.
MR. COLE: I would like to do that. So next month?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: You can schedule to come in, call the office
and ask to come in to the March work session.
MR. COLE: Very good. Thank you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: At this point I'll make a motion to table the
application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number seven, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
on behalf of ANDREW & LINDA TOGA requests a Wetland Permit to
demolish a 14.25'x23' sunroom located at the southwestern corner
of existing dwelling and reconstruct within the same footprint
of existing; construct a 40'x65' (2,036.67 sq. ft.) second story
addition; proposed 22.58'x26' attached garage onto landward side
of dwelling; a proposed 24'x14' (336 sq. ft.) at grade deck on
westerly side of dwelling; a proposed 6'x18' (105 sq. ft.) covered
porch on easterly side of dwelling; proposed 83 sq. ft. of steps
and landings off of dwelling; 59.45 sq. ft. of wood steps; a
proposed 30 sq. ft. 2nd story balcony; a proposed 21 sq. ft. cellar
entrance; a 21 sq. ft. outdoor shower; abandon existing cesspool
and install an OWTS septic system landward of dwelling with
an 89 linear foot long retaining wall set 22' landward of the
wetland boundary; and to install gutters to leaders to drywells
to contain roof runoff, and in accordance with Chapter 236 of
the Town Code Stormwater Management.
Located: 2425 Mill Creek Drive West, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-6-40
The Trustees did a field inspection on February 4th. The
field notes indicate that the septic is an IA as shown on the
plans. Questions is the garage correctly stated on the project
description. The same for retaining walls. In other words are
they correctly described on the plans. Additionally it says
Board of Trustees 33 February 13, 2019
trees that may be removed for the IA system and retaining wall
need to be identified, and then requests a substantial
non-disturbance, non-turf,be identified.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted unanimously to
support the application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
for the applicant. We believe, when we talk about the garage, we
are talking about an enlargement over the existing garage. The
new garage incorporating the old one would measure 22.58'x26'.
That's number one.
Number two, I believe the tree you are talking about is a
very large oak tree between the, on the, I guess eastern side
adjacent to what used to be the Ulrich property, and that
unfortunately has to come down because of the work done. It's
also the limbs are extending above the house, and it's a safety
issue for.the client. So we believe that has to come down.
As to the length of the wall, it is scaled from what is
shown on the survey, and as to the non-turf buffer where there
is no clearing intended here, so the entire bank that surrounds
this property is completely in a natural condition.
I will tell you that in this application we had to go to
the Zoning Board of Appeals, we have been at this for about a
year, and we also due to a technical issue, have to go to the
Board of Review, and we can't get to the Board of Review until
we have the zoning variance, which we have; this permit, which
we are asking for; and the DEC permit,,which was approved as
submitted. So my hope is that we can take this opportunity to
move forward on this application so at least we can get before
the Board, which is going to take another several months.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You are speaking on the Suffolk County
Board of Review and the Health Department Board of Review for
sanitary.
MR. ANDERSON: Correct. Because technically the leaching pools
are within 100 feet of surface waters. So that is really what
we are here for. This project was previously reviewed and
approved by this Board back in 2015, which was basically to
demolish and rebuild a sun room, which was actually a kit
constructed thing, an old Sears sun room we used to be able to
buy in the 60s and 70s and just attach to the house and it
actually just sits onto a brick patio that was always there. And
so that was approved and then we are basically doing the same
thing here except that it becomes part of the house. And
obviously we have to install a proper foundation under that
section of the house. The remaining portions of the house, we
have had architects look at it and we were told the foundation
,is sufficient and the structural condition of the remaining
portion of the house is sufficient to support the second story
addition.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can we briefly agree that the area --
Board of Trustees - 34 February 13, 2019
MR. ANDERSON: We are not proposing to do any clearing of any
property that is not already cleared. That's important to note.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We agree it's nicely vegetated. We would like
to see it remain that way.
MR. ANDERSON: We have no intention of clearing anything other
than the one tree, and that is only because it's a safety
concern. And that's off the, if you look to the eastern side or
left side of the house from the road. It's,right near the side
entrance there. And it is a substantial tree.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We appreciate that. All right. We were hoping
to establish seaward of the house a non-disturbance area.
Perhaps this is a sensitive area, if we could use one of the
topo lines as a delineation.
MR. ANDERSON: I would just say the top of the bluff, because
quite honestly this is a flat site and then descends quite
rapidly to the shoreline, and that's already shown. Like I said,
we are not clearing any of that. We are not clearing anything
other than really the one tree.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are these longstanding owners of the
property? Ownership doesn't really matter but I'm concerned new
owners are going to come in and see all the rebar sticking up
from the ride of the bluff and be very concerned for the safety
of themselves and their children.
MR. ANDERSON: They are early retired.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: At some point put in some planks with rebar
staking that doesn't appear to be a permitted structure acting
as a retaining wall/bulkhead. And the rebar sticks out.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is terracing rebar sticking out.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: If someone is out hanging laundry on that
clothes line and they trip on one of the stumps, they are going
to take a rebar right through the body. And that's a very valid
concern there. So it looks like they are doing a pretty
substantial addition to the house. , '
MR. ANDERSON: So you want me to cut the rebar? I don't know what
you are asking me to do.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It's just that you have a structure there in
the bluff, you know what I'm saying. If they came in for a
permit, most likely we would not allow it to be in the state
it's in. Is your client prepared to do a landscaping plan to
show exactly what will happen with the entirety of the property
or is it just going tor be a -- you know, I got the feeling
they'll do an addition and a renovation, new windows, new
siding, new roof.
MR. ANDERSON: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: They are probably going to want to do some
landscaping, too. Because the landscaping there looks a little
sad, to be honest with you.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, we have not had those discussions and they
are, like I said, we don't want to disturb anything that is
natural. I suppose someone would throw some grass seed down.
suppose the rebar could be cut. Although it's not part of this
Board of Trustees 35 February 13, 2019
application, I would suggest that. You know, make note of it in
the record, I would certainly pass it along. I would like to get
this moving. We have been at this for a long, long time. And we
are trying to do what everyone wants us to do. We've got storm
water plans and everything else, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can we just condition there is no landscaping
seaward of"X" line without a permit?
MR. ANDERSON: That's fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that the easiest way to --
MR. ANDERSON: I think so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. The chairman is nodding. I think he's
thinking along those lines. A quick question for clarity. Was
this previously conditioned for an IA by Zoning? Because it's
within 100 feet.
MR. ANDERSON: No. No. It was not required. This applicant
proposed it right off the bat. And some people, the way the IA
system, and I want everyone to be careful about this, because
I'm seeing a lot of this in these reports. Don't assume everyone
has unlimited money to do this. And it's good, it's innovative.
It's like people, like I live across the creek, you'll see me at
some point, but I want to put solar panels on my roof. No one
putting a gun to my head to do that, but I'm in favor the solar
power, so I do it. And the motivation here is the same. You
know, no one said we had to do this. But it's something they
wanted to do.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's fantastic.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The sanitary system will be within, the
surface water, if it comes within wetland setback, if it's an IA--
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, they are applying for it. It's in the
application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I want to clarify one point.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is it not?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, you're correct. I think the concern that
Trustee Bredemeyer has is in the project description you specify
an onsite water treatment system.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Right.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And he wants to make sure that is in fact going
to be an IA system.
