HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-06/19/2019 Michael J.Domino,President ®� ®(�� Town Hall Annex
John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President ®�" ®�® 54375 Route 25
P.O.Box 1179
Glenn Goldsmith Southold,New York 11971
A.Nicholas Krupski Alic Telephone(631) 765-1892
Greg Williams a® Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD pp C ,0
ED
Minutes P 3:30P�
Wednesday, June 19, 2019 JUL 1 8 2019
5:30 PM ��Vfl�
•
POQ O
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, July 10, 2019 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 5:30 PM at
the Main Meeting Hall
WORK SESSIONS: Monday, July 10, 2019 at 4:30 PM at the Town Hall
Annex 2nd floor Board Room, and on Wednesday,
July 17, 2019 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of May 15, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good evening and welcome to our Wednesday, June
19th, 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).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time point I would like to recognize the
People on the dais. To my immediate left is Trustee John Bredemeyer,
Trustee Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee Nicholas Krupski and Trustee Greg
Williams. To my right we have Assistant Town Attorney Damon Hagan,
Senior Clerk Typist Elizabeth Cantrell. Also with us tonight is Court
Stenographer Wayne Galante. And the Conservation Advisory Council
member with us tonight is Caroline Burghardt.
Agendas are located on the podium and also out in the hall.
I would like to announce some postponements. If you look at
Board of Trustees 2 June 19, 2019
page five, under Roman numeral six, number 15, Suffolk
Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of PARADISE POINT
ASSOCIATION requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit#8320 to relocate the placement of the resultant dredge
spoils to the south, over the area of the existing grass and
dirt path that provides access to the shoreline.
Located: Basin Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-1-16.10 & 16.11,
has been postponed.
On page nine, which is Roman numeral IX, in the Public
Hearing section, we have number four, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting on behalf of MILDRED M. PASCUCCI requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit#8920 to install an AI/OUTS septic
system (Hydro-Action AN400) within the established 15' wide
non-disturbance buffer area that runs along King Street,
utilizing 1300 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,
has been postponed.
And number five, 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,
has been postponed.
On page ten, under Wetlands and Coastal Erosion, this
number five, Robert Wilson on behalf of STUART THORN requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the as-built
removal and replacement of existing 2,468 sq. ft. on-grade seaward
side stone patio in-place except the area along the portion of
the northern edge where the new patio will be set back from the
top of bluff to allow for new plantings and a decorative
split-rail fence; and to remove and replace the existing garden
wall with new 21'6"x6'0" masonry wall.
Located: 19375 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-20.1,
has been postponed.
And on page 15, we have number 22, 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,
has been withdrawn.
And numbers 23 through 31 have been postponed. They are
Board of Trustees 3 June 19, 2019
listed as follows:
Number 23, JOSEPH BARSZCZEWSKI, JR. requests a Wetland
Permit for the as-built clearing of a vacant lot; adding ±200
cubic yards of fill and grading out in order to raise the grade
of the property; plant 15 shrubs 4' apart along southeast
property line; and plant 18 shrubs 4' apart along southwest
property line.
Located: 110 Lawrence Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-2-7
Number 24, 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 maintain an elevation
of 2.5' over the underwater bottomland.
Located: 2245 Little Peconic Bay Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-1-16
Number 25, 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
Number 26, KENDALL TODD requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 1-1/2 story, 1,479.5 sq. ft. dwelling, and to construct a
15'x18' second story addition with a 9'x5' second story deck
within existing footprint of dwelling; for the existing
236.8 sq. ft. seaward side deck, and to replace existing deck
boards and railings; and for the existing 26'10"x12' seaward
side arbor/pergola, and to repair any rotted boards.
Located: 670 Bayview Drive, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-37-5-3
Number 27, GARY MANGUS & MIRIAM MEYERS request a Wetland
Permit to install a 3'x16' access ramp with railings using
Thru-Flow decking built directly off existing bulkhead; and
install a 6'x20' floating dock supported by four(4) 8" diameter
float piles with bunks to maintain float above bottom.
Located: 1295 Island View Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-57-2-16
Number 28, 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
Board of Trustees 4 June 19, 2019
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
Number 29, 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
Number 30, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of
ROSARIA FORCHELLI requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten Year
Maintenance Permit to cut the Phragmites to 6" above ground
level (in March-April), and not lower in the first year; all cut
material and thatch shall be hand-raked and disposed of at an
approved off-site landfill; cutting shall be performed by hand
and monitored by a qualified ecologist to ensure that no native
herbaceous plants or woody shrubs are removed; Phragmites shoots
will be re-cut again in early June to a height of 18"-24" above
soil level in order to avoid cutting native vegetation; one
additional cutting will occur as needed to a height of 18" above
ground level during the growing season (April - October); after
the first year, up to two (2) cuttings per year to a minimum
height of 18" (i.e. cut height shall not be shorter than 18"),
with native vegetation to be identified and flagged to be
protected; if new growth of invasive species is observed during
on-going Phragmites monitoring, it will be immediately removed
by hand; approximately 9,250 sq. ft. of vegetated upland area
shall be managed through removal of non-native and invasive
species (Wisteria sp., Mile-a-minute weed (Persicaria
perfoliata), Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Plume Grass
Board of Trustees 5 June 19, 2019
(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 20lbs/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 31, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ROBYN ROMANO
2015 FAMILY TRUST & JOSEPH P. ROMANO 2015 FAMILY TRUST
requests a Wetland Permit to remove the-two existing retaining walls and
associated steps-and platforms; construct a 125 lineal foot
lower vinyl retaining wall; construct a 125 lineal foot upper
vinyl retaining wall; construct a 40 lineal foot long westerly
vinyl retaining wall return; construct a 42 lineal foot long
easterly vinyl retaining wall return; construct two (2) sets of
4'wide by 11' long steps with cantilevered platform, one on the
lower and one on the upper retaining walls; and to construct an
8'x10' un-treated timber platform constructed on-grade between
the lower and upper levels.
Located: 1415 North Parish Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-71-1-14
Those have all been postponed. If you are here for one of
those, you are free to leave.
I would like to announce under Town Code Chapter 275-8(c)
files were officially closed seven days ago. Submission of
paperwork after that date may result in the delay of the
processing of the application.
At this time, I'll entertain a motion to have our next field
inspection Wednesday, July 10th, 2019, at 8:00 AM at the Town.Annex.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll entertain a motion now to hold the next
Trustee meeting Wednesday July 17th, 2019, at 5:30 here at the
main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like a motion to hold the next work
session at the Town Annex board room on the second floor,
Monday, July 10th, 2019, at 4:30 PM, and 5:00 PM Wednesday, July
17th, 2019, at the main meeting hall.
Board of Trustees 6 June 19, 2019
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time I'll entertain a motion to approve
the Minutes of our May 15th, 2019 meeting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for May 2019. A check for
$13,486.35 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.
Ill. RESOLUTIONS -OTHER:
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 JOSEPH BARSZCZEWSKI, JR.;
Located: 110 Lawrence Lane, Greenport; SCTM# 1000-53-2-7
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under 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 IX Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, June 19, 2019, are classified as
Type li Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are
not subject to further review under SEQRA:
They are listed below:
John Katona - SCTM# 1000-43-5-5
Alison Byers - SCTM# 1000-119-1-14.1 & 14.2
Florence Vasilakis, Alexander Vasilakis & Demetrios Vasilakis
SCTM# 1000-135-1-6
Stuart Thorn - SCTM# 1000-51-1-20.1
Ronald Spillane - SCTM# 1000-40-1-17
Alexander Perros - SCTM# 1000-51-1-18
Board of Trustees 7 June 19, 2019
Andrew Torgrove & Joni Friedman - SCTM# 1000-117-5-31
Robert & Jeannette Coane - SCTM# 1000-76-2-4.1
Michael Geraci - SCTM# 1000-144-5-17
Michael Mangan - SCTM# 1000-57-1-25
George Williams - SCTM# 1000-57-1-9
Alex Friedman & Erica Tennenbaum - SCTM# 1000-145-4-14.1
Neil Stronski & Patti Perrez - SCTM# 1000-111-15-10
Martha Stevens Living Trust, c/o Iris Bikel, Trustee—
SCTM# 1000-121-4-15
Karan Ahooja - SCTM# 1000-51-4-5.1
Matthew Stanton - SCTM# 1000-70-4-16
240 Windjammer, LLC - SCTM# 1000-71-2-11.2
4000GPBB, LLC - SCTM# 1000-128-6-2
Jerry J. Callis Revocable Trust- SCTM# 1000-81-3-19.3
John & Joan Petrocelli - SCTM# 1000-81-3-19.6
NH SAG, LLC, c/o Michael Sciarrino - SCTM# 1000-81-3-19.7
Peconic Land Trust - SCTM# 1000-20-3-6.2
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral V, Resolutions administrative Permits. In
order to simplify our meetings, the Board of Trustees regularly groups together actions
that are deemed similarly or minor in nature. Accordingly, I make a motion to approve as
a group items one, two and four. They are listed as follows:
Number one, ROBERT SERLING requests an Administrative Permit to construct
a 25'x25' picnic area using 2" RCA base, top dressed with 3/8" natural stone, with 4"
metal edge to frame and nine (9)flat topped boulders for sitting; 6'x6' on-grade
bluestone patio with stepping stones for entranceway; construct 2 or 3 courses of 4"x4"
cedar secured by rebar at seaward end of picnic area.
Located: 3575 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-10
Number two, Jason C. Leonard, on behalf of EVELYN McCONLOGUE requests an
Administrative Permit to replace second story deck on west side of house with an
approximate 440 sq. ft. deck, including concrete footings, support posts, framing, decking
and railings.
Located: 900 Trumans Path, East Marion. SCTM#: 1000-31-12-4.
Number four, 1160 SNUG HARBOR LLC requests an Administrative Permit to
replace the chain-link fence running along the northwest corner of property with 36" high
wood split rail fence; to replace the as-built 448 sq. ft. brick on-grade patio on west side
of house in-kind; construct a 640 sq. ft. brick on-grade patio on south side of house.
Located: 1160 Snug Harbor Road, Greenport. SCTM#: 1000-35-5-39.1.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Action on number three, Suffolk Environmental on
behalf of ANDREW& LINDA TOGA request an Administrative Permit
to remove seven (7) oak trees at various locations across the subject property.
Located: 2425 Mill Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM#: 1000-51-6-40
Board of Trustees 8 June 19, 2019
The most recent field inspection of this property was
conducted on May 20th, by myself, and I met there with the
builder and contractor to review the application.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency is as follows: Some trees depicted on the
photographs to be removed are very close to wetlands, standing
water, and the need should be better justified.
I met there in fact because the contractor was very
concerned about the number of trees that had to be removed to
put in an IA system, the septic system, and an addition for the
garage, and I found that the removal of trees did not impact the
wetlands and was in fact necessary. They might in fact improve
the situation with the new septic system.
Accordingly, I make a'motion to approve this. Again, the reason
for removal of the trees is clearly stated and addresses the
LWRP coordinator's concerns, and in fact will probably'have a
positive impact on the environment. So I make a motion to
approve this amendment as it is written.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number five, ARROWHEAD COVE AT
INDIAN NECK POA requests an Administrative Permit for a Ten
(10) year,maintenance permit to conduct periodic maintenance to
manually remove and replace in-kind approximately 100' of split rail
fencing located northeast of Campfire Lane and approximately
180' of split rail fencing located at intersection of Arrowhead
Lane and Campfire Lane.
