HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/17/2019 Michael J.Domino,President �Q� S®(/"� Town Hall Annex
John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President ,�®� ®�® 54375 Route 25
P.O.Box 1179
Glenn Goldsmith Southold,New York 11971
A.Nicholas Krupski Q Telephone(631) 765-1892
Greg Williams ® �® Fax(631) 765-6641
COMM
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES F%ECEIVED
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD C'
MY 162019 � 3'� QM
Minutes
Wednesday, April 17, 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: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 5:30 PM at the Main Meeting
Hall
WORK SESSIONS: Monday, May 13, 2019 at 4:30 PM at the Town Hall Annex 2nd floor
Board Room, and on Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 5:00 PM at the
Main Meeting Hall
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of March 20, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good evening and welcome to our Wednesday, April 17th, 2019,
monthly meeting. At this time I would like to call our meeting to order and ask that you
stand for the pledge.
(Pledge of Allegiance).
At this time I would like to recognize the people on the dais. To my left is Trustee John
Bredemeyer, Trustee Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee Nick Krupski, Trustee Greg Williams.
To my right, Assistant Town Attorney Damon Hagan, Senior Clerk Typist Elizabeth
Cantrell, and also with us tonight is Court Stenographer Wayne Galante, and the
Conservation Advisory Council member James Abbott. Mr. Abbott is in the back.
Agendas are located at the podiums and also out in the hall.
I would at this time like to announce the postponements. Postponements are for
a number of reasons, usually the applicant didn't complete a mailing or paperwork.
On page five, we have number three, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of
BIM STRASBERG &ALEXANDRA LEWIS requests an Amendment
Board of Trustees 2 April 17, 2019
to Wetland Permit#9342 and Coastal Erosion Management Permit#9342C to construct
a new 50 linear foot long wood retaining wall landward of bulkhead (6"x6" vertical with
3'x10' timber lagging)-secured by 25 ton helical pile,5' on center;seaward of existing -
dwelling, construct a new 50 linear foot long sheet pile wall at elevation +39' secured by
25 ton helical piles 6' on center; and to restore the bluff and fill depression with 200
cubic yards of clean fill.
Located: 21225 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-135-1-1 is postponed.
On page six we have number three, 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, is postponed.
And 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
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, is postponed.
On page seven we have number five, 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, is postponed.
On pages 13, 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; 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 is
withdrawn, at the applicant's request.
And on pages 13 and 14, numbers 26 through 31 are postponed. They are listed as
follows:
Number 26, GARY MANGUS & MIRIAM MEYERS request a Wetland Permit to
install a 3'x16' access ramp with railings using Thru-Flow decking built directly off existing
bulkhead; and install a 6'x20' floating dock supported by four(4) 8" diameter
float piles with bunks to maintain float above bottom.
Located: 1295 Island View Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-57-2-16
Number 27, Stacey Bishop on behalf of FORDHAM HOUSE LLC, c/o DENIS
BOUBOULIS requests a Wetland Permit to install a ±1,167 sq. ft. on-grade paver
Board of Trustees 3 April 17, 2019
patio along the seaward side of the dwelling; extend existing westerly 15' long by 10' high
by 12" thick concrete and stone veneer retaining wall an additional 35' seaward for a total
length of 50' beginning at the left rear corner of existing dwelling; at seaward end of
westerly retaining wall, install a 28' long, varying height concrete and stone veneer
retaining wall parallel with the dwelling; along easterly side of property, extend existing
3' high natural stone retaining wall an additional ±45' seaward; approximately 15'
seaward of proposed 28' long parallel retaining wall, install a ±3' high by ±45' long
retaining wall situated approximately 1' landward of established 50'wide non-disturbance
buffer; and to install a generator pad, generator, and buried gas tank for the generator.
Located: 5205 The Long Way, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-5-11
Number 28, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of JOHNNY DONADIC, MARCIA
DONADIC TRUSTEE OF THE ALEXANDER ANTHONY DONADIC TRUST &THE
OLIVER ANGELO DONADIC TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to replace existing
31.4'x15.6' swimming pool in-kind, connect backwash to existing drywell, and raise to
level of patio; replace existing 55' long retaining wall with concrete wall to match level
of pool and house; replace 27' long retaining wall and raise height of retaining wall
from 8" to 12" high; fill area between existing retaining wall and house with 52 cubic yards
clean fill; replace existing patio with 1,445 sq. ft. of bluestone patio set in sand/stone dust.
Located: 325 Willow Point Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-5-26
Number 29, 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 30, 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
Number 31, 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.
I wish to announce at this time under Town Code Chapter 275-89(c), files were
Board of Trustees 4 April 17, 2019
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 on Wednesday,
May 8th, 2019, at 8:00 AM, at the Town annex.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll entertain a motion to hold the next Trustee ,
meeting Wednesday, May 15th, 2019, at 5:30, here at the main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like a motion to hold the next work session Monday,
May 13th, 2019, at 4:30 PM, at the Town annex second floor, and on Wednesday,
May 15th, 2019, at 5:00 PM here at the main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time I'll entertain a motion to approve the Minutes of our
March 20th, 2019, meeting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Move to approve.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for April 2019. A check for$5,607.94 was forwarded
to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
hereby finds that the following applications more fully
described in Section VIII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee
agenda dated Wednesday, April 17, 2019, are classified as Type
II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not
subject to further review under SEQRA:
David Scott Ketner SCTM# 1000-4-5-18
Katie Nickolaus, Jamie Nickolaus &Alexandra Nickolaus Carnicom SCTM# 1000-51-1-2
Cedar Beach 1280 SCTM# 1000-90-2-22
Linda D. Bertani SCTM# 1000-70-12-32
Vanston Bear, LLC, c/o Andrew Beck, Member SCTM# 1000-111-10-14
Board of Trustees 5 April 17, 2019
Philip Cammann SCTM# 1000-115-12-21.3
Wunneweta Pond Association, c/o Frederick H. Mayne, Jr., Pres. SCTM# 1000-118-1-11
Goldsmith's Inlet, LLC SCTM# 1000-67-5-2
Brenda K. Helies Revocable Trust SCTM# 1000-123-8-28.3
William M. Mason &Anna Carusos, LLC, c/o William Mason SCTM# 1000-114-7-14.2
Glen & Joanne Middleton SCTM# 1000-53-4-17
Ajit Kumar& Jennifer Ecclestone SCTM# 1000-81-3-20
Neil &Amelia MacDonald SCTM# 1000-115-11-5
Rosaria Forchelli SCTM# 1000-116-778
Kevin S. McLeod & Chun Y. Cheung SCTM# 1000-94-1-40
Patricia Lowry & John Touhey SCTM# 1000-86-7-5.1
Johnny Donadic, Marcia Donadic Trustee of the Alexander Anthony
Donadic Trust &The Oliver Angelo Donadic Trust SCTM# 1000-56-5-26
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS -OTHER
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral IV, Resolutions - Other,
number one, RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Southold hereby authorizes the settlement of the litigation
entitled "Marijo C. Adimey and Veronica M. Lugris v. Board of
Trustees of the Town of Southold comprised of comprised of
Michael J. Domino, John M. Bredemeyer III, Glen Goldsmith, A.
Nicholas Krupski and Greg Williams in their capacity as Town
Trustees", and further authorizes Board President Michael Domino
to execute the Stipulation of Settlement, subject to the approval of the
Town Attorney.
That's the resolution.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO:All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral V, in order to simplify our
meetings the Board of Trustees regularly groups together actions
that are deemed similar or minor in nature. Accordingly, I make
a motion to approve as a group items one and two and four, five
and six. That's my motion. They are listed as follows:
Number one, DOUG & MICHELE GEROWSKI request an
Administrative Permit for a Ten-Year Maintenance Permit hand-cut
Common Reed (Phragmites australis) to not less than 12" in
height by hand, as needed.
Located: 2570 Clearview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-10-29.2
Number two, Michael Kimack on behalf of MARIAH MILLS &
KEVIN JOHNS requests an Administrative Permit to conduct
construction activity within 100' from the landward edge of
Board of Trustees 6 April 17, 2019
wetlands for the construction of a proposed 995.76 two-story
dwelling with 574.08 sq. ft. attached garage; install a sanitary
system; install gutters to leaders to drywells on the dwelling
and garage to contain roof runoff; with a 1400 sq. ft. gravel
driveway, all structural components to be located greater than
100 feet from the landward edge of wetlands.
Located: 1410 Brigantine Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-79-4-27
Number four, David J.S. Emilita, AICP on behalf of GIUSEPPE
IANNELLO JR. & ELIZABETH RAMOS request an Administrative Permit
to extend by 242 sq. ft. the existing 483 sq. ft. deck for a
total square footage of 725', which includes a 77' hot tub.
Located: 270 Smith Drive South, Southold. SCTM# 1000-76-3-34.3
Number five, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of
NORTH FORK HAVEN LLC requests an Administrative Permit to
construct a 370 sq.ft. on-grade patio adjacent to existing
patio; addition of approximately 30 cubic yards of fill/topsoil.
Located: 8871 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-83-1-34.1
Number six, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of ARAN BHA' LLC
requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 40'x12' deck in-place of
existing; with stairs on either side; construct 4'x7'2" outdoor shower.
Located: 4565 Paradise Point Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-1-13.1
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number three, Richard J. Principi & Eric Martz
on behalf of 4760 BLUE HORIZONS REALTY LLC request an
Administrative Permit to remove the existing cottage, including
existing sanitary system and drainage structures; and remove
invasive and dead trees.
Located: 4760 Blue Horizon Bluffs, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-74-1-35.55
1 make a motion to approve the Administrative Permit as
written with the note that no heavy equipment within 25 feet of
the bluff, and dead trees are to be tagged for area Trustee
review before removing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral VI, Applications for
Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments. Again, in
order to simplify the meetings, the Board of Trustees regularly
groups together actions that are similar in nature.
Accordingly, I make a motion to approve as a group items
one and three through seven. They are listed as follows:
Number one, NEIL & LORI KEARNS request the Last One-Year
Extension to Wetland Permit#8762 and Coastal Erosion Permit
#8762C, as issued on April 20, 2016.
Board of Trustees 7 April 17, 2019
Located: 18075 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-8
Number three, BECKY A. CHIDESTER & KENNETH D. BETTS, JR.
request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#6585 from Ronald & Maria
Smith, as issued on April 18, 2007.
Located: 2105 Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-7-2
Number four, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JOSEPH & MAUREEN
COOGAN requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#9412 to install non-treated timber decking in lieu of the
conditioned Thru-Flow decking material on the fixed dock.
Located: 1875 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-48
Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of GEORGE KATSAMANIS
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9236 for
the removal of an existing drainpipe located beneath the dock;
and for the removal of the stone rip-rap located on the
neighboring property which extends onto the subject property.
Located: 1025 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.40
Number six, Arch itecnol og ies on behalf of ANGELIC &JOHN
DURANTE, JR. requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit#9105 for the addition of 2'0" of deck on the west side
of proposed raised pool/deck area.
Located: 4260 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-29
Number seven, Samuels and Steelman Architects on behalf of
JAMES & KATHLEEN BLACKLEY requests an Administrative Amendment
to Administrative Permit#9008A to extend by 408 sq. ft. the
existing at-grade stone terrace; runoff to be contained in existing drywell.
Located: 415 Harbor Lights Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-71-2-4
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number two, LUCKYFRONT LLC requests a Transfer
of Wetland Permit#8952A from Amelia Mendoza to Luckyfront LLC,
as issued on February 15, 2017.
Located: 38015 Route 25, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-2-15.8
1 make a motion to issue the transfer of permit as requested with the
condition to no longer remove any trees without prior Trustee approval and to
mind the cutting does not go below the three foot as stated in the permit.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. MOORINGS/STAKE & PULLEY,SYSTEMS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral VII, number one,
THOMAS MENNICKEN requests a Mooring Permit for a mooring in East
Creek for an 18' outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #731.
Access: Public
I move to approve this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 8 April 17, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, FRED SILBER requests a Mooring
Permit for a mooring in Haywaters Cove for a 31' inboard
motorboat, replacing Mooring #4. Access: Public.
I'll make a motion to approve this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All,in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roman numeral VIII, public hearings. At this
time I make a motion to go off our regularly scheduled agenda
and enter into the public hearings.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 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. Please keep your
comments organized and brief, and five minutes or less if possible.
AMENDMENTS:
Number one under amendments, J.M.O. Environmental
Consulting Services on behalf of DAVID SCOTT KETNER requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit#7710 for the as-built 36'x17'
swimming pool and 710 sq. ft. patio in lieu of the originally
permitted 30'x12' swimming pool and 550 sq. ft. patio; install a
dry well (301 cu. ft.) for pool backwash; connect roof leaders to
the dry well; and install native plantings,consisting of 16
sweet pepperbush (Clethra ainfolia) and 6 inkberry bushes (Ilex
gabra), to be installed 6' o/c at the existing clearing limits.
Located: 4321 Brooks Point Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-4-5-18
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from the fact that the as-built
construction does not comply with Wetland permit#7710, and
accordingly it was built without a permit.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not do an inspection
and therefore no recommendation was made.
The Trustees last inspected this on March 25th, 2019. It
was inspected by the entire Board on August 18th of 2018. The
field notes say to see field notes from 2018. The project plan
does not depict a drywell. Gutters, leaders piped directly into
the wetlands. Submit plans depicting roof runoff to drywell and
swimming pool backwash.
All right, anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just, agent for the applicant.
This all resulted in the building inspector going to the site
Board of Trustees 9 April 17, 2019
and seeing there was no building permits ever issued, and that
resulted in he asked us to go back and have an active permit
from this Board and DEC. And both of those permits had expired.