MR. ANDERSON: That's exactly what the plans show.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Correct. The plan show that, but the project
description does not say that. It says on site water treatment.
MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. But for the record, it's an IA system.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, just one last thing. Returning to the
non-disturbance, you said top of,the bluff would be fine for you.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, the last time I was.here you asked for ten
foot, which is fine, except that it then costs us another month,
and the guy is now frightened to death he's going to lose his
contractor. We have to go to the Board of Review and we'll be at
this for, what's that going to take, four or five months I
expect. We can't even build until next Fall. And I was hoping
to simply state for the record that no clearing of any
Board of Trustees 36 February 13, 2019
vegetation other than that one tree that must come down, is
proposed in this application. I don't have any problem with
that, but I don't want to be delayed by it.
MR. HAGAN: The Board is at liberty, should they so choose, to
put a condition on this permit without further plans that says
there is no clearing of vegetation absent any permit from the
Trustees. There has been one tree that has been specified and
that can be the only tree that is taken down. You can put that
as a condition on construction.
MR. ANDERSON: The second thing I would add is, if we need to,
something about the rebar or, I'll ask the client if there is
something we need to do, we are not barred from coming back to
replace, amend and change it, and in that application I will
tell them, I'll say, while we are at it, we'll establish the
zone on a map of some sort. That would be a good way to do it.
MR. HAGAN: Just for further clarification, the applicant is
aware should you fail to follow a condition of the permit, you
are in violation and there will be no C of C issued until full
restoration is completed.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Just to comment, with that rebar, that is a
very large safety concern. If someone falls and the rebar goes
through them, that person will likely not live through that event.
MR. ANDERSON: True.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no comments, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I make a motion to approve this application as submitted with
the condition that there be no'clearing other than removal of
the one large tree as specified and absent a new permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Point of discussion. I would like to also
provide clarification and stipulation the sanitary system will
be an IA as shown on the plans.
MR. HAGAN:The plan depicts the IA system and that will be on the
stamp approved plan.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, thank you. I stand corrected.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting behalf of ALBERT & FRANCES TROTTER requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a 1,440 sq. ft., two-story dwelling with a
596 sq. ft. attached garage and a 699 sq. ft. wrap-around porch;
install a 10'x210' (2,100 sq. ft.) driveway along with a
3,063 sq. ft. parking area; a 360 sq. ft. walkway between the
parking area and the dwelling; install three drywells in order
Board of Trustees 37 February 13, 2019
to contain roof runoff, and in accordance with Chapter 236 of
the Town Code-Stormwater Management; and to install a septic
system outside Trustee jurisdiction.
Located: 34460 Main Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-97-2-9.1
This project is deemed consistent with the LWRP.
The`Conservation Advisory Council has is supports the
application with the recommendation of'a ten-foot non-turf buffer.
The LWRP coordinator strongly is recommending an IA OWTS to
reduce nitrogen.
The Trustees on field'inspection and at work session also
support the notion of an IA even though we understand the
sanitary system is being installed outside of our jurisdiction.
The Trustees wish to incorporate on the set of plans a
non-disturbance area that would be seaward of the existing mowed
line. In other words the existing tree line with the addition of
a'slightly'larger non-turf buffer landward. Did I mix my terms up?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I was making another point.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And we have non-disturbance, in other words
the existing tree line and natural areas seaward, in other words
the edge of the mowed area to the tree court and, that landward
a 15-foot non-turf buffer be installed along the entire edge of
wetlands on the property. And that would also include one large
holly tree. The holly tree is right on the edge of the - '
maintained lawn area. So it would be our request that we have a
15-foot non-turf buffer and a non-disturbance buffer for the
remainder of the existing natural vegetation that is seaward of
the lawn edge.
MR. ANDERSON: Let's take this one at a time. I don't mind if we
table this to get the plans right. Because we have other
opportunities to go. So what I was going to suggest, this whole
part of the property we can take a piece out of this back here
because this is -- maybe I should just describe what we have
here. Let's start from the beginning. What you have here is a
fresh water wetland adjacent to where the house is. So that you
know, the IA system's advantage is that it reduces nitrogen.
That's why people are promoting it. What you might not know is
that nitrogen is almost never a limiting nutrient in freshwater
systems. It's specific to saltwater. So freshwater systems are
usually limited by phosphorus, which is a runoff phenomenon.
And the phosphorus hits the soils, the soils run off into the
freshwater creek or freshwater pond, and you have algae blooms.
So probably an IA system would not do anything in way of-- it
doesn't mean you don't want to reduce nitrogen, but just take
notice of that. Because we see this thrown in and Limnology 101
will tell you that in terms of protecting freshwater wetlands it
probably does nothing to do that. The second part of it is in
this case, the client simply can't afford one. So we tried to
locate.the system outside the 100 feet for that reason. Just for
point of clarification.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I appreciate that. Also the freshwater
wetland here is directly connected to, it would be coastal freshwater--
Board of Trustees 38 February 13, 2019
MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. You are right about that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think several of us on the Board, we can
run a lecture series on --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Has anyone taken a salinity measurement of that
location?
MR. ANDERSON: It's a mapped freshwater wetland. It's DEC maps.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can see the saltwater flow under Eugenes
Road and then up--
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, no question about it. What I'm talking about
is just that area adjacent to the house is actually freshwater
wetland. Then as you go south it becomes brackish and tidal.
And there is actually a culvert under Eugenes. So tidal waters
come in and mix there. And that's on the south end of the
property. You are correct about that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's essentially the headwaters of the creek.
MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. You got it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I sense you are going in the direction to
possibly suggest additional areas of non-turf or restrictions on
the planned use of fertilizer?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Because my attitude is why not. So, but I
don't understand what you are asking me to do. That's where I
need clarification. I want to get the mapping correct.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. The Board, the edge of the wetland of
course is not the edge of the maintained lawn area, so we don't
have that as a map feature. So there is a natural existing cut
lawn area.
MR. ANDERSON: Correct.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Then there is a woodland, emergent shrubbery
woodland forms, invasives, that is in the area that is seaward
of the end of the lawn. We hope to have that entire natural area
seaward as non-disturbance. In other words, so we have a whole
area that we, call it the tree line lawn.
MR. ANDERSON: So what we do is locate edge of lawn.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Edge of lawn. And landward of that we were
looking to have a 15-foot non-turf.
MR. ANDERSON: 15-foot non-turf.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Non-disturbance.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Non-disturbance seaward.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And what about back in here. Do we have any
thoughts on that?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, this property is so deep. Your jurisdiction
is 100 feet. I would suggest take 100 feet here, that's your jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't know how the Board feels if they are
doing --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where do you want to end this line?
MR. ANDERSON: I'll narrow it somewhere.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 15 feet somewhere up in here?
