HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-05/15/2019 Michael J.Domino,President ®F S®(/rTown Hall Annex
John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President ®� ®0 54375 Route 25
O P.O.Box 1179
Glenn Goldsmith Southold,New York 11971
A.Nicholas Krupski 'c Telephone(631) 765-1892
Greg Williams �� Fax(631) 765-6641
®lyOWN,
�
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RECEIVED
Minutes J "21 2019Q 3:q5Pv"
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
Sohold Town U
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, June 12, 2019 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 5:30 PM at the Main
Meeting Hall
WORK SESSIONS: Monday, June 17, 2019 at 4:30 PM at the Town Hall Annex 2nd
floor Board Room, and on Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 5:00 PM
at the Main Meeting Hall
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of April 17, 2019.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good evening, and welcome to our Wednesday, May 15th, 2019,
meeting. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order and ask that you stand for
the pledge.
(PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE).
I would like to take a moment to recognize the people on the dais. To my left we have
Trustees Bredemeyer, Goldsmith, Krupski and Williams. To my right we have Assistant
Town Attorney Damon Hagan and Senior Clerk Typist Elizabeth Cantrell.
Also tonight we have Court Stenographer Wayne Galante, and the Conservation
Advisory Council member John Stein who is in the back.
Agendas are located on the podium and out in the hall.
At this time I would like to announce the postponements. On page nine of our agenda,
we have number two, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of
MILDRED M. PASCUCCI requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#8920 to install
Board of Trustees 2 May 15, 2019
an AI/OUTS 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 65; 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, is postponed.
And number three, Patricia Moore; Esq. on behalf of BIM STRASBERG &
ALEXANDRA LEWIS requests an Amendment 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 ten under Wetland Applications and Coastal Erosion Permits we have
number four, 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.
Also on page ten, under Wetland Permits, number one, 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, has been
postponed at the applicant's request.
And on page 17, we have number 24, 25, 26 and 27 are postponed. They are
listed as follows:
Number 24, Cole Environmental Services, Inc. on behalf of SCOTT COLLETTI
requests a Wetland Permit to replace in-place approximately 86 linear feet of existing
timber bulkhead with new 5" vinyl sheeting bulkhead and to raise the height an
additional 12"; install a 10' wide (860 sq. ft.)wood walk along the landward edge of the
bulkhead; and backfill with ±10 cubic yards of clean upland fill.
Located: 2140 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-4-4.1
Number 25, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of FLORIANE LAVAUD &
THOMAS ANNICQ request a Wetland Permit to construct 160' catwalk with 66" ramp
and stairs to water level for launching kayak, paddle board, canoe, etc.
Located: 305 Halls Creek Drive; Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-116-7-2
Number 26, 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
Board of Trustees 3 May 15, 2019
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 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
And number 27, 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
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.
And lastly, on page 18, numbers 28 and 29 are postponed. They are listed as
follows:
Number 28, 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. 11
Located: 1470 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-2.1
And number 29, 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
1 would like to announce that under Town Code under Chapter 275-8(c), the files
were officially closed seven days ago, and submission of paperwork after that time 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 Wednesday,
June 12, 2019, at 8:00 AM in the town annex.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So moved.
Board of Trustees 4 May 15, 2019
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
-TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? N
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll entertain a motion to hold the next Trustee meeting Wednesday
June 19th, 2019, at 5:30 here at the main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like a motion to hold our next work session at the town
annex board room, second floor, Monday, June 17th, 2019, 4:30 PM, and at 5:00 PM on
Wednesday, June 19th, 2019, 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
April 17, 2019 meeting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The'Trustees monthly report for April 2019. A check for$11,389.43 was forwarded to
the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
III. RESOLUTIONS OTHER:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, RESOLVED, the Board of Trustees of the Town
of Southold, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, hereby declare
itself Lead Agency in regards to the application of GARY MANGUS & MIRIAM
MEYERS;
Located: 1295 Island View Lane, Greenport; SCTM# 1000-57-2-16
That's my resolution.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number-two, RESOLVED, the Board of Trustees of
the Town of Southold, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, hereby
declare itself Lead Agency in regards to the application of FLORIANE LAVAUD &
THOMAS ANNICQ;
Board of Trustees 5 May 15, 2019
Located: 305 Halls Creek Drive, Mattituck; SCTM# 1000-116-7-2
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number three, RESOLVED, the Board of Trustees of the
Town of Southold, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, hereby
declare itself Lead Agency in regards to the application of DAVID BOFILL;
Located: 5125 Vanston Road, Cutchogue; SCTM# 1000-111-14-2
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. ,
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roman numeral IV, 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 X Public Hearings Section of the Trustee
agenda dated Wednesday, May 15, 2019, are classified as Type II
Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not
subject to further review under SEQRA:
Randi &Alfred Silber SCTM# 1000-104-7-10
Antoine Van Horen SCTM# 1000-59-1-1
Kathryn A. Campbell SCTM# 1000-66-2-12 (Dominant) &
1000-66-2-13 (Servient)
Estate of Angela Klavas, c/o Kathryn Bucci, Executor SCTM# 1000-66-3-6
Samuel J. Dimeglio, Jr. SCTM# 1000-123-4-6
Michael Mangan SCTM# 1000-57-1-25
1505 Birdseye Road, LLC SCTM# 1000-17-1-4
Andrew Flinn SCTM# 1000-31-8-12.9
Scott Colletti SCTM# 1000-123-4-4.1
Michael & Dana Savino SCTM# 1000-106-6-37
Steve & Marcia Donadic SCTM# 1000-56-5-37
Peter& Diane Mollica SCTM# 1000-71-2-21
Robert & Marybeth Polke SCTM# 1000-115-11-9
Kenneth W. Quigley & Marjon Van Eyk SCTM# 1000-90-1-16
Johnny Donadic, Marcia Donadic Trustee of the Alexander Anthony
Donadic Trust &The Oliver Angelo Donadic Trust SCTM# 1000-56-5-26
Neil &Amy McGoldrick SCTM # 1000-116-4-16.4
Karen & Clifford Cid SCTM# 1000-115-5-7 & 8
Richard Sachs SCTM# 1000-121-4-17.1
Blue Moon Partners, LLC, c/o Randall Fairhurst, Member SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.33
Andrew Fohrkolb SCTM# 1000-1.37-4-30
The Janet R. Latham & Kurt F. Freudenberg Irrevocable Trusts SCTM# 1000-114-7-2.1
John & Lori McDonald SCTM# 1000-92-1-3
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 6 May 15, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town
of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more
fully described in Section X Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, May 15, 2019, are classified as
Unlisted Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations:
Gary Mangus & Miriam Meyers SCTM# 1000-57-2-16
Moraine Lavaud &Thomas Annicq SCTM# 1000-116-7-2
David Bofill SCTM# 1000-111-14-2
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO NEW
YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT NYCCR PART 617:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: GARY MANGUS &
MIRIAM MEYERS request a Wetland Permit to install a 4'x10' access catwalk using
thru-flow decking on all decking surfaces supported by 6ft on center 6"x6" CCA pilings to
a 4'x20' dock with a 4'x6' lower platform with electrical power to the dock.
Located: 1295 Island View Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-57-2-16
S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with this project having
visited the site on April 10, 2019 and May 8, 2019 and having considered the plans for
this proposed project submitted by Gary Mangus, R.A., 121 Sterling Place#413,
Brooklyn, NY received on May 15, 2019 at the Trustee's May 15, 2019 work session and
bathymetric survey by Heidecker Land Surveying dated December 30, 2018, and
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself Lead
Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A., and
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees classified the
application as an unlisted action under S.E.Q.R.A., and
WHEREAS, in reviewing project plans submitted by Gary Mangus, R.A., 121 Sterling
Place#46, Brooklyn, NY received on May 15, 2019 and bathymetric survey by
Heidecker Land Surveying dated December 30, 2018, and water depths it has been
determined by the Board of Trustees that all potentially significant environmental
concerns have been addressed as noted herein:
Navigation: The proposed dock meets standards and does not extend beyond 1/3
across the water body. Depths for the dock terminus are within Town Trustees, New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation and United States Army Corps
of Engineers guidelines and there is no recognized Federal/New York State/Town
navigation channel in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure.
Scope: The proposed dock is comparable to docks on neighboring properties in
an area where docks historically are used for commercial and recreational purposes
Scope in relation to the riparian rights of shell fishers: The plan allows a standard
fixed dock to platform design that will not impede access for those seeking shellfish and
crustacea in season.
Environmental upkeep: The dock design projects a usual lifespan of 30 years
with limited pile replacement so as to minimize disturbance of the bottom.
THEREFORE, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees
Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to
Board of Trustees 7 May 15, 2019
SEQRA for the aforementioned project.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll read number two.
Number two, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Cole Environmental
Services on behalf of FLORIANE LAVAUD &THOMAS ANNICQ request a
Wetland Permit to construct 160' catwalk with 66" ramp and
stairs to water level for launching kayak, paddle board, canoe, etc.
Located: 305 Halls Creek Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-116-7-2
S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with this project having
visited the site on May 8, 2019 and having considered the plans for this proposed project
submitted by Caruso Engineering, 5247 Wilson Mills Road, Richmond Heights, OH
dated January 31, 2019 at the Trustee's May 15, 2019 work session and Peconic
Surveyors, P.C., survey last dated November 20, 1996, and
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself Lead
Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A., and
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees classified the
application as an unlisted action under S.E.Q.R.A., and
WHEREAS, in reviewing project plans submitted by Caruso Engineering dated January
31, 2019 and water depths it has been determined by the Board of Trustees that all
potentially significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein:
Navigation: The proposed dock does not meet standards and extends beyond 1/3
across the water body. Depths for the dock terminus are within Town Trustees, New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation and United States Army Corps
of Engineers guidelines and there is no recognized Federal/New York State/Town
navigation channel in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure.
Scope in relation to the riparian rights of shell fishers: The plan allows a standard
ramp to float design that will not impede access for those seeking shellfish and
crustacea in season.
Environmental upkeep: The dock design projects a usual lifespan of 30 years
with limited pile replacement so as to minimize disturbance of the bottom.
THEREFORE, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees
Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to
SEQRA for the aforementioned project.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number three, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Suffolk
Environmental Consulting on behalf of DAVID BOFILL requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a dock assembly off the eastern
shoreline of subject property and Wunneweta Pond; the proposed
dock assembly is to consist of the following: (1) elevated
catwalk/ramp (4.0'x49.0'), secured by fourteen (14) posts
(6.0"); hinged ramp (3.0'x15.0'); and floating dock (6.0'x20.0'), secured by
four(4) pilings (8"); all hardware to be hot-dipped galvanized.
Located: 5125 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-14-2
Board of Trustees 8 May 15, 2019
S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with this project having
visited the site on May 8, 2019 and having considered the plans for this proposed project
submitted by Suffolk Environmental Consulting Inc., dated November 28, 2018 at the
Trustee's May 15, 2019 work session and hydrographic map prepared by Robert H. Fox,
dated November 19, 2018.
WHEREAS., on May 15, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself Lead
Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A., and
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees classified the
application as an unlisted action under S.E.Q.R.A., and
WHEREAS, in reviewing project plans submitted by Suffolk Environmental Consulting
Inc., dated November 28, 2018, and water depths it has been determined by the Board
of Trustees that all potentially significant environmental concerns have been addressed
as noted herein:
Navigation: The proposed dock meets standards and does not extend beyond 1/3
across the water body. Depths for the dock terminus are within.Town Trustees, New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation and United States Army Corps _
of Engineers guidelines and there is no recognized Federal/New York State/Town
navigation channel in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure.
Scope: The proposed dock is comparable to docks on neighboring properties in
an area where docks historically are used for commercial and recreational purposes
Scope in relation to the riparian rights of shell fishers: The plan allows a standard
ramp to float design that will not impede access for those seeking shellfish and
crustacea in season.
Scope in relation to view shed: The seaward end of the proposed dock will not
extend appreciably beyond existing docks. As such the perspective will not be
discernibly different from the existing view.
Environmental upkeep: The dock design projects a usual lifespan of 30 years
with limited pile replacement so as to minimize disturbance of the bottom.
THEREFORE, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees
Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to
SEQRA for the aforementioned project.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral VI, Resolutions and Administrative permits.
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 numbers two and three. They are listed as
follows:
Number two, East End Spa & Sauna on behalf of ERIC & EILEEN
DALEY requests an Administrative Permit to install a 12'x10'
ground level landscape tie base for a 9'x77' hot tub.
Located: 1415 Harbor Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-97-6-10
Number three, ROBERT &JEANNETTE COANE request an Administrative Permit
for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to hand-cut Common Reed (Phragmites
australis) to 12" in height by hand, as needed.
r
Board of Trustees 9 May 15, 2019
Located: 1555 Smith Drive North, Southold. SCTM# 1000-76-2-4.1
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, MICHAEL & ROBIN COLAPIETRO request
an Administrative Permit to replace on south side of property
the existing damaged 24'3"x3'4" retaining wall; 8'9"x3'4"
concrete stairs; 20' x 3'4" stone retaining wall; and to replace
on the north side of property 10'3"x3' stone retaining wall.
Located: 3800 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-17-6.1
The Trustees did a field inspection on this site on April
23rd, 2019 and noted --sorry, it was inspected by Trustee Glenn
Goldsmith alone. He noted that the application was straightforward and replacement
of existing structure.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency arises from
the fact that the structure was no Wetland permit can be located in Town
records for the structure.
Accordingly, I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, noting by granting the permit will bring it into consistency.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number four, THOMAS MURRAY & GEERT MARTENS
request an Administrative Permit for the "as-built" 7'5"x7'5"
hot tub and 908sq.ft. Deck on the north side of house.
Located: 5028 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-10-2
This project has been determined to be inconsistent with the Town's LWRP in
that we could find no Wetland permit for the hot tub and deck in Town records.
Accordingly, granting a permit for this structure which is deemed to not have any
environmental impact, will bring it into consistency with the Town's LWRP.
Accordingly, I move to approve this application as submitted, and also stipulate
that the hot tub is not drained to surface waters. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral VII, Applications for
Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments. Again, in
order to simplify our meeting, I'll make a motion to approve as
a group items one through eight and number ten. They are listed
as follows:
Number one, JAMES & KATHLEEN BLACKLEY request a One-Year
Extension to Administrative Permit#9008A, as issued on May 17, 2017,
Amended on July 18, 2018 and Amended again on April 17, 2019.
Located: 415 Harbor Lights Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-71-2-4
Number two, Patricia McIntyre, Vice-Chairperson on behalf
Board of Trustees 10 May 15, 2019
of NEW SUFFOLK WATERFRONT FUND, INC. requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit#8378 to install one (1)
approximately 10-foot wide by 20-foot long floating upweller
system (flupsy) for the purpose of growing juvenile oysters; to
be located adjacent to the first finger pier heading east on the dock.
Located: 650 First Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-8-18
Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of SEAN & LESLIE
OLSEN requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#9125 for the reconstruction of existing 4.5'x7' seaward
platform on east side of float; reattach existing 2.5'x9' ramp
to platform on east side of float; locate the approved on-grade
open grate deck on east side of float; and to increase the
8'x20' on-grade open grate deck to 10' to align the landward
edge of the deck with the landward limit of the 10' non-turf buffer.
Located: 975 West Hill Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-25
Number four, JOHN & CLAUDIA OXEE request an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit#1933 for the existing 5' wide by
118' long fixed catwalk; a 2'6"wide by 16' long ramp; two (2)
4' wide by 16' long floating docks situated in an "I"
configuration and connecting to an 8' wide by 16' long floating
dock that is situated in an "L" configuration at seaward end.
Located: 1475 Meday Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-9-5
Number five, BARBARA HAZARD requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit#9369 to extend the catwalk 12' landward toward top of bank.
Located: 1465 Harbor Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-2-1.2
Number six, TIMOTHY J STUMP & GINAMARIE STUMP requests a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#6250 from Larry Kulick, as issued on November 16, 2005.
Located: 2200 Minnehaha Blvd., Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-61
Number seven, LYDIA GIORDANO DEFEIS requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#5141 from Douglas DeFeis, as issued on March 22, 2000.
Located: 1165 Cedar Point Drive West, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-1-3
Number eight, LYDIA GIORDANO DEFEIS requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#5188 from Douglas DeFeis, as issued on July 19, 2000 and Amended on
October 25, 2000.
Located: 1165 Cedar Point Drive West, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-1-3.
Number ten, ERIC & EILEEN G. DALEY request a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#3-17-69 from William B. Sterling, as issued on March 17, 1969.
Located: 1415 Harbor Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-97-6-10
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Complete action on number nine?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number nine, ERIC & EILEEN G. DALEY request a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#1004 from William B. Sterling, as issued on April 1, 1974.
Located: 1415 Harbor Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-97-6-10
Upon Trustee inspection on the 29th, it was noted there is a 6x20 float rather than
the permitted 420. Therefore I make a motion to approve the transfer of this permit
with the amendment requiring new plans for a 6x20 float.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 11 May 15, 2019
(ALL AYES).
VIII. MOORINGS/STAKE & PULLEY SYSTEMS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roman numeral VIII, Moorings/Stake and Pulley
systems. Again, in order to simplify our meetings, I make a
motion to approve items one two and three as a group. They are
listed as follows:
Number one, PETER RICHARDSON requests a Stake and Pulley
System Permit in Richmond Creek for a 15' Sailboat, replacing
Stake#6. Access: Public
Number two, GERARD GORDON requests a Mooring Permit for a
mooring in Little Creek for a 13' outboard motorboat, replacing
Mooring #110. Access: Public
Number three, SHAWN DROSKOSKI requests a Stake and Pulley
System Permit in Narrow River for a 14' outboard motorboat,
replacing Stake#10. Access: Public
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IX.-RESOLUTIONS -OTHER:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral IX, Resolutions other.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: WHEREAS, upon review of the audio recording of
the March 20th, 2019, meeting, an error was detected in the transcribed Minutes;
and, WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees wishes to correct
the transcribed Minutes so that they conform to the audio recording and the events
that occurred; and, NOW THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED, that the Southold Town
Board of Trustees AMEND the March 20th, 2019 meeting Minutes Adopted on
April 17th, 2019, specifically page 74, removing the struck-through portion and
add the underlined portion to read as follows:
JOHN BREDEMEYER: At this time I think we do have a large amount
of information here. We can go over the file. Strike through "we
have" add "and" additional information and the issues that were
raised at tonight's hearing. I make a motion to, strike through "table" add "close"
this hearing. Strike through "for us to" add "and" review the materials, take it under
consideration for the next time, for a meeting scheduled, to make a determination.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At-this time I make a motion to go off our regularly-scheduled
meeting agenda and enter into our public hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is a public hearing in the matter of the following
Board of Trustees 12 May 15, 2019
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.