Located 2215 Arrowhead Lane, Peconic. SCTM#: 1000-98-2-26 &27
The Board performed a monthly field inspection at this site, and
after discussing this at our work session determined that we would read
into the record.a slight alteration to the project description wherein it's
recommended that we remove the words "ten-year maintenance '
permit" because the activity--they could continue to repair the fence
continually after the granting of a permit.
Accordingly, I would move to approve this application
subject to striking the language "ten-year maintenance permit."
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, under Roman numeral VI, again, in order to
simplify the meeting, I'll make a motion to approve as a group
items that are similar and minor in nature. And accordingly, I'll
make a motion to approve numbers one through 14 and 16 through
20. They are listed as follows:
Board of Trustees 9 June 19, 2019
Number one, MARY ANN HORAN requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#2147 (a/k/a Permit#2151 from Bert Roke dated June 26,
1986) from Land Use Company for Albert Roke, as issued on June
26, 1986, Amended on June 27, 1986.
Located: 3315 Wells Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-8.
Number two, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of KARAN AHOOJA requests a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#6435 from Steven Benfield & Sheila Patel, as issued on
August 23, 2006.
Located: 19965 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-5.1.
Number three, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of KARAN AHOOJA requests a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#7351 and Coastal Erosion Permit#7351 C from Sheila
Patel, as issued on July 21, 2010.
Located: 19965 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-5.1.
Number four, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of KARAN AHOOJA requests a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#6340 and Coastal Erosion Permit#6340C from Sheila
Patel, as issued on April 19, 2006. Located: 19965 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-51-4-5.1.
Number five, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of KARAN AHOOJA requests a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#8512 from Sheila Patel, as issued on October 22, 2014.
Located: 19965 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#: 1000-51-4-5.1.
Number six, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of KARAN AHOOJA requests a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#4566 from David Page & Barbara Shinn, as issued on
March 27, 1996 and Amended on October 23, 1996.
Located: 19965 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#: 1000-51-4-5.1.
Number seven, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of KARAN AHOOJA requests
a Transfer of Coastal Erosion Permit#51-4-5.1 from David Page & Barbara Shinn, as
issued on August 26, 1998.
Located: 19965 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-5.1.
Number eight, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of JOEL SINGER requests a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#5592 from Robert Erenthal, (sic) as issued on July 24,
2002 and Amended on February 25, 2004.
Located: 20575 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-11.
Number nine, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of JOEL SINGER requests a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#5529 from Robert Erenthal, (sic) as issued on April 26,
2002.
Located: 20575 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-11.
Number ten, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of JOEL SINGER requests a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#4732 and Coastal Erosion Permit#51-4-11 from Robert
Ehrenthal as issued on May 2, 1997 and Amended on August 24, 2011.
Located: 20575 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-11.
Number eleven, Eileen Wingate on behalf of JOHN DiBARI requests a Transfer
of Wetland Permit#5914 from Edward L. Kavanagh, as issued on May 26, 2004 and
Amended on January 19, 2005; and for an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit#5914 to reconfigure existing deck by removing the 9'x5' first step; raising
105 sq. ft. deck; installation of four (4) new treads at each end of deck, for a total of
30 sq. ft.
Located: 2000 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-37.
Number 12, Thomas J. McCarthy Real Estate on behalf of MICHAEL KEELY
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#4449 to increase the size of
the 6'x16' floating dock to a 6'x20' floating dock.
Located: 580 Goose Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-79-1-3.
Board of Trustees 10 June 19, 2019
Number 13, DEA Engineering on behalf of OREGON CLIFFS, LLC c/o MARTIN
SOJA requests anAdministrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9387 & Coastal
Erosion Permit#9387C to eliminate the condition of seaward access by barge for the
work being done, to allow for landward access at Duck Pond Road.
Located: 13457 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-83-2-10.13.
Number 14, E. Lopez Nursery on behalf of CATHY &ANTHONY IASELLO
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9287 to install
approximately 120' of split rail fencing running along the west property line.
Located: 4295 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. SCTM#: 1000=123-5-24.1
Number 16, MATTHEW,MIRONOV& BARBARA LICHTENBERG-MIRONOV
request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9322 to add an additional
132 square feet to pool patio by installing pavers on-grade.
Located: 2900 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-3-15.
Number 17, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of TIMOTHY&
NANCY LEE HILL requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit.#9297 for
the as-built outdoor kitchen/grill area, wall measuring 8.6' x 2.5' and 3.35' high along the
seaward side and wall along the existing deck measuring 1.05' x 7.87' and 2.9' high
adjacent to existing deck and dwelling.
Located: 360 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-2-2
Number 18, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of JAMES WEEDEN
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9091 to construct 178' of 1.5
to 2-ton rock revetment landward of the tidal wetland boundary line. Install 12" diameter
fiber'coir logs' at base of bank. Establish and perpetually maintain a 10',wide non-turf
buffer landward of rock revetment; vegetate buffer area with Cape American Beach
Grass; replant any disturbed plantings in the wetland area.
Located: 1175 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue: SCTM# 1000-118-2-16.1
Number 19, Alfonso Martinez-Fonts on behalf of the NASSAU POINT
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit#9183 to replenish the sand on the association beach by the addition of
250 cubic yards of sand to be graded 12" deep in an approximate 150'x45' wide area
beginning at the parking lot and ending 20' landward of AHW.
Located: 75 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-8-8.1
Number 20, John Helf on behalf of REYDON SHORES PROPERTY OWNERS
ASSOCIATION requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#1959 to
construct a,3'x22' finger float with 2"x10" CCA stringers and timber tec deck attached
level with existing westerly floating dock, with galvanized bracket and one 8" dia. off
piling. Construction will match materials on existing westerly dock.
Located: 680 Lake Avenue, Southold. SCTM#: 1000-80-3-21.1
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Excuse me, was item 17 approved?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, it was.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
VII. MOORINGS/STAKE & PULLEY SYSTEMS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item number VI I Moorings/Stake & Pulley
Systems, the application,under item one, KEITH CUMMINGS requests a
Mooring Permit in Corey Creek for a 19' outboard motorboat, replacing
Mooring #113. Access: Private
Board of Trustees 11 June 19, 2019
The application has been received and reviewed by the Board
of Trustees. The Board reviewed this application and it is
appropriate for approval as the location is available. I would
move to approve.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VIII. RESOLUTIONS - OTHER:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roman numeral VIII, Resolutions - Other.
1. WHEREAS, there has been presented to the Town Board of
Trustees of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on
the 19th day of June, 2019, a desire to close certain waters
within Mill Creek in the Hamlet of Southold now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED that the Town Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid resolution at
Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, on the
17th day of July, 2019 at 5:01 p.m. at which time all interested
persons will be given an opportunity to be heard.
BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of Trustees of the Town of
Southold as follows:
I. Purpose:
The purpose of this proposed closure is to preserve our natural recourses and shell
fisheries to allow for replenishment and growth.
II. Amendment:
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees in an effort to preserve our
natural recourses and shell fisheries hereby designates the following waters a restricted
area pursuant to Chapter 219-16 (Shellfish) of the Code of the Town of Southold where
shell fishing shall not be permitted for the years 2019 and 2020:
The waters of Mill Creek in the Hamlet of Southold located within the following boundary:
West of an imaginary line commencing from a point at a painted yellow 4"x4" stake
located at 410 5'6.6876" North 720 24' 36.5436"West running northward to a point at a
painted yellow 4"x4" stake at the foot of Bay View Avenue located at 41' 5' 17.2176"
North 72° 24' 26.4852"West; and
North of an imaginary line commencing at a painted yellow 4"x4" stake at the foot of
Meadow Lane at a point located at 410 4' 58.62" North 720 24' 55.37"West running
westward to a painted yellow 4"x4" stake in front of a large rock at a point located at 41°
4' 58.9" North 720 24' 46.00"West.
III. SEVERABILITY:
If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this
resolution shall be adjudged by any court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not affect the
validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than
the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid.
Board of Trustees 12 June 19, 2019
IV. EFFECTIVE DATE:
This shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Town -
Clerk as provided by law.
That is the resolution.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral IX, Public Hearings. At
this time I'll take a motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and
enter into the public hearings.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is a public hearing in the matter of the
following applications for permits under the Wetlands Ordinance
of the Town of Southold. I have an affidavit of publication
from the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may be read
prior to asking for comments from the public.
I ask that you keep your comments organized, brief and five
minutes or less if possible. I also ask if you have cellphones
would you please turn them off in respect to others who are here
for this important public hearing.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Amendments, number one, Frederick Weber,
Architect on behalf of JOHN KATONA requests an Amendment to
Wetland Permit#9118 for the as-built new two-story single
family 1,912 sq. ft. dwelling with 522 sq. ft. attached garage,
104 sq. ft. seaward side covered terrace with second floor -
82 sq. ft. deck above, a 30 sq. ft. covered entry, and a 385 sq. ft.
seaward side open terrace with north and east terrace steps to
grade for a total building and terrace area footprint of
2,953 sq, ft.; remove existing patio and concrete path on water
side of dwelling; propose to construct a,t18'x28' (with 3'x3'
cut-out easterly corners) patio of loose laid bluestone pavers
in grade on a raised level seaward of the terrace; a low stone
wall and informal "boulders" and plantings would be installed to
stabilize the grade transition; add an additional 100 cubic
yards of fill and 100 cubic yards of topsoil to establish
revised grades landward of new low stone wall; construct an
outdoor shower on the north side of the-dwelling with a privacy
fence; two (2) raised pads for A/C units and a front walk; the
established 20' wide non-turf buffer is to remain and be
Board of Trustees 13 June 19, 2019
perpetually maintained; and the,proposed retaining wall around
sanitary system will not be constructed.
Located: 160 Inlet Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-43-5-5
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council unanimously voted on June 12th,
to support this application. And I have a memorandum of support.
Sorry, an objection to the proposed amendment from John Carroll
and Amelia Murphy. I'll summarize. The applicant, Mr. Carroll,
is requesting an extension of a patio and their application was
denied. The current waiver requests a large patio encroaching on
the setback. Part of the field line along the entire strip
retains its value and will be altered when this is put in place.
Further, it appears the patio comes within 45 feet of the
wetland line. At this point, it's recognized the drywells and state
that the water table is approximately two-and-a-half feet from
the surface and questioned the effectiveness of the drywells.
And the last point is that there is an outdoor shower that
appears to be encroaching on the required setbacks of their
property.
Okay. The Trustees did a field inspection on June 12th.
All were present. We discussed the possible suggestion of a
20-foot non-turf buffer from the flagged wetland line.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. WEBER: Yes, my name is Fred Weber, I'm the architect for
John Katona, 160 Inlet Lane, Greenport, New York. ,
The Katona residence is under construction with a Trustee
permit 9118 in place. Based on site conditions and owner
requests we are hoping make a few amendments to the Trustee
plan. We would also like to bring our site plan in conformance
with your original approved plans submitted by Robert Baron.
Basically, the house was constructed smaller than the
approved plan and we want to just get a confirmation of that. So
the existing house is, has a footprint of 1,912-square feet
where a 2,600-square foot house has been approved. The 522-square
foot garage where a 770-square foot garage was approved. And it
has a covered terrace, covered entrance and open terrace, with a
total footprint of 2,955-square feet, where greater than 3,370-square
foot footprint was approved.
can show you, it's maybe a little hard to see, but the red line is
the line of the previously-approved footprint and the house and the
existing terrace are all constructed within that footprint.