MR. ANDERSON: That's correct.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If the Conservation Advisory Council is
asking for ten feet and the Board is asking 15.
MR. ANDERSON: If you like, I can bring it back to work session.
Board of Trustees 39 February 13, 2019
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If the CAC is looking for ten feet, and we
get more square footage, ten foot of that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It would go a long way toward the septic
MR. ANDERSON: That's what I would do if I were resource manager
in charge of that for the property. Because it can be done. It
doesn't hurt the property owner. The property owner won't object
to it. The area is not really used anyway.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Might deafen the noise from the school a
little'bit, too.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Help me to understand this. Because I'm a bit
confused. This is a test hole shown here, close to the state road?
MR. ANDERSON: Correct.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It shows water at 2.7 feet.
MR. ANDERSON: Correct.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And the septic is over here.
MR. ANDERSON: Correct.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And it's showing water at 2.7 feet. How are you
going to get this separation on any system that you put here?
MR. ANDERSON: Because the land here is significantly higher. You
have 13 foot elevation.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So the water here is significantly lower?
MR. ANDERSON: No, no. The water is the same. The land slopes up
to 13 feet. Where this test hole is taken, we take it here
because we are --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So the water level here is level.
MR. ANDERSON: It is level. I mean, plus or minus an inch maybe.
But it shouldn't matter because the groundwater is going to be
relatively flat. It's just that the land rises up and the plans
show a, this is not even a shallow system. Meaning that it is,
it shows a 15-foot minimum elevation above the groundwater.
It's probably more than like five or six feet. Because the land
is coming up, 'is the point. We wanted to put the house, we
really want to do two things. We want to get it off the road as
reasonable, and we wanted to get it on high ground.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, any other questions or concerns?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I would make a motion to table this application at ,
the applicant's request to submit plans for proposed non-turf
and non-disturbance buffers.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have the marked-up one?
MR. ANDERSON: I understand what you want. I just need time to do it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. Table at the applicant's request.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number nine, Brooke Epperson on behalf of
LYNN McMAHON, MARIE BASILE & HENRY HINTZE requests a Wetland
Permit for the existing two-story dwelling with a 1,282 sq. ft. footprint; existing
attached 183 sq. ft. landward 'side screened in sunroom; existing 437 sq. ft.
seaward side wood deck with steps to ground; and existing 51 sq. ft. seaward
Board of Trustees 40 February 13, 2019
steps; construct a proposed 577 sq. ft. addition to existing second floor within
the first floor footprint; construct a proposed 200 sq. ft. second-story balcony
over existing deck.
Located: 590 Brooks Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-1-15
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application.
In the file we also have a Zoning Board of Appeals approval
dated January 25th, 2019, with conditioned in that approval that
the existing sanitary system be upgraded to an IA system.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on February 4th.
Notes in the file were to check on the permit for the retaining
wall and deck, and noting there was a debris fire pit and
apparent beach clearing.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. PORTILLO: Good evening. Anthony Portillo, AMP Architecture.
Brooke couldn't make it, so I'm just here in place of her.
So our request is to add on to the second floor of the
existing home, mainly to house the family and provide more
space. And a deck on the second floor that will be cantilevered
so there is no structure that is actually coming down to the ground.
We did provide an updated plan showing the location, or
proposed location of the IA system. We have not had a chance
since we received the approval from the Zoning Board to actually
apply that, but we are designing the system and we will apply
for a permit from Suffolk County.
So Mr. Hintze is going to move forward with the requirements
from the Zoning Board.
I was a little unclear, you said there was a fire pit and some debris
in the rear of the yard?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: When we were onsite, seaward of the existing
bulkhead, there was some, there was a fire pit that didn't have
a permit, and there was some debris, looked like a makeshift
dock of some sort. Again, not a permitted structure there. So
we just want to make sure that those get removed as part of this.
MR. PORTILLO: Yes. For the record I'll speak with Mr. Hintze
and they'll be removed.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Also for the record, I do want to note that
we do have new plans dated February 1 st, 2019, that do show an
IA system, septic system.
MR. PORTILLO: It's not been designed. That is just a proposed
location. It might be changed but it will be filed with Suffolk
County and be provided to the Building Department.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: There was also, as far as we can tell, an
unpermitted wood deck that is landward of the bulkhead on the
eastern side. That is not a permitted structure. So that will
have to be removed as well. Or applied for. One of the two.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You guys call it a wood platform on the plans.
MR. PORTILLO: Yes, I'm looking at it. Okay, I'll discuss that.
Could we file a separate application for the wood platform if he
wants keep it, or add it to this application?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. Because if you want to go forward with the
Board of Trustees 41 February 13, 2019
house we would kind of be taking care of housecleaning, so it
would be best to add it in.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Add it to this approval? How do you want to
handle that?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would seem we should probably try to
permit in existing structures that have been built without the
benefit of a Trustee permit to bring it into consistency.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: The other thing that is there is a retaining
wall has no permit, and that's relatively new lumber. So maybe
they--we looked at historic photos. The retaining wall has
been there a while, but the lumber on there is not as old as the
structure. Meaning it was repaired or rebuilt. Again, without
a permit.
MR. PORTILLO: I'm not seeing the retaining wall is not on the
the plot plan, which probably means it won't be on the survey.
Is that--
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: If you go there, it's there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They are calling it a bulkhead, right?
MR. PORTILLO: Oh, the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what, it's we usually call it a bulkhead
if it gets its feet wet, and a retaining wall if it doesn't.
That's just a term of art.
MR. PORTILLO: So you are saying the bulkhead was either rebuilt
or repaired at some time and was never filed for.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Yes. It is possible that it is a structure
that was there for many, many, many years, but the current wood
that is there has not been there for many, many, many years.
It's been there maybe two years.
MR. PORTILLO: Okay, gotcha.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So when you to work inside the Trustees
jurisdiction, you need a permit the work.
MR. PORTILLO: I know the land basically has been in the family.
When the parents died it was transferred to the kids. I'm
guessing the bulkhead was there for a long time. It possibly was
a repair that was not permitted.
In regard to the wood platform, if I was going to sign off
on it, I would have to do an investigation if even, it's even
structurally plausible to remain or, you know, have some sort of
repairs to it as well.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So we would also need that depicted in the
plans and the project description.
MR. PORTILLO: If they were going to keep that. Now, on the
bulkhead, obviously the retaining wall I don't think that's
something he wants to remove. So we would have to indicate that
repairs or replacement of the structure was done at some time
or, it's like an as built situation?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think just apply for it stands.
MR. PORTILLO: Would it be a separate application or do we have
to include it in this application?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: What we would like is to tidy this whole
thing up so every structure that is on this property in this
Board of Trustees 42 February 13, 2019
project we need that listed on the plans, as well as the project
description.