I request that you please keep your comments brief and organized
and relevant to the subject at hand.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Amendments, number one, En-Consultants on behalf of
RANDI &ALFRED SILBER requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#4750 to
construct a 24' seaward extension of the existing dock by constructing a 4'x20' fixed
timber catwalk extension onto the seaward end of the existing 4'x38' catwalk; relocating
the existing 3'x12' hinged ramp to the seaward end of the extended catwalk; removing
the existing 6'x16' floating dock and installing a 6'x20'floating dock secured with two (2)
8" diameter pilings; the installation of one (1) 10" diameter tie-off pile eight (8) feet
seaward of the proposed float; and for the connection of water and electricity to the
dock.
Located: 1570 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-7-10.
The Trustees did a field inspection on May 8th, and the notes indicate that it's a
straightforward application.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency, I'll
summarize, is as follows: Information has not been provided concerning the materials
and physical attributes of the dock. And the proposed action is located in a New York
State Critical Environmental Area, and may be subject to more stringent requirements
than detailed in this section. Requirements may include but are not limited to a denial of
certain operations shortening or reducing the size of structures, increasing the width of
non-disturbance buffers. It is recommended that in the event the action is approved, a
non-disturbance be established to mitigate the local impacts of the dock structure.
Extension of the dock will result in a net decrease of public access to public underwater
lands.
Lastly, the applicant presently enjoys access to the water body via an existing
dock structure. Extension of the dock will accommodate vessel draft at the expense of
public access is not supported by this policy. Alternative docking and mooring options
should be considered.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved on May 8th, 2019, to unanimously
support the application, noting however it was not staked.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant.
This is a reasonably straightforward application. There is an existing permitted
dock that was transferred from Kaufman, the prior permittee holder of Wetlands
permit#4750 which was originally issued in 1997 and transferred to Randi &Alfred
Silber in 2017.
Currently the existing float sits in less than two feet of water, which is not only
insufficient for the owner's vessel but it is also below the 30"water depth recommended
for floating docks by the New York state DEC and their tidal wetlands guidance
documents residential catwalks and docks.
The extension, the proposed extension of the dock will still keep the dock well
inside the one-third rule under Chapter 275 for the intrusion into the waterway, and
will keep it well inside of the pier line of the adjoining docks to the east and
west. So there is really no impediment or further encroachment on public access as
described in the LWRP coordinator's memorandum.
Board of Trustees 13 May 15, 2019
The decking for the catwalk extension is proposed to be untreated as noted on the
plans.
We had staked the float, sounds like maybe not in time for the Conservation
Advisory Council inspection, but I believe the Board saw the stakes when we were
out there.
If you have any questions we didn't already discuss, I'm happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Rob, on thru-flow, is that proposed or is something to consider?
MR. HERRMANN: No. We talked about this a little during field inspection. So the
existing catwalk is wood decking and so we are proposing with the framing of the
existing dock, to continue that framing with an untreated wood decking. But we had
talked in the field about the stipulation that at such time that the decking did need to
be fully renovated, that the entire catwalk structure would at that time be renovated
through replacement with open-grate decking. But we had hoped to keep the untreated
wood decking just for the extension that is proposed because it's actually not over the
vegetated marsh area. It's over open water.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, I note we do have a ten-foot non-turf buffer.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, there is an existing non-turf buffer on the property.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would -- okay. I would also like to remind the Board, even with
the extension this is well within the pier line.
So is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, noting that the ten-foot non-turf buffer and the increasing depth
which will arise from the extension of this dock will address the concerns of
the LWRP coordinator, and with the stipulation that if this dock is renovated,
the dock surface is renovated in the future, the entirety will be thru-flow or
similar materials. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next item, number one under Wetland and
Coastal Erosion permits, 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
This project was inspected by the Town Trustees on February
Board of Trustees 14 May 15, 2019
28th by myself, Mike Domino, Glenn Goldsmith, Nick Krupski and
Craig Williams. The project was noted to be straightforward upon
field inspection. We did note that because of the structures
within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, the Board is precluded
from granting an approval, and since it exceeds 100-square feet
would have to go on appeal to the Town Board.
On May 8th, a field inspection of the Board reviewed new
revised plans that were to address the concerns of the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation.
The LWRP coordinator, I'm checking the file for the
consistency review of the LWRP coordinator.
Meanwhile, the Conservation Advisory Council did not make
an inspection, therefore made no recommendation.
The LWRP coordinator indicated that it was consistent,
indicating in the event the application is approved that the
vegetated buffer is established to mitigate local impact through
dock structure to public surface waters and bottom lands.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. NIELSON: Yes, my name is Keith Nielson with Docko Inc. And
prepared the application documents you have before you tonight.
Just for the record, I would like to go over the changes to
the plan that we had discussed during our site visit and which
were made in accordance with agreements with the DEC.
First of all, and these are specified in-my letter. The
cribs are going to be removed at this point, and so the pier
support structure will be entirely with piles.
The cribs, about half of the stone that currently occupies the
crib space, will be removed. The wood cribbing itself will be
removed and will leave the stones in stable piles so that it
will retain existing longstanding habitat and yet remain stable
so it will not be sloughing off into the eel grass beds.
The piles are larger than what you would normally be
requesting. And in view of the location of the structure, the
piles have to be 12-inch five-feet piles in order to withstand
the sea conditions of the site.
Thru-flow decking will be utilized for the full length of
the structure as requested. In addition, there was a concern
about five-foot clearance beneath the existing decking of the
existing pier, and in order to resolve the excessive slope of
the pier approach and to provide that five-foot clearance, we
prepared a new topo and we've shown that at the closest point in
the public trust waters and lands staked, that there will be five feet of
clearance. So public access along the shore will be provided.
We have also indicated that there will be rails on the
pier, and those have been depicted on our drawing. And the
existing tie-off piles will be relocated from the eel grass beds.
So the improvements to the project, meeting your concerns
as well as the DEC, will be an overall improvement to the
structure itself, which has existed at this site since the 1950's.
So with that, if there are any questions related to the
plans, I would be happy to answer them at this time. And we
Board of Trustees 15 May 15, 2019
respectively request your approval.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, does anyone else wish to speak to this application?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: One thing. It's my understanding that some of
the rocks in the cribbing will be removed.
MR. NIELSON: About 50% of the rocks, so we can leave the rocks
in a stable mound, but preserve habitat.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Seeing or hearing no one else
wishing to speak to this application, I'll make a motion to
close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve the wetland
application for the wetland permit for this application in conformity with the
set of stamped plans received in the Trustee office May 3rd, 2019,
incorporating the requirements of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation concerning the removal of material
between the cribs for protection of the benthos. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And I move to deny without prejudice the
Coastal Erosion Hazard Area permit for the need for a coastal
erosion permit whereas the structure exceeds the requirements of
the surface area of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act, that the matter
would have to go onto appeal to,the Town Board.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number two, Docko, Inc. on behalf of DONALD
W. YOUNG REV. TRUST & KELLY C. YOUNG REV. TRUST requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a ±160
linear foot long by four-foot wide fixed wood pile and timber pier
including railings on both sides, water, and electrical
utilities of which ±132 linear feet of the pier to be waterward
of the Apparent High Water Line; install an 8'x20' floating dock
supported by four(4) piles with associated 3.5'x24' hinged
access ramp off of seaward most end of fixed pier; and install
three tie-off piles.
Located: Off East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-3-2-2
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistencies are the proposed dock structure is within the
Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. All development is prohibited in the
near shore area pursuant to Chapter 111. The dock structure is
proposed in a New York state Significant Coastal,Fish and Wildlife
Habitat area. Such requirements may include but are not limited
to denial of certain operations, shortening or reducing the size
of structures and increasing the width of non-disturbance
Board of Trustees ' 16 May 15, 2019
buffers. And eel grass beds are particularly sensitive to
alterations in water quality parameters including temperature,
salinity, light penetration, organic matter concentration and
the presence of pollutants. Also detrimental to eel grass beds
is excessive shading, and review of any proposed new docks in
this habitat area should be conducted with potential impact to
eel grass beds fully considered.
In the event the action is approved it is recommended a
vegetative buffer be established to mitigate the local impacts
from the dock structure to public surface waters and bottom lands.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection therefore no recommendation was made.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on February 28th.
We reviewed new plans at our May 8th work session and inspections.
We have stamped new plans here dated May 6th, and a letter from
Docko, Inc., noting some changes to the plans, including the
dock facility would be a full-length fixed pier. The floating
dock and hinged ramp have been removed from the project. The
fixed pier will have a two-step section with an end elevation of
five-and-a-half feet, with a permanent landing platform in
three-and-a-half feet for the 30-foot low water access platform
at the end. The tie-off pile on the west side of the berthing
slip that ends will be limited to ten feet above mean low water.
Cut off elevation for esthetic concerns expressed by the
westerly neighbor. These tie off piles will be fitted with tie
slides which will allow precise tie off positions control over
the moored boat. The deck system will utilize thru-flow decking
from the point where the dune vegetation is crossed by the pier
all the way to the end.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. NIELSON: Yes, sir. My name is Keith Nielson, for the record,
with Docko, Inc. Again, I prepared the application documents
before you tonight.
For some housekeeping issues, I wanted to just hand in one
more green card that was received, and I thought it would be
appropriate for you to have copies of the Department of State
concurrence determination for this project and the Corps of
Engineers permit for this project.
As noted in our letter of May 3rd, the changes to the
application have been basically focused on removal of the float,
the floating dock. Despite Mr. Young's continued preference for
a floating dock, he has agreed that since the terms of
discussions with the DEC favored a full-length fixed pier and
comments to that same tendency were expressed at the March
meeting, he would agree to this full-length fixed pier. There
will be, as shown in the profile, these are blowups of the same
plans that we sent to you last week. You can see that we have
considerable height of the main pier elevation, eight feet, so
that it complies with National Marine Fisheries guidelines, EPA
guidelines, Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines, and again I
Board of Trustees 17 May 15, 2019
would like to stress that although the Noyas family has retained
consultants to object to this project, we have situated the _
project in an area that has consistently for the last nine years
shown a void in the eel grass beds, which we documented with a
very precise survey and situated the dock in the area that is
devoid of eel grass vegetation, specifically to avoid impacts
on the eel grass. We have still met the DEC standard criteria of
putting a dock in open water like this in four feet of water,
and so we have abided by their general standards for practice
for such a pier, such a dock structure:The tie-off piles have
been moved in closer to the pier. There is still one pile that
is partly in the eel grass bed, a 12-inch Class B pile area of
contact is less than one square foot, and so we have minimized
the amount of impact on the eel grass bed.
The deck system will utilize thru-flow decking for the full
length of the project and with the pier being basically a
north/south structure, the sunlight will come in from the east
in the morning and from the west in the afternoon and so the
amount of shading of the bottom will be transitory during the
course of the day, but almost all the bottom will be in full
sunlight just as if the pier was not there, for at least half of
each day. So that in combination with thru-flow decking we
believe is adequate mitigation, and it was submitted in that
regard by the US Army Corps of Engineers and approved.
So going to some of the comments that were made about the
application and the design, I would just like to reiterate that
the report that was on file was very generalized, with very few
site-specific references. And clearly anybody who has spent any
amount of time in a boat at the proposed dock site would have
seen the clear area that we saw only a month before their own
inspection in October of 2018.
So our survey is very accurate. It's category A-2
standards. So it's within an inch of horizontal location of
observed characteristics. And we did that specifically so that
we could accurately document that eel grass. And on two
different, separate vents for the New York DEC we reviewed this
documentation and the aerial photographs of record with Mr.
Andrew Walker at the DEC and he agreed that the depictions we
had on our survey were accurate and it appears we have located
the dock in such a way it would not adversely affect the eel
grass.
I would also like to point out that comments about moving
the dock structure to shallower water will require boats access
of the dock to traverse greater distances through the eel grass
in shallower water, and so naturally it will result in greater
impact for the eel grass. So we believe that we have made the
right balance between the length and location orientation of the
dock and the natural resources.
The Department of State had one stipulation in their decision
and that was that the pier be built after October and before April,
and we will abide by that recommendation.
Board of Trustees 18 May 15, 2019
So I would be happy to answer any questions you might have
about the reconfigured pier or the project in general.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
MR. FINNEGAN: Good evening. Martin Finnegan, Twomey, Latham,
Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo. I'm here once again on behalf
of the neighbors Nick and Anne Noyas and Jerry Bogart who own
the properties surrounding this. When I was here last time we
commented on and the clients concern regarding the impact that
the proposed dock will have on the eel grass meadow. I
understand there has been a lot of review with other agencies
and that the applicant has made an attempt to try to fit this in
to a smaller area where there might not be eel grass, but we are
still talking about a very large substantial structure, and the
new configuration does not really alleviate any of those
concerns. This has an irregular northwest configuration, there
are no other docks in this section of the cove, and the
docks situated in the larger area of the cove are not of similar
configuration. So we are still talking about allowing a
substantially-sized dock to be constructed in what is a
critical environmental area, in one of the few remaining eel
grass beds in the State of New York.
So I understand that the configuration is proposed because
they believe they have a survey that has defined an area where
it can fit in there, but we have requested before and still
believe that this Board should require a current in-water
biological survey to support where the eel grass actually
exists. If the Board is however inclined to grant a dock on
this property, we would respectively request that you consider
requiring an alternate location to the east of where this is. I
have a letter that I would like to hand up, if I may, from Chip
Voorhees from MPV. He couldn't be here this evening. I know you
won't have time to peruse this immediately, but attached to the
letter is a sketch of the alternate location which would just be
to the east of the existing proposed structure.
There is also photographs, aerial photographs which show
that that area actually has little if any eel grass present
there. So as Chip explains in the letter, this orientation is
preferable to the dog leg to the northwest as it requires less
structure to reach the deep water and provide better sun
exposure for eel grass growth below the thru-flow decking. We
would submit that the pier would be more consistent with the
design and orientation of other docks in the cove as required by
the code.
And our clients have had this conversation directly with
Mr. Young. I realize it's not what you are hearing from his
representative, but he expressed to them that he had no
objection to this configuration and would actually prefer it.
But in any event, we do recognize that this configuration, because '
of the plants of the neighboring property line could potentially
invade the 15-foot setback of the extension of the property line
Board of Trustees 19 May 15, 2019
from the property to the east. That property is an undeveloped
property owned by the Ferguson museum. The beach area that is in
front of that property is essentially used by the Young family.
It is not used by anybody else. And we understand that we
obviously need to have the cooperation of the museum for that
configuration for you to consider it further, but we are pretty
confident they would not have any objection to any proposals
that would be more environmentally friendly here.
So also attached to Chip's report is a recent publication
by the Nature Conservancy in late February of this year that
details the results of their analysis the impact that boating
has on eel grass on Fishers Island. It's a lengthy study and it
goes back to our original position that clearly this is a
critical environmental area, that the introduction of a dock
here should be heavily scrutinized. And even more support for
the idea of having a very current survey, in-water survey.
Any comments last time about the provisions of 275-11, I'm
not going to reiterate them here, I just want to remind you I
believe this proposed alternative, if you are going down the
road of granting a dock here, really is more consistent with
every other dock there and it's a less-is-more approach that you
can get into deep water, avoid the eel grass, you can have a
dock that has an orientation that is consistent with other docks
in the cove, and really minimizes the potential impacts to the
growth and viability of the eel grass bed there. So I would
just respectively request on behalf of my clients that you give
consideration to the alternate proposal. I thank you for your
time.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have any comments on the proposed
secondary location of the dock?
MR. NIELSON: I have not seen it. So all I know is that the beach
is not owned by the Young family. The beach is entirely owned by
the nature conservancy. So we do not have their permission to
utilize that area, and I'm a little surprised to hear that Mr.
Young agreed to that location since I was just talking to him
last week and we were, before I sent this additional information
into the Board. So in order to try and get to the bottom of
that, can we put this on hold for another month and let me talk
to them and find out what is going on here? Because this is new
information to me.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And just one other thing to consider is the
LWRP recommendation for a vegetated non-turf buffer. So if you
are going to amend the plans, please consider that in amending
the plans.
MR. NIELSON: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So based on the applicant's request, I make a
motion to table this hearing.
Board of Trustees 20 May 15,2019
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. NIELSON: And if I may get a copy of the report just handed in.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: You can have this one.
MR. NIELSON: Thank you. '
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number three, DKR Shores, Inc. on behalf of
ANTOINE VAN HOREN requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to install 100 linear feet stone/toe armor(1-2
ton stone on infill rip-rap); 50 cubic yards clean sand; plant
Cape American beach grass to disturbed areas; extend 5.66'x10'
stair for beach access.
Located: 1200 Leeton Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-1-1
The Trustees visited the site on May 7th and it was a
straightforward project, as long as the dune is not compromised.
The LWRP found this to be a consistent action.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the project as long as the beach grass is not disturbed and is
planted where itis disturbed.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any comments or questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Pretty straightforward.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 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
with the stipulation the dunal area is not disturbed.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Wetland Permits, as previously noted, the
Gary Mangus & Miriam Meyers has been postponed.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number two, Costello Marine Contracting Corp.