As well as having gone back to the ZBA because I believe it's,
the layout of the lot there might be three front yards. So as
per direction of the DEC we came in with this planting plan, and
the plan is to connect the leaders and gutters going into a
drywell, and putting the pool filter into the drywell, which
doesn't exist now.
The builder has since passed, the fellow who built the
pool, and there is not much way of records available to us other
than what we have in our file and your file.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, noting that it will address the inconsistencies.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number two, Suffolk
Environmental Consulting on behalf of MILDRED M. PASCUCCI
requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#8920 to install an
AI/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 elevation of 6.5'; and to install a native planting scheme
featuring the planting of beach 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
The Board reviewed the proposed amendment and discussed it
at length at work session and on the field inspection date, and
the Board is pleased to see that this will have an alternative
system to remove nitrogen, which will be protecting the
environment of Hallocks Bay. And we also have a communication
with the Town Highway Superintendent concerning the request that
we wish to have a planting that would visually buffer the
retaining wall from public view along Narrow River Road, which
is known as a scenic corridor.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting.
I really don't have anything to add, unless you have a question.
Board of Trustees 10 April 17, 2019
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. The Board is suggesting, based on our
inspection, because it's not allowed to have planting in the
Town right-of-way, that the easterly retaining wall be offset by
some four feet to allow for a planting of probably high tide
bush will survive. Requesting that consideration be given to
amending the plan so we would not have concrete wall at
elevation of 6.5 right along the highway, along the public
road. That way it could be a planting --
MR. ANDERSON: I thought the Highway Superintendent was agreeable
to our plan.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Not in the e-mail communication I have here.
Specifically, I have written communication here that is sent
from Vincent Orlando to myself, Chairman Domino, and to the
clerk. It says, it questions is there a good reason why the
Trustees are requesting for the homeowner to plant on the Town
right-of-way groundsel bushes which can grow six foot high on an
intersection as well. There is concern about public safety if
we allow planting on the intersection, that it would also mean
the plants would be subject to cutting by the Highway Department
if they view there is a safety issue.
All planting, and he is specific, says all planting should
stay within their property lines. This would start a precedent
that is not a good thing for the Town or the Trustees.
I must apologize if you did not receive a copy of that
communication. I have it. We can provide that for you.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, our problem is that the wall is ten feet
from the leaching galley, which has a Health Department approval.
What prompted this application was the previous plan approved by
this Board, and just by the previous engineer they had run the
septic system along Harbor Road directly upgrading it from the
wells of Auerbach and Rieger, I show them in the plan. That's what caused us
to reconfigure the whole plan. The wall itself is setback a foot
from the line, so we do have some space to put something, but
not as much as I would like.
The second thing, too, is I believe if you look at the
plan, there is probably already groundsel bush in the
right-of-way. They didn't continue the line here, so the best, I
can suggest a couple of things, is that Health Department would
likely push us back to where we are proposing it because their
issue is public health. So I'm not sure that proposal will work
with the Health Department. That's number one.
Number two, there will be a one-foot separation between the
wall and the property line.
And number three, it may be possible to construct a wall
without incurring any physical disturbance to the road shoulder,
leaving at least some of the vegetation that is already there.
I'm reluctant to move back four feet because -- I could
table and I could ask the engineer, but I'm a bit surprised that
the Highway Superintendent is taking the position that he is taking.
Again, if you look at the plan, it already shows brush that
extends out into the right-of-way, and that's shown on the plan
i
Board of Trustees 11 April 17, 2019
by Joe Fischetti, and I believe but I'm not certain that there
is also, the road shoulder is not completely grass anyway.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, the requested amendment is substantial
in relation to the original permit granted because that area had
been set aside as a 15-wide non-disturbance buffer. So we are
actually, I mean we recognize the need for better sewage
treatment but the, the request is actually to obliterate, if you
will, or remove the 15-foot wide non-disturbance buffer in
contemplating higher water quality treatment with an IA system.
MR. ANDERSON: I would say this, that if the Board were to
require that, to separate, at least we would approach the Health
Department to say, you know, the Board asked us to do this
with a condition of your permit. Do you follow?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. Do you wish to table the
application to get further communication from the Board of Health?
MR. ANDERSON: No, because I need some sort of permit to get
before them.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Would you entertain submitting plans showing
a four-foot setback off the road and if the Board can consider
the request we've made and then initially permit that after we
get a new set of plans and bring that to the Health Department?
MR. ANDERSON: I guess that's the only choice I have. I would be
reluctant to move the galleys themselves, but it would then
change our Board of Review application to less than 150 feet
from the well of Aurebach and within six feet of the wall rather
than ten. That's what would happen. But they'll ask me why don't
you put the wall on the line. That's what they'll say. And the
answer is because the Trustees require me to move it four feet
from the line. Right now we are one foot from the line. Right
now we are talking three feet. So maybe it becomes seven instead
of ten. I'm not saying we would not get that permit but if you
go in front of the Board of Review, they'll say why don't you
put the wall on the line. When we say one foot off the line, we
do that because we want to avoid any unintentional incursion
onto someone else's property. We don't like to put walls exactly
on the line for that reason. So if I come to them with a reason
that because they want, the esthetic reason of landscaping out
the wall, that is going to be helpful.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any concerns from the Trustees?
Comments?
(No response).
All right, I think that sounds like a direction that is productive.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: I also want to say something that might be of
interest to you as well. And that is if you look at the spot
elevation adjacent to where it says EG on the plan, okay, it
says 5.5 feet. It then goes to the top elevation of the wall is
6.5 feet. So you are talking about covering a one-foot wall. So
maybe in that one foot you can plant something that will cover a
one-foot wall. That's all it is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we are completely talking about
Board of Trustees 12 April 17,2019
esthetics completely here, right? We are talking about a
non-disturbance area that, I mean we want to keep the area
vegetated. You mentioned public health earlier. The same reason
that we don't want to put septic directly into the creek.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, we gave you a landscape plan which was in
keeping with what our discussions were from the prior meeting.
You asked us to go to the Highway Department to see if we can do
additional plantings in the right-of-way. Apparently the answer
is we can't. The height of the wall appears to be like a foot,
approximately a foot above grade. I have a foot setback from the
property line. The entirety of the site is planted in natural
indigenous vegetation consistent with our prior conversations.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else
who wishes to speak to this application?
MS. HOEG: Yes. Good evening, members of the Board. Karen Hoeg,
from the law firm of Twomey, Latham, Shea on behalf of Catherine
Matthews who is the owner of the adjacent property, located at
275 Harbor Road in Orient. It's the property just to the north.
Ms. Matthews is a year-long resident of Orient and her address
'is her primary residence. Having lived at the property since
1971, she is very familiar with the daily conditions in the area
and on the surrounding properties. We have been recently
retained by Ms. Matthews to review this project and its
potential impact on the flooding in the area. This area is in
the proximity of the bay and in an area already susceptible to
severe flooding even during a mild rain. I have some photographs
to submit to the Board which you may have seen, which have been
previously submitted by Ms. Matthews. (Handing).
The first photo is in front of the home of Ms. Matthews and
the second two show a wet area where actually the posting is for
the notice of the hearing. While we understand that the Town
supports homeowners to install IA sanitary systems, we are very
concerned about bringing in additional fill, 300 cubic yards, to
this property, and also adding these retaining walls 160 feet
long at a height of 6.5 along Harbor Road and King Street. It
will only worsen the flooding to the nearby property owners. The
flooding concern must be carefully reviewed and considered by
the Trustees. Ms. Matthews also recently retained William Yates
Jaeger, an engineer land surveyor who has been practicing since
the early 1970s. He's here this evening and only today has been
able to inspect the site. He'll talk tonight about his initial
observations, however we would like to request that the record
be left open so that we can submit some additional written
reports by our engineer. And I would like to turn the mic over
to Mr. Jaeger.
MR. JAEGER: Good evening, my name is Bill Jaeger, I'm a consulting
engineer and land surveyor. I received a file on this yesterday and
did some preliminary observations relative to what I saw within the file.
And then this afternoon I visited the site along with Ms. Matthews.
I'm just going to give you a few concerns that I saw in going through the
documentation and then add one or two things that concern me just by
Board of Trustees 13 April 17, 2019
being on this site.
The first concern obviously is the high water table and the
soil conditions. The subject property and adjoining properties
have a very high water table. The sanitary plan prepared by Mr.
Fischetti indicates that the highest expected groundwater is at
elevation 1.0. That height is expected, and I'll inject what I
saw today. The elevation at the intersection of the street is
2.0 and -- 2.03, actually. And there is a street drain at that
location. And when I went out and checked the street drain,
which is approximately that 2.03 elevation, I measured six
inches down to ground water. That is just a stable, existing
groundwater. So that puts the groundwater elevation today at
1.5 as opposed to the plans showing maximum expected as 1.0.
Maximum expected is likely higher than what I measured today. I
think that is a weakness in the analysis.
Secondly, the construction of the leaching portion of the
sanitary system and any drainage will require excavation of all
poor draining material. The site, when you examine the test
hole, shows that you have one foot of loam or topsoil and three
feet of silt. So you are talking about a four-foot excavation,
in general, of this site, at all locations where you'll have
drainage requirements. Plus, you are also going to have to
excavate that material for the base of the retaining wall and
for the construction of the foundation for the house. So you are
creating wicks around the retaining wall, around the drainage
and sanitary system as well as around the foundation, unless the
retaining wall was built on piles and the home was built on
piles. The economic trade off there is probably not worth
putting in the piles. It's more cost effective to simply
excavate out and then put in material that would support
construction.
The upper soil strata of the proposed construction site is
currently non-porous or very slightly porous. And water falling
on this site is basically being retained on the surface and then
leaching very slowly. When we have the excavations done and we
have the coarse material put in, that leaching takes place
rapidly and will put the surcharge on the water table and
actually bring the water table level up -- I would not put a
number on it-- up on the adjoining properties, because you are
putting some pressure on that groundwater table.
Further consideration, the storm water containment is, I'm
figuring, based on a 35% void in the French drains, would hold
approximately 336 cubic feet of water. And the proposed
dwelling is some 2,115 square feet, and then you have the
additional driveway area which would be 100% runoff. Based on a
two-inch rainfall, which is pretty much minimum anyplace. Many
places go to three-inch rainfall storage. Would require the
storage of 420 cubic feet. So we are storing approximately 336
cubic feet with 420 required. Actually the requirements should
be even higher because you can get some additional runoff on the
surface, which will infiltrate through the porous coarse that
Board of Trustees 14 April 17, 2019
are the drainage systems.
I believe a part of this application is to relieve the
15-foot wide non-disturbance buffer that was imposed by this
Board going back a while ago. So that was something I
addressed, but it may not be relevant right now.
The plan shows a retaining wall to be constructed along the
main street, along Main Street. That retaining wall will have a
face of approximately, the top of it on the plans, proposed
plans, shows 6.5 feet with a lowest elevation there of two feet.
So you have approximately four-and-a-half feet of concrete wall
exposure, which esthetically is somewhat displeasing.
Now, the other thing that comes into play here at the same
time, in examining the plans, the retaining wall, and I believe
this was addressed, that the retaining wall and system was
reviewed by the Board of Review. I have an issue with that in
that the retaining wall shown on the detail in the sanitary plan
has the footing going out into the street, not into the
property. So that would be a concern. Now, if this footing were
reversed, it would then be underneath the sanitary stem. And I
think that is something that should be revised and should
certainly come before the Board of Review, because I think that
will reduce the overall solvability or flow from the sanitary
system. Because you have this leg. If you look at the plans,
you'll see in the upper left-hand corner of the plan, you'll see
that footing does come underneath.
A couple of other things, esthetically, beyond the wall,
which I think is esthetically very displeasing, the first-floor
area as shown, of the proposed building, as shown on the survey
is some 2,100 square feet. 2,115 square feet is what I see. And
the notation on the plan is that this is a proposed two-story
dwelling. This would result, if fully constructed, would result
in a 4,000-square foot building on a parcel which is nominally
93'x128'. Has an area of some 12,000 square feet. That seems
excessive.
The other thing that I have concerns with was that the site
plan is not that comprehensive. Normally you want a complete
topographic site plan with topo contours extending beyond the
property line. And on this plan I don't see the grading
analysis being done where it's dealing with the transition into
the adjoining property. For example, a particular concern is the
driveway that is being proposed. The driveway is being proposed
at elevation four and the drainage system right next to it is at
,elevation 4.3. The driveway, needless to say, has to taper down
to the edge of the pavement. I don't know that you can contain
the water from a driveway like that when you are transitioning
down and your storage area is actually higher than what the
driveway is. You need to be able to discharge into a drainage
area.
Those would be, I think, my major concerns. The four-foot
offset, obviously that will reduce the separation distances
between the well. You need to have ten feet from the sanitary
Board of Trustees 15 April 17, 2019
leaching system, leaching system portion of the sanitary to the
retaining wall. So if you move the wall in four feet, you move
the'leaching system in four feet and reducing the separation
between the well on the subject property and also the well on
Mrs. Matthews' property. Which has been a major concern to her.
She has had saltwater infiltration since the Hurricane Sandy
event.
I think that would pretty much conclude my initial
presentation. I would be happy to put this in report form and
submit it to the Board if the Board so chooses to keep the
record open. And I would be happy to answer any questions the
Board might have.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. I think we would
definitely like to see a hardcopy of your report for us.
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Owing to a great number of concerns
expressed by both the Board and speakers tonight, I move we
table this application for submission of new materials the
applicant may wish to address.