MR. PORTILLO: Got it. Understood.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So is there anyone else here who wishes to
speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
So I'll make a motion to table this subject to new plans with
all the existing structures on the plans as well as the project
description, as well as a more precise location for the IA
system so that everything is in one spot.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Would it be advisable to offer up a work
session to discuss the,non-turf non-disturbance so he doesn't
have to come in with additional plans? Do you want to recommend
that?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. As part of, I think we discussed a
ten-foot non-turf buffer, from the bulkhead landward toward the
home. So that would also be depicted on the new plans.
MR. PORTILLO: Understood. No problem. Just one question, just to
make sure I to this correctly. The wood platform, the bulkhead,
if the fire pit and debris that was there, that's going to be
removed, I could just indicate that's to be removed on the plans
and then add it to the application, correct?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Correct.
MR. PORTILLO: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All right, so again, just to reiterate, new
plans with the bulkhead; with the wood platform, i.e. deck; with
a ten-foot, non-turf buffer from the bulkhead landward toward
the house; as well as depiction of the IA system. So that
everything is on the plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And note to remove anything you want removed.
MR. PORTILLO: I'll speak with the owner.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Whatever remains has to be on the plans.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes.
MR. PORTILLO: Understood. And anything demoed, I'll show that
as well.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: And anything there to be removed is on the
plans. .
MR. HAGAN: In addition to that, I believe the Board would like,
if there will be new plans and they are submitted to be voted
on, you want the applicant to submit an amended plan
description.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes.
MR. HAGAN: Amended project description.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Amended project description and plans. To
depict what is on the plans. Now my motion is to table this so
you can do all that.
MR. PORTILLO: Thank you, for your explanation.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 43 February 13, 2019
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Cole Environmental on behalf of ALEXANDRA JONES
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a brick walk at grade;
construct a proposed 4'x18' fixed wood dock with thru-flow
decking and a deck elevation of 6.0; a proposed 3.5'x14' metal
hinged ramp; and a proposed 8'x10' wood floating dock.
Located: 1230 Bayberry Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-2-9
The Trustees most recently visited this property on the 4th
of February, discussed documentation of bottom ownership, the
height of the dock, recommended a stepdown, like a step down
catwalk. And noted that it seemed to have appropriate water depth.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent; whether
the dock will impair navigation, will be located in an area of
high vessel traffic; although it is not expected the proposed
dock will impair navigation, the area where the dock is proposed
to be located is only accessible by a very narrow channel; the
bridge restricts navigability to the east of the proposed dock;
clarify the width of the channel to the south of the proposed
dock; a representative vessel has not been discussed in the
paperwork or identified on the plans; further, the proposal
doesn't meet the below identified Chapter 275 standards; whether
the cumulative impact of residential and commercial docks will
change the waterway or the environment and whether alternative
design construction and location of the dock will minimize
cumulative impact; all species of fish and wildlife, are
affected by water pollutants such as chemical contamination, oil
spills, et cetera; cumulative impact from increase in docks in
water body may include adverse impacts to water quality and
turbidity due to shallow water; whether adequate facilities are
available to boat owners and operators of fueling, discharge of
waste, et cetera. The answer to this search has not been
provided. The brick walk is recommended as consistent, though,
with the LWRP coordinator.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Is there anyone here to speak regarding this application.
MR. COLE: Yes, I would just like to address the Board on some
issues. I prepared some aerials for you guys so that you can get
a good sense of-- it gives you your best perspective on the
creek width. And some water depths. So they were,taken with
drone photographs, not too long ago. As can you see,-the
darkness or blue hue to the water indicates, gives you a good
indication that it's pretty deep there. And I think you saw me
in waders going quite deep.
We added the step so that the pitch would not be as severe.
We had to maintain four-and-a-half feet as we come off because
the vegetation grows up there, they want that in terms of
wetland vegetation growth. But as you come closer to the water,
you know, we went down a little bit. Mrs. Jones is here and she
has indicated that she won't be going out at low tide. So the
angle on the ramp should not be a big problem. I believe the
Board has, I don't know if the Board, but the Town Attorney has
Board of Trustees 44 February 13, 2019
a copy of the lawsuit that was denied. So I have a copy if you
need it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's okay, thank you.
MR. COLE: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So is there anyone else here that wishes to
speak regarding this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore on behalf of the Walpien family,
which is the adjacent property owner to the north. I just point
out, I have, my client was concerned about both the water depth
as well as the impacts on navigation. And rather than just rely
on the few spots that were provided, my client actually hired
Robert Fox Marine Surveyor, and we have actually done a full
analysis of the water depths of the entire area. So I'll get
that to you. Hopefully I have enough. I apologize.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Your client is?
MS. MOORE: Walpien is the only dock there. It's the one to the
north. The other thing that we would point out is that when the
original inspection done by Mr. Krupski, Nick, that it was
believed the dock does not appear to have enough water depth.
But one year later, January 8th, 2019, excuse me, February, the
first one was January 8th, 2019. Can't make sense. I think it
was '18. And February 4th, 2019, seems to have appropriate water
depth. So we have two inconsistent inspections. We believe
there is not enough water depth. I have multiple copies of the
inspections that you have in your file already, so you have
inconsistent statements there. I don't know--
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to clarify that, while we are going
through this, there was a misunderstanding about the location of
the float, and at the time I assumed, and then later on the
Board assumed, that it was going to be much closer into shore.
Which led'to that inconsistency. Which has since been remedied.
MS. MOORE: Okay. Well, we have the area, as I said, measured.
The main concern we have is that you can see that the water
depth is, for the most part, in the center of that lagoon. And
then you go out to the south to get to the open water. So my
client has to take his vessel and try to fit within the area
just west of the proposed dock, and then straight out to the,
along the southerly area. So it is a real tight navigation.
I't's always been tight, and other property owners that have,
according to my client, have tried to get docks on the Jones'
property, have been unsuccessful, in particular because of the
water that is in that area, and the impact on the navigation.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: And what vessel does your client have?
MS. MOORE: I don't know. I think one is a whaler. Sorry, I do
have that information. A 23-foot whaler and a 15-foot whaler.
That's it. For very limited water access.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just to address that water depth issue, if
you look to the bottom of this map, I guess that's to the south,
there is a lot less water depth than where the dock is proposed.
So I don't see how it can necessarily be a navigation issue when
there is less water pass the dock than where it is where the
Board of Trustees 45 February 13, 2019
dock is proposed. If we go to the west, there is still
sufficient water depth for the boat to transit that area, and as
it's heading south out of the area, there is less water depth.
MS. MOORE: Well, if you look at the actual measurements, it's
not, I'm trying to, let me see if there is -- so if you look at
the scale, it looks like you have an area maybe ten feet beyond
where -- remember, their dock, their float is going to be in the
center of that area. Then they have a vessel that is attached
to it. So they are going to be blocking more, a significant
portion of that center, which is if you look at the center
bubble, that's where the depth, water depth is.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: But if you look to the west of that, there is
2.6, there's 3.2, there's 2.2. But when you get down to the
south, there is two feet, 2.1, 1.6.
MS. MOORE: It's a challenge for them to get out. Usually only
during high tides.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I would envision it's more of a challenge
when they are past that dock than where they are where that dock
is proposed.