So beyond that, the amendments they are requesting is a
loose-laid bluestone patio at grade. Basically, the house
elevation was raised to an elevation of eleven feet for flood
conformance and there is a significant drop to the existing
grade. So the owner would.like to add an intermediate level
that would allow them to step down on the property as they get
down to the grade with the patio, that is 18'x 28' wide at an
elevation of about eight-and-a-half feet. It would make a
useable transition area. There would be a low stone wall that
would form a -- and boulders that-would stabilize the grade
Board of Trustees 14 June 19, 2019
transition, that would be approximately 100 yards of fill and
100 yards of topsoil brought in to establish the grades. And
the 20-foot wide non-turf buffer would of course be maintained.
Again, if I can show you the patio is that area, it's a loose-laid stone.
And there is no slab. It's just bluestone slabs that are set in grade.
The yellow area is the non-turf buffer. And we are setback significantly
still from the wetlands line.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can I just see that. There was a large tree we
were concerned about.
MR. WEBER: Which tree are you pointing to?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's the wraparound.
MR. WEBER: Right. Right.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
to this application?
MR. WEBER: Just a couple --there is the outdoor shower and there
was a retaining wall that was around the sanitary system that is
not required by the Health Department. And the final thing,
there are.two raised pads for AC equipment and a front walk. And
the last thing was, you just mentioned that tree. This morning I
got a letter from an arborist who had been to the site and he's
recommending I think taking down that tree. The owner has not
been consulted about this yet but I can give you this letter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We are not going to consider that at this point
as part of this application.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: If you can stand and address the Board,
please.
MS. MURPHY: My name is Amelia Murphy, we are the abutting
property to the north side. And as we are looking at the
amendment,that was requested, it is a significant increase in
terms of the what was originally put forth. I guess we are a
little confused. We thought that the town has a very strong
wetlands protection policy and established setback requirements,
at least 100-feet from the setback. A number of years ago we
looked to do a very modest extension on our 1950's house, moving
out the patio a slight amount, 4.6 feet to about two feet
elevation. And though we had a surveyor come in and incurred
the cost of surveyors at that time, the Trustees decided to walk
the property, they disagreed with the measurements of the
surveyor and said that we, in that extension, would very
slightly go into the wetland,setback. So it's our understanding
that1his is a policy clearly articulated by the Town in terms
of trying to maintain the whole character of the town and
maintaining the natural esthetic beauty of it. And we were not
allowed to expand into the wetlands setback with construction of
hardscape or anything. So we are surprised. We understand the
new construction of the house, people are going to maximize the
size of the house, raise it up, we get that, from flooding and
everything. But what we have now, we are surprised, it seems
like what the amendment is requesting is -- a bunch of the work is
already done. That there is that grade that is put up, which is
basically a hill in the front of the house and, you know, there
Board of Trustees 15 June 19, 2019
are supposedly drywells on the property, but the hills are
different, and you.are going to have water runoff during rain.
But it's also, there is not one other piece of property from Gull Pond
to the jetty where there has been any kind of change in the
topography on the waterside to the houses. I mean, the houses
are built up and,they do have decks, but there is no hardscape
on it. So what we have here is that next to us is this, is
approximately five feet above where it is, a hill built next to
the property, which it doesn't seem to us it's in keeping with
the code that-is in place to protect the wetlands and all the
esthetics around it. So we very quickly tried to put this
together. We didn't get informed of this until about eight days
ago, and unfortunately my husband is traveling. I had to take
off work to come here. I get it, you guys have jobs, you have
to do this. So we are trying to understand why is this variance
being allowed in this case, when I don't see there is a hardship
on anybody, with the variance was in place. And the entire strip,
we included pictures, kind of showing with the new house, there
is a very significant build-up in the land around it, and we have
basically stuff running down both sides of the.property. And the
property to the south was recently renovated but on the
waterside. You know, it's basically at grade to the house.
Then the house goes up. So we tried to summarize our concern with
it. And we were just, you know, assuming we understand it
correctly, that we just think that the town put in these goals,
they thought about them, they put the restrictions in place for
the greater good, and it really didn't turn out for us when we
asked for a variance on it and we were like, all right, so now
you have your policies that's for the betterment of the town.
And I just don't understand, and perhaps we don't understand it
properly, why it's allowed in this situation. So we have a large
hill built next to us and then you have significant construction
within the wetland setback which we felt was supposed to be
maintained without being significantly adjusted. That's our
concern.
The second concern, again, I couldn't look at the file
because you guys had it, I couldn't get out here before noon. I
get that. And we wanted to be sure that to the extent the
air-conditioning units and the outdoor shower are approved, that
they do fall within the setbacks that you need. Because the
original setback to the house is very close. And it's our
understanding, things you add on have to conform with any new
setback requirements. So those are our concerns.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With respect to the land use planning of a
prior project, this Board would not be familiar with, but we can
speak to the current project. The Board has been there and
granted a prior permit. The constructing activities as proposed
meet current guidelines, and that the fill and open, and
pervious patio construction meets current standards.
MS. MURPHY: Is that within the hundred-foot setback you are
allowed to build it up and do this?
Board of Trustees 16 June 19, 2019
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, on a case-by-case basis. It's
discretionary, and we have not made a decision yet. But it's a
discretionary decision the Board can make, and the Board has already
has set aside, in addition to all the populated and vegetated
wetlands that are seaward of a flagged wetland line that the
Board personally flagged, that there is a 20-foot area that is a
non-turf area that will be perpetually maintained to provide a
buffer to that area.
With respect to the building setbacks, it's not really the
purview of this Board, but maybe Mr. Weber can address the
components of the air-conditioning and the shower.
MR. WEBER: There is a 15-foot side yard setback. Well, 15-foot
minimum on one side and 35 total, which makes it 20 on the other
side. Air-conditioning units are allowed in that setback by Town
building code. ,And the outdoor shower is really a fenced area,
and fences are allowed in that area. The shower spigot will be
coming out of the wall'of the house and the fence surrounding,
the shower area will be, you know, less than six feet. Which is
allowed by code as well.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Just address the Board. Not each other.
MR. WEBER: I'm sorry. Okay.
MS. MURPHY: So for my edification, because we had a situation
where we are very small, really, 4.6 x 2'. It was very small and it
was rejected. And of course you guys were not necessarily here,
but it was our understanding you were not allowed to Out hard,
we didn't even think you could put a patio within the setback.
That's what we were told at the time. So this is not just a patio.
This is raised. You basically have a very large house. Which I
understand,you have to raise. Which then with this amendment
you basically allow them to build a hill. There is nothing that
it just doesn't seem it's in keeping with the objectives of the
code of keeping, you know, the esthetics of the Town in a
natural state as much as possible. So we are very surprised this
is allowed. And again, we didn't have a big notice on it to be
able to do more work. Nor do we have an attorney or anything
like that. We are just looking into it ourselves.
One other question, are you allowed to do work related to
any requested amendment before it's approved?
With the construction of this? I'm just curious, because it
seems a lot of the work has been done to put this elevated --
it's not at grade patio. It's a raised patio. And it's beyond
the initial requested amendment. Is one allowed to do the work
before an amendment is approved? Because it seems like a lot is
done.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In general no, but specifically in this case
most of the work was within the footprint of the prior approval.
MS. MURPHY: Even though this was not approved?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Most work that takes place within a prior
location is taken on a case-by-case basis. In this case we had
seen the work had been inside the prior permit approval process.
MS. MURPHY: Okay.
Board of Trustees 17 June 19, 2019
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, the other thing, too, is if you ever
see anything like that that you have a question with, certainly
contact code enforcement with the Town and they'll go down and
look at it. I mean that's how we get a lot done in town because
we can't be everywhere at all times. In this specific case a lot
of it was done inside the footprint. But in general, if you see
something you should definitely, definitely contact--
MS. MURPHY: Is the footprint included, certainly this is not
within the footprint of the prior house. But within the stone
patio they have that was at grade, not at grade but literally
inside the footprint is what they tore up? Because it's not
within the footprint of the house, the original house so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The other thing I want to address, the Board
constantly changes --they are typically looking at different
environmental factors, however, if you wanted to schedule a pre-
submission with us in.the future to come and look at your house,
that's off topic, but that's something that we do, if you are
looking to add on to a patio at your house. And also you have
been talking about 100-foot setback but the Trustees cover
everything within 100-foot jurisdiction. So anything you do
within the 100-foot jurisdiction is what we'll have a say
in. So it's not necessarily, depending on the situation, a
setback. It's just that we have to preside over the area and
decide if it's environmentally sound and if it's in line with
the code or not.
So I think there is a little bit of a misunderstanding.
MS. MURPHY: Okay. 'It's just, you know, this patio, if I look at
the schematics we got, I mean it's within 40 feet of the
wetlands line, 40, 45 feet in one corner. And I guess we didn't
understand that you are actually allowed to do a lot of
construction within that setback area if you -- I'm surprised
because we really got-- so we just went a different path and
didn't do anything major because of that. And it's just, it's
very hard to understand how it applies in one situation and
doesn't, I don't really see how it applies with the objectives
of the code as laid out.
So basically you just need.a 20-foot buffer? Is that what
it's about, the 20-f6ot buffer?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It's on a property-by-property basis. You
keep mentioning the word "setback." It's not 100-foot setback
per construction. It's 100-foot jurisdiction within the
wetlands. Again, it's on a case-by-case basis. Some later
applications will be for patios that are probably closer than 40
feet. You know, so again, it's a property-by-property
case-by-case basis.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If you would like to come to one of our work
sessions and discuss either general plans or as Trustee Krupski
indicated, schedule a pre-submission conference on your '
property, we,might be able to illuminate additional areas of
your concern or notions that you have with respect to the code.
MS. MURPHY: 1-guess. But I do have concerns about the raised,
Board of Trustees 18 June 19, 2019
the water table, the runoff from this. You know, we have
incredible rains. I don't know how a couple of drywells are
going to be able to absorb the water that comes up. And it's
very high. It's not just the house that is high. The entire
property now has been, like the entire property has been
changed. And it's not another strip that has been.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This Board took all those factors into
consideration when we dealt with the previous permit. What is
before us right now is an amendment to what was a permit that
was approved for a larger structure. So it would have been
helpful for us had you approached us on the first go around and
we could have addressed those concerns. And I also believe that
Trustee Krupski made an excellent suggestion, if you have any
interest in the suggestion that you previously asked for in
2012, schedule a pre-submission and the Trustees will visit the
site, meet with you and discuss the range of possibilities.
MS. MURPHY: I'm not so much concerned about our property right
now. I'm concerned about the adjacent one and the fact that we
have a different consideration for them than we have.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to
speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any other questions, 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 DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application to
amend permit 9118 as submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number two, Costello
Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of ALISON BYERS requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit#6383 to allow the construction of
22' of new vinyl bulkhead as a continuation of existing sheet
steel bulkhead's south return; place rock armoring at base of
bulkhead extension; fill void area landward and regrade as
needed; construct beach access stairs consisting of landward
3'x4' long sections of terracing steps leading down to a set of
3'x10' steps with handrails to bottom of bluff; construct
3'x3'4"' steps with handrails off bulkhead to beach; mulch
balance of walkway to top of bluff.
Located: 10335 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-119-1-14.1 & 14.2
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
(Negative response).
Opening up for discussion. I see no one stepping forward.
Board of Trustees 19 June 19, 2019
This application was supported by the Conservation Advisory
Council on their meeting on June 12th.
The Board of Trustees reviewed an amended set of drawings
submitted by Costello Marine Construction on April 19th, 2019,
wherein they have added toe stone armoring on the south return
as indicated in the project description.