The project such as this typically would go to the Town
Engineer after Trustee permits have been granted, but I think in
this instance also the Board would consider for submission and
approach the Town Engineer for their review of the project while
it is still in formation. Accordingly, I move to table this
application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Wetland and Coastal Erosion permits, 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
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies
are the current deck is not compliant with the building permit
which shows a ten-foot wide deck on the seaward side. The
Board of Trustees 16 April 17, 2019
principal structure and deck are as-built did not receive a
Board of Trustee wetland permit or coastal erosion hazard area
permit. The proposal to replace the existing as-built sections
of U-shaped deck does not comply with the existing building
permit, the purpose of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area and LWRP
policies. It is recommended that the Board require the deck area
be redesigned to comply with the original building permit and
the purpose of the CEHA and FEMA flood zones to avoid and minimize
repetitive structural damage and loss within the vulnerable high
wave energy areas. And according to Town records, the principal
structure and deck structure was constructed without obtaining a
Board'of Trustee review or regulatory permits.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees most recently conducted a field inspection on
April 10th, noting that the revised plans address concerns to
remove side decks for further consideration.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. MOSES: Good evening. Scott Moses, Bulkhead Permits by Gary.
I discussed the updated plans and I brought them with me, as
well as the project description. I don't really know the
protocol. The discussion was that I bring it tonight. So
basically I updated the language exactly as we said with the two
side yards, and I'don't know if there is anything else I need to
address. If you need, I brought a lot of copies.
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).
This is under a Wetland and Coastal Erosion permit. Unfortunately
due to the size and scope of the deck and house we are unable to
grant a Coastal Erosion permit. That is something you have to
take on appeal to the Town Board. It's out of our purview. Out
of our scope.
MR. MOSES: So we still have to go to the Board of Appeals for
this application?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The Town Board.
MR. HAGAN: You appeal to the Town Board on a Coastal Erosion
application. Just so you are aware.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Are there any other questions or comments?
(Negative response).
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 the wetland permit
with the new revised project description dated April 17th, 2019,
which reads: Bulkhead Permits by Gary, Inc., on behalf of Harry
Bash,ian and Haykuhi Bashian requests a Wetland Permit to replace
Board of Trustees 17 April 17, 2019
an existing storm damaged bulkheading with new untreated timber
navy bulkheading consisting of removing a 14-foot northwesterly
section, a 61-and-a-half foot northerly section and a four-foot
northeasterly section of existing storm damaged bulkheading;
replace the existing 41-foot westerly section with a new
27-and-a-half foot section and new 62-and-a-half foot northerly
section installed in an angled position; and replace existing
41-and-a-half foot section with new 38-and-a-half foot easterly
section; install 61-and-a-half foot of proposed toe armor
consisting of two to four minimum of 18 inches by 18 inches by
18 inches stone laid out in a single row with geotextile filter
fabric placed underneath along the seaward edge of the new
northerly bulkheading; replace existing ten-foot wide by
36-and-a-half foot long seaward side deck with untreated lumber
in same place supported by five (5) ten-inch by 20-foot pressure
treated timber pilings with the westerly side of the deck be
cantilevered over new bulkhead; remove two existing storm
damaged 12-foot by 36-and-a-half foot plus or minus side yard
decks; remove existing five-and-a-half foot wide by
61-and-a-half foot long section of northerly decking; install
approximately 320 cubic yard of clean beach sand backfill with a
plus or minus 38'x5'x61-and-a-half foot area; to raise the grade
landward of the new bulkheading to be level with County Road 48;
and for the existing 26.4 foot by 36.3 foot two-story dwelling
located at 58425 North Road, Greenport. And by removing the
decks and bringing it back into consistency with the original
building permit, it will be consistent with the LWRP.
That's my motion
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I now make a motion to deny the application
of the Coastal Erosion permit as stated in Chapter 111 of Town
Code.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. MOSES: To be clear, I still have to go to the Board of
Appeals to replace the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The Town Board.
MR. MOSES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number two, En-Consultants on behalf of KATIE
NICKOLAUS, JAMIE NICKOLAUS &ALEXANDRA NICKOLAUS CARNICOM
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to within
100 feet of bluff crest, construct approximately 1,385 sq. ft.
portion of proposed 3,445 sq. ft. on-grade masonry patio with
associated trench drain (in connection with proposed 18.5'x41'
in-ground swimming pool to be located at least 101 feet from
bluff crest and thus outside Chapter 275 jurisdiction); install
4' high pool enclosure fencing; construct 4'x6' landing with
Board of Trustees 18 April 17,2019
steps and 4'x7' landing with steps on north side of existing
dwelling; install portion of stepping stone pathway within 100
feet of bluff crest; within 100 feet of bluff crest, clear
approximately 1,932 sq. ft. portion of 3,740 sq. A. area of
vegetation to be cleared from west side of property; and clear
approximately 620 sq. ft. of vegetation within 100 feet of bluff
crest on east side of property (all proposed clearing to occur
landward of existing covenanted 15' wide non-turf buffer).
Located: 17555 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#1000-51-1-2
The Trustees most recently visited this site on April 9th
and noted it was a straightforward application.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to
support this application based on past history failure of
erosion control measures.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this
Application?
MR. HERRMANN: Good evening, Board members. Rob Herrmann on
behalf of the applicant, and Jamie Nickolaus is here as well.
This is a property, and the homeowner I have been working with
now, since about 2013, on what has been a longterm comprehensive
process of bluff restoration and stabilization. And landward
retreat structures on property that fronts what at that time was
a severely eroding Long Island bluff.
The first step in that process was the removal, the
demolition and removal of the swimming pool and patio which the
Board probably remembers were located very close to the eroding
bluff at that time. And the house was relocated to what was then
a 100-foot top of bluff setback.
Subsequently, pursuant to wetland and coastal erosion
permits issued by this Board in 2016, as the Board no doubt
recalls, the bluff was regraded, re-nourished, revegetated and
stabilized with terra sand and stone revetment, at which time
the bluff crest was also relocated up to 29-feet landward of the
prior location as part of the process of re-establishing a
stable angle of repose for the bluff.
We talked a little bit at the site inspection last week
about the successful implementation of the bluff restoration,
and just for perspective, I did bring this photograph, I think I
was looking over this probably with Jay and Mike at one point,
and, you know, it's a little bit hard to see the success of the
project right now, but this is a growing season photo from last
year and below is a photo of what the bluff looked like prior to
the project. So once a CO is ultimately issued for the relocated
dwelling in May of last year, the design process for a relocated
swimming pool began, and really with some context to the CAC
comments, with great sensitivity to the erosion history of this
site, rather than propose the pool between the house and the
bluff, we located the pool more than 100 feet from top of bluff
and then had to secure a ZBA approval for that proposal since
it's located in a side yard. And this Board has already issued a
Board of Trustees 19 April 17, 2019
non-jurisdiction letter for the pool itself. So the parts of the
project that are before you tonight are the portion of the
on-grade patio that is located within the hundred-foot bluff
setback on the north side of the house, a couple of landings and
steps on the north side of the house, pool enclosure fencing and
some related clearing on the west side of the property for the
pool and patio, and the east side for the installation of the
pool fencing.
You probably recall during the site inspection that we
talked a little bit about that clearing on the east side, and I
did want to stipulate for the record that I did go back and
verify with the contractor and with Mr. Nickolaus that they
would only be doing selective clearing in that area, just enough
to get the fence installed.
And as I noted when we met, all the clearing is proposed
landward of the existing covenanted 15-foot wide buffer adjacent
to the top of bluff and landward of the coastal erosion hazard
area.
So hopefully this is one of the last steps in this long
process, and we hope to get the Board's approval for it tonight.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any additional comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm sorry, I think there was a question
about the fence.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's been brought to my attention the only
thing within the coastal erosion zone is the fence.
MR. HERRMANN: Correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under our code, the coastal erosion permit
would not be required for that. So if you would like to
withdraw that, we'll just move forward with the wetland permit.
MR. HERRMANN: That's fine. I mean as long as the wetland permit
covers the fence and the other permit would not be required with
the fence, we don't have a problem with that.
Damon, I think you and I had spoken about this at one point
and we put it before you just in case. So we have no objection
then.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other 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 the wetland permit
as submitted, with the stipulation that clearing will only be
for the fence installation.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
Board of Trustees 20 April 17, 2019
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Under Wetland Permits, number one, J.M.O.
Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of CEDAR BEACH 1280
requests a Wetland Permit to remove an existing 60' long timber
groin and to construct a new 55' long groin utilizing vinyl sheathing
which will extend to the ALW line; the new groin shall be no higher than
18" in elevation above grade of the down drift beach.
Located: 1280 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-2-22
The Trustees visited the site April 10, 2019, with all
Trustees present, with field notes stating the project seemed
straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator found this proposed action to be
consistent with the LWRP, noting that the net increase in groin
would not occur.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application,
questioning the necessity of raising the height as this would
impede public lateral access.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. JUST: Good evening. Glenn Just, for,the applicant.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
to the application?
(No response).
MR. JUST: As far as the comment from the Conservation Advisory
Council, the groin will actual be lowered.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I think they misunderstand in reading the
application. Yes. With regard to the CAC, it is not being raised
18 inches. It is not to be higher than 18 inches from the lower
side. It's about 30 inches now. Which will not impede public
lateral access.
Any questions or comments from the Board on this?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would like to see it tabled for DEC approval.
MR. JUST: We have DEC approval as proposed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You do. Okay, great.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any other questions or comments from the
Board9
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted, with the noting of the DEC approval.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, Costello Marine Contracting Corp.,
Board of Trustees 21' April 17, 2019
on behalf of AJIT KUMAR &JENNIFER ECCLESTONE requests a Wetland
Permit to remove existing stairway to beach off bulkhead; remove
67' of existing bulkhead and construct 67' of new bulkhead
in-place; and to reinstall existing stairs to beach off bulkhead.
Located: 1490 Paradise Point Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-3-20.
The LWRP coordinator found the bulkhead to be consistent.
The as-built stair and associated structure were inconsistent
because they were built without a wetland permit.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees did a field inspection at 12:15 on April 10th.
All Trustees were present, and field notes state that the
application is straightforward.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing none, 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, noting
it will address the inconsistency regarding the staircase.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).'
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number three, Brooke
Epperson on behalf of LYNN McMAHON, MARIE BASILE & HENRY HINTZE.
This has a revised project description which I will read
into the record, responding to a request of the Board of
Trustees in their field inspection of February 4th, 2019, and
the submission of a plan by AMP Architects dated April 12th and
received in the Trustee office on April 15th.
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 the ground; and
existing 51 sq. ft. seaward steps south of the wooden bulkhead;
as built 44.8" long wood bulkhead with two 8'3"wood returns;,to
construct a proposed 577 square foot addition to the existing
second floor within the first-floor footprint; to construct a
proposed 200 square foot second story balcony over the existing
deck; to remove the existing sanitary system and,install a new
innovative alternative waste water treatment system; to remove
the as-built wooden platform located in between the dwelling and
the bulkhead; remove the as-built fire pit located on the beach;
and to install and perpetually maintain a ten-foot wide non-turf
pervious buffer area along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Board of Trustees 22 April 17, 2019
Located: 590 Brooks Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-1-15.
We are in receipt of a report from the LWRP coordinator who
deemed this project to be consistent with the Town's coastal
policies.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this
project.
And concerns of the Trustees concerning deck structure and
fire pit and retaining wall which did not have a permit have
been addressed with the plan submission made to the Board at the
Board's request.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak to this application?
MS. EPPERSON: I'm Brooke Epperson, for the applicant.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board reviewed the plans at work session
and this addresses concerns of our past inspection on request.
We are pleased with that.
Are there any questions of the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone who wishes to speak to this matter?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number four, Twin Fork Landscape Contracting
on behalf of KENNETH & HEATHER CLAUSMAN requests a Wetland
Permit to install 1 to 2 ton boulders ±10' landward of bulkhead
with a set of stone steps to water; continue boulder wall along
westerly side yard landward to dwelling with stone steps in side
yard; install ±60 cubic yards of clean fill in area between
dwelling and new boulder wall; install a 12'x40' permeable paver
patio in eastern side yard; a Bilco door to the east to be
removed and foundation closed as required and to install and
perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer area along the
landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 2995 Sigsbee Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-126-6-9.1
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies
are the plans were insufficient, the current grade and fill
elevations are not provided, and patio is not shown. The
placement of 60 cubic yards of fill is a concern and may
adversely impact the adjacent properties. And it is recommended
that the non-turf buffer be vegetated with native salt-tolerant
vegetation.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support
this application. The Conservation Advisory Council does not
Board of Trustees 23 April 17, 2019
support the application based on the observation of heavily
dense beach grass. The proposed project may not be productive
and have negative impact on the adjacent properties. The
Conservation Advisory Council recommends the applicant consider
other alternatives.
The Trustees conducted our most recent field inspection on
April 10th, 2019, noting that the revised plans reflect the
Board's request. We do have new revised plans dated March 28th,
2019, along with a revised project description that says the
plans have been revised to incorporate the following: The
non-turf buffer has been increased from ten to 15 feet. All
existing Cape American beach grass within the non-turf buffer
will remain undisturbed. A six-foot by four-foot drywell is
illustrated on the south side of the residence to be installed
to catch storm water runoff from all waterside gutters and
leaders, ensuring no adverse conditions directed towards`seaward
to the west. Also revised and illustrated on the plans are the
two additional elevations. The west elevation and the south
elevation as requested. And due to the increased non-turf before
area, the fill has been amended to use plus or minus 30 yards of
fill from the originally submitted 60 yards.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. BIHM: I'm Jen Bihm on behalf of Twin Forks for the
Clausman's, if you have any questions.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here to speak regarding this
application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I thought it was good with the new plans.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So it seems, well, the new plans address all
our concerns from the previous meeting. So.hearing no further
comments, 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
based on the new plans submitted March 28th, 2019, which address
the LWRP concerns and brings it into consistency.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number five, Twin Fork Landscape Contracting on
behalf of BRENDA K. HELIES REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland
Permit.to install ±55 linear feet of 1-2 ton boulder material to
serve as a protective boulder revetment; provide 60 cubic yards
of clean sand to backfill the rock revetment wall; the proposed
wall will run from existing dune and extend landward into the
natural vegetation; this area will be revegetated as required
with native species (i.e. beach grass).