On behalf of KATHRYN A. CAMPBELL requests a Wetland Permit to
rehabilitate and upgrade an existing driveway located within an
existing easement by constructing a 94' long retaining wall, drainage
system, placing fill, and resurfacing the driveway with clean gravel.
Located: 570 Hippodrome Drive & 500 Hippodrome Drive 10' wide
R-O-W, Southold. SCTM# 1000-66-2-12 (Dominant) & 1000-66-2-13 (Servient)
The Trustees did a field inspection on May 7th, 2019, with
all Trustees present, noting that the project is straightforward.
Trustees Williams and Domino revisited the site on May 14th, 2019 to view
staking 12:50 PM and at mid-tide.
Staking shows a retaining wall approximately 15 feet from water,
Board of Trustees 21 May 15, 2019
which means it will not be a bulkhead on the creek.
The LWRP coordinator found this project to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support
the application based on the following: There are no bulkheads
along the west side of the pond and within the entire
circumference of Hippodrome Drive. No vegetation should be
removed. Given the sensitive nature of the angled bluff, a
living shoreline is highly recommended. This is a sensitive
area with a living nursery for a variety of marine life and the
right-of-way should be staked and clarification of the 15-foot
easement.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello on behalf of the applicant here to
answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anybody else here that wishes to
speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. I had a chance to look at the staking
this afternoon myself because it had been a point of concern.
Mr. Costello, there's a number of trees there that are right
adjacent to the staked border of the retaining wall and the
trees between the retaining wall and the creek in an area
already subject to erosion which I guess had railroad ties or
even some junk and stone material there. How would construction
proceed in dealing with tree roots and tree removal and
re-establishment of the bank and planting, revegetation; how
would that go?
MR. COSTELLO: Well, we don't know how much disturbance there
will be for vegetation until we excavate. But everything will
be taken in a manner that will save as many trees as possible.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have the planting plan in the file, I
believe.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is it possible we can get double jute
matting or extra strong retention there, because a number of us
on the field inspection didn't know, but subsequently, thinking
back on the amount of times we have been there, on the issue of
we get strong spring tides with high water levels which seem to
be a concern the planting would not, might not--that planting
could be interrupted through tidal flow, and that's the fast
side of the stream.
MR. COSTELLO: That's no problem.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any other questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
I want to take a minute to address some of the Conservation
Advisory Council's concerns. One of their concerns is there is
no bulkheads. This is not a bulkhead. Its proximity to water is
far enough away that its feet won't get wet. There is a
comprehensive planting plan in the file to address their
vegetation concern. Given the sensitive nature of the angle of
Board of Trustees 22 May 15, 2019
the bluff, this is not a bluff, by definition. And the right-of-way was
staked and is clarified.
At this point I would like to make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted, with the noting to add jute matting to the planting
plan for stabilization of the replanted vegetation plan.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number three, the ESTATE OF ANGELA KLAVAS, c/o
KATHRYN BOCCI, EXECUTOR requests a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace 85' of existing bulkheading and two (2) 10' long landward returns at
a height of 12" higher than the existing bulkhead, using vinyl sheathing; and to
incidentally dredge the area 10' seaward to a depth of 4 ALW with 30 cubic
yards of spoils to be used as backfill.
Located: 1155 Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-66-3-6
The Trustees did a field inspection on May 8th, and all
Trustees were present. Notes are that recommend a non-turf
buffer to match the neighbor to the north. Vegetated non-turf
buffer to match the neighbor to the north. 12 foot. Otherwise
the project is straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent and
consistent. The inconsistency arises from the fact that a
Wetland permit with existing bulkhead and returns to be replaced
was not located within town records.
The consistency regards the dredging. Dredging of the area
is ten-foot seaward to a depth of minus four feet is recommended
as consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council on May 8th, unanimously
voted to support this application, with the condition that the
bulkhead not raised one-foot higher than existing. All lights be
Dark Skies compliant. Requesting installation of a 15-foot
non-turf vegetated. No inground irrigation. And dredge spoil is
tested before backfilling behind the bulkhead.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. BUCCI: Yes. Ted Bucci on behalf of the applicant. One
question, the 12-inches higher, why would they not allow us to
do that, in light of higher tides coming over all the time?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I can't speak to that, sir. Perhaps Mr. Stein
can address that.
MR. STEIN: John Stein, Conservation Advisory Council. We were
concerned it would almost in effect start a chain reaction going
either 18-inches or 12-inches over. That's a -- Petty's Pond
does flood in there due to the dredged canal area, but the
adjacent neighbors then I think would be addressed with coming
back to this Board to meet that height requirement, and
subsequently the angle of each and every property on there would
t
Board of Trustees 23 May 15, 2019
be, going forward there, I have not seen where it's washed out
like that.
MR. BUCCI: Okay.
MR. STEIN: And I believe you would be the first going up on
that, and if my memory is correct, the adjacent properties to
the north and south are --
MR. BUCCI: They are lower. I mean, it would be higher on both
sides. Correct. I mean, one of the reasons why we did that is
all the time the tides come up and over.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Please don't have a cross conversation. You have
to address the Board
MR. BUCCI: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right, any questions, comments from the
Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, other than to just recognize the
difficulty of dealing with new standards of dealing with coastal
resiliency in a time of higher waters and decisions that the
Board has to make trying to develop a balancing of equities of
allowing bulkhead structures or retaining structures to go
higher in given areas, whether the serviceability is warranted,
whether we are damaging vegetated wetlands. It's always a
difficult call. And 'recognizing the hard work that the
Conservation Advisory Council does, sometimes the Board may see
things slightly different than the Conservation Advisory
Council, or vice versa, and in some cases it's more critical
than others. As far as elevation. Some areas in town may not be
appropriate in the future to harden and promote resiliency
because water may get trapped behind it and affect the function
of sanitary systems and the public thoroughfare. So it's a
difficult call.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I also felt that based on our field inspections
with the slope of the backyard, that 15-feet non-turf buffer would be
a little more appropriate for that location as opposed to the 12.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And I would just like to say the 12-inch
higher is kind of a standard construction these days, so I don't
necessarily see an issue with it, and whereas you might be the
first one, you probably won't be the last one.
MR. BUCCI: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In this particular creek also, when we looked
at this during field inspection, we did size up the neighboring
properties and we didn't feel that 12-inch additional height was
going to damage adjacent wetlands. So that was part of our
field inspection.
MR. BUCCI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 24 May 15, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion to approve this application, with the
stipulation that we have submission of new plans showing a
15-foot non-turf buffer to address the inconsistencies as
pointed out by the LWRP coordinator, and noting that granting a
permit will address the lack of a permit as noted in that inconsistency.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. BUCCI: Thank you, so much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number four, J.M.O.
Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of SAMUEL J.
DIMEGLIO, JR. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 1-1/2
story, 1,716sq.ft.'Single-family dwelling with leaders and
gutters leading to two (2) dry wells; associated sanitary
system; a 552 so. ft. deck utilizing open grate decking with
gravel below; a 480 sq. ft. gravel (pervious) driveway; establish
and perpetually maintain a 50' wide non-disturbance buffer area;
non-fertilizer dependent grass will be planted in the upland
area; and staked;hay bales and silt fencing will be installed
prior to the commencement of construction activities and be
maintained during all construction activity.
Located: 2280 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-4-6.
This project has been deemed to be consistent with the
Town's LWRP program.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application, voting unanimously in favor of the project.
The Trustees inspected the site on May 8th. I performed a
tick survey, went through the middle of the lot, and based on
inspection we did note the generous 50-foot non-disturbance
buffer protecting all of the wetlands and providing good
protection for what is a native, naturally-emergent, beautiful
wetland. The Board did however want to recommend an innovative
alternative sanitary system, noting it is beyond the
jurisdiction of the wetland code as it currently is constructed.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. JUST: Good 'evening. Glenn Just, agent for the applicant. I
will forward that information as far as requesting the
innovative sanitary system to the applicant.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional questions from the Board
members? , 11
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak regarding this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, Esq., on behalf of the adjoining
property owner Donald Strada. They only have one concern.
Apparently when there is a sufficient rainstorm and there is
ponding on the road, the escape route for that runoff is along
their property line. There is a natural swale there at the present
time. And his concern simply is if it's regraded that water may
find its way directly on to his property and he was hoping there
may be some accommodation to be able to maintain the runoff as
i
i
Board of Trustees 25 May 15, 2019
it naturally goes;down the property at the present time along
that swale so it doesn't intercede on to his property.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is the neighbor to the --
MR. KIMACK: Yes. You have been on that property. You are
familiar with it, the house, the dock and everything else.
That's it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. He's the gentleman with the wetland
behind --
MR. KIMACK: He has his own wetland issues. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
MR. JUST: I spoke to Michael earlier today. I think we can come
up with, in that area beyond the Trustees'jurisdiction, perhaps
some berming or: something like that, that we can keep the water
onsite. There is a drywell proposed right on both sides adjacent
to the property line as well which we could hook up a drainage to.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So speaking as the agent for the owner, on
behalf of the applicant, you can conduct activities in
cooperation with Mr. Kimack and the neighbor that go beyond the
Trustees'jurisdiction, closer to the road?
MR. JUST: Yes. Actually I have,to speak to the homeowner who is
here tonight. Mr. DiMeglio, if you would like to speak to him
directly.
MR. DIMEGLIO, JR: Good evening, my name is Samuel J. DiMeglio,
Jr., the applicant in this case. This is the first notice I
have. We currently live across the street, so I have not seen
any puddling or runoff so far, but if the elevation of the
septic system does cause any concerns to my neighbor, I
certainly would work with a landscape architect or local
landscaper we already have, I believe the co-owner, we have
already contacted Trimble around the corner, so we would work
with a landscape architect to devise a berm such as Mr. Just
proposed, so that�the runoff does not invade the neighbor's
property.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, very much.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this application?
(Negative response).
Board members?
(Negative response).
Hearing and seeing 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 for the record the great cooperation
between neighbors.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number five, Frank Notaro on behalf of
i
Board of Trustees 26 May 15, 2019
MICHAEL MAN-GAN requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
1,102 sq. ft. two-story dwelling with a 60 sq. ft. front porch area,
and a 245 sq. ft! seaward side raised concrete patio area;
construct a 14'0"x17'5" sunroom on existing footprint of seaward
side concrete patio area for a combined 1,346 sq. ft. first floor
footprint; remove and reconstruct existing 60 sq. ft. front porch
area; and to construct a second-floor extension over existing first floor.
Located: 350 Blue Marlin Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-57-1-25
The LWRP found this to be consistent and inconsistent. The
proposal to construct a 14 foot by 17-and-a-half-foot sunroom
on existing footprint of seaward side concrete patio for a
combined 1,336',square foot first floor footprint. Remove the
existing 1,102 square foot two-story dwelling with a 60-square
foot front porch area and a 245-square foot seaward-side raised
concrete patio are recommended as inconsistent.
The inconsistencies are a Wetland permit was not located
within Town records for the existing as-built structure.
In the event the action is approved, the following is
recommended i4 to further Policy Six. Establishment of a
vegetated non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application with the condition of gutters to leaders to drywells
are installed to contain roof runoff.
The Trustees;conducted a field inspection on May 7th, noting
the need for gutters to leaders to drywells. Also noting the need
for a 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. NOTARO: Frank Notaro. Excuse the laryngitis. I'm the
architect working'with Mr. and Mrs. Mangan. I need a little more
clarification of what would be in the non-turf buffer at this
point. And if you have any other questions regarding what we
are doing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So you can come in the office and there is
planting plans of vegetation that would be appropriate for that area.
MR. NOTARO: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
So due to the changes that we talked about as far as gutters to
leaders to drywells, as well as the vegetated non-turf buffer
that would require a planting plan we'll need, there is an issue
of new plans depicting both of those, so at the moment we'll
have to table it until we get submission of new plans with those
depicted on the new plans.
I make a motion to table this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number six, Michael Kimack on behalf of 1505
Board of Trustees 27 May 15, 2019
BIRDSEYE ROAD, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for clearing and
grubbing approximately 16,000 sq. ft.,from westerly property line
following top of bluff/bank to easterly property line and
setback 100 ft.; infilling: Approximately 1,293 yards of the area
from proposed landward side of non-turf buffer to 100 ft. setback
at cellar foundation; proposed UA system for proposed dwelling;
install a four ft. wide by approximately 155 ft. in length ground
level foot path, commencing from landward edge of proposed
non-turf buffer to toe of bluff with IPE wood step edges; create
and perpetually maintain a 15 ft. wide non-turf buffer commencing
at the westerly property line and following the top of bluff as
flagged by Inter Science, converging with the top of bank as
flagged by John Bredemeyer, Town Trustee and continuing along
such top of bank to the easterly property line, planted with
permissible vegetation; construct a two-level dwelling on a
cellar as follows: Cellar (garage) 2,842 sq. ft., first level
enclosed area: 2,826 sq. ft., second level enclosed area:
2,887 sq. ft., total enclosed areas: 5,713 sq. ft., first level
deck: 2,655 sq. ft., second level deck:1,756 sq. ft., total deck
areas: 4,411 sq. ft., pool: 963 sq. ft., with a total first level
footprint of 6,444sq.ft.
Located: 1505 Birdseye Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-17-1-4
The Trustees last reviewed this file on the 8th of May.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent, and noted
that he would like us to require a minimum of 30-feet in width
at the top of bluff and bank non-turf buffer. Also to verify
what will be cleared and the method at the top of the
bluff/bank. The clearing up to the bluff/blank is not
recommended.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support
this application. The Conservation Advisory Council does not
support this application based on the inadequate setbacks and
recommends the proposed project follow the required setbacks in
accordance to Chapter 275. The property is not properly posted,
making it difficult to locate.
The Board did have a lengthy history with this property and
has been working with the applicant and the expediter for'quite
some time now on this project. At this point I'll open it up to
public comment. Is there anybody here who wishes to speak
regarding this application.
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. Yes, you
have had an opportunity to visit the site several times in the
past. I think the best way to proceed, since there is going to
be some adversarial comment made, and to cover all the points in
detail, I'll go through as quickly as I can. It's a 1.3 acre
piece of property situated on the Long Island Sound. It
basically, if you enter'it, it drops into a wet area which is
not a wetland, and rises up to a bluff bank, and I'll talk about
that along the way, then it drops down along the well vegetated
slope to a shoreline of heavy sand into Long Island Sound.
What my client is proposing, and I'll start from the
Board of Trustees 28 May 15, 2019
shoreline and work backwards, basically, is the bluff itself,
the bluff and the, up to the top of the bluff and top of the
bank, will not be touched. The only thing going into that area
will be a four-foot wide natural pathway in order to have
access to the beach line. In that pathway, it's a very, very
natural grade going down the boundary on the easterly side of
the property where, for the most part, going through the bank
area and not the bluff area. So the percentage of grades are
fairly shallow at that point. Getting back, you can look at
A100.1 and you can see the grade locations for that. And within
that on the bottom there is approximately six IP treads in order
to have some type of control of that particular section in order
to control any type of erosion that may occur. At the top of the
bank and going landward from the top of the bluff and top of the
bank, it was proposed to clear, all the way back along the
property lines back from there. And then along the top of the
bluff bank they have, we had established at some time ago with
the Town Trustees, the convergence point between where the bluff
is and where the beginning of the banks are. Jay Bredemeyer had
actually flagged, got up there and flagged at that time the
bluff, which really has not been designated at that time a bluff
or a bank, but he flagged along what he considered to be the top
of bluff/bank. And that pretty much reaches the convergence
point of the original top of bluff that had been flagged. The
western half which is all bluff has been flagged back in 2014.
There was an agreement in terms of the convergence point between
where the bluff ended and where the bank began, and it was so
noted in a letter that had been part of it of the Board, that we
were to abide by the hundred-foot setback from the bluff. But at
a hundred-foot setback from the convergence points. The
convergence point is a curved line so that on any given point on
the curved line, the curved line is 100 feet from the
convergence point. That basically is represented on the drawing
that you have, the first sheet that is there. I know it had been
submitted to the Building Department for concurrence. And the
Building Department has so designated that a variance is not
required. As a result, that there is nothing on this that is
outside of the permitted aspects of the use. There is not an
issue with the hundred-foot setback. There is not an issue with
anything else. We do propose from the top of the blank, we do
propose to clear within the proposed buffer area, which is
15-foot recommended with permitted plantings. I will point out
that the nature of the property, for the most part, is that a
large portion of that tips back landward rather than seaward.
So it's very helpful. We thought that 15 feet was a better
representation than ten in terms of having the width of the
buffer something like that. There is, if you look at A100.1
you'll see a green area which is the proposed fill area, the
1,293 cubic yards in there. The excavation that is in the
foundation area, now the foundation area is all outside, and
including the roof area is outside the hundred feet all the way
Board of Trustees 29 May 15, 2019
through. With the exception, to be pointed out, to be fair,
because zoning allows a two-foot overhang of eaves into the
setback requirements. And it did take a little extra there. The
fill in the front basically really is there in order to fill up
against the foundation in order to assure that the foundation is
not a basement or a cellar, so that more than 50% is in the
ground. When we moved it back originally because we had it before
the zoning and had anticipated that, we Were some ways closer to
the top, and at that particular point it was not as dramatic in
terms of the amount of cotton tail that was required. But moving
it back in order to comply with the zoning decision to stay back
100 feet. We are really between that 26-foot line and the 18-foot
elevation on the lower side. What is critical about that is
that if you look in the front you'll see the VE zone line at 13,
basically, zone level. The property is unique in this manner, in
that if we do have a flood in the front, that flood does come
around to the back and will flood that, because there is an entrance,
if you look at the elevation on the back is ten, but that
elevation drains all the way around. So flooding will occur. So
we were really left with a fairly narrow opportunity to avoid
and abide by the zoning requirements in terms of the setbacks
there, but also keep it high enough away so that the lower
section doesn't flood. And that lower section I believe is on
the 28 and 20 foot elevation. So that's why that foundation is
within that particular zone. Because we moved it back, the
septic system, which is going to be recommended an IA system, was
moved seaward of the house into that hundred-foot zone. It was
the only place it can be because it had to be 150 feet away from
the wetlands and 20 foot away from the pool. So there was no
other place to put it. But it does meet the requirements of the
setback from the Health Department. So it is recommended, the IA
system is recommended to be put in there.