And the LWRP coordinator has deemed this project consistent
with the LWRP,requirements provided that we verify public access
will not be impeded. And that was in fact reviewed by both the
Conservation Advisory Council and the Board of Trustees on our
field inspection.
Are there any comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing no comments from the Board and no one speaking,
does anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
And seeing no one else stepping forward to speak to this
application, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve the
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number three, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf
of FLORENCE VASILAKIS, ALEXANDER VASILAKIS & DEMETRIOS
VASILAKIS requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#9268 and Coastal
Erosion Permit#9268C to replace patio against bulkhead with
10'x20' composite decking on-grade; and to relocate the kayak
rack from stairs to landward of bulkhead.
Located: 21625 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-135-1-6
The LWRP found this inconsistent and consistent. The
inconsistency is the composite deck will be located within the
FEMA VE flood zone. And the relocation of the kayak rack
landward of the bulkhead is consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on June 12th
noting that it was a straightforward replacement of a patio with
a deck.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. MOORE:- I'm here on behalf of the owners if you have any
questions. It was straightforward.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The only thing we talked about in the field
was the use of stainless steel Ticos which would address the
LWRP concerns with the flood zone.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. That's fine with us. Would you put that
Board of Trustees 20 June 19, 2019
in the permit that way it's spec'd out for the contractor?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. Is there anyone here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition of use of stainless steel Ticos to address
the LWRP's concerns.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under wetlands and coastal erosion permits,
number one, Docko, Inc. on behalf of DONALD W. YOUNG REV. TRUST
& KELLY C. YOUNG REV. TRUST requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a ±160 linear foot long by 4
foot wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including railings on
both sides, water, and electrical utilities of which ±132 linear
feet of the pier to be waterward of the Apparent High Water
Line; install an 8'x20' floating dock supported by four (4)
piles with associated 3.5'x24' hinged access ramp off of seaward
most end of fixed pier; and install three tie-off piles.
Located: Off East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-3-2-2
The Trustees originally viewed this application on the 28th
of February and since then on the 8th of May we reviewed the
revised plans. Just let the record show this is not the first
time this has been on and there has been quite a bit we
have gone over on record for this property.
At this point is there anyone that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
MR. NIELSON: Keith Nielson, from Docko, Inc. The application
before you is one that has been discussed on at least two other
occasions and I would like to address some of the points that
were made by a neighbor and his consultants and such that
detracted from the application, and I think unfairly.
First of all, there were claims that this dock was going to
adversely affect eel grass that is in the area of the home, and
in order to assure that we were presenting the proper
information and responding accurately to claims that had been
made, we went out and redid our eel grass survey today. We were
out there this morning and verified that the open area that had
been documented by our survey and reconfirmed in 2017, 2018, and
now 2019, is the same spot. It is clear of eel grass and we
believe that our application documents are valid and appropriate
Board of Trustees 21 June 19, 2019
for this site.
In addition, a suggestion was made by their consultant that
this dock facility should be relocated over to property behind
the Ferguson museum, and we have had conversations with
members of the eel grass committee and with members of the
museum, and no such offer to relocate the dock facility to the
Ferguson property has been made to us. So we do not have their
authorization to utilize their beach front property for this
dock facility.
When we were out there this morning, we viewed the eel
grass conditions in front of,the beach, and in the area where
the eel grass stops close to shore, the water is two feet deep,
which is not consistent with the representations made by the
other consultant. And the area where he had suggested that the
dock be relocated to is in fact more prolific with eel grass
than other sections of the shore.
As a matter of fact, in the report that they had offered
during the last meeting, which we did not have any time to
respond to at the meeting, it shows that the area where the
neighboring property, the Ferguson museum property, you can see
their property line in yellow, goes perpendicular to East End
Road and then diverges at about a 30-degree angle toward the
shoreline toward the Calhoun property. And that area is fairly
prolific with eel grass. And in their own study, the report
from 2017 says that that is the area where there has been actual
eel grass gain in the area. So the recommendation by their
consultant that this dock be moved to the easterly edge of the
property, east of the line of the east edge of the house is
going to put the dock in no deeper water. They said it would be
deeper water and it is not. The dock would reach five feet
depicted to the same extent as the dock we had proposed. And in
addition it would be over existing eel grass. There would be
1,200-square feet of coverage or I should say shading impact of
the existing eel grass and approximately 2,100-square feet of
boat induced impact to the eel grass because of the motorboats
coming in and out through the eel grass bed.
I respectively suggest that the application be reviewed
based on what we have submitted:We have confirmed the
conditions again, we gave ourselves enough time to investigate
the recommendations of Mr. Noyes' consultants, and they do not
bear out. And we feel that we have properly represented the best
application for existing environmental conditions, public usage
of private-property, the public trust interest of the state and
compliance with your regulations. Thank you.
And I brought some photographs, if you would like them for
the record, that confirm there is no eel grass. And I purposely
took pictures out toward the end of the proposed dock site so
you can see what the eel grass looks like and you can see the
difference between these photographs in our site and the
adjacent eel grass bed. If you would like those, I'll hand these
up to you.
Board of Trustees 22 June 19, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like that.
MR. NIELSON: These two photographs show the area in front of the
Ferguson museum and they show how far the eel grass goes in
toward the beach. These first two photographs are in front of
the Ferguson museum property and they show how far in the eel
grass goes toward the shore.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: What's the depth here?
MR. NIELSON: Two feet. These next three photographs show eel
grass in the, at the extent, the waterward most extent 160 feet
out from shore. And you can see what eel grass looks like
underwater. And you can see in the area where we have the dock
located there is nothing like this. All right, so it shows
clearly that the eel grass has been, that we have avoided the
eel grass.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can you explain the methodology, how did you
take the photograph?
MR. NIELSON: Okay, we took photographs --first of all, looking
basically at the shoreline, this is Mr. Noyes' house to the
west. The applicant's house you can just barely see a corner of
it here. We are trying to give you a perspective of looking back
to the southwest. The panoramic view of the camera was not
working very well so we took pictures in fairly quick
succession, one, two, three, and show that the eel grass, the
outer extent of the propose dock area, and here is what it looks
like. The other vegetation is a combination of sea lettuce,
fucus, roughweed and other varieties, but not eel grass. And so
they give a darker coloration of the bottom sediments.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll pass those along.
MR. NIELSON: Thank you. And these photographs are taken directly
below the boat. You can see the shadow, or reflection, of the
camera. You can see, again, there is no eel grass in the bed
where we are proposing to do this work. Part of the reason that
these photographs are a little bit on the blurry side is because
the water is four-and-a-half feet deep.at low tide there, and we
were a foot above low tide when we took these picture this is
morning, and so --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That was going to be my next question. Thank
you.
MR. NIELSON: So it doesn't, it would have been nice if it could
have been clearer, but the water was not, clarity was not
perfect, so we did the best we could with it this morning. But
the bottom line is that we have taken the extra effort to
confirm the conditions under which our original design was
offered, and we have confirmed them, and again we believe that
we have presented a viable application. The same evidence has
been discussed on face-to-face meetings with the Marine Habitat
Protection bureau of the DEC and their permitting staff, and
they have agreed that we have demonstrated adequately the
viability of this as a dock site.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to reflect a moment on the fact
that we did a field inspection of this site in February and when
Board of Trustees 23 June 19, 2018
the water was quite cold and clear and we had a more than
adequate view of the eel grass at the proposed location. The
first proposed location. And that following last month's
meeting I read the report submitted, and my best characterization
is what was a general report. It was lengthy but, and I stand by
the observations made by myself and the fellow Trustees in
support of your observations.
MR. NIELSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you mind speaking to the, what I believe
is the new set of plans here, dated May 6th?
MR. NIELSON: Yes, sir. The newest set of plans have been revised
in accordance with agreement from Mr. Young and a consensus from
the permitting agency that it would be best to have this pier as
a full-length fixed pier with variable deck elevation to produce
I would say the least shadowing impact and the best pier
clearances, to minimize impacts over both tidal wetlands and
submerged aquatic vegetation. However the path we have taken is
clear of submerged aquatic vegetation, the eel grass
specifically.
However, in view of the fact that eel grass is somewhat of a
transitory species, we are acknowledging that eel grass could
grow in the area beneath the pier, even though now on four
different occasions we have confirmed the same conditions. That
is why the pier has a deck elevation of eight feet for the first
hundred feet and drops down to an elevation of five feet for the
actual pier landing. And only 30-square feet at the end of the
pier will be at an elevation lower of elevation about
three-and-a-half to four feet so that at low tide boat access
can still be gained from a stable platform. With the water depth
of five feet deep at the end of the platform and a deck height
of three feet we are still maintaining eight feet above the
bottom sediments with this stair-step type configuration. The
deck is four feet wide and we've utilized through-flow decking
for the full length of the pier. So we have accommodated every
design consideration, except for one pile which is waterward or
is in the eel grass boundary out at the end of the pier, and
that pile represents roughly three-quarters of a square foot or
roughly 110 square inches of bottom contact area. So our
conclusion is that we have done everything that we can do
to minimize the impact to the eel grass.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Is there anyone else here that wishes to
speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
One thing I did just want to address is on the cover page of the new plans you
submitted, you did put project new pier and float at the property. Which based on the
plans on the following page and discussion with you, there won't be a float?
MR. NIELSON: There will not be a float at this site.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. So there is a couple of areas on`the
most recent set of plans that I can find in the file that say
Board of Trustees 24 June 19, 2019
"float". So I would like to, certainly if we were to move
forward with something like this, clean that up.
MR. NIELSON: If I could, I have a set, an original set of
documents, drawings here, and while I do not have my
professional engineer stamp with me, I'll sign these drawings
and give them to you and I'll follow-up with another set of
signed and sealed drawings which will be the exact same
situation and verify just what I have just said.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Just so just we are on the same page, on
the cover page it says project new pier and float. You see
that?And then on the second page if you go down to the note in
the middle, it says related to the proposed pier, ramp and
float. So that would also have to be removed from the plans. And
then it says, near the top, where it says new 4.4-foot wide pier
with grate deck, ideally that would either say open-grate or
Thru-Flow. Just to clarify. Do you see what I'm looking at
there?
MR. NIELSON: I do.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And on the third page also the float was
referenced in the note.
Okay, are there any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
All right, hearing none, I'll read the new project description into the
record. Dated May 6th.
Dear Mr. Domino: Following up on our brief conversation on
Thursday, we are transmitting, herewith, revised application drawings
for a Wetlands Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a new
fixed pier off East End Road, Fishers Island, at the property of Mr. and
Mrs. Donald Young.
There have been several changes made to the application based on
discussion during the initial public hearing back in March, and conversations
earlier that day with the New York DEC, all of which I believe, make this project
more acceptable from an environmental perspective. These revisions include
the following:
The dock facility will be a full-length fixed pier. The pier head split landing will
be accessed via a 42-foot sloped section in the main pier which transitions from the
inshore section access walkway nominal 8.3-foot elevation. The floating dock and
hinged ramp have been removed from the project. The fixed pier will have a
two-stepped section with an end elevation of 5.5 feet for the primary landing
platform and 3.5 feet for the 30-square feet low-water access platform at the end.
The tie-off piles along the west side of the berthing slip at the end will be limited to
ten feet above mean low water cut-off elevation for aesthetic concerns expressed by the
westerly neighbor, Mr. Nicholas Noyes. These tie-off piles will be fitted with "tide slides"
which will allow precise tie-off position 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.