Board of Trustees 24 April 17, 2019
Located: 440 Park Avenue Extension, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-8-28.3
The Trustees most recently visited this site on the 10th of
April. They noted it seems like a straightforward project.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
this application.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak regarding
there application?
MS. BIHM: Jen Bihm, here for Twin Fork
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else here to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing nothing, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number six, NEIL &AMELIA MacDONALD request a
Wetland Permit for the existing two-story, 26'x26' dwelling with
one-story 14'3"x15'5-1/2" addition with a 2'x9.5' bay window,
two-story 20'x20' west addition with 9'x4' bump-out, and 4'x8'
front stoop; existing 22.3'x22.2' garage with 5'x20' breezeway
to dwelling; existing 12'11-1/2"x9'1/2" deck with steps to
ground on the seaward side of dwelling to be reduced in size to
be approximately 12'11-1/2"x9'1/2" with steps to ground
approximately 3'10" wide by 60" long, and replace the hand
railing; existing on-grade 20'x10' (irregular) patio on seaward
side of dwelling; existing front brick walk and gravel driveway
on-grade landward of dwelling; install a 1'6"x18'8-1/2"
cantilevered bay window on north side of dwelling.
Located: 855 Luptons Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-11-5
The Trustees visited the site on April 10th, 2019, all
Trustees present, with field notes to add staked row of hay
bales; we didn't see leaders to gutters to drywells on the plan.
And construction stay within the existing footprint.
The LWRP coordinator found this proposed action to be
inconsistent, noting establishing a vegetated non-turf buffer
that includes existing vegetation landward of the tidal
wetlands.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. MACDONALD: Good evening. Neil MacDonald, the applicant, here
to answer any questions the Board may have.
Board of Trustees 25 April 17, 2019
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: On the plans we didn't see gutters to leaders
to drywells. Was that on the plans and we just didn't see it?
MR. MACDONALD: It's an existing house. It was built in 1959. So
at the time they did not install drywells. If that's a condition
the Board looks to place, I would certainly look to have those
installed.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: And then --
MR. MACDONALD: And I want to point out I also have a photo of
the silt fence that we had installed, if you would like to look
at that for the record.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: (Perusing). Okay. Is there anyone else here
that wishes to speak to the application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with the stipulation of new plans showing gutters to leaders to
drywells. In addition, noting the house is in the existing
footprint and is not changing, thereby satisfying the LWRP
coordinator's proposed actions. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. MACDONALD: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number seven, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
on behalf of SIGURDSSON BALDUR, LLC, c/o WADE GUYTON, MANAGER
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 41.96'x57.28'
(1,712 sq. ft.) two-story dwelling; a 40.5'x14' (680 sq. ft.)
in-ground swimming pool with a surrounding 680 sq. ft. terrace;
and to resurface an approximately 1,668 sq. ft. asphalt driveway.
Located: 1800 Hyatt Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-50-1-4
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with the condition of a pervious driveway and
drywell for the pool backwash.
There is a letter dated March 26th from Suffolk
Environmental Consulting referencing four surveys showing a
ten-foot non-turf buffer previously requested by the Board of
Trustees. Correspondence from Douglas Adams, Engineer, to Jamie ,
Richter, Southold Town Engineer, dated January 29th, regarding
some concerns expressed by the Board. The correspondence from
James Richards to Michael Domino, President of the Board,
indicating his concurrence with the proposed site as described
by Mr. Adams.
The Trustees did a most recent field inspection at 8:00 AM,
April 10th, noting that there was an inhouse discussion and
Board of Trustees 26 April 17, 2019
review of the engineer's report and it had satisfied our
concerns. Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the,applicant. I have nothing further to add unless you.
have any questions.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you. Your brevity is appreciated. Any
questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, 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, noting
it addresses all the Trustees' concerns and it is consistent
with the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number eight, Suffolk
Environmental Consulting on 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 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
The project is deemed to be consistent under the Town's
LWRP with the specific request to consider items under Policy
Six, and that is to establish a vegetated buffer landward of the
edge of wetlands and to require the installation of an IA-OWTS
to reduce nitrogen impacts to ground surface water.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this
application.
The Trustees have inspected this project previously, at
this month's field inspection on February 4th, at which time we
did have a field discussion concerning the IA, and the sanitary
was out of our jurisdiction. The Board made specific
recommendations.at that time, looked at at field inspection,
subsequently made a request that a non-disturbance buffer'be
included on the project plan, and revised project plans were
submitted to the Board, excuse me, dated March 20th, 2019, in
conformity with the Board's request, which includes a typical
15-foot non-disturbance buffer which is landward of the typical,
lawn edge and well landward of the wetlands, providing
additional protection for the wetlands.
Board of Trustees 27 April 17, 2019
Is there anyone who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicants the Trotter's.
These plans are a result of our previous discussions, a lot
of it. I don't have anything further to add unless you have
something further of me.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, anyone else wish to speak regarding this
application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted, noting the proposed and mapped typical 15-foot
non-disturbance buffer at the edge of the lawn. That's my
motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES). l
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number nine, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
on behalf of GOLDSMITH'S INLET, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 14'x51' (irregular), 604 sq. ft. attached deck with a
22'x4' attached side deck 64 sq. ft. (side entry); two sets of
stairs at 4'x4' and 4'x5', and a third set of 6'x4' stairs;
establish and perpetually maintain a 20' wide buffer consisting
of a single row of boulders on its landward edge, beach grass
plantings and a row of marsh elder to be installed at the
wetland boundary; implement a stormwater control plan consisting
of three 8'x3' leaching pools on the landward side of house and
four 8'x2' leaching pools 51' from the wetland boundary at its
closest point; and to maintain a 4' wide path to the shoreline
of Goldsmith's Inlet.
Located: 2700 Mill Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-67-5-2
The LWRP found this to be consistent, with the following
recommendations: Memorialize the 20-foot wide buffer. Although
this is an application for a deck, note that waste water is
disposed of in an eight-foot deep septic tank and one cesspool.
Depth to ground water is shown at two-and-a-half feet from grade
and Town records show problems with sanitary system have
occurred in the past. It is recommended that the Board discuss
with the landowner the possibility of replacing the sanitary
system with IA system in the front yard out of the flood zone,
if possible. Funding may be available to replace the existing
system.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application, however there is concern with the four-foot access
Board of Trustees 28- April 17, 2019
path and future maintenance of a natural path through a highly
impacted wetland area.
We also have a letter in the file of support on the project
from Hugh and Susan Switzer, located at 3180 Mill Lane, Peconic.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on April 10th,
with the notes that the project seemed straightforward.
I also want to note that there was a ZBA determination in
the file and one of the conditions in that ZBA determination was
the applicant shall comply with the code requirements for onsite
drainage, including installing gutters and leaders and any
necessary drywells to prevent storm water from draining.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting.
This application has been ongoing in our office for about a
couple of years now.
We have been through the DEC, we gave you a copy of that
permit. We have been through the Zoning Board of Appeals and
have a copy of that as well. The plans that are before you also
include a landscape plan that depicts planting of additional
high marsh and planting of a 20-foot buffer with preservation of
the natural vegetation to remain. It would be our intention to
comply with, in all respects, to the drainage requirements of
the Town, and we intend to take care of that.
As to the septic system, there may come a time where we
have to do something with it. But we would normally not do that
in connection to a deck. There is no connection to it. If the
system were to fail, of course we would be back here with some
sort of remedy for that.
I'm here to answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding
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
as submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL,AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. I appreciate it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number ten, 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
Board of Trustees 29 April 17, 2019
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 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 1,583sq.ft. Of proposed native
vegetation which will be planted to the northwest of the
proposed dwelling in order to establish and perpetually maintain
a 8,310 sq. ft. non-disturbance buffer area.
Located: 1085 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-3-13.1
The Trustees recently visited this project on the 10th of
April. They reviewed the revised plans. Prior to that we were
there several other times and noted discrepancies in the
non-disturbance areas, which those have been addressed in the
new set of plans dated March 22nd.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent for the
following reasons: In 2000, Board of Trustees issued Wetland
permit#5238 for a similar action. A condition of the permit
required a 40-foot wide non-disturbance buffer adjacent to the
tidal wetland line. It does not appear the owner met the
condition. The FEMA flood zone is not shown on the submitted
plans. Relocate structures, pool and drywells to increase the
setback to the wetland and the FEMA AE flood zone to the
greatest extent practicable. Establish a non-turf-- reestablish
the non-disturbance buffer to the greatest extent practicable.
Require installation of an IA system.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. SCHIANO: Mike Schiano from Inter-Science Research
Associates on behalf of Michael Kreger.
We discussed this project a few times now and if the Board
would like me to address any specific comments, we can. At the
last work session that we had, I did show that we are proposing
a significantly larger buffer than what the Trustees had
originally asked us to do, and the proposed septic system is
located, we are moving the,septic system from within the
Trustees'jurisdiction at 88 feet from wetlands to 100 feet,
Board of Trustees 30 April 17, 2019
actually greater than 100 feet from the wetlands, moving it
outside of the Trustees'jurisdiction.
So if there is anything else the Trustees would like to ask
us about, I feel we have addressed the Trustees' concerns
otherwise.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As seen on the plans received March 22nd, 2019.
MR. SCHIANO: Right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
regarding this application, or any additional comments from the
Board?
(Negative response).
Okay, hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
based off the new plans submitted March 22nd, 2019, further
described in the site plan notes also dated March 22nd, 2019,
which will satisfy the LWRP coordinator and thereby bring this
into consistency.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. SCHIANO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number eleven, Michael Kimack on behalf of
KEVIN S. McLEOD & CHUN Y. CHEUNG requests a Wetland Permit to
remove existing sunroom and shed; construct a 10.4'x24.8'
(258 sq. ft.) new sunroom with full foundation and access
staircase; extend existing 175.5 sq. ft. deck an additional
10.6'x13.0' (137.8 sq. ft.); construct new 11.3'x18.5' and
4.3'x10.6' (254.58 total sq. ft.) lower deck; replace lattice
overhang over garage with new 3'x26' (78 sq. ft.) attached roof
overhang; construct 2nd level 4'x17' (68 sq. ft.) balcony on
seaward side of building; install a proposed 20'x20' (400 sq. ft.)
new on-grade stone patio addition adjacent to existing 410 sq. ft.
on-grade patio.
Located: 605 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck: SCTM# 1000-94-1-40
The Trustees visited the site on April 10th, 2019. All
Trustees present. With field notes would like to see a ten-foot
non-turf buffer from top of bluff. Otherwise noting the project
seemed straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator noted the proposed action is
recommended as consistent with a note this recommendation is
made in consideration of the conditions imposed by the Southold
Town Zoning Board of Appeals in their January 17th, 2019
decision.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with a condition gutters, leaders and drywells are installed to
contain roof runoff and the installation of a five-foot non-turf
vegetated buffer.
Board of Trustees 31 April 17, 2019
In reviewing the plans, I see there is gutters to leaders
to drywells on the plan. There is also a non-turf buffer noted
on the plan.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant.
The non-turf buffer is actually ten-feet. It was
conditioned under the Zoning application and put on the plan in
order to have it before the Trustees, so that we had a complete
survey, basically, complete site plan. And it would be planted
with permissible vegetation.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: As noted, it's a vegetated non-turf buffer.
MR. KIMACK: Correct. And just to point out, the overhang over
the garage is in existence, to,replace that. But it had been
replaced primarily. So it's as built. It's 3'x26', basically.
And I apologize, I was so focused on the non-turf buffer when we
were walking around, I forgot to point it out to you.
The seaward side has a second-floor balcony that's 4'x17'
that overhangs, the eave overhangs by about 30 inches seaward,
essentially. That's shown on the drawing and has been
indicated. But that's also as built. The rest has been
proposed, 20x20 patio and the replacement of the sunroom and
the extension of the deck behind it, the lower deck. That's all
proposed items..Any other questions of me?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else wish to speak to this
application?
(Negative response):
Any questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 12, Michael Kimack on behalf of ERIN E.
ARGO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x88'fixed dock
with Thru-Flow-decking and supported by 12 sets of 8" diameter
pressure treated pilings; install a 3'x10' aluminum removable
ramp; and to install a 6'x20' floating dock using non-pressure
treated decking with two (2) sets of batter pilings, 8" diameter
each piling.
Located: 1300 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-9-4.1
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. His
concerns are that the draft of the vessel, specifically, that
the dock structure-is proposed in shallow water. The draft
representative vessel has not been provided. It may cause
Board of Trustees 32 April 17, 2019
turbidity and loss of vegetation. In addition, there's concerns
about shading of vegetation and finally that the float be
removed in the wintertime.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees' most recent field inspection is April 10th,
2019, and noted that the revised plans reflect the Board's
request.The Board had previously inspected this property on
March 12th and there are concerns about--the application was
essentially straightforward --the concerns about a
non-disturbance zone which has been addressed on the new plans
submitted March 22nd, 2019. There is a 50-foot non-turf buffer.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. I think
you stated it well, if there are any other questions of me.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would,note the application's through-flow
would address the concerns about the vegetation,and shading?
MR. KIMACK: Yes, where the proposed floating dock is being set,
basically, there is no vegetation at that particular point. The
tidal wetland vegetation begins at the top of the bank and moves
landward, essentially that little spit going out. But there is
no eel grass or any grass out there. I did the soundings myself.