The structure itself, the house structure itself, if you
know on there where the top of the bank intersects with the
property line, which is on the kind of like the westerly side,
the northwesterly side there, is approximately 35 feet to the
foundation, from that bank point. But what makes it, and I'm
not going to get into too much at that particular point, but at
that point, the bank is all sloping to and inclining toward the
shoreline, essentially, like that. But south of that point or
landward of,that point, all the landing clines the other way.
So in essence it really almost doesn't fit the definition at
that particular point of s bank when it leaves the property
line, because the foundation and everything there, if you look
at the contour lines at that point, are really going away from
the beach, essentially, than inclining all the way down. So
really the location of the house is the only feasible place it
can be on the property. It does not intrude nor does it trigger
any zoning variance requirements. It was specifically designed
in order to accommodate that. That was what our decision with
zoning had said we needed to do. It basically, we think it makes
Board of Trustees 30 May 15, 2019
good use of the property to the south in a very difficult way in
order to lay it out in a way that we can basically fit it in between
the hundred-foot setback and all of the pond behind it.
As I had mentioned, there is 1,293 yards of fill in the
front, so about 200 some odd yards of excavation and another 676
yards which are going to be landward of the house which may or
may not be in your jurisdiction. But it still doesn't really
matter, it's something I wanted to discuss.
And that's pretty much the overview. I think that one of
the important things I did want to point out here is we did
decide on the convergence point, that was decided basically upon
the definition in your letter, that one section of letter
describing how that particular point should be addressed in
terms of the setback from the convergence point. We presented
that to the Trustees and in the application the Trustees
submitted to the Building Department who reviewed it in terms of
the anything having to do with zoning found it to be exempt from
any zoning regulations and codes and therefore is before you.
We think it's as good a use of that particular piece that
we then do and come up with in terms of the size of the house
and something like that. Are there any questions of me?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In terms of non-turf area in relation to the
point of convergence and the bluff that was flagged.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 15 feet, yes.
MR. KIMACK: We have 15 all the way across the bluff and the bank.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How will you address the LWRP coordinator's
comments; how do you plan on clearing that area getting toward
the top of the bluff?
MR. KIMACK: The area up to the top is, I know there is several
fairly mature trees, I won't say fairly mature, none of them are
really large, along the top of the bluff. Six, eight inch
caliper, perhaps. But most of the vegetation up there is, a lot
of it is thorn bush all the way through there, basically and
none of it is really indigenous. We did want/to clear that out
so we can plant permissible indigenous planting back in that
15-foot zone. There is really not much up there along that line
that represents an indigenous species. When we get to the top
and then going down the bluff is a whole different matter. None
of that will be touched. Both DEC permits require that. The DEC
ran along the same bluff line with that that we have on this
drawing, essentially like that, and prohibits any cutting
seaward of that particular line. And that follows the 26 line
going across the bank. But I have not been on the site for a
while, but when I did walk it several times to stake it out, the
three times, it really, most of it is covered by thorn bush.
Heavy, heavy, heavy growth of thorn bush.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Is there anyone else here that wishes to
speak regarding this application?
MR. FINNEGAN: Good evening, again. Martin,Finnegan, Twomey,
Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo. I am here once again
on behalf of the neighbors Nick and Laurie (sic) and Jerry Fulbright (sic)
Board of Trustees 31 May 15, 2019
who own the properties -- and Caroline Zapp (sic) --who own three
properties surrounding the subject premises on Birdseye Road,
and I just would like at the outset, if I may, to hand up a
letter which details my comments. I'm just going to briefly
address some of them. I also have a letter from Bob Grover who
is here. I'll hand that up in a second. I did give Mike a copy
of it this time.
So, as Mike mentioned and the Board is aware, the
development of this property was the subject of a previous
application to the Zoning Board last year. And as we detailed in
our letter there is significant findings made in that proceeding
that we believe are relevant here, recognizing that there was a
modification to the plan and that the house was moved back. But the
crux of our concerns here stem from really significant detailed
findings in that proceeding that occurred not a year ago, and
the basis of the application today. I really think it's
critical that the Board not review this application in a vacuum
without consideration of those prior findings.
The prior surveys and testimony that were presented at the
ZBA hearing as recently as April 2018, confirmed that the top of
the bluff extended across the entire property, parallel to the
coastal erosion hazard line. Bob Grover is here, as I mentioned,
from Greenman-Pedersen and he'll offer his analysis of the
location of the bluff, because we take issue with this
bluff/bank convergence point.
But, at the outset I just want to reiterate that it's clear
that the proposed construction here is expansive. And that
really is the root of my client's concerns and the concerns of
other neighboring property owners. We are talking about
construction that embodies the entire lot area coverage, you
know, a large house, 7,000 square feet, decks, terraces,
swimming pool, which will all require significant grading,
clearing, use of heavy machinery, bulldozers, front-end loaders,
dump trucks, you name it. So our client's concerns really stem
from that level construction activity occurring 100 feet from
the top of the bluff and, you know, the concern that that will
have, the impacts that could have on the surrounding properties.
The ZBA's unanimous decision denying the requested variance
relief before them from the bluff setback relied on comments
from a number of individuals regarding the fragility of this
property. Mark Terry, LWRP coordinator, at that time found that
the property contains large areas of slopes equal to or greater
than 15%, and that to protect life and property during storm
events and erosion over time, it's recommended to locate
structures as far from the Long Island Sound bluff to the
greatest extent practicable. The Town Engineer issued comments
based on his review of the Suffolk County LIDAR contours and
concluded the top of the bluff shifted further landward toward
the eastern portion of the property, and that was noted on the
applicant survey. Mr. Grover testified at the hearing and
actually approached the Board and was asked to review the survey
Board of Trustees 32 May 15, 2019
and marked where the bluff actually existed, which deviated from
the survey at that time. And that finding was later verified by
this Board on inspection.
So as recently as a year ago, everyone who looked at this
property and analyzed the location of the bluff, agreed that it
spanned the entire width of the property, and the ZBA denied the
application based on a finding that granted setback relief to
allow construction within that bluff setback would result in
adverse and unrecoverable impacts of the bluff. And that
determination was not challenged. But despite all these
findings, a short time later, the application was resubmitted.
The property is moved back, however we have this determination
that the bluff or a portion of the bluff halfway across the
front was transformed into a bank and as a result there is no
setback requirement from the bank in the code and we can pivot
the house toward the water.
I'm given to understand based on, essentially based on my
conversations with Damon, that this is based on the application
of the definition of a bluff in the code that was adopted by the
Town Board in 2017 and subsequent field inspections and
flagging's by Jay. I'm going to ask Bob to step up now and just
briefly discuss his findings with respect to the bluff. These
are the same findings that he made not even a year ago before
the ZBA and, you.know, I just want to submit that it's our
position that the bluff is still a bluff and, you know, that it
spans the entire width of the property. Bob, if you can just
come up now and I'll have a few more comments after that.
As he comes up, I wanted to hand up his letter for the
record as well.
MR. GROVER: Good evening. My name is Bob Grover, I'm the
Director of Environmental Coastal Sciences at Greenman-Pedersen,
otherwise known as GPI, in Babylon. Our firm has about 1,300
professionals including architects, engineers, scientists,
landscape architects and others. I've worked there for 47 years,
which every time I remind myself of that I'm rather amazed, and
in the course of those 47 years I conducted well over 100
coastal studies. My background is in ecology and coastal
geology. So I have conducted, as I said, well over 100 coastal
studies on the east end of Long Island. As an example, I have
served since 2007 as the coastal consultant for Suffolk County
on various erosion issues on the south shore starting with some
disaster declarations, and around 2006, 2007, there were two of
them, and then finally in, I guess 2010 was Irene, 2012 we had
Sandy, and I have been working since then. And the Corps of
Engineers came in with their massive Fire Island inlet to
Montauk Point project, that I have been reviewing that for the
County ever since. A project that is winding down.
Closer to home, I've conducted studies on Goldsmith inlet,
don't know if there is any relation or not, and also Kenney's
beach and Orient state park where after Sandy we did a beach
restoration for the Department of Parks. So my resume is
Board of Trustees 33 May 15, 2019
included with my letter. And I also point out I'm currently
representing the Friends of Georgica Pond on advising them with
some issues resulting, involving their much-publicized water
quality problems. So I'm pretty well versed in this particular
field. And in February of last year, I conducted a site
investigation of property in preparation for my testimony before
the Board of Appeals. And I did find at the time that it's a
very heavily-vegetated lot and it has extreme geological
constraints including steep slopes, swales and coastal bluffs.
And frankly, in my professional opinion, the property is not
suitable for any development.` But I'm not someone who wants to
deprive a property owner of reasonable use of his property. So
I believe there are ways that can be achieved without a project
as massive as this. So let me talk a little about the bluff,
then I'll get into some-other things.
This is actually one of my county projects, but I'm
repurposing -- is this recording, if I don't talk into the mic?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: We appreciate you talking into the mic.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can move a couple feet away.
MR. GROVER: The gentleman was here earlier with the easel, I
thought that was your easel. When he walked out, I said, oh, no,
I should have brought one. Okay. I'll just hold it up.
So I guess what we are trying to resolve here is what's a
bank and what's a bluff. And I can tell you as a coastal
geologist this is sort of a silly discussion. I don't think
there is a competent coastal geologist on the east coast who
will tell you that's not a coastal bluff. But the Town has
imposed some criteria that has to be fulfilled. And I
understand that. I did an analysis which is included as an
attachment in my letter that clearly shows that the area that is
considered a bank now does have slopes in excess of 20%, and
it's a bit of a gray area. I believe it's 20-feet high, but the
problem that we are running into here is that you don't have
very good tools as your disposal to make a determination on the
actual height of the bluff, because it's very close. I would
recommend in the future or even on this project, that you
require an applicant to come in on a project like this where a
determination like this has to be made, with a survey of one-foot
contour intervals rather than two. The reason I say that is
the Suffolk County LIDAR maps which I consulted this afternoon,
and unfortunately I can't reproduce them in a way that makes
them particularly readable. But I can read them on the computer,
with the help of some of the people who are more tech savvy than
I am in the office. And it does look like the bluff, to me, the
top of the bluff is somewhere around elevation 29. And the
bottom of the bluff is somewhere around elevation Nine. That
Suffolk County LIDAR is one-foot contour interval. So we are in
�a very gray area here. And to me it doesn't really matter what
you call it. It really needs to be protected. And the setbacks
shown on the applicant's site plan are far, far from sufficient
to adequately protect this feature. The application talks about
Board of Trustees 34 May 15, 2019
extensive regrading, fill, heavy machinery, and there was
mention of I guess a 15-foot non-disturbance buffer. But then I
believe I heard Mr. Kimack say the non-disturbance buffer will
be cleared so they can plant it with native vegetation. Whether
or not the vegetation in that buffer is native, it has a root
system and it has some stabilizing influence. And I don't think
15 feet-- 15 feet is two of these tables where your
stenographer is sitting. It's not very wide. And it's less than
that, actually.
So the buffer has to be increased. Absolutely. There should
not be any heavy machinery on the bluff. To me that's really
asking for trouble. I don't know if you are familiar with the
phenomenon of soil liquefaction, but soil liquefaction is what
happens when, particularly a bluff that is composed of clay, and
most of Long Island's bluffs are composed of clay, and when they
are subject to vibrations, those clay particles start to slide
against each other and become very slippery, and catastrophic
bluff failure can easily occur. So I would not recommend having
any heavy machinery, I would not be doing any excavating as
close to the edge of the bluff bank as this application is
calling for. And in addition, introducing impervious surfaces in
this area, the roof of the house, for instance, is going to
change the hydrology of the site, whether it's recharged, if
it's possible to be recharged in these clay soils, the hydrology
is going to change. And I worry about what that will do with
the stability of the bluff. I believe that there is plenty of
room on the site for, again, reasonable use of the property.
The house can be setback significantly further, it can be
downsized, with some clever engineering it can really be moved
back a lot, probably without a great deal of downsizing.
So one last point I want to get into that is really, really
important and I don't hear it talked about enough in forums like
this, although in my day-to-day work we talk about it every day.
And that's climate change. We are in an area of significant
climate change. It's happening rapidly and it's accelerating.
And we are facing in the next 30 years, 30 years is a reasonable
planning horizon for a residential structure, we are looking at,
I'll round off, rounding down, actually, we are looking at,
because this is something that gets, it's kind of catchy. We are
looking at 20 inches by 2050. 20 inches of sea level rise by
2050. And that is when this house will be about 30-years old.
When the sea level rises, and I don't think I have to tell you
all that. The Trustees in my experience are a little more
scientifically savvy than points of boards. But when sea level
rises, the level of attack during storms is higher up on the
bluff. And it's much easier for it to start cutting away at the
base of the bluff, which then of course causes catastrophic
failure. Bluffs and beaches are way different. Beaches have the
ability to recover from storm damage. The sand is transported
offshore during the storm and can be transported back onshore
when calmer weather follows the storm, and the beach rebuilds
Board of Trustees 35 May 15, 2019
itself in a natural way. Bluffs can't do that. That bluff as you
all know was formed by a glacier. And we are fresh out of
glaciers. As this thing erodes, there is no coming back. And
with,the rate of sea level rise that we know is going to happen,
this is going to erode.
Now just one more thing, I just want to touch on very
briefly, this feature that is providing some legs to the idea
that this is a bank and not a bluff, I'll just point to it here,
it's right here (indicating). You can also see it on your aerial
photograph, your Google map. But what is this. You have to ask
yourself. Why did this form like this? That was not part of the
original bluff formation. And I'll tell you what it is. It's a
blowout. It's an area where the bluff failed. And I think it's
probably a combination of two things. There is evidence of a
pedestrian walkway that follows that down, and there has been a
lot of foot traffic I'm guessing from local people going down to
the beach, and foot traffic is really bad for the base of a
bluff. And I think that's caused some of the erosion, and I
think it's also been attacked by storms. And so the idea that
we have an unstable area of a bluff that is essentially a
blowout area is justification for having an area above it not be
a coastal bluff. It just doesn't make any sense to me. There is
just no science that supports it.
So I would urge that, barring a significant change in
configuration of the proposed development, I really think that
this can't be approved in its current iteration. And I would
recommend that it be denied. And I would love to answer
questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So my first question, is why would having a
house on the top of this property significantly landward from
the bluff/bank area increase erosion at the bottom during sea
level rise and a storm events?
MR. GROVER: No, the erosion will happen whether the house is
there or not. It's just going to make the house more vulnerable.
One foot of sea level rise will start to cause serious
deterioration of the bluff. And that's only 15 or 20 years into
the lifetime of the house, once it's constructed. So now all of
a sudden what is a 50-foot setback from the edge of the
established bluff or 35 from the bank, which is insane, all of a
sudden that becomes much less. That becomes 15 or 25. Now you
have a house in danger. And that could have been avoided.
Putting a house that close to the bluff is just plain poor
planning.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Kimack, can you address the point about this
being a bluff all the way across the entirety of this property
and why we --
MR. KIMACK: We had, subsequent to the zoning meeting which there
was not any specific information that had been given to the
Zoning Board to make a determination as to what was a bluff and
what was a bank, we were working in a different level at that
particular time. After the decision came down to say that they
Board of Trustees 36 May 15, 2019
want us to give back 100 feet. I spent time with the surveyor,
time with your Board, primarily, to make a determination based
on the definition in the code as to what is a bluff, what is a
bank. We determined what we believed to be half bluff and half
bank on this property and to establish what is concerned to be a
convergence point between the bluff and the bank based upon the
definition that is in the code. So essentially the code is by a
bluff, and if it's not a bluff, it's a bank.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: In other words you recognize the toe of the
bluff at elevation ten feet and the top of this bank,
bluff, whatever you want to call is 26 feet. That's a difference
of 16 feet and therefore it doesn't meet the definition of what
is a bluff.
MR. KIMACK: Correct, because the bluff has an added situation,
there has to be the per cent and the height, basically. If you
look at the contours there, the top of the bluff really runs
over, basically, runs on the 34 line, for the most part, running
across. Then it runs across the line that John Bredemeyer had
said. But it doesn't meet the definition. We presented it to
you, you objectively looked at it. You involved the Town
Attorney, you involved the Town Engineer in that decision. You
wrote your letter in accordance to the definition of how you
would define coming back from the convergence point. But there
was an agreement in terms of the convergence point between
myself and the Board in terms of that location. And then this
particular layout was in accordance to the language in your
letter indicating how we were supposed to address coming back
from the convergence point to make sure that at any given point
for the convergence point was 100 feet. And therefore you see
the arced line that goes across there.
MR. GROVER: I may not have been clear on --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Excuse me. Thank you. I have another question
for you, Mr. Kimack. I'm looking at the southerly portion of
that property and I see the ten-foot contour line and a 12-foot
contour line that wraps around it. Doesn't that indicate the
direction in which water would flow?
MR. KIMACK: Yes. And I have been out there, basically, and
observed at that particular pond, in the spring time, primarily,
because it drains probably about three, four five acres around
there, primarily. It would rise up to about 12 elevation.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So water naturally would tend to drain in an
easterly direction.
MR. KIMACK: Easterly direction, yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I think the point I'm seeing is that this
particular, all of this geologic feature is probably an ancient
river system or stream.