The project thus abides by the criteria and preferences set forth by Town, the
regulatory preferences of the DEC, and the Federal standards which include National
Marine Fisheries Service guidelines for construction of dock facilities in or in proximity to
eel grass beds. Because of the reduction in width from the eight-foot floating dock to the
four-foot fixed pier, the slip is also two-feet narrower, which brings one of the tie-off piles
Board of Trustees 25 June 19, 2019
out of the eel grass area and leaves only one pile driven in any area of eel grass with the
tidal area of less than one-square foot.
All right, based off the new plans and the new project description I make a motion
to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit
based off the May 6th project description, the May 6th set of
plans and with a new submission of plans striking any mention of
a ramp or float and also clarifying only Thru-Flow decking to be
used on the project.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I second the motion for the wetland permit.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I make a motion to deny the coastal erosion
permit.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. NIELSON: Thank you. I'll have the new drawings to replace
the ones I just signed and sealed for you tomorrow.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number two, En-Consultants on behalf of RONALD
SPILLANE requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit
to remove and replace damaged section of existing bluff stairway
with proposed 4'x35' long section of stairway, consisting of a
4'x8' platform with two benches, 4'x±26' stairway, 5'x6'
platform, and 2'x±5' retractable aluminum stair to beach;
leaving in place approximately 57' long section of existing
bluff stairway consisting of a 4'x6' platform, 4'x11' stair,
3'x6' platform, 3'x12' stair, 3'x6' platform, 3'x11' stair,
3'x6' platform, 4'x16' platform, and 3'x10' platform to be
connected to proposed replacement section of stairway; and
stabilize, re-nourish and revegetate approximately 20'x35' area
of bluff face adjacent to replacement section of stairway with
terracing, approximately 25 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be
trucked in from an approved upland source; and native vegetation.
Located: 63403 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-40-1-17
The Trustees visited this site on June 12th. All Trustees
were present, noting that the project seemed straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator found this project to be both
inconsistent and consistent. The inconsistency was the structure
was constructed without Southold Board of Trustees review or
issuance of a wetland permit. And the buffer to stabilize,
re-nourish and vegetate an approximately 30 to 35-foot area of the
bluff face was found to be consistent with the LWRP.
The Conservation Advisory Council did review this
application and they support the application using the best
management practices.
Board of Trustees 26 June 19, 2019
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Good evening. Rob Herrmann of
En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. Just addressing the
one comment in the LWRP, it's correct the existing stairway does
not have a Trustee permit. The existing stairway actually
predates, I believe, the Trustees'jurisdiction on The Sound. We
have, I can submit this for the record if you wish, we have a
Health-Department approved map that dates back to 1974 which
shows the house and deck, and it shows what looks like a
stairway at that time, actually on the west side of the property
and extending off the property onto the westerly neighboring
lot. But the owners of the property, the applicants, have
advised me that the prior owners switched the location of that
stairway and that would have been done prior to 1985 because
that's when the applicants purchased the property. So we have
that reason to believe the stairway has been there since prior
to 1985. But we have also been careful to prepare-this
application in a way that we are asking for the Board's permit
to maintain the existing portion of stairway that is to remain
and at the same time the proposed section of stairway that would
be constructed in place of the damaged stairway.
So our hope at the end of this process would be that we
would have a current Trustees permit for the entire stairway.
The other component of the project is just the terracing
and re-nourishment and revegetation of the some of the eroded
areas around the existing stairway, which is why we need the
coastal erosion management permit as well. So hopefully that
will address being able to permit the entire structure currently
will address the LWRP coordinator's comments. Other than that, I
don't have anything unless the Board has any questions.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Anybody else here that wishes to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland
permit as submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: And I'll make a motion to approve the coastal
erosion permit.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 27 June 19, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of
ALEXANDER PERROS requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit to demolish and remove existing bluff stairway and deck
adjacent to top of bluff; construct along eroding toe of bluff
approximately 80 linear feet of stone revetment with a 10'
easterly return, consisting of approximately 3 to 5-ton stone
placed over 50 to 100-pound core stone and filter cloth; restore
bluff face by constructing terrace retaining walls and placing
approximately 321-cubic yards of sand re-nourishment (including
approximately 266 cubic yards on on-site material excavated from
toe of bluff for revetment installation and approximately 55
cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an approved
upland source), to be vegetated with native plantings; construct
new 4'wide by±70' long elevated timber bluff stairway
(including ±49' north-south section down bluff face and ±21'
east-west section over proposed revetment), consisting of 4'x4'
steps, a 10'x10' platform, 4'x20' steps, a 4'x8' landing with
bench, 4'x10' steps, a 4'x5' platform, 4'x5' steps, a 5'x6'
landing, 4'x4' steps, and a 4'x4' landing, leading to stone
steps to beach incorporated into proposed revetment; remove
existing concrete debris from beach; and establish and
perpetually maintain a 10'wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the top of bluff; and for the existing 6' high
fencing and fire pit/circular gravel patio.
Located: 19215 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-18
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent:
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application, recommending use of best management practices,
retractable stairs at the base and ten-foot non-turf buffer.
That resolution was passed on June 12th.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on June 12th at
the site, and field notes were signed by the expediter
indicating it was a straightforward design. Also a ten-foot
non-turf buffer.
Is there anybody here to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. The application has two primary components. One
is the demolition and removal of the existing bluff stairway
that extends across the easterly property line and onto the
neighboring lot and construction of a new stairway which of
course would be located on the owner's property. And the
application also proposes the restoration and stabilization of a
severely eroding bluff by first stabilizing the toe of the bluff
with a rock revetment which would tie on the west side of the
property into an existing revetment on the westerly lot that was
approved by the Board in 2012, and actually extends some
distance onto the applicant's property. Then the bluff would be
terraced, re-nourished and revegetated with native plantings,
all depicted on the engineering plans submitted with the
application. And I believe that we do have the proposed ten-foot
buffer adjacent to the top of the bluff on those plans.
Board of Trustees 28 June 19, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else here to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted, noting that it was deemed consistent by the LWRP
coordinator.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, and I'll make a motion to approve the
coastal erosion permit.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number four, Patricia
Moore, Esq. on behalf of STUART THORN requests a Wetland Permit
and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the existing 2,742 sq. ft.,
two-story dwelling with a 12'9"x12'1" (146 sq. ft.) covered slate
porch on landward side; a 15'6"x8'0" (124 sq. ft.) second story
seaward side terrace; and for the as-built 4'3"x37'
(15.2 sq. ft.) "U" shaped indentation on landward side that was
enclosed to create interior space.
Located: 19375 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-20.1
The project is deemed exempt under the LWRP.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed the project at
their meeting on June 12 and supports the application with best
management practices.
And the Trustees visited the site on June 12th and
subsequently the office reviewed prior permit#5244 which calls
for an addition to existing structure.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak on behalf of this
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicant.
Yes, I actually sent a letter because after the application was filed we
discovered that everything on the property actually has permits. There
were two small things that the Building Department first sent to the Trustees
but then realized it was a very small modification to the existing house on
the landward side of the house, so they were able to issue the permit. And since
the application was in, the only thing we wanted to confirm was that we could
go ahead and repair the stairs because they too had a permit and we didn't want
to have any contractors there acting outside the scope of a permit. So it was
more protective to assure that we would not have any violations. So we can either
have this permit approved or it can be withdrawn since it already, Mr. Thorn already
has the benefit of all his permits. So it's really up to the Board.
Board of Trustees 29 June 19, 2019
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's my understanding in talking with the
clerk and with the President of the Board that the permit#5244
which was adopted November 27th, I believe that's 2001, was that
was for an addition and Trustees procedures at that time were
granting less than whole-house approval so that it might be, if
you will, a better approach to approve based on the plans
submitted. Because that may not--
MS. MOORE: Kind of wraps everything up.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right.,In retrospect at that time the
procedures had not changed to encompass the whole building
approval.
MS. MOORE: Thank you. That's fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else wishing to speak to
this application?
(Negative response).
Questions, members of the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, and seeing no one approach the microphones, I make
a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve this permit
consistent with a licensed land survey dated in the Trustee
office December 12th, 2018, last updated September 22nd, 2010.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland Permits, En-Consultants on behalf of
ANDREW TORGOVE &JONI FRIEDMAN requests a Wetland Permit to remove
existing "L" shaped dock consisting of a 3'x24' catwalk, 3'x10' ramp and 6'x16' float; and
construct in the same location (starting 6' landward and ending 18" seaward) a new fixed
timber"L" shaped dock consisting of a 3'x29' fixed timber catwalk constructed with
open-grate decking and elevated 4' above marsh grade, a 3'x12' ramp, and a 6'x16'
floating dock secured by two (2) 8" diameter piles. Located: 7165 New Suffolk Road,
New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-5-31
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on June 12th noting it was a
straightforward application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. So this is a project that proposes to replace an
approximately 27-year old dock that is in a dilapidated
condition, in essentially the same location. Permit#3888 was
originally issued to Joseph Heginski (sic) on January 18th, 1991. And
almost a year ago, I guess, we had applied, we started the
Board of Trustees 30 June 19, 2019
process by applying to transfer that permit to the current
owners, and that transfer was denied based on the condition of
the dock, and we were asked to submit a new application for a
new wetlands permit for the dock. So we have done that. We took
into consideration various constraints on this site which
includes the new Suffolk shipyard marina located opposite, on
the other side of the creek from the subject property, and also
the tidal properties to the east including a much longer dock
that extends across the creek immediately to the east. And
ultimately because the Tuthill family is the owner not only of
the underwater land that the dock sits on but also to the land
that is immediately adjacent to the east, we had to obtain
written permission from Larry Tuthill, Jr. to reconstruct the
dock. Larry Sr. had originally given permission for the dock
in 1991. Although New Suffolk shipyard is not an adjoining
neighbor on the lot, En-Consultants had worked with New Suffolk
shipyard for many, many years, and so as a courtesy I had
contacted about a month or so ago, before we filed the
application, Michael Irving, who I understood to be the manager.
Now I'm understanding that maybe there is a sudden change in
course. But anyway, as a courtesy, I reached out to Michael who
I had worked with for many, many years to make sure that the
shipyard would not have any objections for any reason to the
dock, and he indicated they would not, and it would probably be
an improvement over the old pile of wood they have been looking
at for a long time. But in terms of any possible impacts on the
neighbors, including the shipyard, you'll see in our plan that we
were very, very careful to design this dock in a way that stays
well within the one-third width of the waterway rule. And I saw
there was an LWRP comment that asked about the Trustees are
verifying the one-third rule in terms of what kind of vessel
could be docked there. So if you look at sheet one of our plan,
in addition to showing the approximate 17-foot distance that the
end of the float would be located from mean low or low water, we
show a 30-foot distance out from mean low or low that would
represent the width of the waterway there based on the survey
prepared by Ken Woychuck. So we stayed about 12 feet shy of
that limitation. So even if they had an eight-foot beam boat,
that would be about four-feet shy of that limit. So anyway, with
that, we hope to make sure to comply with all Chapter 275
requirements and be mindful of the fact that it is a fairly
tight space in that area, but we are essentially recreating a
condition that has existed for almost 30 years. That's all I
have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here that wishes to
speak regarding this application?
MR. BERGEN: Good evening. Dave Bergen, Cutchogue, New York.
I'm speaking here on behalf of myself as well as I have just
given written notification of speaking on behalf of New Suffolk
shipyard, the new manager Brian Beers. And before I get into my
comments, I have no reason not to believe Rob that he did notify
Board of Trustees 31 June 19, 2019
Michael Irving about this over a month ago. But there was a
change in-management in New Suffolk shipyard and the new manager
had no knowledge of this until I brought it to his attention
that it was in the paper last week, and he informed me that Mr.