I walked out there. There is nothing. The water under the
proposed boat would be about three feet minimum at mean low
water. So there is not a condition -- it's a little deeper when
we had a chance to go out, if you look at it you see the
floating dock is right on the three-foot line and the back of
the boat would be a little beyond that, so the middle of the
keel would be in three-and-a-half feet. But at that particular
point there is no growth. I think our concern is landward of the
top of the bank and also along the grass that went out to the
little spit. And I submitted a 50-foot non-disturbance. When we
walked down there, there is already a path right now in the
vegetation, so the path would not be extended. That's the extent
of it to get to the dock, essentially. And the dock is right in
the middle of the tidal wetland vegetation on both sides of it,
so there is not any need to do any disturbance at all in order
to construct the fixed dock and to move it away from the bank.
And then the non-disturbance buffer basically, hopefully, allays
the fears or the concerns of the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I note the 6x20 float on the seaward side shows
a minimum of three foot of water at mean low water, so you are
in the ballpark in your estimate about the depth by the vessel
location.
Are there 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.
Board of Trustees 33 April 17, 2019
TRUSTEE,WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Motion to approve this application as submitted, noting that the
through-flow decking and the depth of the water at the float
will address the concerns of the LWRP coordinator, and with the
provision that the float be removed in the wintertime.
MR. KIMACK: Agreed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, Nida Chesonis Lee on
behalf of PATRICIA LOWRY &JOHN TOUHEY requests a Wetland Permit
to remove existing 11'x16' deck landward of bulkhead and
construct new 12'x22' deck in same location.
Located: 6970 Indian Neck Lane, Pecohic. SCTM# 1000-86-7-5.1
The project applicant has submitted revised plans to the
Trustees addressing concerns of our April 10th and March 18th
field inspections bringing the proposed deck back from the
bulkhead.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this
application provided the deck did not exceed 200-square feet.
And the project was deemed inconsistent by the LWRP
coordinator when it was first reviewed on March 7th where the
proposed deck was immediately adjacent to the bulkhead. And the
concerns there being it was within the FEMA high velocity zone.
Noting also the deck has been moved landward. So it's no
further seaward than the existing deck as per the Board's
request, and it's also on-grade will substantially address the
concerns of the LWRP coordinator, which was prior to the revised
plans. '
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MS. CHESONIS LEE: Nida Chesonis Lee, on behalf of the applicant.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It appears straightforward on what the Board
had requested. Also noting for the record that the construction
is moved well landward of the original application and also
proposes to use all stainless steel fasteners.
Any additional comments?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
MS. CHESONIS LEE: I do. I have additional comments. I submitted
two plans. One that shows, A.01-A that shows the location as
requested by the Trustees being no further seaward than the
existing deck but then also a second plan which we would like to
put for your consideration.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's not read into the record. Looking at
the plan that was April 12th, it was landward of the existing
deck. That was the A.01-A. This is the B, is the one, is this A.01-13
is the one you are --
Board of Trustees 34 April 17, 2019
MS. CHESONIS LEE: That we would like,to ask that you consider
based on the fact that we did reduce the size of 200!square feet
construction as described. And also in the letter that was
submitted to you. Do you have of a copy of that as well?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I do. Unfortunately this material came in
after the Board's work session, so if we were to consider it-_
I'm sorry. Okay. We reviewed the plan according to what had been
requested. We would have a problem bringing the project into
consistency with the LWRP with the second plan. Unless any Board
member wants to add to that. The second plan puts it seaward
again.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We appreciate you reducing the size of it in
good faith with our code but we are sort of restricted in what
we can do here, and what we see more and more on these jobs, I
think the original plan --what was the number of it? The deck.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A.01-A plan. That was the plan we reviewed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the more appropriate option for that
location.
MS. CHESONIS LEE: By advice of the distance from the edge of the
bulkhead that was never discussed as a required numerical value,
it's just based on where the previous owner had decided to put `
their deck. Is there something that is in addition that would
require it to be at that location other than just previous owner?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Typically, particularly in areas'where it's .
a velocity zone and area subject to wave action, where it's
replacing a functional, pre-existing deck, the Board attempts to
not go further seaward because of concerns about the deck
getting involved in a seaway or possibly causing damage to
neighboring properties or to possibly vessels navigating the
waters. So it typically, we ask such structures go no further
seaward. It's essentially climate.change and ever-increasing
water heights in the bays we try to provide that accommodation
so you don't lose what you have, which is functional, but also
that we don't create additional problems for the environment.
MS. CHESONIS LEE: I just want to point out it was stated in the
letter that the deck itself does not have railings, stairs, the
built-in bench. It's very low to the ground and therefore that
might be a consideration in allowing it to be slightly closer
just because compared to what is there now, in our case, is less
risk of being damaged compared to what is there now.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Any other questions or concerns
.of the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else who wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
Board of Trustees 35 April 17, 2019
application according to the plan that was revised'and received
in the Trustee.office April 12th, 2019, which has been
identified as A.01-A, with the deck not exceeding 200-square
feet, located no further seaward than the existing deck
incorporating stainless steel fastenings. Accordingly this will
bring the project into consistency with the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Counsel has asked for a five-minute break.
(After a five-minute recess, these proceedings continue as
follows).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We are back on the record. Number 14, Land
Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of ROSARIA FORCHELLI
requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten-Year Maintenance Permit to
cut the Phragmites to 6" above ground level (in March-April),
and not lower in the first year; all cut material and thatch
shall be hand-raked and disposed-of at an approved off-site
landfill; cutting shall be performed by hand and monitored by a
qualified ecologist to ensure that no native herbaceous plants
or woody shrubs are removed; Phragmites shoots will be re-cut
again in early June to a height of 18"-24" above soil level in
order to avoid cutting native vegetation; one additional cutting
will occur as needed to a height of 18" above ground level
during the'growing season (April-October); after the first
year, up to two (2) cuttings per year to a minimum height of 18"
(i.e. cut height shall not be shorter than 18"), with native
vegetation to'be identified and flagged to be protected; if new
growth of invasive species is observed during on-going
Phragmites monitoring, it will be immediately removed by hand;
approximately 9,250 sq. ft. of vegetated upland area shall be
managed through removal of non-native and invasive species
(Wisteria sp., mile-a-minute weed (Persicaria perfoliata),
Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Plume Grass (Saccharum
r- sp.), Bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), with all existing
native plants within the Vegetation Management Plan area to
remain; any disturbed areas are to be seeded with Switchgrass
(Panicum virgatum) at a rate of 20 lbs/acre; and within a 100
linear foot long area along the southwest property boundary
plant 17 Thuja sp. 6' o/c; five years of post-construction
monitoring will occur during spring and fall seasons with
progress reports on the Phragmites management and
re-colonization of native plants, including representative
photographs to be submitted by December 31st of each of the five
years.
Located: 1635 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck, SCTM# 1000-116-7-8
The LWRP found this to be exempt.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Board of Trustees 36 April 17, 2019
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on April 10th.
The field notes depicting no,phragmites were found. The area
appears to be non-disturbance already. There is also a permit in
the file, permit#4965, dated March 24th, 1999, which depicts a
non-disturbance buffer landward of a dirt road that was
submitted on the survey that was dated December 16th, 1998.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BOWMAN: Charles Bowman, President of Land Use Ecological
Services. I don't have a copy of that survey so I really can't
speak to it. The phragmites portion was included because we had
asked for a ten-year permit and phragmites, as we all know, is
very invasive. And if we had it in there to be able to control
it, it does come in from adjacent areas, we would have the
authorization to come back here. The whole purpose of this, the
house was recently sold to the Forchelli's, there are quite a
number of invasive species within the area that is not turf:
Poison ivy, mile-a-minute weeds, ornamental plume grasses. So
the idea was to pull those, especially the poison ivy. Mr. and
Mrs. Forchelli have a lot of grandchildren. And it's been,
what I call the buffer, is quite overgrown in violation, if
there is a non-disturbance buffer. So the purpose was really to
get rid of the invasive species by hand pulling, hand digging.
And the Switchgrass, which you all know, is a very good upland
habitat species, and again, the phragmites are only included so
we don't have to come back here. There are occasional phragmites
in here now, but that can change as conditions do and as coming
from adjacent areas.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
MS. AMPER: My name is Julie Amper, I live to the south of the
property. I've lived there 21 years. I've never seen any
phragmites in 21 years. There are a few mostly woody shrubs, and
we had a very bad experience with the previous owner who took
chainsaws to them. So my question concerns the wording of lines
five and six which says that "no native herbaceous plants or
woody shrubs are removed." Is that to say they won't be cut
down, as long as they are not dug up?
Or can they be cut down, is permission granted, to the height of
the phragmites?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No.
MS. AMPER: So if I see it again, I can call the police again,
right?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, ma'am. And as I stated before there is a
permit where that is also stated a non-disturbance area where
nothing is supposed to be touched. So we'll need to address
that in any potential application.
MR. BOWMAN: That's fine. We included the phragmites management
because we are asking for a ten-year permit. So if the Board is
not willing to give us that in case we do have some, there are
occasional phragmites in there now, that's fine. But the main
Board of Trustees . 37 April 17, 2019
purpose of this is to replace the non-native species, especially
the Wisteria in there. Wisteria comes from some of the
ornamental plantings that are there and so we want to return the
buffer, and we would be more than willing, if I know where the
non-disturbance line is, to modify the plan to be able reflect
that previous permit.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Would you consider a possible split-rail
fence or some delineation of that non-disturbance buffer so the,
new owner won't mistakenly cut down in an area that is supposed
to be left alone?
MR. BOWMAN: I'll have to ask him. There is nothing there now at
all. Was that a permit condition of the original permit?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The original permit had from the landward
edge of the dirt road, so --
MR. BOWMAN: There is no dirt road there.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Exactly. That's why I think it's correcting
to what was supposed to be a non-disturbance area. So that's
why we would like to see some kind of delineation.
MR. BOWMAN: Again, let me talk to him and perhaps you all can
provide me with a copy of that permit and we can overlay it on
our plan so we are all on the same page.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So would you like to table this application?
MR. BOWMAN: That's fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Typically it doesn't, we are not specifying
it has to be split-rail fence.
MR. BOWMAN: Yes. You want a demarcation. I understand. And I'm
not arguing that it is not a good idea. That's for sure. But
we would like to be able to get rid of the species that really,
should not be there and were probably planted by the previous
owner because, like I said, there is all sorts of ornamentals in
there as well.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I have serious concerns about an application
that states the phragmites to be removed when this Board did a
field inspection and spent some time walking through and
observed no phragmites, and you are telling us it's because the
phragmites may arrive onsite. In addition, when the area was
subdivided and there was a paper road in there, and from that
point seaward is a non-disturbance zone. And I-have trouble
giving someone a permit to, 10-year maintenance permit to cut
into a non-disturbance zone.
MR. BOWMAN: Well, I think I indicated, if you don't want to give
us the phragmites part, the only reason we put it in there is
because there are occasional ones in there and they aggressively
expand and -- so if we have to come back when that happens, we'll
come back.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I suggest you table this and remove those
comments and address the concerns of the Board.
MR. BOWMAN: That's fine. Again I'll request that we get a copy
of the previous permit so we can address it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
Board of Trustees 38 April 17, 2019
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
As per the applicant's request, I make a motion to table this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. BOWMAN: Thank you, so much.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 15, Bulkhead Permits by Gary on behalf
of WILLIAM M. MASON &ANNA CARUSOS, LLC, c/o WILLIAM MASON
requests a Wetland Permit to replace in-place existing 4'x38'
and 6'x20' "T" shaped dock sections supported by (12) 10"
diameter timber piles, and using a thru-flow grated vinyl decking design.
Located: 1200 Westphalia Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-114-7-14.2
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 10th of
April. They noted a non-turf buffer would be ideal; a
straightforward, in-kind replacement of dock; and use of
through-flow decking throughout.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent noting
that a Wetlands permit for an existing dock is not located
within Town records. And in the event the action is approved he
recommended that a vegetated buffer be established to mitigate
adverse impacts of the dock structure to public surface waters
and bottom lands.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. MOSES: Scott Moses, Bulkhead Permits by Gary. Yes, I suppose
I'm here to answer any questions. During the site visit it
seemed we came to an agreement that we can replace the
structure. And, yes, if you have any questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Or anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted, noting that granting a permit will bring it into
consistency with the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 16, Bulkhead Permits by Gary on behalf
of GLEN &JOANNE MIDDLETON requests a Wetland Permit to replace
existing 24"x61.5' section of a wave break in same place with an
18" increase in elevation, supported by (24) 10" diameter
Board of Trustees 39 April 17,2019
pressure treated timber pilings; replace existing inland 24"x17.5' lower
concrete section of wave break in same place and to be constructed at
the same proposed elevation as the new seaward section, supported by
(8) 10" diameter pressure treated timber pilings.
Located: 2405 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-4-17
On April 10th, 2019, the Trustees visited the site with all
Trustees present. Notes: Plans for groin not a wave break.
Four-and-a-half foot height is not approvable. Suggest apply to
DEC first and submit revised plans.
The LWRP program coordinator found the proposed action to
be inconsistent. The structure is a groin and does not meet
Chapter 275-11 of the Town Code, construction and operation of
standards of the Southold Town,code. Number two, the applicant
has not shown that public access along the foreshore will remain
unimpeded by the wave break.
The Conservation Advisory Council did review the
application. They voted to support repairs to the timber portion
and leaving the concrete portion intact. The Conservation
Advisory Council does not recommend raising the concrete portion
18 inches because it would then act as a seawall. The
Conservation Advisory Council questions the electrical junction
box on the western view.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. MOSES: Scott Moses, Bulkhead Permits by Gary. So I think
long story short is we have to table the application pending DEC
approval.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Fair enough. Is there anybody else here that
wishes to speak to this application? f
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
I think it would be in the best interest at applicant's request
to table this based on DEC approval. I make a motion to table
this application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. MOSES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Thank you, have a good night.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number 17.