MR. KIMACK: I respectively disagree that is a blowout bluff,
basically. I think it's just the natural contour working itself
around. It is well vegetated. But I think the point here is we
did establish --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would tend to agree with you. I'll ask you
Board of Trustees 37 May 15, 2019
another question. I'm looking at the soil test here that goes
down 38 feet. If I could read it quickly. The first 18 feet are
brown, sandy silt with gravel. The next three feet are silty
sands. The next ten feet are brown clay sand. And lastly the
remaining seven feet is coarse sand. So I'm not, in your
experience, is this bluff entirely made of clay and likely to --
MR. KIMACK: No, it's not.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Likely to have catastrophic failure if--
MR. KIMACK: It has not had a catastrophic failure to date. In
order to make sure it does not in the future, in order to
comply, the house was moved back 100 feet from the designated
line. There is not going to be any heavy machinery working on
the slope. That particular pathway will be cut by hand going
down there. There is no machinery going in that area. That was
also designated by DEC when they approved it. There will be no
heavy machinery at all on the slope. Obviously we have to avoid
it completely. But everything basically from the top of that
bluff and also going down to the top of the bluff, all of it
comes back toward the pond in the back there. You know, two-foot
contour, one-foot contour, six-inch contour, eventually we'll
get down to that. This is the way the surveyors always lay
these out. This is the way that you had looked at it in terms
of trying to make a determination of convergence point. And I
think we were in agreement with that. Based upon that, my client
went out and designed accordingly in order to be in conformance
with the zoning requirements, and also to stay back at least 100
feet in order to give the maximum protection to the bluff and
the bank.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Could you, roughly on the map there, depict
the layout of the house, the proposed house in relation to the
neighboring structures?
MR. KIMACK: Yes, I think I can. Roughly here.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So much further landward than the neighboring
houses.
MR. KIMACK: Yes. I think this is the drainage area right behind
it. This area going this way. And I think the house is this way.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a question for fellow Board members.
We see an awful lot of test hole profiles. Is this a test
profile you would be concerned about typically to bring to the
attention of the town engineering department?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's pretty typical test hole profile that
we see throughout eastern Long Island. And I have seen a couple
of thousand.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I have a question for Mr. Grover. Do you have
historical photographic proof of a blowout or is it just your
opinion it blew out?
MR. GROVER: No, it's my opinion just based on photo
interpretation I have done based on hundreds of these. If I had
more time tonight I would have tried to do more historical
analysis. And by the way I didn't mention, I put this up
Board of Trustees 38 May 15, 2019
because this is the state DEC's Coastal Erosion Hazard Area map
and it shows a continuous unbroken bluff line. So this is a
bluff by DEC definition, if not by the town definition. But
this photograph was taken in 1984. That's when they did the
CEHA flights, and the blowout existed back then. So it predates
that.
And also, if I may, I just want to address this issue of
clay again. Silt behaves the same. I should have been more
specific. If you take some silt between your thumb and
forefinger in one hand and some clay between your two fingers in
your other hand and you go like this, you'll see they both
become very, very slippery. And also one test hole is not
sufficient to really pinpoint where pockets of clay may be. So
I totally stand by my concerns about liquefaction. I'm not sure
Mr. Kimack's characterization on where the house would be on the
aerial photo is correct, though. I believe the seaward limit of
the house is a lot closer. And again, regarding the heavy
machinery, I would not allow any heavy machinery within 50 to 75
feet of the top of that bluff. I think that's asking for serious
trouble.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'm looking at a survey here, it shows this
house well behind the neighbor's house on the plan here, site
plan.
MR. KIMACK: Well, it is, on the easterly�side, yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How would you say that this location is less
stable than your clients' properties that are on the south?
MR. GROVER: Oh, I don't think it is. If I were my clients I
would be looking to move those houses. Again, we are looking at
a serious acceleration of shoreline erosion, particularly bluffs
that can't recover. So, no, I would not say they are any less
vulnerable. Their houses have been there a long time. But
again, if that was my house, which it would not be, I would move
it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Fair enough.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I don't have any further questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other questions or comments from
the Board at this time?
(Negative response).
MS. FINNEGAN: Thank you. I want to just wrap it up by, first of
all, the letter I submitted has a lot of the details of the ZBA
findings and when Mike visited he'll be reminded of the
discussion of the bluff and the location of the bluff which was
at the heart of their review. And that determination Bob drew
it on line, it's your decision to go through it, and they
clearly based it on here is the bluff, it goes clear across.
And I think we are getting caught up in this distinction of this
bluff/bank based on the recent code amendment that creates this
distinction that really there is no scientific basis. It's a
legal definition. The reality is nothing has changed on this
property since the ZBA determination. The areas of concerns that
Mark Terry noted, that the Town Engineer noted then, that Bob
Board of Trustees 39 May 15, 2019
noted then, that are reflected in the ZBA decision, are all
there. The only thing that changed is we've applied a different
definition of bluff and bank. And I don't know that we can
really say that in the last several months that the concerns
that were raised then have evaporated.
Yes, moving back the house has helped significantly. But,
you know, we are not asking for much here. I think the concerns,
our clients are not opposed to construction on this property.
They are not asking for anything more than if there is a debate
as to bluff or bank and we reinstate that 100-foot setback
across the entire property, we are talking about moving this
back very -- not a big deal. It's not a big leap here. It's a
short trip.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Could you give me a number that defines not a
big deal?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Can you define that short trip?
MR. FINNEGAN: If you look at the survey that Mike has, if you
look at where the hundred-foot setback line stops, because of
the convergence point comes down, there is a little section of
the house that pivots up into the setback area. I don't know,
there is no detailed measurements on these plans so I can't tell
you what it is. I don't know that anybody knows how far it's
protruding into the setback area. All I'm saying is you have a
significantly-sized structure here. Yes, there is an attempt to
move it back but there is valid concerns about this bluff. There
is valid concerns that were part of a decision to deny relief
that was extensively reviewed by the Zoning Board. So look, our
clients are looking forward to welcoming Mr. Zappata to the
neighborhood. I don't think pulling this thing back a little
bit, putting it inside what would be the hundred-foot mark.
It's a small concession that could have a significant impact.
Not just on this property. I mean we want this property to be
there forever. We want this house to be there forever. But we
want our houses to be there forever, too. And comparing what was
constructed years and years ago, and comparing it to what is
constructed today, I don't think that's relevant. I think what
we are talking about today, what is there today and what the
impacts are going to be in the future. So that's really it. It
is a request to just consider some minor, you know,
reconfiguration of this house, pull it back a little bit, within
the setback and everybody is happy. And that's really the bottom
line. We are not looking to say deny it, don't let the guy build
this house. That's not why we are here. It just there doesn't
seem to be any reasonable basis for not respecting that 100-foot
line under the circumstances of property here, at this pretty
significant level of development. So we ask you to consider
that as you review this, and I thank you for your time.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
MR. KIMACK: One quick comment. Just to point out that area that
they would ask us to move back, which we declined to do because
Board of Trustees 40 May 15, 2019
we think we moved it back sufficiently. That one side over there
on the easterly side where the foundation will be going in, all
of that basically slopes away from the water line and away from
anything going out. It's very, very shallow at that point.
That's all.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to also point out if we are going
to do long-term thinking about sea level rise, and most of us
agree with that reality, there will also be a rise in the ground
water. And we were very concerned on the southern portion of
this property, which I pointed out before, the ten and 12 foot
contour line, if it had a little more clay in it, it would be a
freshwater wetland. And if there is a sea level rise, that may
in fact become in the future a freshwater wetland. And that
was a consideration for us in not moving, forcing you to move
the building further back. And it also relates to my question
before about giving me a specific number about how far back to
move the building.
MR. KIMACK: I think that we have done everything to respect the
property and respect the slope to make sure that house is going
to meet the desires of my client and at the same time meet the
natural and governmental limitation imposed upon the property.
MS. FINNEGAN: I want to make a final request, I forgot to
mention before. I have the neighbor I believe she may want to
speak. There are other neighbors that were not able to attend
and I would just ask the make the request to keep the record
open for a brief period of time for any other comments that
people may want to submit.
MS. LAVECCHIA: My name is Leslie Lavecchia. I live at 908
Birdseye Road. I had my house for about six-and-a-half years. I
was, I bought it the week before Super Storm Sandy. So I'm
familiar with all this drainage issues. And I have actually been
in front of you guys for some construction.
So one of the things that concerns me as a layman is why
does the house have to be so big and take up so much of the
property. The other thing that concerns me is substantial
landfill and the drainage, the regrading. The water runoff is a
really big deal since I'm-the house next door. And the
excavation and the heavy machinery. Somehow I feel this is going
to affect my property, the Josephson's, the Matisoni's. And I
just don't know if the people around this lot have been
considered.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Your house is immediately to the west?
MS. LAVECCHIA: To the east, actually.
MR. KIMACK: If I may make a quick comment. My client is entitled
To, from the CEHA shoreline back, to utilize up to 20%. That has
not been exceeded. So that is his right, he has a right to
do so. His house if you can look at those houses, all of the
adjoining properties around, even the one behind, does not look
directly at the house. The two on both sides are forward. The
one directly behind looks in a northeasterly direction. And the
one, the other house if you can see off to the east over there,
Board of Trustees 41 May 15, 2019
are looking pretty much over the top of the Josephson's. So the
house, even though it's of a different design, it's a design my
client desires, is not going to impose itself of a visual form.
I know that's not within your purview, but I thought I would make
that point.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MS. LAVECCHIA: I don't think how it will be visually. I'm just
talking about water runoff and a drainage situation and how that
will affect our houses. And if there is going to be all this
construction, from nothing to something, there has to be an
affect on the seven houses around this lot.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To just briefly respond to your comments. The
Board has been looking at this application for a long time and
has taken all the elevations and drainage into consideration.
MS. LAVECCHIA: Okay. And just so you know, my driveway is pretty
consistently flooded out. And I have drywells and I have shrub
plantings that absorb supposedly water. So after all of this
land is excavated and there is a retaining wall and landfill and
all of the shrubbery is removed, I,can't imagine it not
affecting the other houses.
MR. KIMACK: There is only 200 cubic yards roughly of excavation,
but there is approximately 1,776 yards of fill. So there is not
excavation to a large extent.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comments from the Board or
anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application at this time?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I have no questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Board has an extensive history on this
property. The applicant has worked with the Board at
pre-submissions and work sessions, multiple site visits. We
looked at the topography, drainage. We actually requested a
3-D, three-dimensional model of the property so we cannot just
visualize on property and 2-D on plans, but hold the house and
property in our hands to see what would actually be put there.
At this time 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
submitted.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number seven McCarthy Management, Inc. On
behalf of ANDREW FLINN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
20'x40' in-ground swimming pool with a 4'wide on-grade brick
walk around pool; install a 4'x4' pool drywell to contain pool
backwash; install a 6'x8' pool equipment area; install 4' high
pool enclosure fencing; and install an 18'x40' on-grade patio.
Located: 1500 Bay Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-8-12.9
Board of Trustees 42 May 15, 2019
The Trustees completed field inspection on May 8th, 2019,
noting the project is straightforward, and staking was not
evident on site.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application, although it was not staked.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Again, nobody here wishes to speak to this application. I'll
make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll ask for a five-minute recess.
(After a five-minute recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, we are back on the record. Number eight,
Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of MICHAEL & DANA
SAVINO requests a Wetland Permit for the existing ±104 linear
foot long bulkhead to have all timbers and sheathing cut down
and partially removed to be flush with the existing native
seaward grade in-place; install ±96 linear feet of new vinyl
bulkhead 5' landward of proposed low-sill bulkhead with all
construction of the new bulkhead to be positioned at or landward
of 170' from the property's upland corners in conformity with
prior Board of Trustee action, and that prior Board of Trustees
action basically allowed for construction on the property of the
owner; the proposed new bulkhead may be up to 18" higher(eight
to 12 inches is suggested), and use the fill generated as a
result of the new bulkhead's more landward position; harvest
portions of the living Spartina alterniflora plants within two
or three feet of the existing bulkhead for subsequent replanting
in the approximate nine-foot area of disturbance resulting from
removing the old bulkhead and soils shall be considered in lieu
of plants from an upland source; remove ±60 cubic yards of fill
between the two bulkhead to create ±475 sq. ft. of tidal wetland
area and vegetate with Spartina alterniflora planted on 12"
centers, and viable plants harvested from disturbed areas; the
5'wide deck area between the proposed at existing seaward grade
bulkhead and proposed vinyl bulkhead to be converted to
open-grate decking supported by cantilevered beams supporting a
maximum of a six-foot wide non-toxic "thru-flow" style deck with
no independent piles or supports extending into the creek bottom
Board of Trustees 43 May 15, 2019
for supporting the maximum six-foot wide deck; a new catwalk
extension to bridge the gap created by the more landward
bulkhead meeting the exiting dock may include the minimum number
of pile supports necessary (maximum of four) and the deck will
be surfaced with "thru-flow" decking.
Located: 1945 Bayview Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-6-37
The Trustees have a long history with this property. Back
at one point there was a permit issued. My understanding it
expired.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council on May 8th resolved not
to support the application. The project is not Dark Skies
compliant. There is an objection with raising the bulkhead and a
concern with the size and legality of the existing docking
facility.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. BOWMAN: Charles Bowman, for the applicant. This has a very
long history and I think John can attest to that. We have been
meeting out there for years and years and years and years. All
those meetings ended up in a resolution, permit issued in 2016.
The work has not been completed yet. The Savino's were going to
sell the house. I understand now that they are in contract to
sell it, so the work will be done. But this application is
identical to all that work that we had gone through, the
decisions that were made by the Board, the resolution that was
agreed to by the owners,-and I would certainly hate to open up a
can of worms. We just want to get it renewed and go forward and
get the work done and be done with it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak though this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted noting it is identical to the one that was approved in
2016. `
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. BOWMAN: Thank you, so much. I'll never be here again.
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore. Can I say something? My client is
buying the property. Is it good for two years?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Two years.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Make sure they come in with an extension if
they don't get it done by then.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
Board of Trustees 44 May 15;2019
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number nine, Samuels &
Steelman Architects on behalf of STEVE & MARCIA DONADIC requests
a Wetland Permit to eradicate existing invasive bamboo from site
by approved methods consisting of cutting all bamboo to just
above grade, excavate all roots and soil down to 36" at
perimeter of property, construct retaining walls at front and
sides of property, within retaining walls excavate all roots and
soil down to 36", full width of site, in strips 20 feet wide
(seven strips total), truck excavated material to approved site,
and place clean sand fill in excavated strips, one at a time,
compacting as placed; propose to construct a new two-story frame
dwelling on masonry foundation with a footprint of 2,598 sq. ft.
over a flood compliant crawl space, and including an attached
one-car garage; construct a 138 sq. ft. covered masonry entry
terrace and 226 sq. ft. masonry walkway to grade; construct new
544 sq. ft. frame deck attached to seaward side of dwelling of
which 280 sq. ft. is covered; landward of dwelling install a new
galley conventional sanitary system per SCDHS with required 210
linear foot long waterproof concrete retaining wall; construct a
1,943 sq. ft. permeable parking area with curbing; construct 130
linear foot long retaining wall adjacent to neighboring property
to west; place approximately 1,400 cubic yards of clean fill
throughout property; provide topsoil and landscaping; provide
leaching pools for storm water runoff; provide underground
connections to public water supply; provide underground propane
tank for fuel; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 20'
wide non-turf buffer behind the landward edge of wetlands line
with a 4' wide maximum access path to beach.
Located: 1071 Bay Home Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-5-37
For the information of all attending, we only late this
afternoon got a report from the Town Engineering Department so
the Board has not had an opportunity to look at that.
The Board did perform field inspections and actually a
number of inspections have been performed. The Board did their
routine field inspection last week with all members present, and
a subsequent review has been undertaken before and after by the
chairman.
The LWRP coordinator has determined that this is
inconsistent with concerns, largely the groundwater. Preliminary
discussions with the Town engineer and those of us familiar with
ground conditions there, there is probably 70 to 80 foot of
solid wood clay under the property.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted not to support the
application.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. SAMUELS: Yes. Tom Samuels, architect. And also my clients
are here, Mr. and Mrs. Donadic. It is a site, for the reasons
that you state, clay in the ground and the bamboo on top of the
ground. Nevertheless we were hoping to find a way to develop
that site and build a house there, by first eradicating the
Board of Trustees 45 May 15, 2019
bamboo and by working with the health department to find a way
through that clay as they will do in certain circumstances to
allow that water to go through that layer of clay there. Our
test hole shows 48 feet, but a lot of clay, yes. It is, the way
they would do that presumably would be to literally dig through
and create a shaft of sand from conditions that are
satisfactory to them all the way up to the surface so the
system on the surface would leach in, through that sand, and
into ground water. But we are aware of the conditions and the
difficulties there and hope that you have some suggestions as to
how better for us, or how for us to proceed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER:-Yes. The Board will be in possession of the
engineering report shortly, and that a detailed engineering
report concerning how water will be handled on the site,
particularly with any proposed water or sewage retentive
structures, particularly if there is a proposed swimming pool or
other retaining walls. I know this is a little informal because
I'm getting this a little bit secondhand, but I believe there
were concerns about construction within any velocity zones or
restricting retaining structures from any velocity zones and how
fill will be handled in any areas of potential high energy wave
action, and particularly how drainage or how activities on the
property will mitigate potential impacts for drainage going
offsite to the adjacent road and to the neighbors. During the
field inspections we noted there appeared groundwater, there may
be fresh water but there was actually six to eight inches of
swale within the bamboo itself, and the ground was pretty spongy
all around the property. So groundwater elevations this year we
have found are up as much as a foot-and-a-half above normal. So
that means the test hole data may need to be updated. And there
again, a good engineer's report and systematically deal with the
mostly what are drainage and hydrological issues.
MS. SAMUELS: Great. There is no swimming pool. We are not in a
VE zone. There is a VE zone on the front portion of the
property. But we are in an AE6 zone. So yes, I suppose there
could be high tidal water situations, there but we are not in a
VE zone technically speaking. The foundation here would be a mat
re-enforced kind of footing that would go under a large part of
the house and it would literally sit on the clay. That's how we
would build a house here. We would not put pilings in the
ground. We would try and sit on that clay. In order to put a
sanitary system here and make it functional, we need to get
through to the Health Department satisfaction get through to
drainable materials. But a retaining wall would be necessary.