Willis, the owner, was not aware of this application. So I'm
here tonight to speak on their behalf.
Just as a side note, it might be something for the Trustees
to consider in code revisions that when there is an application
for a dock immediately across from and in the immediate vicinity
of a commercial marina, that maybe it would be good for a code
amendment so they are notified of those applications.
The application is for a dock, and I have not seen any set
of plans, again, because the shipyard did not have a set of
plans they could provide me. But all I have is a description in
the paper and it says it's 1.5 foot seaward of the former
non-functional dock. So it is extending farther out into the
waterway as proposed than the totally non-functional structure
that is there now.
The structure is, as I observed, does not allowed for a
15-foot offset from the property line on either side as required
in the code. And that's in the Town Code. I'm not sure since we
don't have a set of plans to look at how it compares with the
property line as would be extended into the waterway.
New Suffolk shipyard is zoned M-1 and M-2. They have a
commercial dock, a fuel dock with high vessel traffic, and a
vessel travel lift immediately across from this proposed
structure. This proposed dock will impact the value of the
business as it will limit the use of the travel lift. It will
limit the ability of emergency boat haul outs. As the Trustees
are aware, you yourselves had to use this emergency haul out
operation for the pump-out boat last year. Just last Friday
there was another boat that was sinking that they had to do an
emergency haul out.
It's the only travel lift, to the best of my knowledge,
that is located in Peconic Bay in Southold between Southold
village and Mattituck. Meaning Strong's Marina. So it's
critical that boats have access to this travel lift in emergency
situations.
The proposed distance was measured today from the outermost
stake of the proposed float to the end of the travel lift, and
it was 49-feet plus or minus a foot because of the length there.
But 49 feet. So if you add a beamy boat to this proposed
structure, it's going to further reduce that width of waterway
to the travel lift, which will greatly impact their ability to
haul boats out of there.
I have a boat that is a total of 36 feet in length and as
you can see, you'add a boat on to this floating dock across
there, I'm not sure they'll even be able to haul my boat let
alone any other boats that are larger than that, in the travel
route.
Now, there is a possibility here of something that could
Board of Trustees 32 June 19, 2019
possibly work for consideration. And that is a fixed T-dock, a
fixed T ending where right now the ramp would end. So you'd
have no float there, and then you limit the width of the vessel
to maybe six foot, eight-foot wide. And that way it's not
extending that far out into the waterway.
So my recommendation is for this application to be
postponed so that this could all be taken into consideration and
a meeting could be held possibly with the management of New
Suffolk shipyard and the applicant to see if something can be
worked out. Because again, New Suffolk shipyard doesn't have an
objection to a dock. It's just the structure as proposed, adding
a beamy boat across there, you are not going to enable them to
use their travel lift for large boats or boats that they
currently haul out of there. You won't be able to do it.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Rob, Mr. Herrmann, maybe you can address some
of the concerns. According to your plans, I see plus or minus 46
feet from the most seaward edge of the float to the closest
floating dock from New Suffolk shipyard.
MR. HERRMANN: That's correct. And again, maybe if you look at
sheet one, and again with respect to Mr. Bergen's comments,
again it's just so frustrating to be in this situation because
we took, again, not just out of normal professional courtesy,
but due to the longstanding relationship we had with the
shipyard, took great pains through surveying and planning here
to make sure that we didn't do anything except work within the
rights of these property owners to maintain a residential dock.
And obviously there is probably some handicap here if Mr. Bergen,
and the shipyard didn't even have these plans. But we
specifically had the surveyor, and you can see it on the plans,
and I can hold it up right up against the screen. That won't
work. So we had the surveyor actually locate the exact
configuration those floating docks, including those finger docks
that you are looking at there. And I assume that,the travel lane
Mr. Bergen is talking about is coming through here. So the
dimension that Glenn just mentioned looks like it's coming from
here to the third float in. So it's right there. So the
distance for the proposed float to that float is as shown in the
plans 46 feet, plus or minus, and we also have a distance from
basically this point at low tide, you can see there is like a
little bit of land protrusion there. That's about 92 feet from
that point to the actual bulkhead. And because we have the
entire creek and the shipyards, docks, surveyed, I mean we can
give you any distance that you wish. But again, I mean
notwithstanding the fact that they are but one residential owner
trying to find a riparian footprint in an area that.is as you
can see from the photo that is fairly dominated by the shipyard,
is trying to stay within the Chapter 275 requirements. And
Chapter 275, whether an across the creek owner is noticed or
not, you have a specific regulation in your code that requires
that a dock plus its vessel may not extend more than one-third
Board of Trustees 33 June 19, 2019
the width of the waterway. And we have that measurement here.
Based, again, on the survey. And the end of the float is staying
12-feet landward of that limitation.
So the owners are not here, but I can tell you they don't
have a 12-foot beam boat. But if they had a seven or eight foot
beam boat docked on the outside of that float, it would still be
some room to spare in terms of what your code establishes as
their riparian area. Their area of riparian rights, so to speak.
With respect to the lateral property lines, again, the
prior dock was actually angled more toward that travel lift. And
if you look at the plans, you can see the outline of the
existing float as it existed previously. So in order to sort of
tilt-- it's easier if I do it this way. Originally this dock
is pointed the way the float is, this direction toward the
travel lift. The dock is now rotated ever so slightly this way,
so that what was a two-foot offset from this property line as it
would be extended is now ten feet. And the reason we did that
was so it's the maximum extent we possibly could to stay away
from this area. So, ironically, this entire design, which again
I understand Mr. Bergen has not seen, has really been designed
mostly if not completely with the shipyard in mind. So, yes, it
goes 18 inches out farther than how it was approved in 1991,
but, again, the reason for that is to make sure that the float
meets today's current water depth requirements, and by taking
the angle and pushing it away from that travel lift, we are
actually starting to encroach on the Tuthill property to the
east rather than what is now the Walsh property to the west. And
there again is why we had to get written permission from
Lawrence Tuthill not only to put the dock on his underwater
land, because remember, all that water bottom there, including
has to be part of their shipyard floats are actually on Tuthill
bottom. So we are within our rights, within your code, and we
received written permission from the bottom owner and the
adjacent owner.
Because of the water depth there, there is really not much
more we can do. I mean is pulling the float back 18 inches, I
mean, if they can't haul a boat between a 30 or 40 foot distance
from the creek, that's one hell of a,boat to be in that creek.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll ask you one question. On your survey,
April 8th, 2019, you have a distance --
MR. HERRMANN: On the actual survey or my plans?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Your plans, excuse me. You have 46 feet from
your float to New Suffolk shipyard. You also showed an adjacent
dock to the east.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Which appears to me to be closer to New
Suffolk shipyard than your proposed. Do you have the distance
of those two?
MR. HERRMANN: That's this dock here?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. Correct.
MR. HERRMANN: I can scale that distance off the plan.
Board of Trustees 34 June 19, 2019
So the distance between the end of this float and that
float is 29 feet, based on the survey.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And you are at 46 with the proposed?
MR. HERRMANN: Correct.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So even with eight-foot beam boat you are
still further away than the existing dock.
MR. HERRMANN: We are not tightening up the navigational outlet
here at all. Again, that was the basis of the plan was to avoid
that very conflict. And when you stand there, as I assume the
Board did, seaward of the dock is staked. I mean the Tuthill
dock to the east extends well farther into the creek, and you
can see it in the aerial photograph there. -
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
MR. BERGEN: May I approach the picture?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sure.
MR. BERGEN: Just to clarify, the 49-foot measurement that was
taken today was from here, the end of the travel lift spot, to
here.
MR. HERRMANN: Dave, I'm sorry, point to it again.
MR. BERGEN: From the end of the proposed structure to here.
MR. HERRMANN: To the first float?
MR. BERGEN: To the float of the travel lift opening. The mouth
of the travel lift.
MR. HERRMANN: So based on the survey--
MR. BERGEN: Plus or minus.
MR. 'HERRMANN: That distance looks, what you just said, to be
about right on. About 48, maybe.
MR. BERGEN: Plus or minus a foot.
MR. HERRMANN: I would agree with that measurement.
MR. BERGEN: The reason I brought that up is there was a couple
of points Rob was making. One is the one-third rule. And you
might recall in my comments, we were not referring to the
one-third rule. We were also talking about another dock, the
Tuthill dock in the distance over to the float. We are not
talking about that either. Our concern from the business
perspective for a commercial facility that is zoned M-1 M-2 is
that the distance from this proposed structure to the travel
lift is 49 feet plus or minus. Then you add the beam of a vessel
on there, that will reduce it even further. And as I alluded
to, they need more than that right now to get vessels in and out
of that travel lift. To swing them in and out of that travel
lift. When you launch a boat, the stern has to come all the way
out and then the bow has to come out beyond the floating dock,
the bow then swings to the east. So that vessel is all, the
stern of that vessel will be all the way over right into a
vessel on this proposed structure. It's going to limit the
ability to conduct business for the shipyard. And we feel that
business zone M-1 M-2, that should be given very serious
consideration.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Can you tell me what is the largest vessel
Board of Trustees 35 June 19, 2019
that they store for the winter in that--
MR. BERGEN: It would be approximation, and I would approximate
probably about 42 to 44. And that is just an approximation on
my part.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: They bring in 42 foot boats with --
MR. BERGEN: When you talk about the overall length, when you
have the pulpit and a swim platform. You add a pulpit on and a
'swing platform on, my vessel is 34.6. You add two foot and
another foot for the pulpit. It gets up there pretty quick. And
I'm not the largest vessel'that is docked in there and is hauled
in there. And again, I'm concerned about emergency haul outs. If
I have to be hauled out in an emergency, that's got me
concerned.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just a quick question as a representative of
the shipyard. Obviously the travel lift is tucked in next to the
building there. So it's really limited by the shipyard's two
finger piers coming out in front of it, in my opinion anyway,
almost more so than the dock across creek. The one pier seems to
be very long in front of the building.
MR. BERGEN: To be honest with you, Nick, those piers have been .
.there for the 20 years I have been using the shipyard. And
again, I don't have the history of how far- back those piers were
installed there. If they have been replaced over the years or
not. I just don't have that information. And again, I just want
to emphasize, understandably Rob was spending a,lot of time
talking about the one-third rule. Also very important in the
code-is the 15-foot setback rule off the property line. So if
you,are going to insist of adhering to the one-third rule, you
know, in fairness you have to insist on adhering on the 15-foot
on each side of the property line, which means there is not any
room for a dock here, period. So again, I go back to what I had
stated that there is opportunity here for a fixed-T limiting the
width of the beam of the vessel, and this might work. I leave
that up to the Trustees because they also have to consider the
depth of water there and not just the beam of the vessel, but
depth of the vessel, because you can't have the vessel sitting
on the bottom at low tide. Again it could very well be a
situation where according to today's code, not the code that was
existing when this dock was, this non-functional structure was
originally put in. But today's code. It might be a dock is not
possible there. That's up to the Trustees to determine.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to
speak to this application?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What's the width of the property?