The project description is different than appears here, as
it was, the project was taken over and is being managed by
Jeffrey Patanjo.
The Board has, in consideration of having held the public
hearing and closed the public hearing at the last Trustee
meeting, the Board is prepared to make a determination and the
project description will be read into my motion.
Whereas Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of CHARLES & BRENDA GRIMES
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a proposed 4'x87' fixed
dock with open-grate decking and eight-inch diameter CCA piles;
Board of Trustees 40 April 17,2019
a proposed 30"x14' aluminum ramp; and a proposed 8'x15' floating
dock with untreated decking situated in a "T" configuration and
supported with four 10-inch diameter CCA piles and cross braces
to hold a float a minimum of 30 inches off the bottom at all times.
Located at 4145 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-12.6
Whereas said application was referred to the Southold Town
Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and
recommendations, who resolved to support this application;
And whereas said application was referred to the Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program coordinator for his findings
and recommendations who found this application to be inconsistent;
And whereas public hearings were held by the Board of
Trustees of the Town of Southold with respect to said
application, the last of which was March 20th, 2019, public
hearing, at which time all interested persons were given an
opportunity to be heard;
And whereas the Southold Town Board of Trustees are
familiar with this project having visited the site most recently
on February 4th, 2019, and having considered plans for this
proposed dock at multiple work sessions, the most recent being
the April 15th, 2019, work session;
And whereas having considered the plans submitted by
Jeffrey Patanjo dated December 1st, 2018, updated April 1st,
2019, and April 10th, 2019, with water depths, and a John
Metzger survey dated January 14th, 2015, it has been determined
by the Board of Trustees that potentially significant
environmental concerns have not been addressed as noted herein:
Navigation: The proposed dock does not meet the standards
as set forth in Chapter 275-11(d)[2]. Quoting from that:
"Whether the dock will interfere with the public use of
waterways for swimming, boating, shellfishing, water skiing and
other water-dependent activities."
Navigation: Pursuant to 275-11 C(2)(a), the proposed
watercraft should be included for consideration in the proposal.
The applicant's agent testified at the March 20th, 2019, public
hearing, that the proposed floating dock was for a 24-foot
vessel with outboard motor and 18-inch draft. The Board of
Trustees questioned the 24-foot vessel's outboard motor
extending below the keel and causing the vessel to require
further depth below the keel.
Furthermore, the applicant's proposed amended dock plan
dated April 10th, 2019, shows a water depth of only 16 inches at
mean low water.
Based on the applican't's agent's representation to the
Board of Trustees, the proposed vessel will be resting on the
bottom on or about each tidal cycle, as well as causing the
propensity for damage to the underwater lands from the spinning
propeller.
Historical: A similar application for a proposed float at
this location was denied by past Board and the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation.
Board of Trustees 41 April 17, 2019
The scope in relation to the riparian rights of shellfishers:
The plan of an 87-foot long fixed pier with a 14-foot long hinged
ramp and an 8'x15' floating dock has no provision to allow the public
use of the foreshore.
Chapter 111 of Town Code defines "nearshore" as 1,000 from
mean low water, or to a low water depth of 15 feet, whichever is
greater, and determines minimization of dock structures as
paramount to preserving public use and access of the area.
Habitat degradation: The Southold Town Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program states construction of docks in Peconic
Bay impacts vegetation through direct construction impacts,
chronic shading, habitat degradation, loss and disruption, and
leaching of harmful contaminants.
The proposed location of the 8'x15' floating dock does not
have adequate depth of water to support a floating dock in such
a location, nor is it made with materials that will allow the
pass through of light to underwater lands to mitigate chronic
shading and habitat degradation as per Chapter 275-11 C(2)(d)[5],
[6] and [7].
The scope in relation to the Town goals and policies: The
Southold Town Board of Trustees acknowledged Town goals and
policies support longterm protection with consideration of
economic and cultural associations, and further reflects
existing laws and authority regarding environmental protection
including but not limited to the Peconic Estuary Program
Comprehensive Management Plan and the Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program used to find the appropriate balance
between development and conservation.
Dock construction and operation standards: Pursuant to
Chapter 275-11 C(2)(a)[2], all docks and gangways shall provide a
safe pedestrian surface at all times. Under the currently
proposed catwalk to ramp to float, the inadequate depth of water
will leave the float at a cross braced height of 30 inches above
mean low water. Due to the inadequate depth to water, the
proposed ramp will be left at a sharp angle for long periods of
time. The steep angle puts pedestrians at risk navigating a
severe degree.
Dock construction and operation standards: Pursuant to
Chapter 275-11C(2)(a)[2], all docks and gangways shall provide
safe pedestrian surface at all times. Under the currently
proposed catwalk to ramp to float, the inadequate depth of water
will leave the float at a cross braced height of 30 inches above
mean low water. Due to extreme low water at the location, the
proposed float will be suspended in air most of the tidal cycle.
The float suspended in air would not be as stable as a fixed
dock at said location.
The dock construction and operation standards: Pursuant to
chapter 275-11 C defines operation and construction standards so
that docks shall be designed, constructed and located so as to
minimize a dock's potential adverse environmental impacts, and
such standards serve as a basis to approve or deny or limit
Board of Trustees 42 April 17, 2019
permits for dock construction. The proposed location of the
8'x15'floating dock does not have adequate depth of water to
support a floating dock in such a location or to support vessels
at such a location nor is it designated to be built of materials
to allow light to pass through to underwater lands to foster
aquatic plant growth.
Now, therefore be it resolved on account of the foregoing,
the Southold Town Board of Trustees approves the Wetland Permit
to construct a proposed 4'x87' fixed dock with open-grate
decking and eight-inch diameter CCA piles with the condition
that no motorized vessels utilize the proposed dock or be docked
at the location; and denies the installation of a proposed
30"x14' aluminum ramp and the proposed 8'x15' floating dock with
untreated decking situated in a "T" configuration and supported
with four 10-inch diameter CCA piles and cross braces to hold
float a minimum of 30 inches off the bottom at all times.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 18, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of STEPHEN
& HEIDI DISTANTE requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing
northerly timber bulkhead and returns, and install 30 linear
feet of new vinyl bulkhead with an 8-linear foot vinyl return
and a 16 linear foot vinyl return in-place with a raised height
of 18"; remove existing southerly timber bulkhead and returns,
and install 46 linear feet of new vinyl bulkhead with two (2) 16
linear foot long vinyl bulkhead returns in-place with a raised
height of 18"; and to install and perpetually maintain a 10'
wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of both bulkheads.
Located: 260 Sunset Way, Southold. SCTM# 1000-91-1-6
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved unanimously to
support this with the condition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer. -
There is a letter in the file, March 25th, from Jeff Patanjo,
please find four copies of revised plans based on comments from
the March public hearing. Plans have been revised to reflect a
12'-inch maximum height proposed bulkhead above the existing.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. If you
have any questions I would be happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We noted on April 10th, the Trustees were all
present at the field inspection. We examined and noted that
they satisfy the Board's request from the previous hearings.
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Okay, anyone else wish to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
Board of Trustees 43 April 17, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve this application as amended with
the 12-inch height to the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 19, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of FRANK
&CHRISTINE MANGANO request a Wetland Permit to remove existing
timber bulkhead and associated returns, and install 87 linear
feet of new vinyl bulkhead, a new northerly 20 linear foot vinyl
return and a new southerly 6 linear foot vinyl return in-place
with a raised height of 18"; and to install and perpetually maintain a 6' wide
non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 370 Sunset Way, Southold. SCTM# 1000-91-1-7
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees conducted an inspection on April 10th noting
that we received revised plans as per the Board's request.
We have a letter in the file dated March 25th from Jeff
Patanjo. It says attached please find four copies of revised
plans addressing comments from the March public hearing. The
plans have been revised to include a ten-foot wide non-turf
buffer, and a maximum height of 12 inches above existing for
proposed bulkhead.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. Happy to
answer any questions you have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wishing to speak to the
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 GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
conditioned on the new plans received March 28th, that show the
bulkhead going up 12 inches in height from the existing, as well
as a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 20, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of LINDA
D. BERTANI requests a Wetland Permit for the installation of a
proposed 18'x36' in-ground swimming pool, pool equipment,
Board of Trustees 44 April 17, 2019
backwash drywell and irregularly shaped brick paver patio
surrounding pool with a total area of 1,053 sq. ft.; install pool
enclosure fencing; and a silt fence will be installed seaward of
the proposed work site until final stabilization is obtained.
Located: 1380 Oakwood Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-12-32
The Trustees visited this location on the 10th of April and
noted it was straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator found this action to be consistent.
Required the construction of a vegetated non-turf buffer
landward of the top of the bulkhead where possible to minimize
turf and the application of fertilizers capable of contributing
to nitrogen loading of the surface waters.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding
this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. Revised
plans included a pool fence around the entire pool property, as
requested. If you have any other questions, I would be happy to
answer them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI': All right, is there anyone else here who wishes
to speak regarding the application?
(Negative response).
Any additional comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application as
amended.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. PATANJO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 21, En-Consultants on behalf of VANSTON
BEAR, LLC, c/o ANDREW BECK, MEMBER requests a Wetland Permit to
demolish and remove existing two-story, single family dwelling
and brick patio, and construct in its place a new±2,202 sq. ft.,
two-story, single family dwelling with ±20'x±22' enclosed porch,
±7'x±44' on-grade concrete terrace, and ±6'x±21' on-grade
concrete terrace with 2.5' high retaining wall; demolish and
remove existing one-story garage and construct in its place a
±26'x±57' two-story garage/barn on a slab foundation with 4'
(and variable) high concrete retaining walls; construct a
±12'x±74' in-ground swimming pool located partially within
Chapter 275 jurisdiction and a ±14'x±50' landward deck located
almost entirely outside Chapter 275 jurisdiction; install 4'
high pool enclosure fence partially within Chapter 275
jurisdiction; remove existing leaching pool from face of bluff
and install a new innovative/alternative sanitary system (I/A
Board of Trustees 45 April 17, 2019
OWTS) more than 100 feet from crest of bluff; install a drainage
system of leaders, gutters, and drywells; and within Chapter 275
jurisdiction (i.e. within 100 feet of the top of the bluff or
bank), clear approximately 9,074 sq. ft. of existing vegetation,
re-grade, and revegetate re-graded areas.
Located: 5250 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-10-14
On April 10th, 2019, the Trustees did a site inspection
with all Trustees present. Field notes advising to come in with
a landscape planting plan, no more trimming without coming in to
the Board. The Board needs to discuss non-disturbance and
non-turf buffers. Trees not to be removed. Engineer should
review house plan.
The LWRP found this plan to be inconsistent noting that
it's the determination from the Board of Trustees on the onsite
natural features and regulatory setbacks has not been made under
Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shorelines Authority of the Southold
Town Code and therefore an accurate review of'the proposed
action cannot be completed.
The Conservation Advisory Council did review this
application. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support
the application due to site plan issues, scope and size of the
proposed structures and required setbacks.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Good evening. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants..On
behalf of the applicants. David Erickson, the project architect
is here. Marty Rudduck, the landscape designer is here. The
owners and applicants are also here.
This application presents a proposal for a replacement
dwelling, a replacement garage, accessory building and a new
swimming pool with an attached deck.
The Board was introduced to this application originally a
little over a year ago, on April 11th, 2018, at which time we
invited the Board to visit the site with a site plan, and the
corners of the proposed dwelling and garage staked out so we can
hear any significant concerns the Board had about the project.
At that time a primary concern voiced by the Board was the
proximity of the southerly end of the house and the patio, as
the patio extended seaward to the 34-foot contour and into the
beginning of the down slope to the southeast. Otherwise we did
understand the Board's reaction at the time seemed to be
supportive of the idea that the proposed house would be smaller
and would be setback farther from the bluff and bay than the
existing dwelling.
One of the reasons we asked for the Board to meet us at the
site at that time, in addition to getting the Board's input on
the project, or as part of getting the Board's input on the
project, is the fact that the Town' policy requires an
application be submitted to and adjudicated by the ZBA before a
Wetland application can be processed by the Trustees. So knowing
that we had a six-plus month ZBA process ahead of us, we wanted
to protect against the possibility of successfully obtaining a
Board of Trustees 46 April 17, 2019
ZBA variance only to find out afterward that the Trustees had
significant objections.
So with that as background, let me walk the Board through
the final design and the context of the subject property and
where we had come in the permit process to date, because from
the start this has been a complex design process and probably
the first site that has required extensive mathematical
application of the Town's definition of what constitutes a
bluff, as it was most recently defined by Chapter 275 less than
two years ago. in May of 2017.
Specifically, Section 275-2 of the code dictates that to
have a bluff you must have a land incline adjoining the water
body with a slope of 20% or more, and a height greater than 20
feet between the top and toe of the incline.
Where these criteria of a defined bluff are met, section
275-3(c), grants the Board of Trustees jurisdiction up to 100
feet from the bluff, and section 275-3(d) establishes a required
bluff setback of 100 feet.
Where these criteria are not met, the landing fine is now
designated more generally simply as a bank. While 275-3(c)
grants the Board jurisdiction up to 100 feet landward of the
bank, there are no code-required setbacks from a bank in your
code. Because there are also no required bank setbacks
established by the Town Zoning code Chapter 280, differentiating
between the steeper, taller incline defined by the code as a
bluff, and the more gradual, lower inclines defined now by the -
code as a bank, was critical to our application, understanding that
we would be coming to both the ZBA and the Trustees.
So how the project started was the land surveyor Ken
Woychuk was retained to perform complex topographical survey of
the site. Which you can see here. This survey was not done
through LIDAR. It was done by taking thousands of site shots
with GPS surveying equipment at the site. There has been some
discussion of the survey at those points, and if broad data
needs to be supplied, they can be supplied.