MS. MOORE: Well, it's constantly a challenge if they are adding
to the complexity of getting out of that water body by blocking
what is the entrance to that lagoon.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: In addition to that are there any other
concerns?
MS. MOORE: Well, the application that they submitted, the
original, I don't know what they submitted recently, but they
had, it seemed to be inaccurate. They were showing water depth
of 2.2 and our marine surveyor is showing 2.1 at best, so.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: We were out there at low tide and Mr. Cole was
standing in the water, and he couldn't get to the dock terminus
because the water was about to breach his waders and --would
you say that's about four feet?
MR. COLE: At least. That's because I'm 66".
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I mean, that's what the five of us saw with
our own eyes, so.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Ms. Moore, I would like to point out this
document that you just gave us from Robert Fox, it shows the
dock area,, and using your own scale up here, which is 30 feet, this area
is 30 feet wide and 30 feet off of mean high water. So it's not consistent
with the plans before us.
MS. MOORE: I eyeballed it. If we were talking about the same
area --this area here is where we were talking?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This area. This area that you gave me.
MS. MOORE: No, I was measuring this area here did not have, it
has a very narrow--
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I understand. I'm not discussing that. I'm
discussing the size of this, here is your 30 foot scale, right
there. That's 30 feet. So you are showing me 30 feet by 30 feet
off of the mean high water. That does not accurately reflect the
plans before us, which is what we have to consider. The plans
Board of Trustees 46 February 13, 2019
before us would show the dock actually in a different location.
And as the Trustees previously stated, when we were there on the
field inspection, it was over four feet of water.
MS. MOORE: We sent this, we sent the plan that was submitted
originally to Bob Fox for placement on the survey. If they
submitted a revised plan, then Bob Fox does not have that. I
would not have that plan. We only sent the one that was noticed
to my client through certified mailing. So if the plan has
changed, this diagram does not match the one that has changed.
If it's changed. I don't know.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would be a happy accident, then. I mean
it's not our fault there are problems, really. If the location
is moved so it's not as much of a pinch point for your client,
it's kind of a win/win, I think.
MS. MOORE: Not if we don't know where the new location is. I
have not been given notice of the new location. My client has
not been given notice of the new location.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have new materials before us which have
to be reviewed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. At this point is there anyone else
here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MS. JONES: Alexandra Jones, applicant. I have pictures also. I
Would like to get them back, but I would be happy to have you
guys look at them. But very important is the letter that Mr.
Walpien, or whatever documentation you have from Mr. Walpien,
was sent to the Army Corps of Engineers, six pages in length,
and it was investigated and disputed, and we have been approved
by the Army Corps of Engineers as the whole thing was nonsense.
And that's the information we have as of tonight. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. HAGAN: Are those pictures going into the record?
MS. JONES: No.
MR. HAGAN: Then they have to be returned
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can come and take your pictures.
MR. JONES: Thank you.
MR. COLE: One more thing to give the Board, if you want. This is
from New Suffolk. It shows tide water depths. While they are not
exactly the same as the creek, it does show you a fluctuation of
over two-and-a-half feet tidal depth. So we were there at low
tide and expect it to be at least two-and-a-half feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here who wishes
to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I just want to reiterate, this is a floating
dock, correct?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Correct.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: A ramp to float that has sufficient water depth.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, sir.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we have been submitted quite a bit of new
Board of Trustees 47 February 13, 2019
material tonight that we should take time to review, and if any
other people are interested in this application want to use the
time to review it, we should give them time to do so.
Furthermore, we have not yet finished our SEQRA review on
this project. So we are going to postpone this to take the time
to do that. And possibly declare a conditional negative
declaration on the project.
So having said that, I make a motion to table this
application to the following month.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We'll take a five-minute break.
(After a five-minute recess, these proceedings continue as
follows).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We are back on the record.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JAMES H. RICH
III, LESLIE E. RICH & CRAIG B. RICH requests a Wetland Permit to
remove and replace 120 linear feet of existing bulkhead with new
vinyl bulkhead in-place; remove and replace 30 linear feet of
existing bulkhead return with new vinyl bulkhead return
in-place; remove and replace 22 linear feet of existing groin
with new vinyl groin in-place; install and perpetually maintain
a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the
bulkhead; construct a new 4'x45' fixed dock supported with 8"
diameter piles and with thru-flow decking surface; a 3'x14'
aluminum ramp; and a 6'x20' floating dock situated in an "L"
configuration supported with four (4) 10" diameter piles and
cross bracing to hold the floating dock a minimum of 30" off of
bottom at all times.
Located: 1470 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-2.1
The Trustees visited this site on February 4th. All
Trustees were present. We had notes: Question the need for the
northern 22-foot groin, which is in disrepair and not
functioning; insufficient water, less than two feet at seaward
side of boat shown on plans; suggest catwalk to "L" shape.
The LWRP coordinator found this project to be inconsistent.
The inconsistencies were Policy Six is to protect and restore
the quality and function of the Southold Town ecosystem. 6.3,
protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands.
Wetland permit for the 120 linear foot of existing
bulkhead, 30 linear foot of existing bulkhead return and 22
linear feet of existing groin were not located in Town records.
In the event the replacement of this bulkhead and groins are
approved, require that the existing Spartina alterniflora are
protected and preserved to the greatest extent practicable.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application?
Board of Trustees 48 February 13, 2019
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. As far as
the existing wetland, those will be protected. All the work for
the bulkhead side of the project will be performed from landward
and will not go outside of the bulkhead line and damage any of
the existing Spartina. The existing 22-foot long groin, the
purpose is just to replace that. And I don't know if I
necessarily agree that it's in disrepair, unless it's had some
damage since I was there. It appeared to be just missing a board
or two. The whole reason for that is to prevent any sediment
from washing, not only from in front of the property but into
the dockage area to the property just to the north. The
functional need for this applicant, they don't need that groin
there. It's really to help out the neighboring property.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I just want to point out when we were there
it seemed like the vegetation in sand was even on both'sides, so
it was, it, you know--
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Perfectly even.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Like if that groin was not there, it would
match up identical.
MR. PATANJO: Functional, need wise, I was asked to apply for it.
If it's not an approvable item, I don't think it is necessarily
a benefit for the applicant. If you feel that, again, it's not
necessary, based on your inspection.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So, to clarify, we questioned whether it was
adding to function, not that it was dis-functional. Because if
you had a couple of boards replaced. It was not that it was not
functional. It was not adding to the function because of the
balance of sand on each side.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Like was it working.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It didn't seem like it was doing anything. It
was not benefitting.
MR. PATANJO: Well, that's one item to discuss further, I would
say. The proposed dock not being, on having insufficient water
depth at low tide, all,these, the low tide calculations were
done at mean low low water, which is DEC standard, which is not
really measurable. It's really low tide at its lowest point. So
the water depth is, I believe 1.7, 1.8. So you have almost two
foot of water there at low tide, and we are going to chock it
off of the bottom, utilizing four piles and chocks to maintain
30 inches of water separation at low tide at all times. And as
you see, the boats can be out further with more sufficient water
depth than where the float will be sitting.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Just to speak to the chocks, we don't find the
chocks to be beneficial. In many cases the chocks mysteriously
disappear after the marine contractor leaves. That's one issue.