It does not extend into the VE zone but would go around two
sides of the site and on the opposite side have a retaining wall
to hold our fill in. So by that method we were expecting to try
to excavate down to the root left of the bamboo and eradicate
it, take it away and refill the site, the stripped base, with
clean sand.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The map that is provided here, we obtained
Board of Trustees 46 May 15, 2019
inhouse, I'm sorry, we have a map here of flood zones and the AE
elevation six zone actually comes in along across the private
road into the front of the property. I have an extra copy here
if you would like.
MR. SAMUELS: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a matter of personal experience, former
Town Trustee Art Foster, in his former life as a sewage
contractor, and in my former life as a county health official,
60 feet of solid blue clay on Blue Marlin Drive, when he broke
through, it came out onto the road for four days steady--put a
call through to Bob Villa -- because it was under hydraulic
pressure, it continued to flow for about four or five days. -
Unfortunately, unlike San Remo or certain sections of
Huntington, it continued to flow and roads had to be closed. It
did subside based on the expectations. But I think with respect
to looking down a ways, that also construction activities, you
should plan for this site the possibility of an interim flooding
situation onto the private road and neighboring properties from
excavation through solid wood clay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this point, this LIDAR that we just gave you,
I don't believe all the Board members had an opportunity to
study this. I spoke this morning with the town engineer about
the drainage of this property because we had not at that point
received a form letter. We did get an e-mail and a letter this
morning. So the point I'm trying to make is that neither I nor
the Board members have had sufficient time to study that, and I
think it might be beneficial also for you at some point, perhaps
we can have a work session or something to do something, because
there are some other concerns that the Town Engineer has brought
to the surface, no pun intended, that we need to address.
MR. SAMUELS: Can you let me know what those are now or--
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He asked if you were going to let him know now
MS. SAMUELS: What the host of issues are.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I don't know yet. I have not had a chance, so
that was my point, that we need time to study it.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: One concern I did have as I read it with the
retaining wall around the property, I have a concern with
habitat fragmentation.
MS. SAMUELS: I think bamboo I guess is a habitat now. Something
must live in there. But it's a very noxious invasive plant and
a problem for all around there whoever originally had planted It.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As discussions go forward and the Board will
be obliged to table this at your request or our request, we will
want to have a four-foot wide path through the property possibly
to view additional test hole or site-specific information and
also go into the point of staking of a house, four-foot wide
surveyors path, to be part of the decision and part of the work session.
MS. SAMUELS: So in other words clear enough that we can stake
actually where the house is. Because it's impossible right now
to even move around on the site. I think we came for a permit
from you to even clear a path so we can get in to do some kind
Board of Trustees 47 May 15, 2019
of topo here, which the surveyors were sort of able to do based
on the little narrow path that was there, which looks like it's
kind of getting obstructed now, things falling into it.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Waking through it, it's tough to get through
there. I came out with a couple if ticks, but I'll be okay.
MR. SAMUELS: So you are suggesting we'll schedule a time for a
work session.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We recommend tabling at your request and get
together at a work session and maybe having time before then to,
for the Board to review the engineering report.
MR. SAMUELS: Which I can pick up from Elizabeth, I assume.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
MS. SAMUELS: All right. So I would request that you please
table it, we'll be in communication with you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time, I make a motion to table this
application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number ten, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
PETER & DIANE MOLLICA requests a Wetland Permit to remove
existing timber bulkhead and landward replacement of 25 linear
feet of new vinyl bulkhead and 5 linear foot long bulkhead
return; remove existing 5'x22'floating dock and install a
6'x20' floating dock in new landward location of existing;
install new on-grade 5'wide un-treated walkway landward of
proposed bulkhead; and included in the work is the removal of
approximately 15 cubic yards of fill from landward side of
bulkhead prior to its relocation.
Located: Off Anchor Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-71-2-21
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
was a wetland permit for the existing structure was not located
within Town records, including the dock structure.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on May 8th,
noting it's a straightforward bulkhead replacement in an area
that has a history of docks and bulkheads.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. If up
have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else wish 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 WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 48 May 15, 2019
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
noting that by granting a permit it will bring it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number eleven, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
ROBERT & MARYBETH POLKE requests a Wetland Permit to stabilize
the eroded bank with coir logs, rip-rap, and plantings; a total
length of 268 lineal feet of coir logs will be installed with
three parallel rows which will be staked with oak stakes and
planted; a total length of 80 lineal feet of rip-rap will be
placed along the eroded bluff in areas shown on plans; rip-rap
to have a stabilization fabric placed beneath and be installed
in an interlocking fashion; all work to be landward of the
normal mean high water line and no additional fill will be added
to the site.
Located: 1325 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-11-9
The Trustees visited this location on the 8th of May and
noted it was a straightforward application.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
this application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak-regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. If you
have any questions I would happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here who wishes
to speak regarding this application or any comments from anyone
on 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: Motion to approve this application as
submitted'.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 12, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of KENNETH W. QUIGLEY& MARJON VAN EYK requests a Wetland
Permit to reconstruct the existing dockage and connecting
landward walkway consisting of a proposed new 4.0'x21.0'
landward walkway extension supported by eight (8) 6" diameter
posts; a new 4.0'x33.0' fixed elevated catwalk supported by ten
(10) 6" diameter pilings; a 3.0'x15' hinged ramp; and a
6.0'x20.0'floating dock secured by four(4) 8" diameter
pilings, with the floating dock utilizing vertical stays to
Board of Trustees 49 May 15, 2019
maintain an elevation of 2.5' over the underwater bottom land.
Located: 2245 Little Peconic Bay Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-1-16
On May 7th, 2019, the Trustees completed a site inspection
with notes at present time mid-tide insufficient water depth,
proposed dock float only at 1.4' depth at mean low water.
Thru-flow required on dock and walkway from deck and walkway.
Applicant must resign to meet code.
The LWRP coordinator found this project proposed action to
be inconsistent with notes that permits for the existing dock
structure have not been located within Town records. A
representative vessel has not been provided. Will the proposed
vessel be powered manually, (kayak or canoe), and (sail or
engine)? In addition, 1.4'water depth at terminus of dock is
not adequate for the safe operation of most sail and engine
powered vessels. The grounding and result of resting hulls on
the bottom also increases turbidity. It is recommended the Board
clarify the difference in elevation between mean high water and
mean low water. The wood products of which the dock will
constructed have not been specified. Clarify the type of wood
proposed, treated versus untreated. Also the information has not
been provided, the alternative use of seasonal moorings in areas
of low biological productivity and with adequate water depths is
a better option to accommodate vessels requiring greater water
depths. This information has not been provided. Preserve the
public interest in and use of lands and waters found within the
public trust by the state and the Town of Southold. The proposed
dock will further extend into public waters resulting in a net
decrease in public access to public underwater lands in the near
shore area. Very low water depth most likely will result in
adverse impacts to water quality for motorized vessels by
increasing turbidity and bottom scarring as a result of
grounding. Further it is likely that the hull of the vessel will
be resting on the bottom during low water events.
The Conservation Advisory Council did review this
application and resolved to support the application.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
for the applicant. Okay, the vessel moored was right there in
the driveway as you walked out. It was a pontoon boat. It was on
the end of the driveway. You had to walk past it.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: As that may be, it was not described in the
Application.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. We can certainly add that to the
application. Number two, there is a dock there. The dock is
partially permitted. In other words the seaward end of the dock
was permitted,for some reason due to a flaw in the record
system. It didn't include a portion of the catwalk. So this is
not an unpermitted dock. It is a case where there are
insufficient records. But there are in fact records of this dock
being permitted at least in part. It should have been fully
Board of Trustees 50 May 15, 2019
described.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: The dock is near its age. We don't argue
that.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. So it's not unpermitted. Second, as to water
depths. We recognize that the water depths are low there and so
the dock structure provides for a critical cable phase to
prevent the portion of the dock from resting on the bottom.
This is something that this Board approved for us in the past
and we did one of these just a month or two ago on Goose Creek.
And the same was done for three other docks adjacent to that. I
can provide you with that permitting information. The idea is
that under a low water situation, you don't want the dock
resting on the bottom. And these chocks, which is done by a
cable, do work and they reliably work for many years, and I can
provide with you those records and those approvals.
The business about the boat, you don't really regulate
boats. You may want to see a boat that we can depict on the plan
but if I refer you back to your own plan, you'll see that the
distance between this dock and the dock directly across the way
is 220 feet and it is inconceivable that it presents any kind of
navigational hazard to any of the users of West Lake. It does
line up relatively closely with the dock that we did for the
adjacent property Schein, which is also depicted on the aerial
that was included in your application as to the dock directly
across, which we also designed and got permitted from this
Board.
West Lake itself is very shallow. The mouth of West Lake
has been problematic for many of the owners at low tide. And so
the notion that somehow that is prohibitive for a dock or for
use by vessels is contradicted by its actual use. There are many
docks and many vessels in West Lake, and I can't for the life of
me understand why this dock would be singled out from others. We
have surveyed the bottom land that was done by a licensed
professional surveyor, so we are quite confident as to the
depths that are depicted on the plan. We don't do those, as I
said, we hire them, and the fellow we hired, Mr. Fox, has been very,
very reliable to those. And those are set as a datum of mean low
water. So if the concern is what is mean high water, you merely
have to add 2.3 feet from there, because that is the distance
between what is considered mean low water and high water in our
tidal situation out here in Southold in eastern Long Island.
I'm willing to work with the Board and do something, if
someone has a better idea how to do this, but we anticipated
probably each and every one of those statements made by the LWRP
person. I don't know where the untreated lumber stuff, we have
always, this Board and this Town allows for standard piles. I
have no objection to the remainder of it being untreated. I
certainly have no objection to the use of, the way it's
proposed, catwalk, to be all thru-flow in any event. So we don't
see that as an issue for us. But that's our intention to do
that. And I don't understand how he could have missed the design
Board of Trustees 51 May 15, 2019
,aspects of it because they are right there in the project
description. But maybe he was looking at a lot of different
applications and just he didn't see it for whatever reason.
Now, we said portions of the proposed catwalk located over
the areas of wetland vegetated utilize 60% open-grate materials.
That's shown on the plans. If there is some benefit for making
the entirety of the catwalk open-grate, we'll certainly have no
objection to that. But I honestly don't know what more we could
have done with these plans that didn't anticipate the comments
made. I think it was maybe an error in the reviewer.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: First, no one on this Board is singling out this
dock for any sort of treatment. Consistently over the last
couple of years, when the water depths are less than
two-and-a-half feet, this Board has moved away from chocking and
bracing and advocated for fixed docks attached down to a
platform or ladder.
MR. ANDERSON: I just got that two months ago, though.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This location, the extension that you are
requesting, moving the hydraulic mats that you presented from
Robert Fox, moving from a water depth at mean low water of 1.2
feet to 1.4 feet.
MR. ANDERSON: That's correct.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So I think there is greater emphasis to move
away from a float and toward a structure that is safer in an
area of that particular type of environment. That's the only
issue I have.
MR. ANDERSON: My response is this area is perfectly safe. It's
all fully enclosed except with a little inlet that leads out to
the bay. And what would be, if it, the concern is the dock is
going to rest on the bottom, is it simply can't. It can't happen.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are currently moving away from docking for
an variety of environmental reasons, safety reasons. You know,
one direction we have been trying to go would be potentially a
slightly lower platform, fixed platform with thru-flow, so you
can have steps down to something along those lines, but that is
not going to cover Trustee-owned bottom the same way a float
will.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Or fixed thru-flow with mooring lifts,
particularly where you have a very protective water, and then
the issues of float removal for seasonal storage, can be an
issue.
MR. ANDERSON: You have also be aware we already obtained a DEC
and Army Corps of Engineers permits for this design and they
were returned very quickly. I'll take it under consideration
and certainly talk to the clients about it but I'm still hung up
on if you are telling me make the fixed portion low, I don't
know what "low" means, maybe what, a foot above high tide or
something like that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are saying you can make it lower.
MR. ANDERSON: Or lower at low tide, lower than what?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Lower than your proposed catwalk.
Board of Trustees 52 May 15, 2019
MR. ANDERSON: The float is lower than the proposed catwalk right
now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's true, but the float doesn't have
thru-flow on it and doesn't allow for light penetration, and
also will be acting as a fixed platform for a large portion of
the day anyway, with tide fluctuation. So it's sort of about who
benefits and we are more concerned with the environmental impact
of a float. And then also after-the chocks break down and it's
sitting on the bottom in ten years, you know, we are in this for
the long haul here and this is the direction that we are going
with.
MR. ANDERSON: When did this new policy begin?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's currently not a policy, it's the
determination of this Board, and we have been moving in this
direction for a matter of years now, no matter what you recently
did or didn't obtain.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I also have a question about the proposed
walkway extension. Is that supposed to be thru-flow? Because
it doesn't depict it on the plans.
MR. ANDERSON: We are perfectly happy to make it. We like the
material. We are okay with the material.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because it just says the proposed catwalk.
MR. ANDERSON: We can put it on the float, if you would like. So,
I don't know how critical this is. So I think it's -- let's
table this one. But I'm a bit surprised because as I said we
just did this two months ago, and in a similar area where there
were at least two other docks done. And that's how we got the
idea, to be honest with you. And the other docks are
successful. They are not breaking down over the long haul. They
are maintained, they work quite well. So I don't know if it's
that big a deal for the clients, to be honest with you. I would
be happy to find out, but I'll certainly relay those concerns.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: That's something you would be welcome, for you
and your client, to attend a work session to have a discussion
to see if we can come to an agreement.
Are there any other questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
Is there anybody else here that wishes to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
At this point do you wish to table this application?
MR. ANDERSON: I think so.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 13, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of DAVID BOFILL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
dock assembly off the eastern shoreline of subject property and
Wunneweta Pond; the proposed dock assembly is to consist of the
Board of Trustees 53 May 15, 2019
following: (1) elevated catwalk/ramp (4.0'x49.0'), secured by
fourteen (14) posts (6.0"); hinged ramp (3.0'x15.0'); and
floating dock (6.0'x20.0'), secured by four (4) pilings (8");
all hardware to be hot-dipped galvanized.
Located: 5125 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-14-2
The Trustees did a field inspection on May 8th. All were
present. The notes read as follows: Dock looks to extend past
the pier line. Needs to be moved in and possibly over. There is
no home on the property. Question the need for the dock.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from the wood products with which the dock
will be constructed of has not been specified. Whether adequate
facilities are available to owners/operators for fuel,
discharge, waste, rubbish, electrical service. This information
has not been provided. Need to preserve the public interest and
use of lands and waters held in public trust. Proposed dock will
extend further seaward than existing dock to the north. Will not
comply with the pier line. The proposed dock will extend into
public waters resulting in a net decrease in public access to
public underwater lands in the near shore. In the event this
action is approved, the establishment of vegetated buffer
landward of the wetland is recommended to further Policy Six.
The Conservation Advisory Council on May 8th resolved
unanimously to support the application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
for the applicant.
Okay. I would be happy to specify wood products.
Facilities for waste is the first one I ever heard of for that.
For waste, oil and rubbish and what?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Discharge of waste and rubbish, electrical
service and water service.
MR. ANDERSON: There is no electrical service. There is no water
service. There is no discharge of waste proposed.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I can only assume that due to the fact there
is not a structure on the property, a primary structure, that
the LWRP is concerned when the boater comes in and being there
is no dwelling on the property. So I'm assuming that is where
that comes from.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, let me explain. The owner owns three
properties. The first one has a house on it and it has a
bulkhead with a boathouse. The second one has a permit from this
Board and every other board has a standalone dock without a
house on it. And this is the third lot that they own, which has
a standalone dock almost exactly designed to the one that was
just permitted. To my knowledge there is no regulation that
requires us to build a house in order to get a dock, nor would I
think this Board wants that. Why would someone build a dock
then, and the reason is, quite simply, he's got a family with a
lot of grandkids, and he's in the boat business. And he wanted
to keep a boat there for the use of his grandkids, just like the
Board of Trustees 54 May 15, 2019
other dock next door. So I don't think anything I heard from
this LWRP coordinator is prohibited at all. I do -- and can
understand a benefit, perhaps, of moving the dock slightly I
guess south. And the channel drops off quite quickly. We have
it at 2.9 but it goes 2.1 to 2.9 in the scope of five feet. So,
you know, we had to relocate it in three feet and move it over,
don't know, ten feet, that's certainly fine by us and we are
certainly happy to do that. I don't understand the LWRP. I don't
understand what he's doing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Anderson, can you clarify for me, on the
property, I believe to the south, is vacant and has a dock on it.
MR. ANDERSON: No, it's permitted. It's going in shortly.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: There is-a brand new dock on one of those
properties.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay, maybe it just went in then. It was not in at
the time I staked it out. It may be in by now.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: My point is, I'm sure there is a fresh survey on
that property. Can you provide us with that?
MR. ANDERSON: I would be happy to. Understood. And to make them
line up, in other words.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: In part, to establish a pier line, yes.
Additionally, it seems to be a little confusion here. I saw, I
can't put my finger on it right now, but we saw in the
application this property is listed as Vanston Road LLC. But on
this application you are representing on behalf of Mr. Bofill.
MR. ANDERSON: He's the manager of Vanston LLC.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I think we need to clarify that. You need to
provide that documentation. And additionally, one thing, would
it be possible to give us a survey, or on the survey, to add,
again, for the purpose of the pier line, the dock to the north of
this property.
MR. ANDERSON: Probably not, because we would be surveying
somebody else's property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think you can provide some sort of
documentation to effectuate a pier line for us, though.
MR. ANDERSON: Easily.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That would satisfy that request.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'm confused, too. It looks as though there
are two lots, not three lots.