As a result of that survey, the tops of slopes that met the
bluff criteria were labeled "top of bluff' and those slopes that
did not meet the bluff criteria were labeled "top of bank."
We approached the Building Department initially with this
approach, knowing that we had to go to the ZBA first and thus
had to obtain a notice of disapproval from the Building
Department before we did anything else. The Building Department
at that time reviewed the survey, reviewed our approach and
accepted it, understanding that this was, again, probably the
first such application and survey that the Building Department
had seen where you had this kind of rolling topography where
some of the slopes were bluffs and some were banks. They wrote a
notice of disapproval therefore only for the house, relative to
what I would call the primary bluff, which is the heavily wooded
bluff that sits directly between the house and the bay. That
approach was also accepted by the Zoning Board of Appeals who
Board of Trustees 47 April 17,2019
ultimately reviewed and granted the variance relief necessary to
construct the new house less than a hundred feet from the top of
that bluff. They did not consider the tops of banks as part of
their application process.
We believe that the reason supporting the ZBA's approval
are the same ones we had hoped would lead the Board to look
favorably upon our application. First, it has to be recognized
that even though the land incline to the southwest of the house
does meet the criteria of a Town-defined bluff, its physical
character is nothing like the steep erosive bluffs located in
the coastal erosion hazard area of Long Island Sound that the
Board typically deals with on bluff applications.
In contrast, the slope is stable, is much more gradual and
heavily vegetated with mature hardwood trees that are more
characteristic of a deciduous forest than a maritime bluff.
The report issued to the ZBA by the Suffolk County Soil and
Water Conservation District supports this characterization,
noting in that report that, quote, the entire parcel is well
vegetated, there are no resource concerns evident, and the bluff
shows no signs of erosion or degradation. In fact this bluff to
the west of the dwelling is not steep, gently sloping seaward.
End quote. Nevertheless, rather than bring a proposal to the
Town to substantially renovate the existing dwelling in place,
which has been in its present location closer to the top of the
bluff than the one that is proposed since 1957, the applicants
and their design team have worked diligently to ensure that the
proposed structures would represent a landward retreat from the
bluff and a downsizing of the existing dwelling structure.
It is important to highlight in this presentation the
contrast between the existing structure and the proposed. As the
application was originally submitted to and presented to the ZBA
and the Board, the existing dwelling is 84 feet long, it is
almost 50 feet deep. It has a footprint of 3,077 square feet and
a gross floor area of approximately 6,000 feet. It is setback 23
feet from the Town-defined bluff. The proposed dwelling is 100
feet long -- 16 feet longer than the existing house plus 20 foot
porch at the northerly end. It is 22 feet wide, so roughly 28
feet narrower than the existing house. It has a footprint
including`this porch of 2,644 square feet. So 433 square feet
smaller than the existing house. It has a GFA of about
three-thousand square feet, which is roughly half that of the
existing house. And as originally submitted it was proposed to
be setback 35 feet from the top of bluff, about 12 feet farther
than the existing house. We have since changed that proposal via
plans that were submitted to the Office of the Trustees on
Monday. We'll get to that in a couple of minutes.
There is also mitigation included in the project that
includes a proposed IA low nitrogen sanitary system in place of
the existing septic system, which is actually located on the
bluff slope between the house and the bay, and is to be removed.
And the new I/A OWTS associated with the principal dwelling will
Board of Trustees 48 April 17, 2019
be located more than 100 feet from the bluff, more than 250 feet
from the bay. Of course, there is also a drainage system of
leaders, gutters and drywells proposed, and as discussed at the
site we do have a plan for a vegetated buffer adjacent to the
top of the bluff and bank that is not included on the site plan
that is before you, that is something that has been in the
process of being developed by the landscape designer, and we are
also looking for the Board's input because of the availability
of the top of the slope, it's not really a spot where you can
have one uniform-width buffer. So we are looking to get some
feedback from the Board and what the Board might like to see,
wherever the house ends up, with respect to the buffer.
As we testified to the ZBA, the originally proposed bluff
setback of 35 feet is consistent with the developed shoreline
community of Nassau Point, which is characterized by dwellings
and accessory structures located less than a hundred feet from
the top of the bluff. Although most of these predate current
code, some have been established pursuant to ZBA and Trustee
approvals. For example, the 35-foot bluff setback was consistent
with the 34-foot bluff setback approved by the Trustees in 2017
for a new dwelling being constructed adjacent to the top of much
taller and steeper bluff on the east side of Nassau Point, which
is about a half mile to the east of this site as the crow flies.
For the record, that was Wetland permit#8945, and in that case,
the LWRP coordinator recommended that project be found
consistent with the LWRP. This Board found that project to be
consistent with the LWRP.
As the Board is aware, the ZBA approved the originally
proposed site plan, and the Soil Conservation Service concluded
that, "although the application is seemingly extensive, it does
not pose great concern for bluff degradation or failure."
Nonetheless, we understood from our site meeting with the Board
during field inspections last week that the Board still has
serious concerns regarding the proximity of the southerly end of
the house and patio to the top of the bank, and also thought
that the survey might not accurately enough reflect the location
of the top of slope labeled as "top of bank" to the house. Thus
creating the appearance and belief that the proposed house
location is in fact a bit closer to the slope than it would
appear based on the survey topography.
You also directed that the project should be reviewed by
the Town Engineer. Thus, in an effort to provide additional
setback on that side, the design team has been working since our
field inspection with you last week to come up with a plan that
pushed the dwelling four feet directly farther landward and
reduced the length of the southerly patio by six feet.
As a result, the nearest structural corner of the dwelling
and patio structure is now seven feet farther from the top of
slope than what you looked at during field inspections.
The architect David Erickson also met with the Town
Engineer Jamie Richter on Monday and at this point I would like
Board of Trustees 49 April 17, 2019
to turn the presentation over to David because a couple of the
other concerns that the Board had voiced during our site meeting
was the location of the foundation of the house relative to the
tops of slope, and how the construction itself might physically
impact the integrity of those slopes.
Again, it's important to remember that the slopes we were
talking about are not the ones going directly down toward the
bay, what is characterized as toe of bluff. But the side slopes
that face laterally away from the house and not directly down
toward the water.
So with that I would ask, David, if he wants to speak with
the Board. Thank you. j
MR. ERICKSON: Good evening. David Erickson, Architect. I wanted
to speak a little bit more specifically about additional
measures we have been taking on with this house design,
acknowledging not only your concerns but ours about how to use
as much affected site as possible rather than building a new
house in soil that has not been disturbed. So a lot of our
efforts have been to try to make a house that reuses the
existing footprint as much as possible, but at the same time,
when expanding outwards, have different foundation .types that
require less site disturbance.
So knowing that we are going to be building near these edge
conditions, on the top of slopes versus top of bluffs, in order
to have a landward retreat for our house, we ended up on the
north end toward that boat basin using a pier foundation versus
a typical strip footing or basement foundation, so that way we
would have less site disturbance, less of that part of the house
exposed above the land, and also allow us to cantilever the
footprint of that porch, because the actual column footings are
set in a foot-and-a-half from all directions. So that won't show
up on the footprint. But on that end of the house we are trying
to use a lot less invasive of a structural technique.
On the south end where the master bedroom is, we also knew
we would not want to over-excavate and dig another eight foot
deep hole that close to the edge of the bluff. So what we
elected to do'is strap on grade foundation which would eliminate
unnecessary cut and fill excavation, and also allow us to work
from the inner center of the house and work outward. And what I
mean by that is we are using the existing foundation to start
the demolition, and this is something we met with our contractor
and the excavator to talk about how could we minimize having
heavy equipment on the edge of these slopes. And one of the
things that we talked about is we start the demolition of the
main house in the pit and we work outward. So we start at the
center, furthest away from the edge, and we excavate out, versus
going from the outside on a fragile edge and work in.
To go a little bit further in this direction about other
construction techniques, we are also using panelized
-construction versus traditional stick frame. This is done
because we know that the ecology is a little more fragile less
I
Board of Trustees 50 April 17, 2019
beyond the waterfront and we want to shorten our construction
duration by using panelized construction, meaning a lot of our
work is done in a factory far offsite, so that way we have a
smaller build window. That and the less site disturbance,
because all the framing, the house will be weathered in a far
shorter period than traditional construction techniques. With
that stick frame construction.
But still knowing that, when you guys expressed your
concerns, we then wanted to make a move and move the house five
foot landward because we also want to embrace the landscape and
not destroy it. We want to do something that is sensitive, that
gives our clients like a great place to be and experience all
these different natural conditions, and that's kind of where we
ended up today.
And I did, just to reiterate about the meeting with the
Town Engineer, when we reviewed our site plan, he stated that
although he didn't think our site was much of a concern for
coastal bluff erosion, he did want to review our foundation
design and the civil engineer site plan and go over potential
concerns he had with me, which he said that at this point we are
back in here, in your hands. I'm trying to think if I missed
anything. I could talk forever about this house (perusing).
Yes, so that's the other, the last thing was we did retreat
back to the edge of the patio at the master bedroom just to give
a little more breathing room and not build so close to the
southern edge. So that seven-foot retreat we think makes the
project better and is less of a concern now. But I guess I'll
open it up for any questions you have for us and the team to
discuss the case.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anybody else here that wishes to
speak to this application?
MS. BILLINGHAY: I'm Melissa Billinghay, 4505 Vanston Road. So I
just want to so say I'm here on behalf of the Harbor Cove
Association. We are a ten-home association that was originally
built from the (inaudible) selling off lots from their property.
So we are the surrounding neighbors. We support the house, we
welcome it. We feel that Trey and Laura have been very
neighborly the minute we met them. They joined the Nassau Point
Association, they paid their dues. They came to our meetings.
And even one of the events. And we have worked well with them
regarding what is going to be done in the basin when dredging
the sand spoil, which they'll share with us on the Harbor Cove
Beach. So I don't have much else to say other than we do fully
support their plans to tear down the old house and rebuild
something new, something smaller, and something with a more
efficient septic system that is more modern and not so close to
the water.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Thank you, for your comments. Is there anybody
else here that wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Questions or comments from the Board?
Board of Trustees 51 April 17, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes. First of all, I would like to acknowledge
that you always come here well prepared and you represent your
clients well.
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, Mike.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And I have a responsibility to do the same for
the people of Southold Town. And this matter needs further
review by this Board. Information is coming in to us only
recently, on Monday, after you submitted, the applicant
submitted revised plans to the Town Engineer, the Town Engineer
reached out to us and asked me to visit, and I did. And he gave
me LIDAR representations of the property. And there seems to
be some discrepancy between that and the survey as presented to
us, and it needs further review.
In addition, the'Town may need additional outside professional review.
Another point, I'm not going to debate the definition of a bluff
here with you, but the determination of a bluff is the
responsibility of this Board and we take this seriously.
Additionally, Soil and Conservation, I read the Soil and
Conservation report. They did mention there is vegetation but
they did not do any sampling of soils. They did not even come
near the issue of bringing heavy equipment near a steep slope on
unconsolidated sand and gravels.
Furthermore, during all the pre-submissions and field
inspections, the Trustees stated the concerns regarding
construction and excavation so close to a steep bluff. Again, on
unconsolidated sands and gravels.
So, and finally, the ZBA has just begun a review of the
revised plans, so it is not considered that changes are minor or
di minimis. -And accordingly, I'm suggesting that we table this
application right now so that we have additional time to study
it and give it the attention that it deserves
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any other questions or comments from the
Board?
MR. HERRMANN: Can I offer a couple of quick comments in response?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes.
MR. HERRMANN: So with respect to the survey, we can certainly
ask Ken Woychuk to go out, and I'm sure that the Board is not
asking him to re-survey the entire property, if I'm hearing the
Board correctly, probably the greatest area of concern probably
has to do with the southerly side of the house. If that's
incorrect, I would want you to tell me so. It's not shocking to
me that an onsite field survey would vary from LIDAR maps.
I heard that topic debated for many years. I think most
surveyors would agree that a field survey is more accurate than
a LIDAR map or five-town topos or whatever. But obviously we
were all seeing the same thing at the site, that perhaps the way
that slope is depicted to the south of the house creates the
appearance of something on paper that does not play out when
it's staked. And of course that's why the Board asks for things
to be staked, because it doesn't always work out. So, I think we
would certainly be agreeable to asking Ken to verify that
Board of Trustees 52 April 17, 2019
information, and if there is anything that needs to be updated,
get back to you on that.
In response to Mike's comment, I'm not here to argue the
definition of a bluff either. Just again,just so it's clear
for the record, this was not a discretionary decision where I,
for example, as I do with a wetland boundary, went out and
flagged what I thought was the bluff or the surveyor flagged what
he thought was the bluff. In 2017 for reasons that go beyond
this Board's concerns, the Town Board elected to redefine a
bluff and created a mathematical threshold to that definition.
And that is in Chapter 275.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can I stop you a second. John I were part of
that discussion and the determination of that definition. So
you don't have to explain how they came up with the mathematical
number to me. But I want to point out it does say adjoining a
beach. Or body of water. And,that steep slope on that site
adjoins the beach. So it has a greater than a 20-foot drop and it's
greater than 25% slope, ergo it's a bluff.
MR. HERRMANN: So what I'm saying is that based on the surveyed
topography, it does not meet those criteria. And I'm not arguing
on behalf of my opinion. If the Board wants to hire its own
land surveyor and go through the whole same process, that is
fine. I think as a practical matter, we are not here to make
this an adversarial application. We are trying to get to a point
where we hear what the Board's concerns are in a way that we can
actually understand in a quantifiable way, not just a
qualitative way. We hear you loud and clear that you think that this
house is too close to that southerly slope, as I think Greg said
at the site, no matter what you want to call it, slope, bank,
bluff, whatever. The bottom line is that the house is proposed
at a distance that is safe structurally from that slope, that
does not disrupt the integrity of that slope and that this Board
is comfortable approving.