The.other issue is the public safety. There was an issue in -
Suffolk County two years ago where a chock failed and somebody
got injured. In addition, with having a dock that low to water,
the bottom would benefit from the through-flow decking of a
fixed pier rather than the non-transparent float there. So, you know,
in many cases we are moving away from -- I shouldn't say many
Board of Trustees 49 February 13, 2019
cases, but we are moving away from chocks and moving toward a
fixed pier. We want people who live on the water to be able to
access the water but we have to do our best to protect the
ecosystem and health of the creeks in Southold Town
MR. PATANJO: Okay, I could understand some of those points. As
far as the through-flow decking on a fixed pier, there is no
vegetation there that would benefit, in my understanding. Maybe
Jay can help us out with that a little bit with some knowledge
of marine life and through-flow decking in that amount of water
depth. There is no evidence of any benefit of through-flow
decking, that I can see, due to the location and the distance
away from the shoreline.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: One of the benefits in doing this is during a
storm, the water can go through that rather than lift up and
destroy. And a dock would create projectiles.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have not compelled them, obviously,
except for over the currently vegetated portions, but for the
sake of consistency we are certainly encouraging having one
uniform dock material for safety and convenience. But we have
not proposed it over areas suitable for growing Spartina. Of
course all these creeks used to have eel grass in them but that
doesn't seem like that's going to be happening in our lifetime
MR. PATANJO: That being said, I proposed on the plans being
there is a significant amount of vegetation under this dock area
is the fixed portion of it, the entire structure is to be
through-flow decking, which is going to remedy that little
situation. As far as the floating dock being held off the bottom
with chocks, I didn't see anything in the code that says you
can't do that. And it is a New York State DEC standard to hold
it off of the bottom 30 inches of water at low tide. And past
projects that I have seen come across this Board it has been an
approvable means of holding a dock off of the bottom at low tide.
A lot of times, from what I have seen, and I can reference
a few in my head that we did transfer to fixed docks in certain
situations, something like this, a fixed dock becomes
problematic, as we'll see in the next application, that for the
owners of these boats to use these fixed docks you are going to
have to step down quite a bit at high tide if you want to go out
on your boat. That becomes a safety issue. More of a safety
issue than a cross bracing coming off in a storm or what have you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I do understand your point. You know, in
recent inspections going out, looking at docks that are supposed
to be chocked, the chocks just get removed.
MR. PATANJO: Then they would be in violation of Chapter 275 and
be issued a summons, no?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: In theory, yes
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The other thing, too, and it's obviously at the
discretion of the Board to make decisions, but for me, this is
Trustee-owned bottom and it's up to our determination to decide
what goes over it. And I think just environmentally speaking we
want to see fixed docks where there is not appropriate water
Board of Trustees 50 February 13, 2019
depth. I mean we don't have the manpower to go around town and
look at how many floats are sitting on the bottom. And I'm sure
your clients in every application have best intentions. But I
think in approaching the reality of the situation we really just
want to do right by the environment and by essentially your clients.
MR. PATANJO: Are you concerned about a boat hitting the bottom
or concerned with a float hitting the bottom?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Both.
MR. PATANJO: So regardless if this is fixed off the bottom or
having a floating dock fixed off the bottom 30 inches mean low
water or you have a fixed pier, that boat is in the same
position and will be bouncing off of the bottom as well.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's true. We can, I guess, then condition a
maximum boat size for this location. I guess. Which we have done
in the past. But I mean maybe a 13-foot whaler here.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: We could condition a maximum boat size, if you
wish.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: In essence the dock will be there 12 months
out of the year and the boat will not. And also by chocking it,
you are more or less making the fixed dock at some point in time.
MR. PATANJO: You are making a fixed dock, however it's a safer
dock. You are making a-fixed dock at low tide, which will give
separation. However you are making it a safe dock to enter and
exit a vessel at high tide.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: You can also put stairs, to address the issue
you brought about the depth, the danger you have at high tide, so.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You are also requiring four pilings for a
chocked float that you would not necessarily need if you made it
a fixed dock.
MR. PATANJO: Which would further benefit the floating dock for
storm tides and possibilities of something coming loose.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And it would also further impact the
environment, for treated piles.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I want to build on that point, because you asked
before about the code. In reference to it, a chock or a float.
And the code specifically says you cannot disturb or destroy
vegetation. So there is a whole section. I believe it's 11-C and
subsets prohibits us from approving something we think will
negatively affect the creek bottom, bay bottom.
MR. HAGAN: It's under 275-11.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, 275-11. So
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: What would you like to do, sir?
MR. PATANJO: Well, the feelings from the Board is --these are
the tricky situations. Um, you are not going to tell me until
you close the open public session if it will be approved or not,
so I don't know if I should postpone it or not.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I would strongly encourage you to reconsider a
floating dock. We are very much in tune to replacing the
bulkhead. The bulkhead is starting to show signs of decay and
wear. I understand you are representing the property owner to
the south and the bulkhead will most likely be done in one run.
Board of Trustees 51 February 13, 2019
MR. PATANJO: Same contractor, yes.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: And I don't believe there are any questions or
concerns from the Board regarding the bulkhead. It's really
just regarding the float. So at this point you may want to
consider tabling the application and you could come to a work
session to discuss it.
MR. PATANJO: I would like to table the application until I can
speak with the client on how to proceed.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Sounds good.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Before we do that. I would point out that we are
seeing creeks fill in, that in years past there may have been
sufficient depth, and a float was approved by a previous Board.
It was approved under different conditions than exist now. And
when there is neighboring docks may have a float, it would not
get approved now because of the constraints imposed by 275.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: And your client would be welcome to look into
dredging that area as well. You know, we have had other
applicants apply to dredge on Trustee bottom and it has been
granted. I'm not saying this would be granted, but it is an
option to pursue. If they felt that strongly about a float, they
could look into dredging.
So I'll make a.motion to table this application at the applicant's request.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: 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
The Trustees most recent inhouse review of the plans
prepared by Jeffrey Patanjo, dated 12/1/18, received December
4th, shows 16 inches of water on the seaward side of the
proposed float on page one of two. And page two shows a minimum
of 30 inches at mean low water, which, at any rate, is an
inadequate depth of water for a float at 16 inches mean low water.
There is a lengthy, very lengthy, I'm not going to read it
in its entirety. Something like 18 page of LWRP review on this.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. This
original application was started by a different.expediter, as
you see. The original application was for a submitted dock of
100-- I think it was 158 feet or so. I don't see it here. The
original dock was submitted at a much larger length. Yes, 4x158.