MR. ANDERSON: There is three. There is the developed lot with
the house on it. And you go down some stairs and there is sort
of this decking and it's bulkheaded. Okay, then there is a
vacant lot directly to the north or east-- northeast, if you
will, for which a dock is permitted, which was not constructed at
the time we applied here. But all the permits were obtained.
The reason why I didn't build it is because by the time I got
the permits in the Fall,-1 didn't see a reason to put in a new
dock in the Fall prior to winter. So we decided to wait until
spring. So maybe it's in by now. I don't know. And this would be
the third lot.
MS. MOORE: And the garage one.
Board of Trustees 55 May 15, 2019
MR. ANDERSON: No, no. We are talking about--
MS. MOORE: He's my client, so --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Direct your comments to the Board.
MS. MOORE: Sorry, I was --
MR. ANDERSON: There is three side-by-side lots, essentially.
One developed, two vacant. And so, what he is seeking to do is
simply put a dock on the third lot, and he would rather not
build a house to do that. So I think that's possibly a good thing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: We would just like to see that clarified
because the way I was looking at it, and I was looking at the
tax map in the folder, and the application is not very clear.
What we don't want to end up with is two docks on one lot.
MR. ANDERSON: No, there is no indication and no intention of
doing that. I mean look, he's wisely kept them single and
separate. You can understand that. So I would say we'll adjourn
this one as well.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not at this time
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table this
application.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 14, 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# 100.0-56-5-26
This is exempt under.the LWRP.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
this application.
The Trustees have been to the site originally on April 11th
and have considered at that time based on field inspection and
subsequent work session that the project is straightforward. It
was held over and did not receive a public hearing I believe
because Ms. Moore was away. And we reviewed the file again. But
then there is another point in the file of May 14th, yesterday,
where the Board at its work session Monday, we received a letter
from the Town Engineer with concerns. So I apologize, it's new
Board of Trustees 56 May 15, 2019
to us and new to you. And very new to me now looking at it.
Dealing with the current workload, you can understand there is a
lot of stuff being communicated.
have not had a chance to read this fully but concerns
dealt, specifically deal with more fully probably should review
it, but the concerns are drainage, and Jamie Richter indicates
that the retaining wall goes into the drainage easement, and he
requests that be pulled back. So this would have to be reviewed
by your engineer and discuss the plans. This is all brand new to
the Board as well. I just gleaned this from the letter very
quickly. Concerns obviously, it's an area of drainage concerns
and an additional structure are causing potential drainage
issues on the neighboring property, and Mr. Richter goes on to
specifically request that drainage calculations should be
provided to show how all the new work will fit in with the
overall drainage of the property. Fits in the existing drainage.
This is definitely out of my wheelhouse.
MS. MOORE: Just as a factually here. We are replacing in-kind
and in-place the pool. The patio is just being resurfaced,
guess, at this point. But I show here from 2000, when the ZBA
looked at this, we actually showed the drainage, specific
drainage calculations, and all the drainage pools on, by
Elizabeth Quinlan, the surveyor. So all the drainage is shown
there. I don't know, maybe Jamie didn't see it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We couldn't say. And maybe it's a matter of
a simple review for him. The Board recognized based on field
inspection there is not a lot going on there. But--
MS. MOORE: I mean, it's an in-kind/in-place pool so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any we are kind of dead in the water with it
with respect to --the other thing is the retaining wall going into --
MS. MOORE: I see a retaining wall and an existing retaining
wall. That's been in existence since this property was
developed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's been constructed within the easement is
maybe his concern. But I think the best thing is we can't speak
for the Town Engineer and conduct a review for him. So I guess
we would have to table this for you to address his concerns.
MS. MOORE: Well, I would just point out, as a point of law, with
respect to what'you guys are doing. We are asking for an
in-kind/in-place for a structure that is there that had previously
been permitted. This is really a straightforward application.
Generally you don't redo all your drainage when you are in-kind/in-place
replacement. So I guess,my objection is where Jamie comes back
with these long recommendations, we have to look at in the scope of the
project that is being proposed, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, that's true. This is really not the
time to go into that because if you are raising elevation, you
change the grade and you do change the flow of water. But the
issue of a retaining structure being proposed for a Town
drainage easement, I would think this matter could all be very quickly --
MS. MOORE: Oh; that part of it is fine. That's not an issue.
Board of Trustees 57 May 15, 2019
The fact that it's been there forever. The drainage easement is
for height that actually, way back when the Trustees wanted it
cut off, but because of the low point of the subdivision, the
drainage of that subdivision is by way of those pipes that go
into the canal. They could not be cut off. That was --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We understand. There are problems throughout
there due to that wonderful blue clay.
MS. MOORE: Yes. So we can work, we can just cut the -- it
doesn't impact the easement at all because the pipe is already
under there and right on the edge of the easement line. But the
easement is a drainage easement, so we are not affecting his
drainage easement. The drainage is still there. `
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We cannot say that. We are not engineers. A
drainage easement may have additional need for maintenance and
structure in the future. So this is where we are at.
MS. MOORE: We'll take at a look at his comments. I hate to see
all our projects that are before this Board have been now going
through the Town Engineer and then he comes back with these very
elaborate recommendations, which are very fine. But we are not
building a new house, we are making repairs or replacements.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are listening and we also understand
that we have been cued if you will to these situations with
these high groundwater and drainage issues where we have some
of the towns particularly impacted because of local ground
conditions. We don't have a problem with this one.
MS. MOORE: I understand. That's true. I know we were at the
inspection and it was very straight forward, so.
MR. DONADIC: Johnny Donadic, the homeowner. It was inspected,
you were all there on the 14th of the previous month.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was the 11th of April we were there.
MR. DONADIC: And this report, we were supposed to be here for
the meeting the day after, I believe, right?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This report is late in coming now,because of
concerns concerning the drainage in the area and neighbor
concerns where they seem to address the public hearing notice in
the mail.
MS. MOORE: Yes, that's why we adjourned last time because the
neighbor that called me, it was the neighbor that called and was
concerned about, on the opposite side.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's my understanding that the chairman,
based on concerns that had been expressed, because of the
neighbor concerns concerning drainage and the maintenance of the
drainage, it was referred to the Town Engineer.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's correct. And the neighbor contacted the
town engineer directly.,So.
MR. DONADIC: For what it's worth, and I'm sure everyone knows,
it's a brand new site plan with the appropriate drainage that
have drywells along the driveway and in the rear yard as well.
We did not move any grade. The driveway and all of the grass areas are
in the exact same plain as they were.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It sounds like it's a simple matter for the
Board of Trustees 58 May 15, 2019
engineer to determine. Thank you, very much.
MS. MOORE: I mean, what do you want me to do with the Town
Engineer?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Satisfy his concerns. Meet with the Town
Engineer. Satisfy his concerns. And he'll forward either an
amended plan, he'll send us an amended plan, he'll send us an
amended report on what you have done. Maybe on the amended plan
he says yes.
MS. MOORE: Let's look at his letter and we'll --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We'll forward you a copy of this.
Any other comments?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to table this application.
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 15, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of
NEIL &AMY McGOLDRICK requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
495sq.ft. Garage to be renovated and two-story addition
constructed to existing garage; total size of garage 36'x22.5'
(758 sq. ft.); for the as-built existing structures consisting of-
a 2,342 sq. ft. two-story dwelling; at-grade irregularly shaped
wood decks with wood planter, covered deck with outdoor grill
and pool equipment 2,263 sq. ft.; in-ground pool 44'x15', hot tub
8'x8' and kiddy pool 14'x15': Total sq. ft. 969 sq. ft.; and
existing pool fence enclosure.
Located: 1671 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-116-4-16.4
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is the as-built structures were constructed without a wetlands
permit. In the event the action is approved, the following is
recommended to further Policy Six: Require a vegetated non-turf
buffer inclusive of existing vegetation landward of the-bulkhead
and wetland. Require dewatering drywells for the pool and
identify the storm water drainage is controlled for all as-built
structures.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on May 8th,
noting it's pretty straightforward.
We also have a letter in the file here from Jim and Denise
Martin supporting the application.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore, on behalf of Mr. McGoldrick. I
also have Tom Samuels, the architect, if there are any specific
issues.
The application was primarily for the garage addition. When
I reviewed all of the permitting of this property, it appeared
that most of the decking, while the other structures predated
Board of Trustees 59 May 15, 2019
the Trustees jurisdiction for permits. So I have included all of
the description of the existing structures into this permit. So
it should resolve the LWRP's comments that is in inconsistent
because it doesn't have a permit. It all predates the Trustees
issuance of a permit.,So aside from that, I think that was it. I
don't know that, if you have any particular--
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Vegetated non-turf buffer?
MS. MOORE: The non-turf buffer, where? I guess I don't really
know--Tom, where is -- I don't know that it's, I have a survey
and it's showing no turf. I think it's my memory is it's pretty
sandy in the back, along the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I believe it's grass up to the bulkhead, but
I'm not --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Grass up on the bulkhead.
MS. MOORE: Do you remember? Maybe the aerial will show.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH:'There was a bocce ball court, too.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The bocce ball court definitely counts as part
of it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is a lot going on there.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. If you are satisfied, the non-turf
buffer is not an issue.
MS. MOORE: Is that green thing the bocce court?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. So can we do a non-turf along the rest of
that green --
MS. MOORE: Yes, non-turf is fine. To the north, I'm looking --
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: North of the bocce court appears to be a
vegetated non-turf buffer. And he has his basin, if you will,
boat basin. I mean south of that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So between the bocce ball court, the basin and
around the basin, then a little bit to the south, I think it
would be appropriate to include non-turf.
MS. MOORE: All right, what size non-turf? Just run it along the
bulkhead line?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone have any thoughts on the size?
What's the size of the bocce ball court?
MS. MOORE: About the width of the bocce court?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: About the size of that.
MS. MOORE: We are guesstimating 15 feet. Does that sound about
right?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Probably ten to 15.
MS. MOORE: That's not a problem. Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wish 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 WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
Board of Trustees 60 May 15, 2019
with the condition of a non-turf buffer the width of the bocce
ball court whether it be -- okay, ten-foot non-turf buffer from
bocce ball court south. Thereby by granting it a permit, it
brings it into consistency with the LWRP.
MS. MOORE: That,runs along the bulkhead, because there is more
land to the south.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 16, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of
KAREN & CLIFFORD CID requests a Wetland Permit to install a
proposed 17'x26' at grade bluestone patio set in sand with 12"
retaining wall at edge of patio.
Located: 675 & 785 Meadow Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-5-7 & 8
The Trustees last visited this location on the 8th of May
and notated that we had to check the C&Rs. And an on-grade
patio can't have a retaining wall.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent, but noted
that the plans depict existing brick patio and retaining wall
partially located within the 30-foot non-disturbance buffer.
Disturbance of this kind is not permitted.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this.
And then I also want to mention there is an e-mail in the
file from Ms. Moore's office stating that they have received
phone calls from Cathy Sheehan and Rita Kelly in support of the
application. And to kindly make this part of the file for the
hearing.
Okay, I believe that is all at this time. Is there anyone
here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore, and I have Mrs. Cid is here.
There is some history here with respect to the property. The
parcel was, originally C&Rs were imposed back in the late 80s,
early 90s, and it was based on the set of certain facts of the
property. After the C&Rs were filed, the land to the south of
this property was acquired and sterilized. So the parcel, the
original parcel was doubled in size resulting in a preservation
of a half-acre of open space and wetlands that are now
incorporated as part of that property.
So there has been a continuous improvement of this property
and protection of the wetlands that certainly improve upon the
original application when the house was built.
These C&Rs were imposed prior to the construction of the
house. ,
We have come back with a clarification on the patio to be
sure that it was understood it is going to be on grade, and
rather than a retaining wall which is just a suggestion by the
architect, the designer,just to keep the stones in place, a
smaller wood landscape strip could be used providing the same
functions. So there is no need for a retaining wall, it can be
Board of Trustees 61 May 15, 2019
accomplished with the stone set in sand. We did specify a two to
three-inch sand and gravel base, and there was some further
communications my client had with the landscaper and it could be
a crushed bluestone with a finer bluestone blend between the
stones. So it would be the equivalent sand, bluestone, if
that's acceptable as a material. If not, it could certainly be
sand and gravel. It's the equivalent.
Again, we understand the C&Rs but we do understand that the
Board has over the years changed codes, changed what would be
pre-existing permitted structures. The Board has over the years
overridden prior permits and imposed what would be newer
restrictions on properties. So the Board has routinely over the
20, 25 years since the original C&Rs, and again the C&Rs were
imposed before the house was built under a completely different
set of facts. This Board is not stagnant. It changes and
creates whatever recommendations, environmental improvements
that you feel are appropriate and could be an improvement upon
the property. So in this case, the patio is a minimal, it's a
little disconcerting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean C&Rs were put in place for a reason, in
my opinion. You are very far up-- you have a beautiful piece
of property here and you are very far up in the headwaters of
this creek here. It's just a fragile area. Even looking at the
aerial you can see this is obviously a very negative impact of
surrounding houses on the headwaters of this creek. Water is not
supposed to be that color. And, you know, there is already
several houses there and because of that you do still get to
appreciate the landscape and what you are looking at. I just;
you know, they were put in a place that is a protective stance
against the creek and I have a hard time changing that.
MS. MOORE: Listen, I respect that. But also keep in mind that
the purpose of this was to protect the wetlands. The wetlands
have been protected, in fact since you have been there they
removed what was a picket fence. They revegetated areas that had
needed to be revegetated, and again, they doubled the size of
the property, really, by sterilizing the other lot. That is
exactly what was, the Board was trying to accomplish when this
permit was issued. It was, the Board at that time was giving a
permit because the alternative was the condemnation of the
property.
So since that time, one house has been eliminated, because
the parcel to the south has been sterilized. So when you compare
the two, the sterilization of the property, eliminating the
possibility, the sanitary stem on that property and of another,
house on that property, that so outweighs what is here as a, I
many, it's a patio. A patio. Non-structural, on-grade. It is
not considered even a structure with respect to the Town zoning
ordinance. So that is why it's so minimal. They asked for a
deck, you said no to a deck. I understand. And they said okay,
but there is a house here that people just want to enjoy their
yard, and the fact is that the benefit of the sterilization of
Board of Trustees 62 May 15, 2019
that other property was really outweighs everything else that
could have ever been any protections that were imposed on this
house. So I think you have to weigh that, the facts.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a question. Would you have an
objection to a gravel surface, non-turf buffer with a fabric
underlaying where that would allow for a watery charge with no
use of chemicals, in other words we'll approve woodchips or
gravel as a non-turf buffer. Would you be willing to install a
non-turf buffer of gravel in the same dimensions as you propose?
MS. MOORE: Let me just understand. So instead of the stones on
top --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In other words, a non-turf gravel surface as
opposed to a deck or as opposed to a terrace or a patio. In
other words we routinely in areas adjacent to wetlands will
grant approval for non-turf areas. Would you be prepared to
install a non-turf bluestone, which is allowed, over a filter
fabric area that would essentially maybe functionally by one of
the other named structures but would be actually non-turf area?
MS. MOORE: Do you understand what-- I'm trying to visualize
what you are suggesting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In other words, you wouldn't put pavers or
bluestone slabs or anything like that on top of that.
MS. MOORE: So when you sit on it--
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: You would simply flatten the area of land by
possibly digging in a little bit, okay, put a steel edge and
fill it with a very fine bluestone --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Over filter fabric, so you don't have weeds.
MS. MOORE: I have a driveway. That's how I built my driveway.
mean could you --
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: What we are saying is that would be an
acceptable non-turf buffer and would still make for a useable
place to sit and enjoy the property. It's not considered a structure.
MS. MOORE: No, I understand that. Usually-- do you have a
suggestion --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No patio, no pavers, because pavers would be
a violation of the C&Rs.
MS. MOORE: Right, if it's a stone. My driveway is made of the
same thing.
MS. CID: My name is Karen Cid. I'm the property owner along
with my husband. When we purchased the property there was also a
picket fence all within the 30-foot non-disturbance buffer. When
the Trustees, when we were looking to try to get some work done
in the backyard, stated that should not have been there, and in
good will we removed that. We also revegetated within that
30-foot buffer only native plantings,,trying to make the
property, you know, trying to do the right thing with the
Trustees and trying to maintain the integrity of the property.
What we are asking for is really so little. I mean, of
course if we have to do it without the stone, but truly, I mean,
the stone is up near the house, it keeps, it's not disturbing
the wildlife or the habitat at all. It is really very minimal in
Board of Trustees 63 May 15, 2019
the scope of things. So, you know, I would respectively request,
if at all possible, we would like to have a nice area to be able
to sit and enjoy the beautiful property that we have. That
would be our first choice.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Unfortunately, with the C&Rs in place, our
hands are tied and we can't break the C&Rs.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And the C&Rs are very specific. No decks or
patios constructed in the rear yard of the property.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It's not even a vagueness to it. It's very
direct.
MS. MOORE: Would the Board consider lifting the C&Rs on this?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It's a very dangerous precedent.
MS. MOORE: I was just asking if it's a possibility.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: You don't ask, you don't know. Again, we would
be amenable to some sort of gravel.
MS. CID: So grading the property with landscape fabric and some
kind of fill on top to create sitting area.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Come back with a plan.
MS. CID: Free of weeds.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Yes. To create an area where you can sit and
enjoy the property. It's just, unfortunately it cannot be
poured concrete or any hardened surface. It has to be some sort
of--we want to work with you. We understand what you want to
do. But unfortunately with the C&Rs in place, our hands are tied.
MS. MOORE: Fine. I mean, do you need a new drawing? What do you
need here?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Probably a drawing. I would have to see, you
know, a side-view of what the fill would be.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We need a side-view of the layers you are
putting in there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would need a clear plan with a side-view.
What is it going to be. Is it going to be just three-inches of
stone or what, and then also just a new project description.