MR,HERRMANN: The property basically is a reversed flag. So the,
flag width to the waterway is only about 26 feet. I mean the
width, well, again, the width at an angle the way the property
line is drawn is 52.03 feet as shown on the survey. But for all
intent and purposes, if you are talking about lateral setbacks,
you are talking about the distance here. Now, there again,
creating the impression that we are asking for something we are
Board of Trustees 36 June 19, 2019
not allowed to ask for, I don't know that the lateral setbacks
of the Tuthill or Walsh properties have anything to do with the
shipyard. But as I explained earlier, we actually shifted, one
more time, we shifted the rotation of the dock this way to
actually impinge on the Tuthill line here closer to this much
longer dock. And stay farther away from the Walsh property
here. Again, to just try to stay out of the way of that traffic
that would be coming in and out of the shipyard. But I do
understand, I mean if the concern is, you know, swinging boats
this way, yes, I would say one other alternative to remove or
shorten that finger float and move it over here. Then you would
not have any conflict with the docks across the creek
whatsoever.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: One point I would like to bring up is in the
planning of this dock, you did communicate with the, at that
point in time, manager of the marina, who had been familiar with
the operations of boat hauling; and he had no problem with it.
MR. HERRMANN: I did. And again, I didn't send him a set of plans
and ask him to -- I'm not representing that at all. All I'm
saying was that I, what I, the purpose of what I was doing is,
again, because of the business relationship that I had had with
Michael Irving and the shipyard for a long time, basically
brought to his attention that we were going to be submitting an
application on behalf of these owners to reconstruct that dock
essentially in the same location. And I wanted to make sure, not
just on behalf of my clients but for my own business interest
that his, he couldn't see any reason why the shipyard would
possibly object to the reconstruction of that dock. And his
answer was no. He said, if anything, it would be nice to see
that eyesore disappear, or words to that effect.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I guess the point I'm driving at is at that
point in time, the manager who had experience with several
hauling and launching seasons, saw that that proposed structure
would not impede the operations of the marina. And it is
possible that the new manager who has just come on and is
between any sort of boating or launching seasons is not as
familiar with the operation as the prior manager might have
been.
MR. HERRMANN: It would be conjecture on my part but it's
certainly a possibility.
MR. BERGEN: And with all due with respect, Mr. Irving never
indicated to myself that he knew anything about this. The new
manager stated he didn't know anything about this. And the
owner of the marina said he didn't know about this. So again,
if, at the very least, I would ask that this be postponed so
that all the parties that are now players in this, have an
opportunity sit down together rather than rushing this through
tonight. Which clearly there are issues.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So speaking from a marina perspective, which
I have a little bit of experience with, I don't necessarily see
an issue with trying to get a boat in and out of that travel
Board of Trustees 37 June 19, 2019
lift. If there was a dock there historically, 18 inches should
make absolutely zero difference in trying to get in and out of
that travel lift. You keep mentioning going to the west with the
boat. There is no reason you can't come from the east in or out,
which gives you that angle to enter and exit the travel lift
slip. There is more of a choke point further to the east that
would exist than to this proposed dock that is to the west. The
distance is 46 plus or minus feet from one point. 49, 48 feet to
the travel lift. And to make that swing you do not need the full
length of 49 feet to pivot a boat from the edge of that pier to
the west of the travel lift. You don't need to go out 49 feet to
make that turn to the west. Once you start getting probably
two-thirds of the way, you can start pivoting that boat about,
would clear to the docks to the east, and you could easily swing
that boat and get out of the creek heading east.
MR. BERGEN: And I can tell you from an owner of a boat who has
myself personally backed the vessel out of that travel lift,
while this non-functional structure has been there, in other
words there has not been a functional dock there for the last, I
believe at least six, seven years, and that was confirmed by the
previous Board when I was a Trustee, that this was a
non-functional structure back then. And there is barely room now
to rotate a boat, a vessel of approximately total length 39, 40
feet. You add on now a dock extending further and a vessel with
a beam of ten feet, well, I said it ad nauseam, it won't be
possible anymore.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I would also make the generalization that any
marina gets tight maneuvering a boat, especially a boat of 40
_foot plus. Whether it's a boat of 20-foot plus, the distance
between slips and docks makes maneuvering difficult. It's very
rare where you have a wide open area that is free of any docks, '
obstructions of other boats.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Herrmann, I have a quick question. This
proposal was staked?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The follow-up, when was it staked?
MR. HERRMANN: I'm trying to remember, because Ken Woychuck told
me when he did it. It would have been probably just prior to
your inspection.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We realize it was staked. Question. Was
Michael Irving aware of staking at all?
MR. HERRMANN: No, because again, I believe probably, it was
probably, it could have been six or eight weeks ago as easily as
it was a month. But apparently he has been gone a very brief
time.
MR. BERGEN: Yes, he has been gone approximately three weeks. And
it was staked about a week ago.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, is there anyone else here wishing to
speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
Board of Trustees 38 June 19, 2019
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No. I would just agree with your comments
about boat operations, I have-a little sea time myself.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a
motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number two, 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 most recently did an inhouse review on the
12th of June. Prior to that we were at this property quite a few
times, with various discussions on the setbacks and the deck and
some of the fill.
A request was put to the Town engineer for review. And I
do have a letter in the file from the town engineer dated May 14th.
Dear Mr. Domino, as per a request from your office I
reviewed the site plans prepared by the office of George K. Jaing
RA, dated 1/4/19. The residential site plan has been modified
from the original approval back in 2015. As modified this site
plan currently meets the minimum requirements of Chapter 236 and
is hereby approved for storm water management. If you have any
questions concerning this matter, please contact my office.
Sincerely, James A. Richter, Storm Water Manager.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be, the built structures
and activities to be inconsistent with policy standard 6.3.
6.3 is structures built without a permit. He does however
say the relocation of drywells and construction of a four-foot
wide path to the water is recommended as consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with gutters, leaders and drywells and a 25-foot
vegetated buffer, which the property does have.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
Application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicant.
Board of Trustees 39 June 19, 2019
1 know you are familiar with this property. At the last
meeting, or prior to the last meeting, I think the last time we
were here at the hearing was in April, May. Before the town
engineer. So it must be April. I provided for you an overlay to
help identify in some respects an explanation of why my client
was somewhat confused on whether the deck was a part of the
permit or not. The building permit that was issued was for a
house, which was a full foundation, much closer than where the
house was ultimately built. The house where it was built was
pushed back at least 15 feet more toward the road, and about 163
feet from the tidal wetlands. The only real issue was always
this little pocket of fresh water that had been, had created
over time through natural ponding, and that freshwater wetland
was more than, excuse me, the gravel impervious or-- pervious
surfaces are, is the gravel driveway, is the closest point. But
the deck is, a small corner of it touches into the 75 feet from
the freshwater wetland. Again, the tidal wetlands which were the
important protective measure here, the house and the deck,
everything is more than 100 feet from the edge of wetlands.
So as far as the LWRP, the only issue was the deck that was
originally proposed on the side within a building envelope.
There was no description of it as a deck. It was part of the
overall building envelope of the entire house, and that was
ultimately built in the back of the house rather than the side
of the house.
He got punished. He got a violation. He got paid for. So
that issue is set aside. Now it's the permitting process. As I
said, I gave you the overlay. There is no environmental impact
by the proposed deck. The original foundation was a full
foundation. This is a deck that is elevated about ten feet off
the ground. Therefore, it's an open structure, which allows both
light, air, under it. The Town engineer has reviewed it and
finally the Trustees had recommend that a fence be installed
along the seaward side of the buffer to ensure there would be no
encroachment into the wetland area. So he has cooperated. He has
done everything that has been asked of him, and I would ask
respectively please allow for this amendment which was the deck.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
All right, taking into account the comments from Jamie Richter
at Storm Water Management, 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
therefore bringing it into consistency with the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
Board of Trustees 40 June 19, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I ask that we take a five-minute recess.
(After a five-minute recess, these proceedings continue as
follows).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, we are back on the record.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number three, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf
of JOHNNY DONADIC, MARCIA DONADIC TRUSTEE OF THE ALEXANDER
ANTHONY DONADIC TRUST &THE OLIVER ANGELO DONADIC TRUST requests
a Wetland Permit to replace existing 31.4'x15.6' swimming pool
in-kind, connect backwash to existing drywell, and raise to
level of patio; replace existing 55' long retaining wall with
concrete wall to match level of pool and house; replace 27' long
retaining wall and raise height of retaining wall from 8" to 12"
high; fill area between existing retaining wall and house with
52 cubic yards clean fill; replace existing patio with
1,445 sq. ft. of bluestone patio set in sand/stone dust.
Located: 325 Willow Point Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-5-26
The Trustees visited this site back in April and we
conducted an inhouse review on June 17th, reviewing new plans
showing the retaining wall out of town right-of-way and all
drainage calculations as per town engineer. We do have a letter
dated May 14th, 2019, from the Office of the Engineer, stating
there are some concerns. In addition, when this was open at
previous meetings, the LWRP coordinator found this to be exempt
from review due to a minor action.
And the Conservation Advisory Council reviewed the
application and supported the application.
At this time is there anyone here who would like to speak
to this application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore. Again, there is a replacement of a
previously permitted, previous building permit, CO had issued
swimming pool. I checked with my client today. Joe Fischetti and
Jamie Richter have been discussing the drainage issues but they
have not, I don't think Joe has finished the drawings. Certainly
I would be very happy if we would approve this because these
drainage issues would resolve with the Building Department. But
if you wish to postpone this until Jamie and Joe Fischetti
finish their plan, I'll leave it up to you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Based on the letter from the Office of the
Engineer, there are some concerns that do need to be addressed.
MS. MOORE: Okay, they are working on it.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So at this point you wish to table the action?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anybody else here that wishes to
speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Board of Trustees 41 June 19, 2019
Based on the applicant's request, I make a motion'to table the application.
TRUSTEE'KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of
MARTHA STEVENS LIVING TRUST, c/o IRIS BIKEL, TRUSTEE requests a
Wetland Permit for the existing 27.3'x8.7' fixed dock with
4.6'x8.6' steps on each side of fixed dock; existing 2'x6.7'
beach stairs; existing 17' long retaining wall; existing 3.9'
landscape steps to 7:6' wood landings along 3.3x8' stairs to a
4.0'x5.8' stoop to 7.8'x22.1' screened porch; existing multiple
wood landings of variable lengths together with a handrail;
existing 22.5'x22.5' dwelling with a 3.5'x3.5' outdoor shower;
existing 5'x20' retaining wall; existing front entrance with a
4.1'x5.2' landing to steps and a 7.9'x7.0' platform-and step to
grade; and for the existing 8.1'x6.2' shed.
Located: 2563 Laurel Way, Mattituck. SCTM#: 1000-121-4-15
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from the following points: The dock
materials have not been identified and code runs against the use
of treated materials. No permit for this structure has been
found. And references a ten-foot wide-easement noting that the
dock is close to that easement. Also that in the event the
action is approved, require a vegetated non-turf buffer landward
of the wetland to preserve water quality.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application unanimously on June 12th.
The Trustees did a field inspection also on June 12th at
3:35 in the afternoon, and noted that there was a pre-existing
non-conforming dock which we should check the permit history.
Otherwise it was a straightforward application regarding the
house. All Trustees were present.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore on behalf of the Trust, and also
the newest property owners. This is all very pre-existing. You
were standing on the dock. That dock has been'there for, well,
the house has been there before the 50s. The dock has similarly
been there I believe since the 60s. The reason we went in for a
permit was to permit all the existing structures which are, as
said, they are pre-existing. And that is, this; the right-of-way
is a little bit unusual. It appears to be a right-of-way for
Stillman: That is the white house that is by the entryway. That
right-of-way I believe allows that property to get access to
their dock, which is directly adjacent to this property. That's
our dock. And just on the other side of it is the Stillman's.
dock. You see the retaining walls and the deck. We have nothing
to do with that but I believe that years.ago that right-of-way
was provided to help give access to that property, because it's
very tight over there. But this is a very unique area where it's
very old homes and very old developments from the 50s. So.