At one of the hearings it was recommended by the Trustees to
reduce the length of the proposed dock. We came back with a new
dock length of 87 feet long for the fixed portion. 487. Which
reduces it by approximately a little less than half of the
proposed length of the original, and modified the size of the
Board of Trustees 52 February 13, 2019
float to be an 8x15, which is under the 120 square foot
requirement. It does, it received originally a SEQRA negative
declaration, and I don't know if this was on the list of SEQRA
determinations, but the original dock at 158 feet long received
a negative declaration by the Town of Southold Trustees back in
June of 2018. 1 don't know if a negative declaration of this has
been performed yet or anything has been performed as far as
SEQRA review.
As far as the new proposed dock itself, it meets all of
Chapter 275 requirements with regard to the pier line, with
regards to sizes and separation distances to wetlands. It is
within the -- outside of the one-third of the waterway width
rule. And it also is, again, like the previous application.
There is water depth at low tide of the approximately 16 to 18
inches as was mentioned in the comments. It's proposed to be
chocked with four piles off the bay bottom at all times. And
there was, again, as mentioned by Mr. Domino, I don't know if
you were making reference to this e-mail that was sent by
Charles Grimes, the owner, on January 7th, to the Board of
Trustees, as well as the Town Attorney, referencing the
neighboring docks that were approved 3905 Wells Road as well as
3705 Wells Road, which is two houses away from this one which
was approved by the Board of Trustees in 2017, permit number
8277 for the same situation of a floating dock and a fixed pier.
So as far as the clients were requesting an approval based
on the submitted application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I made no reference to neighboring docks in this
application. But I would point out that each application is an
individual application with different criteria.
Every property is different. So it's immaterial. By pulling
a dock down, back to 87 feet-- let me backtrack. If the
original application was exceedingly long in order to reach
water depth, you stated there is water of 16 to 18 inches here.
According to the plans you submitted, 16 to 14 inches at mean
low water. It's insufficient water. Also I would like you to
explain to me how it's possible to have 30 inches of separation
at mean low water if we only have 16 inches of water.'Are you
saying that the float is going to be 14 inches out of the water?
MR. PATANJO: Correct, at low tide.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, any other questions or comments from the
Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board has always worked to try to get
landowner access to the water, and the property does have a
permit history of one prior permit granted. But then as
standards changed, subsequently the Board did deny a dock in this location.
And we have reviewed the pier line. We don't really have issues with
the application with respect to the pier line when it comes back
to depth. The interesting observation under this particular
aerial that we are looking at, which is 2018 Google, there is an
apparent algal bloom in the creek and it sort of works in
reverse of a dye test because the coloration, it can be uniform,
Board of Trustees 53 February 13, 2019
although algae blooms can be patchy, but you notice off the
property of the applicant, the very light colors are reflecting
the absence of water depth, whereas the deeper waters of the
creek have that rust color which is from an organism called
Cochlodinium polykrikoides is a harmful algal bloom.
And so we have a situation where you have visual representation
provided by the great one who makes the waters red and brown on
occasion that there is not much water depth off the property.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And I would just say this one has the exact
same environmental concerns as we had with that previous one.
All the same environmental issues we just faced with the lack of
water depth, extra pilings, everything is the same concerns we
have for this one.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Again, if they wanted to do a fixed catwalk.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll reiterate what I said before, and that is,
I believe you are the third expediter on this particular
application. They started out with Mr. Anderson, then Mr. Just.
And there is a reason why the first application came in at, I
think it was a total of 190 feet as stated in the LWRP.,Where
about 180 feet would have been over water that is maybe a foot
or so depth. And that was the need to get to sufficient water
depth to allow a boat to operate correctly. So pulling it back
is what created this problem. So, and that is the problem being,
is there is sufficient water here for a float. Chocked or otherwise.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER:•And then with respect to environmental
determinations without sufficient depth, then it turns with the
potential thinking of SEQRA into areas that end up being we have
to deal with LWRP concerns, and there is simply no mitigation
possible when we have insufficient water depth of this type.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I ask a question? If the floating dock is
going to be 14 inches above the water for, I mean a large
portion of the day with a two-foot tidal cycle in our local
creeks, why wouldn't you just do a fixed dock?
MR. PATANJO: As far as coming in and out at high tide
situations. I'm sorry, low tide -- high tide situations, where
it's actually the dock is, you are going to have a better chance
during high tides it's going to be safer getting on and off of
the boat.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are very fortunate where we live that we
have such a small tidal range, and if it's 14 inches out of the
water, we are talking a very small amount of time when it is a
floating dock, and I would say zero safety concerns at that
point using a fixed dock for a competent mariner.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: As stated previously, when you have a fixed
dock, you can use the steps to the platform very safely, and in
fact for someone of my age, fixed is a great deal safer than
floating.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Have they defined a vessel that they want to
use?
MR. PATANJO: They have not.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Have they defined, at one point it was
Board of Trustees 54 February 13, 2019
mentioned kayaks or-- has that come up?
MR. PATANJO: Kayaks will be utilized there. They did mention
utilizing kayaks. And that's one of the partial reasons for the
width of the float is to launch kayaks off of it. Which on a
floating dock will obviously be easier to get on and off.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Except anybody who has done any kayaking,
you have a drop of more than_five or six inches, it's extremely
problematic. And that low tide drop will be one heck of a drop.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'm not going to lie, I have a kayak and a
floating dock. I walk it into the water and get in right there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would venture to say all of us here have
kayaks and we find it very difficult.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It's easy to get in off the floating dock.
It's very difficult to get out onto the floating dock.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Would you consider tabling this to hold it over
for further review?
MR. PATANJO: The client would like a decision tonight and, if it
is denied, they would like the grounds for denial.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We'll table it for further SEQRA review. The
previous SEQRA determination was for the other dock. There has
not been one for this dock. So I'll move'to table.
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to table this
for further SEQRA review.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 13, Jeffrey 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 42
lineal 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 was held over from the last public hearing so the
Board could revisit the property and take a look at the project.
The project is previously determined to be consistent.
The CAC is in support.
The Board went out and we are concerned there has not been
a case made to, environmentally, to move those retaining walls
seaward. It doesn't seem that this is serving any purpose. We
are concerned about it. It's not providing any real benefit to
the environment for this. And it is potentially creating
problems in the future with respect to construction. It's a
large amount of fill material involved. So we are, I think we
Board of Trustees 55 February 13, 2019
are thinking, the Board is thinking along the lines that a
replacement of pretty much inkind or like kind with vinyl would
be more appropriate instead of what you propose here with just
two walls.
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. I'm a
little taken back by the comments now because we had this
hearing in December, I believe, and everything was okay,
approved, on the meeting Minutes, and the only thing I needed to
do was submit revised plans that showed a five-foot wide
non-turf buffer. I submitted those drawings indicating a
five-foot wide non-turf buffer at the top and came back to the
meeting in January, I believe. I may be a month ahead or
behind, and I was told now the proposed walls need to be staked.
Which set us back another month. Now I'm hearing that the Board
changed their decisions from the two-month ago meeting. And I
can't understand why, I don't know why the grounds have changed.
Some explanation why it was originally approvable and now it's
not approved.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: We never made any decision. We asked it be
staked for further review because there was not, it was not very
clear as to exactly where the walls were going to be when we
were at our initial site inspection.