MS. CID: Well really just the same thing without the stone on
the ground. It's just--
MS. MOORE: What we'll do is we'll use the same thing. We'll
just describe it, you go to your contractor and make sure. But
we'll do is filter cloth with stone.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And also here, it's says small wood landscape
strip. I need dimensions. I can't just go --
MS. MOORE: We have four-inch by four-inch.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I know. I just want to see it on the plan.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't want to dictate plan terms for you
but you should look into a 20-year plus filter fabric
underlayment because it will be the likelihood of a requirement
that no chemicals be used.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what was submitted for this. So I think
we are going to need a little more.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We need an exploded diagram. Everything is
so small on the scale.
MS. CID: So acceptable fill would be.
Board of Trustees 64 May 15, 2019
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What we accept in non-turf buffers,
woodchips, bluestone, pea gravel. Nothing really fine. We don't
want have siltation if stuff overruns during a rainstorm, we
don't want anything going in the creek.
MS. CID: Like what size --
MS. MOORE: Your contractor will know. I know I just put it on my
driveway. To make a pervious driveway. It's round, white.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: What contractor are you using?
MS. MOORE: Trimble.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, so you wish to table this application
At this time to bring it back in?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to table the application for
new plans.
MS. MOORE: Do you need a new project description?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Please, yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 17, 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
The Trustees last visited the site on December 5th, 2018.
We discussed the need for Town Engineer review of drainage for
home and driveway seaward of the dwelling. We did get a letter
from the Office of the Engineer dated May 14th, 2019.
Unfortunately, the Trustees have not had adequate time to review
the letter.
At this point in time I would like to -- is there anybody
here that wishes to speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: I would like a copy of the letter.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anybody else here who wishes to speak
to,the application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
-Based on receiving the letter May 14th, 2019, the Board will
need time to review the letter, and the letter, a copy of that
can be picked up at the Trustees' office.
MS. MOORE: You would not have an extra copy now?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I don't.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to table this application
based on the recent submission of the engineering report dated
Board of Trustees 65 May 15, 2019
May 14th, 2019, for adequate review by Board of Trustees
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 18, 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
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
The Trustees most recent inspection of this property was
completed,on May 8th. All were in attendance. Notes specific
movement of the structure in and back in a positive direction.
Want to see the structure roughly eleven feet back from the
original proposal. Buffer on the seaward side.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent, however
the inconsistency dated April 16th, predated the Trustees'
determination. The LWRP coordinator says the determination from
the Board of Trustees onsite natural features and regulatory
setbacks has not been made under Chapter 275 and therefore an
accurate review of the proposed action cannot be completed. So
that is a moot point at this point. And at this point that has
been addressed.
The Conservation Advisory Council on April 15th, resolved
not to support the application due to site plan issues, scope
and size of the structure and required setbacks.
Again, that may have been addressed.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Good evening. Rob Herrmann of
En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant and the project
architect Dave Ericsson from Lake Flato Architects is also here.
This is a continuation of our hearing on April 17th where we
discussed the location of the proposed dwelling, swimming pool
Board of Trustees 66 May 15, 2019
and pool deck, most significantly. Specifically, the Board at
that hearing expressed concern with the proximity of the house
to the top of the slope to the ravine to the south of the
proposed house and also wanted to see some relocation of the
pool. In response to the Board's concerns as we discussed during
field inspection last week, the overall length of the proposed
dwelling structure was reduced by ten feet through a four foot
reduction in the porch at the north end of the proposed house,
and the complete elimination of the six-foot wide patio on the
southerly side of the house that had been creating actually the
greatest physical encroachment on the top of the slope to the
south. And then based on our discussion with the Board in the
field, the entire dwelling structure has now been relocated ten
feet directly landward of its originally proposed location.
I did want to hand up one sheet to you just because it--
it's a large, it shows you something a little slightly smaller
scaled version of this during field inspection, but this is a
large scale site plan view showing the change from the
originally proposed location in red to the currently proposed
location in blue. That is both for the house and the swimming
pool and the pool deck. We did also submit a new site plan
prepared by the,Raynor Group last dated May 11th, 2019, ahead of
your work session this past Monday which David attended. So you
will note in addition to the change in the house location which
now reflects what we discussed in the field, that is that ten-foot
landward relocation, the on-grade terrace on the water side
of the house was just made five feet longer to compensate a bit
for the removal of the southerly patio on the end. That's the
terrace that runs along the west side of the house. And the
swimming pool and pool deck have been shifted ten feet landward
also, and approximately 13 feet to the south, to the more highly
elevated grades. Again that is shown on that plan in blue, in
the comparison plan I just handed up, and again that reflects
the same location that you saw in the'field. Staked out in the
field. I also understand that David Ericsson, the project
architect, presented construction drawings to you at your work
session that addressed the pier foundation underneath the
northerly porch, and I think the 40-some odd feet of slab
foundation on the south side of the house. So hopefully that
answered your questions regarding the foundation. And it is my
understanding and hope, based on David's meeting with Jamie
Richter yesterday, the Town Engineer, that Jamie may also have
forwarded some written comments to you relating to his
assessment of the project, which we hope were positive.
So we are hoping that given the site plan modifications and
the review by Jamie and the Board's review of the project, both
in the field, at your work session this evening that we
sufficiently responded to your requests and concerns. But
again, Dave and I are both here to answer any additional
questions that you might have.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you. We appreciate your efforts to work
Board of Trustees 67 May 15, 2019
with us. I spoke with Jamie Richter this morning. We have in the
file an e-mail transmission from Jamie Richter. If you allow me
to read it: The latest revision of the project to relocate and
reconstruct the existing residence has been reviewed by my
office. It appears that the design has been pulled back and
relocated as much as possible, given the fact that this is a
request to reconstruct a pre-existing residence at this
location. With the proposed new drainage and the amount of new
vegetation in front of this proposed new construction it should
mitigate erosion to the greatest extent practicable. Plans as
proposed meets the minimum requirements of Chapter 236 for storm
water management.
MR. HERRMANN: That sounds good. And that actually reminds me of
the one other issue we discussed in the field, that subsequent
to this application we would submit for the Board's review a
separate comprehensive landscape design plan that would propose
certain native restoration, removal of invasives, and also would
create some potential buffer areas. I think in the field we
talked about for now that we would leave it that the existing
lawn limit to the west of the house would be the limit of
seaward clearing on the west side of the house. And that we
would come back with a comprehensive planting plan that would
address any potential additional buffers in place of that lawn
area.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: One quick question. I'm just, the proposed
on-grade terrace in the front is going to be extended; is that
my understanding?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. So the terrace on the west side of the
house, I think was originally proposed at 44 feet. And what
happened, as the porch was trimmed, the patio sort of followed
the line separating the porch and the house, but instead of
lopping off fight feet on the other side, we left it just to
create a little more patio area on that side of the house, since
we were completely eliminating the six-foot wide patio that was
proposed on the southerly end of the house.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So the terrace will be 6.6' in width by 49.3' in
length.
MR. HERRMANN: Correct. And in my cover letter to the Board
dated May 13th, I did give you a revised project description
that would reflect those dimensions as well as the updated
dimensions of the rest of the project and the updated site plan
last dated May 11th.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any 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 KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application with
Board of Trustees 68 May 15, 2019
the new changes with the understanding that in the future you
are going to come in with a detailed planting plan.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, sir.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 19, En-Consultants on behalf of
RICHARD SACHS requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing dock
consisting of a 1.5'x14' ramp, 4.7'x73' catwalk, and 7.3'x11.9'
terminal platform; and construct in its place a new dock with a
±20' shorter overall length.
And we are in receipt of a new project description as a
result of our May 8th field inspection wherein Laurel Lake is
approximately a foot, foot-and-a-half above its prior rim
height. And to further construction of a-- and this is the new,
modified description to account for the greater water level in
the lake -- Consisting of a 4'x74' catwalk and 8'x15' terminal
platform constructed entirely of untreated materials including
open-grate decking as depicted on the site plan of Jeffrey T.
Butler Engineering last dated March 10th, 2019.
Located: 2435 Laurel Way (aka: 2435 Laurel Lake Drive),
Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-121-4-17.1
That's a modification, as received in the Trustee office
dated May 13th.
The application has been deemed to be inconsistent by the
LWRP coordinator who noted the water depth of the terminus of
the dock is 5.75 feet, and therefore is an opportunity to
shorten the dock even further to accommodate allowable vessels.
The Conservation Advisory Council has voted to support this
application unanimously.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant.
As quickly as possible, this is an application to replace
the existing dock. The design is actually based on the Trustee
comments that were made I think at least a year ago at the time
the permit was transferred, so we designed the reconstructed
dock consistent with your comments and then made the adjustments
due to the elevation of the lake which we saw last week. So if
the Board doesn't have any additional questions or comments on
it, I don't have anything else to offer on it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional questions or comments?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Seemed straightforward to me.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to close the hearing in
this matter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 69 May 15, 2019
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application as submitted noting that the application has a
shortened dock with thru-flow will be improving the aquatic
habitat of Laurel Lake, providing a small amount of shading for
those organisms which need shading, and is consistent with the
Trustees' request to bring this into consistency.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 20, En-Consultants on behalf of BLUE
MOON PARTNERS, LLC, c/o RANDALL FAIRHURST, MEMBER requests a
Wetland Permit for a Ten-Year Maintenance Permit to maintenance
dredge an approximately 15'x115' area of owner's underwater land
to a maximum depth of-5 MLW (with max. l' overcut) and truck
approximately 140 cubic yards of resultant spoil to an approved
upland site; and for the existing 200 sq. ft. patio/fire pit;
approximately 1,948 sq. ft. of existing concrete paver pool patio
(which was installed in place of previously existing pool patio
after Super-storm Sandy); and existing 58 linear feet of rock
retaining wall located along landward boundary of existing
10'-16' non-turf buffer.
Located: 360 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.33
The LWRP found this to be consistent and inconsistent. The
wetland permit for a ten-year maintenance permit maintenance
dredge in approximately 15x115 area of owner's underwater land
to maximum of five feet below mean low,water with maximum one
foot overcut, and truck approximately 140 cubic yards of
resultant spoil to approved upland site construction of the
bulkhead is consistent. The inconsistency is a wetland permit
was not located within Town records for the existing as-built
structures.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on May 8th,
noting that it was basically a straightforward application.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. This is a straightforward application that includes
maintenance dredging in Fordham Canal, and we are proposing to
obtain a wetland permit for a swimming pool patio that was
reconstructed after Hurricane Sandy as well as a rock retaining
wall that demarcates the limit of the non-turf buffer behind the
bulkhead, and an on-grade fire pit patio on the seaward side of,
the house.
So hopefully the fact we are asking for a permit for those
structures will address the inconsistency of not having a permit
for those structures.
Anyway, that's all I have.
Board of Trustees 70 May 15, 2019
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).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application,
and by granting a permit brings it into consistency with the
LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 21, En-Consultants on behalf of ANDREW
FOHRKOLB requests a Wetland Permit to demolish and remove
existing one-story building and outdoor shower; construct
approximately 1,788 sq. ft. 1 & 2 story, single-family dwelling
with 39 sq. ft. and 65 sq. ft. roofed over patios, exterior basement
entrance, 569 sq. ft. covered deck, and 363 sq. ft. garage; install
95 sq. ft. enclosure for outdoor shower, trash, and mechanical
equipment; install 437 sq. ft. on-grade masonry walkway/patio and
194 sq. ft. pervious gravel patio on waterside of house; install
76 sq. ft. on-grade masonry landing, 3'wide stepping stone
walkway, and 3' high retaining wall on north side of house;
remove/abandon existing sanitary system located with Chapter 275
jurisdiction and install new sanitary system outside Chapter 275
jurisdiction; install a drainage system of leaders, gutters, and
drywells; install a closed loop geothermal well field; and
establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer
adjacent to top of bluff, leaving a 4' wide pathway through
buffer to access existing bluff stairway.
Located: 1335 Fleetwood Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-4-30
The Trustees most recently visited this site on the 8th of
May and noted it looked like a straightforward project.
The LWRP coordinator found it to be consistent but asked
that we require a non-turf buffer that is vegetated, retain the
existing trees seaward of the proposed residential structure and
consider requiring installation of an IA system.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application? '
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant and also Meryl Kramer the project architect, is here.
This is an application to remove the existing one-story
frame building and outdoor shower that is located almost
immediately adjacent to the top of the bluff, adjacent to East
Creek, and to construct a new dwelling and other improvements as
Board of Trustees 71 May 15, 2019
depicted on the site plan.
You saw the project staked out in the field last week. If
the Board has any questions about the design or anything that
you didn't have then, we are here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you just speak to the question, so the
first one is the non-turf buffer be vegetated.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. So we have a proposed ten-foot non-turf
buffer adjacent to the top of the bluff, and if it's the Board's
pleasure to actually have that ten-foot buffer planted with
native vegetation I think we have a landscape architect who is
also involved with the project who can do that.
The trees seaward, that's not an issue at all. And the IA
system was considered at the inception of the project relative
to a traditional system but at this time a determination was
made by the applicant to propose a traditional stem.
We are very highly elevated above groundwater with the
system and the system will actually be located more than 100
feet from the top of the bluff and outside Chapter 275 jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They always are. Soon that will be a
requirement. Very, very, soon. Coming soon to an application
near you.
MR. HERRMANN: All right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, is there anyone else here that wishes to
speak regarding this application?
(No response).
Is there anyone on the Board that has any questions or anything
to add to the matter?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: The project seemed straightforward.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hearing none, I make a motion to close this
application.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the stipulation that the non-turf buffer be planted with
native vegetation and that all existing trees seaward of the
structure remain.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 22, En-Consultants on behalf of THE
JANET R. LATHAM & KURT F. FREUDENBERG IRREVOCABLE TRUSTS
requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 66 linear feet of low-sill
vinyl bulkhead and two (2) 12' angled low-sill bulkhead returns and backfill
with approximately 100 cubic yards clean sandy fill to be trucked in from an
approved upland source and planted with Spartina Alterniflora (12" o.c.) to
restore approximately 1,200 sq. ft. of vegetated intertidal marsh between
bulkhead and MHW/toe of bank; and as bank stabilization, install
approximately 82 linear feet of 1.5'to 2.5' diameter, 300-1,500 lb. stone rip-rap
(approximately 20 cubic yards) on filter cloth along toe of eroding embankment.
Board of Trustees 72 May 15, 2019
Located: 165 Lester's Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-114-7-2.1
The Trustees visited this site on May 8th, 2019. All Trustees were present,
noting that the project is straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator found-this project to be consistent, noting verification
is needed for the installation of the low-sill bulkhead seaward of the bottom of the
bank creating large need for fill. Why is the erosion control structure not
being proposed at the bottom of the bank aligned with the existing bulkhead to the
west.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application with no notes.
I can address the LWRP coordinator's concern. Upon Trustee inspection it was a
unique fetch that was causing the erosion and the need for the low-sill bulkhead in
place is verified.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. Mr. Freudenberg was here but he left a couple hours ago. This is a
project that we discussed with the Trustees prior to submitting the application.
And of course the continuance of the answer to Mark Terry's question is the low
sill bulkhead is proposed because we are creating 1,200 square
feet of intertidal marsh, so the bulkhead is in line with the seaward extension of
the existing marsh in an attempt to re-create the intertidal marsh area that once
existed on this property, which as I showed to you in the field, you can see
what the marsh looked like in 2002 relative to what it looks like today. So we
are trying to actually restore the marsh back to its prior condition, which really
is as consistent with the LWRP as can be. So I'm a little surprised by the LWRP
coordinator's comments. Anyway, that's the answer to your question, and of
course stone rip-rap proposed immediately along the toe of the bank to try to
stop the continued erosion of the upland bank.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anybody else here that wishes to
speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comment 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 GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES). ,
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 23, En-Consultants on behalf of JOHN &
LORI McDONALD requests a Wetland Permit to reconfigure existing
pervious gravel driveway by removing approximately 485 sq. ft. of
existing driveway and installing approximately 435 sq. ft. of new
pervious gravel driveway; clear approximately 955 sq. ft. of
existing brush and construct 20'x30' swimming pool, 1,734 sq. ft.
on-grade masonry pool patio, and 4' wide masonry walkway;
re-grade area adjacent to swimming pool and patio by using
on-site pool excavation material to raise grade less than 18";
install a pool drywell, pool equipment, and 4' high pool
Board of Trustees 73 May 15, 2019
enclosure fencing; construct 5.5'x16.5' porch addition and 2'x6'
one-story addition to an existing two-story, single-family
dwelling; and replace overhead utility lines with underground utilities.
Located: 1700 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. SCTM# 1000-92-1-3
The Trustees most recent field inspection May 8th, 2019,
notes at the time indicate habitat limiting fence should be
removed. Pool, other structures straightforward. Should include
kayak rack,on the plans. All Trustees were in attendance.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and noted
in the event the action is approved, the following is
recommended: Number one, establishment of a vegetated non-turf
buffer landward of the wetland.
The Conservation Advisory Council on May 8th resolved
unanimously to support the application.
Also have in the file a letter from Robert Herrmann, May
14th, indicating the revised project description and plans
addressing the concerns of the Trustees including the kayak rack
being on the plans.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann, En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. Project architect Tom Samuels of Samuels & Steelman
is also here. As Mike just indicated in response to the Trustees
concerns, we had the surveyor run out and locate the kayak rack
so it can could be added to Tom's plan,,and so we updated the
site plan that is now last dated May 13th, 2019, to reflect the
location of the six-and-a-half foot by eight-foot wood kayak to
remain, and also proposed removal of that wire fencing and gate
that runs through the naturally vegetated area between the lawn
and the wetland area.
With respect to the buffer, the plan does show the edge of
the existing lawn relative to the shoreline, so it would make
sense to indicate that the edge of the existing lawn would also
serve as the landward limit of the naturally vegetated buffer
that exists or whatever your pleasure on that is.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions from the Board?
Are you comfortable with that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Very comfortable.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Sounds reasonable.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
Board of Trustees 74 May 15, 2019
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
Michael J. Domino, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
JU 2 7 2019 3 45 f rA
0, My&
uthold Town Clerk