So again, we want the Board's feedback in a quantifiable
way that we can understand what change we have to make. And, you
know, we had a different hearing a couple of months ago where
Mike said, hey, you should have come and spoken with us before
you went down this path. In this case we did that. And it's
frustrating for me as well as for you because I'm standing here
in the exact spot that I absolutely wanted to avoid 12 months
ago by coming out with the Board. So we are looking to get
feedback. We are not looking to fight with you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We totally agree. We are neither. So at
least from my part I think you offered to have Ken Woychuk come
in with additional detailed analysis, because we have issues now
having seen the LIDAR, having been in the field, and we are not
so sure that bluffs can go on-again off-again through a
property, but it represents a uni-bluff structure. But we need
to get professional -- additional professional information.
There are provisions in the Wetland code that the Board can, out
of due environmental concerns, require an outside consultant that
Board of Trustees 53 April 17, 2019
the applicant pays for. I don't think--we are not here to
debate the work of an engineer. We are trying to work with you.
And it's unfortunate sometimes what we all plan to have something
work out and in communications, but sometimes things don't quite match.
MR. HERRMANN: We understand. And again, the only reason that I'm
responding to Mike about the bluff is because we are trying, we
were and are trying to follow the language of the code as
literally and strictly as possible because we don't know what
else to do. So that's what we are doing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: To that point, this Board did a field inspection
at the request of the ZBA and determined that there was no bank.
That there was a bluff. And that was conveyed to the ZBA in writing.
MR. HERRMANN I recall that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It was a unanimous decision from this Board and,
as you stated, it's a 100-foot jurisdiction from the bluff. So
that entire area which you are proposing is within, by our
determination, within our jurisdiction. If ZBA chose to
disregard that. That's not our problem. That's not our issue.
So we need more time to review the LIDAR and perhaps get a
professional, if Mr. Woychuk can do his survey, we need more
data so we are all speaking about the right thing.
MR. HERRMANN: Understood.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I want to make a point. I appreciate what you
and the architect came up with. I appreciate that you are
considering all the trees and trying to leave the natural
vegetation. I think in many ways the project has done a great
job and, you know, I don't mind the house. However, it becomes
the location. I think there is a lot of thought put in here, and
I think you are headed in the right direction. But I don't
think we are there yet. And I think we can get there. But I
don't think we are there yet.
And while you are here, just so we open this discussion,
and I hate to open another door, but I think there should be
some consideration given to the pool location, which is also
kind of at the top of a fairly, the start to a fairly steep
location, and maybe that can be bumped back or over or both. I
mean a lot of the property landward of the house had, you know,
grown out views that are already gone. There is a lot to work
with there, so. That's just my opinion.
MR. HERRMANN: I appreciate your comments, Nick.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It would also be helpful if on future surveys
that it shows the entire parcel. This survey doesn't go down to
the water. It ends.
MR. HERRMANN: The first sheet it does,,Greg. There is, I think
three, now four sheets to the plan. So C-1 is the first sheet.
That shows the property in its entirety. The proposed
structures, I'm not sure if they are located on C-1. Those could
be added, if you like. But at that scale it would not, it was
not going to be easy to read.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I understand that. I understand that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Did anyone else have any comments?
Board of Trustees 54 April 17, 2019
MR. BECK: Hi. My legal name is Andrew. I do go by Tray. I'm sole
member of Vanston Bear and together with Laura Nado we are the
applicants, and I'm just making myself available in the event you
want to ask any questions of the property owner. You may well
not. I think Rob and David spoke eloquently on our behalf. We
are anxious to resolve this,in a way you are comfortable with. I
hope you understand the design intent. And we are hoping to do
something smaller and more environmentally sensitive.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I appreciate what you are trying to do. I just
think we need to do a little bit more, environmentally speaking,
and with the slopes.
MR. BECK: Sure. If we are not speaking the same language, then
yes. So we'll make sure we get the data, and the data says what
the data will say. And we feel very strongly about that as well.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just to reiterate what Nick said, you have a
big piece of property to work with here. And our concern is the
proximity to the bluff. So you have a lot of room to work with
and move where you can satisfy your desires as well as ours in
protecting the environment.
NIR. BECK: That's true. It's a fair point. It's a large
property, although the buildable envelope'is actually relatively
modest when you consider all the setbacks. By the-way, when we
first observed the property, being lay people, we had no idea
what we were walking into with the setbacks. But I would say, I
wanted to point out, the point that David was making about the
existing footprint, which is quite deep. There is a huge
basement in that structure that is quite large. You can put
several bedrooms down there. We are trying to reuse that. That
has already been disturbed in 1911. We don't want to dig another
hole. So I think that's the main thing. We don't want to fill
in an existing hole. And to state the obvious, it's also a more
pleasant part of the property. But we are trying to be -
respectful of the wetland conservation efforts you guys are
overseeing and we want to move some things farther away, so.
Anyway, your points are all well taken, we are trying to ,
understand what the parameters are and work with them. Right now
it's vague, so.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: One of things I noticed, I had discussion in
the field with Mike, and I could be mistaken, but it appears
the center house looks like it was the original house and then
there was a concrete slab added on to the south. And at one point
in time it looks like they enclosed that concrete slab and put,
I don't know what is above that patio. And then it appears as
though the same thing did happen on the north. Is that, in my
opinion it's identifiable as a concrete slab to the south.
On the north is that slab or is that--
MR. ERICKSON: It's foundation. The basement footprint is the,
like only thing that has a slab on-grade versus a basement is
that most southerly, south.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Okay, gotcha. So the original builder didn't
Board of Trustees 55 April 17, 2019
excavate that close to the bluff area there, probably for good
reason, at that point in time.
MR. HERRMANN: The last thing I would like to say, just as a
general comment, is this application is the poster child for
what I have been complaining about for several years. This is
an application that should have been heard by this Board first.
There should not be an exceptionless rule within town hall that
requires us to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals first before we
go to this Board. And this is the exact type of situation, as I
said, that I was looking to avoid. It has nothing to do with you
guys. That's not an implication of you. It's just that the
reality is that the ZBA only regulates what is the mathematical
bluff. You have a broader concern here because you also have
jurisdiction, as Mike pointed out, from the tops of banks. So
bluffs or blanks, it's your jurisdiction. You should have heard
this first. And that's all I want to say.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: You should direct those comment to the different
Board.
MR. HERRMANN: Mike, I have been telling anyone who would listen
to me for about three years.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll make a motion to table this application,
awaiting an engineer's report and ZBA determination on revised plans.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Review by the Town Engineering Department,
and submission of Ken Woychuk's report from the applicant.
MR. HERRMANN: I'll have to withdraw the--
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll rescind that motion.
MR. HERRMANN: (Continued) request that I just submitted to the ZBA
Because if the plan is going to change again, we want them to look at
that plan, not the one I gave you Monday.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to table the action pending
more information, including the engineer's report.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 22, En-Consultants on behalf of PHILIP
CAMMANN requests a Wetland Permit to construct onto existing
876 sq. ft., 1.5 story dwelling a 611 sq. ft., two-story addition, a
70 sq. ft. covered entry porch and steps, and a 101 sq. ft. covered
rear porch and steps; install drainage system of leaders,
gutters, and drywells; modify existing public water service line
located partially within Chapter 275 jurisdiction; install 5'
stepping stone pathway with grass joints located partially
within Chapter 275 jurisdiction; and restore approximately
2,330 sq. ft. of un-vegetated landward portion of covenanted 25'
wide non-disturbance buffer area with native plantings.
Located: 1500 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-12-21.3
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from the fact that the applicant, previous
applicants, did not comply with the terms of the Wetland Permit#7222.
Board of Trustees 56 April 17, 2019
The Conservation Advisory Council on February 6th
unanimously resolved to support the application.
The Trustees did a field inspection on April 10th, and we,
strongly ask to reestablish the non-disturbance buffer, to
include a three-foot non-turf buffer landward of the
non-disturbance buffer, and erect some sort of a structure or
fence, metal, delineating the edge of the non-disturbance. And
all Trustees were present at that time.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant and also Pam Bosco the project architect is here.
It's a fairly straightforward proposal with respect to the
proposed house addition, which is generally on the landward, the
east side of the house. Understanding that the prior owner did
clear part of the non-disturbance buffer, which is the
non-compliance referenced in the LWRP report, the application
included a proposal to revegetate that entire area. We were then
advised by the DEC that they wanted us to add 665-square feet of
additional non-disturbance buffer landward of the previously
delineated non-disturbance buffer in the area of the dock. And
then in discussions with your Board last week, we talked about
adding a metal edging to delineate the revised and expanded
non-disturbance buffer, and then add a three-foot non-turf
buffer on the landward side of that. So the plan that was
submitted to your office on Monday is consistent with those
recommendations. It is the plan prepared by Nathan Taft Corwin
III land surveyor, dated April 15th, 2019, which includes now
labels showing the proposed metal edging along the landward
limit of the non-disturbance buffer area, and again, that's the
expanded non-disturbance buffer area. And then also shows a
proposed three-foot non-turf buffer on the landward side of that.
The project also includes a pool and garage which are
located outside the Trustees'jurisdiction, and the Board has
already issued a non-jurisdiction letter with respect to those structures.
So we hope that the Board will find this plan consistent
with our conversation onsite, but if you have any other
questions about the project, Pam or I can respond to it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay. The plans are good. I would just quibble
over the terms of expanding the non-disturbance zone because we
are just re-establishing what was previously established.
MR. HERRMANN: I'm talking about where the DEC now wants us to
add on to what is previously established.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's acknowledged. So, any other questions or
comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to,close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE,DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 57 April 17, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted, noting that it will address the inconsistencies as
outlined by the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, 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 wire mesh fence with gate;
supplement existing vegetation on face of embankment with 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
This is continued from a previous Board hearing. This
project was previously discussed. The Board had a lengthy
discussion at the work session, and based on that Board
discussion I'll just open up with the fact that the Board
realized there is vegetation in front of the proposed navy-style
support, we'll call it, retaining wall. And that it was a
suggestion of the area Trustee who is familiar with it that
maybe we would approve this subject to re-vegetation of the
disturbed area in front, and to make it subject to a one-year
inspection for survivability, and then if needed replant and/or
revisit if there is a problem with severe erosion and have a
discussion at that time. Did I articulate that?
MR. HERRMANN: That sounds good to us. Because I have two things
that I would like to submit to you consistent with what you just
said. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant.
When we met onsite, Jeff Butler, engineer, had joined us and offered
some verbal guidance to the Board at the time, and Jeff was kind
enough to put that guidance in his letter, which I would just
like to submit for your file, because his position here with
respect to what is being proposed is very site specific.
Condition specific. And one of Jeffs recommendations in terms
of changing the plan was to propose, at my suggestion, a
Board of Trustees 58 April 17, 2019
replanting of any disturbed vegetation and also supplemented
plantings throughout that 8'x30' wide area of Spartina patens,
Panicum virgatum (Switchgrass), and Ammophila breviligulata,
which is Cape American beach grass. So we had Marshall Paetzel
Landscape'Architecture prepare a revised plan that shows in plan
view a proposed 8x34' area supplemental planting which also adds
section AE that shows the planting of these grasses in front of
the bulkhead. So this plan is actually remarkably consistent
with what Jay just articulated. So I would just like to hand this up.
I have one copy of Jeffs report and three copies of the
revised plan that reflects the plantings. So with that, I don't
have anything else to offer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else here who wishes to
speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any additional questions or concerns of the Board?
(Negative response).
Not hearing any, I would close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve this application
subject to re-vegetation, a one-year inspection by the area
Trustee to confirm survivability and revisit if there should be
a condition found on the survivability at that point to the need
of some additional amendment or revisiting at that time.
So the motion is to approve as submitted with inspection at
one year to ascertain the survivability of the planting. Motion made.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 24, En-Consultants on behalf of WUNNEWETA
POND ASSOCIATION, c/o FREDERICK H. MAYNE, JR., PRESIDENT
requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten-Year Maintenance Permit to
dredge an approximately 20'x220' area within bulkheaded inlet
channel to Wunneweta Pond to a maximum depth of-4 MLW; and
deposit approximately 275 cubic yards of resultant sand/gravel
spoil above SHW in approximately 30'x300'x12" spoil site on
adjacent down drift property to northwest (SCTM# 1000-118-1-2).
Located: Inlet Channel to Wunnewetta Pond, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-1-11
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make a
recommendation. There was evidence that dredging had been
conducted within the last month and there was insufficient
information in the application to make a determination.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on April 10th,
noting that it was straightforward and a needed project to keep
Wunneweta Pond open. Is there anyone here to speak to this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann, En-Consultants, on behalf of
Board of Trustees 59 April 17, 2019
the applicant. This is the first request since the prior
Wetlands permit#6997 was issued as a ten-year maintenance dredge
permit by the Board on November 19th, 2018. So that ten-year
dredge permit has expired. So we are in need of basically
renewing through a new permit application a ten-year dredge
permit for the inlet, for the inlet channel which as,the Board
knows, historically shoals, I think this would be the tenth or
eleventh maintenance dredge permit issued by the Board of
Trustees since 1968.
In response to the Conservation Advisory Council comment, the last
dredge event was on April 27th, 2018. So I'm not sure why they thought
that the site had been dredged recently, but it has not been.
Other than that, it's straightforward.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think this is the third permit I voted on,
possibly.
MR. HERRMANN: At least. It's been through a couple of different tenures.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing no further comments, I'll 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
as submitted.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to adjourn
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
Michael J. Domino, President
Board of Trustees