MR. PATANJO: It was not staked, during the meeting, the only
revision, it was not asked to be staked at the public hearing.
The only thing you requested at the public hearing was revised
drawings showing a five-foot wide non-turf buffer. And then it
was tabled to the next meeting.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We also have field notes, and we discussed it,
this is because of the issue of fill to raise the project grade
for matching neighbors was also a concern. And upon additional
consideration in the field, the Board is concerned about safety
and height of walls. Additional, you know, bumping out. And it
doesn't seem like there is an environmental basis for it.
MR. PATANJO: Okay. These are retaining walls now, so they are
not bulkheads. And the proposed plan has 22 feet of flat, level
land, landward of the existing bulkhead, which is now functional
and appropriate for the area. What the client is trying to do is
to replace the failing CCA retaining walls, those three tiers,
with something more structurally sound, and the steps down to
that lower beach area. I can understand you may have some
concerns with the movement of these walls, I'll say three feet
seaward of where the existing wall is. But as far as -- let me
just get this right. As far as what you are requesting, what
exactly are you requesting?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the concern is going from three to
two is creating a problem, from an engineering standpoint. Is
it possible that the upper wall could be, if it's an engineering
necessity to do it, is it possible the upper wall be more in
line with the existing walls instead of being bumped out,
reducing the amount of fill?
MR. PATANJO: Well, the upper wall I believe is three feet tall.
Board of Trustees 56 February 13, 2019
We are not talking a whole lot of fill in this area. I would
have to look at some engineering calculations to see how much
fill is required. Because of the height of the existing walls
and the height of the new proposed walls, I don't see a whole
lot of fill being needed. I don't even know if I addressed the
fill on the application, to be honest. I don't believe I
included any additional fill.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I think, let's not get into the calculations of
fill at this point. I'm just going to say it's a significant amount.
But the concern is this. The natural angle of repose on the
unconsolidated soils that comprises the north fork is usually 42
to 45 degrees. With the three walls that you presently have, it's
slightly steeper than that. By going to two walls and pushing it further
seaward, you create an over-steep situation. So we are concerned
about the stability of this, longterm stability of this. The present
configuration is showing some wear, and I think this suggestion was
made before, that it might be a commendable idea to repair inplace
rather than moving from the three walls, retaining walls, to two.
MR. PATANJO: I'll agree with you about the 45 degree angle of
repose on soils and structural stability of it. That's rule of
thumb in the industry. However that does not take into any
consideration retaining walls. That takes all of that 45 degree
calculation out. If these walls are constructed property, with
adequate tieback systems and sufficient penetration into the
existing soils at the toe of the sheets, it's functionally
stable. It's like a bulkhead. And these are not overly huge. We
are talking an eight-foot wall which will have sufficient tie
backs. I did an application just like this on the Sound.
Actually it's pretty much a copy of this application. I like to
copy drawings. So this application, yes, we are moving a little
bit seaward. Would the Board be agreeable with taking the two
walls as proposed and moving them back so that the lower wall is
in line with the existing lower wall and still have the same
configuration? So you would have separation which matches
existing at the lower portion, which would give you more
distance away from the existing bulkhead. So it's really
shifting out that proposal and moving it back.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anecdotally, we do some five-hundred
applications a year, so we see situations, and I'm going to
respectfully disagree with your assessment about the stability
of the two-wall system. So I guess the short answer is, myself,
I would rather see the three than two.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I concur. I think the three as opposed to
two, if they need to be re-aligned because of the needs of
construction and avoiding, for environmental reasons, avoiding
siltation, possibly using existing walls with helical screws or
something along those lines, but it seems that, based on the
Board's experience we are not seeing eight-foot high exposed
walls in these areas. I don't think the need has been
established, and there is not strong environmental case. You
know, if it's a small issue of constructing in front or behind
Board of Trustees 57 February 13, 2019
is slightly changing for engineering whole soils, I mean I would
be open to it. Any additional comments, concerns?
MR. PATANJO: No. I'll have to suggest tabling the application
on behalf of the applicant so he can discuss it with his client.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, very much.
THE WITNESS: I move to table this application at the request of
the applicant to consider the Trustees concerns in this matter.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 14, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
ROBERT & BARBARA LEWIS requests a Wetland Permit to remove
and replace 158 linear feet of existing bulkhead with new vinyl
bulkhead in-place with a raised elevation of 18" above existing
top cap; remove and replace existing 4'x4' un-treated steps to
beach; maintain existing 10.4'x9' shed in its current location;
maintain existing 3.5'x65' timber steps up bluff; and maintain
existing 24'x13' irregular on-grade deck in its current location.
Located: 600 West Cove Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-2-9
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies
are: A wetland permit for the structures was not located within
Town records. The 24'x13' irregular deck is not permissible.
The deck attached to the stairs is 312 square feet. And the deck
exceeds 200-square feet and is located seaward of the top of
bluff. Furthermore, the deck and shed are located within FEMA VE
flood zone and do not meet policy four.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with hinge retractable stairs parallel to the
shoreline. It also says it's the opinion of the Conservation
Advisory Council that this property is a good candidate for a
living shoreline project.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on February 4th,
noting that the bulkhead replacement was basically
straightforward. Also noting that there was dumping occurring on
the bluff that we want to see stopped and removed.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant.
Correct, it's a straightforward application, remove and
replace the bulkhead and raise it. We have no problems with a
condition of the permit to put in hinged stairs, that's fine.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So how do we address the LWRP's concerns?
You have a 24'x13' irregular deck.
MR. PATANJO: That has been there for older than I am, I'm sure.
And that's 23-years old. That's been there 40, 50 years, I'm
sure. It predates any codes or requirements and we are not
touching it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's been there longer than I have been
doing Trustees, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I interject. Are you rebuilding the deck?
Board of Trustees 58 February 13, 2019
MR. PATANJO: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You are just leaving it as is for this application?
MR. PATANJO: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You're leaving the shed, the deck, everything
stays the same but the bulkhead?
MR. PATANJO: Correct.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
noting that the current structures are in existence, nonconforming
structures, pre-existing nonconforming structures, and any work proposed
to those structures would need a permit and Trustee approval.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE'KRUPSKI: Number 15, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ROBERT
& BARBARA LEWIS requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
104 linear feet of existing bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead
in-place with a raised elevation of 18" above existing top cap.
Located: 700 West Cove Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-2-10
The Trustees most recently visited this application on the
4th of February. They noted that it's a straightforward
replacement of a functional bulkhead. And also just wanted to
note for the record no more dumping of brush on the bluff.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be an inconsistent
action, stating that a wetland permit for the structure is not
locate within Town record.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, if you have any questions, I would be
happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Straightforward replacement of the bulkhead,
inkind, inplace
MR. PATANJO: Inkind, inplace, yes
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I find the project to be straightforward.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Hearing none, I'll make a motion to
close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 59 February 13, 2019
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
which will permit this structure therefore bringing it into
consistency with the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH. Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion to adjourn?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
Michael J. Domino, President
Board of Trustees