Board of Trustees 42 June 19, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to ask a couple of questions. Thank
you for that photograph. The first would be that, this is my
recollection, that the area did not have a lawn or turf?
MS. MOORE: No, there is, non-turf is pretty consistent.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So the entirety of the lawn is a non-turf.
MS. MOORE: Yes, moss.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's one. Can you go back to the other?
I believe the surface there is cedar, but would your applicant
have any objection to approval subject to any repairs or
replacement in the future that mandate use of non-toxic
materials and/or Thru-Flow?
MS. MOORE: That is not a problem. That is consistent with the
owner's wishes anyway. So certainly that can be a condition of
the permit that in the event it's repaired or replaced, that
proper environmentally appropriate materials are used.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Does anyone else wish to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Any questions, comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application with
the condition that any future repair or replacement of the dock
use non-toxic materials and Thru-Flow decking, noting that the
approval of this will satisfy the conditions, the inconsistency
as put forth by the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number five, Patricia
Moore, Esq. on behalf of KARAN AHOOJA requests a Wetland Permit
to install 4' high fencing along west property line 140 linear
feet to upper wood retaining wall, south 110 linear feet, east
along property line 150' to upper wood retaining wall; and to
plant 3'-4' of natural vegetation along wood retaining wall
(native vegetation 110'x4' non-turf buffer).
Located: 19965 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-5.1
This project deemed consistent under the LWRP.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with a request for a ten-foot non-turf buffer.
The site was inspected along with numerous requests for
transferring permits that were already adopted this evening by
Trustee Domino on May 3rd of this year.
The Board reviewed the project plan and the report of Mr.
Domino at our monthly field inspections.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
Board of Trustees 43 June 19, 2019
MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore, if you have any comments. This
is, again, a minor request.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the Board viewed this based on work
session discussion as being straightforward, noting that there
is a vegetated bluff adjacent to the four-foot natural
vegetation. I think it actually does provide in sum total more
than the ten-foot natural vegetated buffer. I think the concerns
were met, more than met by the addition here. And it is
consistent with the LWRP.
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, seeing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number six, ROBERT &JEANNETTE COANE
request a Wetland Permit for the existing two-story (1,177 sq. ft. footprint)
dwelling with attached garage and 260 sq. ft. seaward side deck; cantilever
the north wall 24" for more living space; the wall modification will run 27 1/2';
and to convert the garage into living space.
Located: 1555 Smith Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-76-2-4.1
The LWRP found this to be exempt.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on June 12th,
noting the building extension looks straightforward. The need
for gutters to leaders to drywells and non-disturbance area of
40-feet seaward of dwelling during construction and thereafter.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. KELLY: Bob Kelly, owner of the property, if you have any
questions.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seemed straightforward.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 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
with the conditions of gutters to leaders to drywells and a
non-disturbance area 40-feet seaward of the house. That's my
motion.
Board of Trustees 44 June 19, 2019
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number seven, AMP Architecture on behalf of
MICHAEL GERACI requests Wetland Permit to remove existing
sanitary system and install a new IAOWTS sanitary system with
approximately 900 sq. ft. of land disturbance during
installation; all disturbed areas will be filled and seeded.
Located: 525 Old Salt Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-144-5-17
The Trustees visited this site on the 12th of June, noted
it was straightforward and a nice improvement, the use of the
new system.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation-Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Is there'anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PORTILLO: Anthony Portillo. Sounds like everything is okay.
If there are any questions, I'm here to answer them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone here that wishes to
speak or any comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the 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).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number eight, Frank Notaro on behalf of
MICHAEL MANGAN 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
We visited this site back in May of 2019. We are continuing
this discussion from the prior hearing where the applicant
tabled it for new plans.
The LWRP coordinator found this project to be both
consistent and inconsistent. The inconsistency being that a
wetland permit was not located within Town records for the
existing as-built structure and recommended further the
establishment of a vegetated non-turf buffer landward of the
Board of Trustees 45 June 19, 2019
bulkhead.
The Conservation Advisory Council did review the
application and they support the application with the condition
of gutters to leaders to drywells, which were installed to
contain roof runoff.
Looking at new plans, submitted, dated May 21st, 2019,
there is a clear depiction of the roof runoff being contained in
catch basins and there is the establishment of a 15-foot wide
vegetated non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted noting the addition of gutters to leaders to catch
basins, and the addition of a 15-foot wide vegetated non-turf
buffer behind the bulkhead on the plans received May 21st, 2019.
And whereby the addition of the non-turf buffer and issuance of
a permit brings it into consistency with the LWRP coordinator.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number nine, Robert Brown, Architect on behalf
of GEORGE WILLIAMS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
195 sq. ft. deck extension with pool (94 sq. ft. proposed deck
extension & 101 sq. ft. proposed pool), to existing 524 sq. ft. deck
in seaward rear yard; install a landward yard new front door and
84 sq. ft. landing made of poured concrete with biuestone finish
with two (2) risers (7" rise/12" run).
Located: 830 Tarpon Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-57-1-9
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted unanimously to
support this application on June 12th.
The Trustees did a field inspection on June 12th. All were
present. The discussions were that this application was
straightforward.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. BROWN: Robert Brown, Architect. I would just like to point
out that on June 11th we submitted a revised site plan showing
concrete part, part of the concrete driveway being replaced with
gravel in order to meet DEC impervious lot coverage requirements
to avoid a variance. I just wanted to make sure you had that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Duly noted. Is there anyone else that wishes to
speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Board of Trustees 46 June 19, 2019
Questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I move to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I move to'approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number ten,
AMP Architecture on behalf of ALEX FRIEDMAN & ERICA TENNENBAUM
requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 1,593 sq. ft. two-story
dwelling and to construct a proposed 258 sq. ft. mudroom with 91
sq. ft. of steps leading into mudroom, totaling 349 sq. ft.; a
proposed second story 125 sq. ft. terrace over mudroom; proposed
85 sq. ft. second story balcony; and for a new 517 sq. ft. wood deck
at west side of home, replacing existing 525 sq. ft. deck.
Located: 350 MacDonalds Road, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-145-4-14.1
This application was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory
Council that supports the application.
The Trustees viewed the application on field inspection on
June 12th and a detailed inspection list concerning, discussion
concerning the fate of the tree that was seaward of the deck,
noting also that the project should have gutters and leaders to
drywells. And that a ten-foot non-turf buffer was indicated to
be desirable along the seaward edge of the entire property as
work associated with this much remodeling may come with it a
new lawn and new turf areas.
(The LWRP program coordinator Mark Terry indicated that the
proposed deck is 7.8 feet from the water body as it extends
seaward of the dwelling. He recommended the deck be redesigned
to not extend seaward of the dwelling to further the 100-foot
wide regulatory setback and increase the distance to the water
body. Therein based on his comment and reviewing the plans
presently, there is a question concerning that 7.8 foot
denomination on the plans. I'm not entirely sure, it is a point
of confusion as it doesn't match other lines on the plans.
Okay, is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. PORTILLO: Anthony Portillo, Architect. AMP Architecture.
I'll start by saying that the tree just discussed that currently
"is actually dying and is going to probably die if that deck
remains as existing. That's part of the reason why deck is being
removed. The owner does want to keep the tree and has plans'to
basically bring it back to life.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: He does to want to be keep the tree.
MR. PORTILLO: 100%, yes. And I have revised drawings to show the
tree location that will remain.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Could you approach the dais and maybe I
Board of Trustees 47 June 19, 2019
could point out the 7.8 figure because it seems --
MR. PORTILLO: Sorry, it's 17.8. 1 think the "1" might be hidden
by the dotted line.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, that explains it. It's hitting your
elevation line. So at first glance, all right. So it's 17.8
feet. All right, that in itself addresses some of the concerns
of the LWRP coordinator. I'll just pass the plans down and you
can see what that entails.
MR. PORTILLO: I also have revised plans showing the ten-buffer
on the seaward side that I stamped and can provide to the Board
tonight.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's the requested ten-foot non-turf
buffer?
MR. PORTILLO: Yes, sir.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can have that stamped in by the clerk, I
believe. Do the plans indicate gutters to leaders to drywells?
MR. PORTILLO: I actually have a storm water management plan that
will be submitted with the Building Department plans that has
the drywells, and gutters will be provided to the drywells. We
have not submitted that. We are waiting to submit the storm
water management plan to release our building permit, so we have
to go to zoning first, which we have approval from zoning.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. My understanding is that we ordinarily
do our final approvals based on a project plan that incorporates
the gutters and leaders to drywells in addition to buffers and
sanitary and all other items.
MR. PORTILLO: So as proposed, because it has been reviewed by
engineering.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Typically we would table at this point for
submission of plans that includes all the elements that have
gotten the approval by engineering.
MR. PORTILLO: I'm sorry. How do I submit--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. We are concerned that we have a plan
that shows gutters and leaders to drywells.
MR. PORTILLO: We have a storm water management plan that is
going to be submitted to the Building Department with this
application for the drywell location.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: We would need to see that addition to the
building plan.
MR. PORTILLO: I have that here as well.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: You can submit it at this point but
unfortunately we would need time to review it, so most likely we
would be tabling the application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can we see the new?
MR. PORTILLO: Sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. (Perusing). I can pass it down, if
you all want.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: The main portion of the house is a flat roof.
Where is the water--
MR. PORTILLO: The second-floor addition is flat and then the
mudroom addition will be flat, and the existing portion, the
Board of Trustees 48 June 19, 2019
one-story portion which we are not touching is the gabled roof.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The flat section, all that is pitched to the
seaward side of the house now, so can I assume that will go to
the drywell off the deck to the one that I think is south of the
deck?
MR. PORTILLO: We have,three drywell locations so we would, we
actually pitch it like this, the flat roof, to one side. So
we'll crown it in the middle.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You will.
MR. PORTILLO: Yes:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI.: I only say that because we talked to the
builder while we were there and he said it's all pitched to the
back.
MR. PORTILLO: That's not correct. He doesn't have building plans
for that. He has building plans for the second story addition
but not the pitch of the roof.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So we are in possession of the plans showing
proposed drywells. The plans that indicate ten-foot non-turf
buffer.
MR. PORTILLO: Yes, sir. And just speaking about the roof, I'll
make sure -- it's not designed to pitch one way. It's too large.
I believe the idea would be that the mudroom addition would go
to one drywell and then we have two drywells to cover the flat
roof section.
Just one more comment, Board, part of our zoning variance
was that we originally requested that the terrace that is
seaward side of the building would have a cover over'it. They
asked us not to cover that portion. So we reduced that coverage
and it's just the terrace itself, then the roof is staying
square in the same footprint as the building.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, any other questions? Does anyone else
have any questions on the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative.response).
Seeing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm in possession of stamped signed plans,
one for a requested ten-foot non-turf buffer along the entirety
of the seaward edge of the property of Brushes Creek dated June
19th, received by the Trustees June 19th and also dated June
19th, 2019, by Mr.'Portillo, and also in possession of a set of
plans last dated April 17th, 2019, for a proposal storm water
management plan showing drywells, also stamped in by the clerk
of the Trustees, June 19th. And in light of-- I would move to
approve this application subject to these submitted plans and
wherein the proposed deck and concerns of the LWRP,coordinator
are met in that the deck is smaller than the previous deck. And
the Trustee concerns of saving the tree will bring this
Board of Trustees 49 June 19, 2019
application into consistency. And furthermore we'll condition
the approval with respect to the stipulation for the
installation of the ten-foot non-turf buffer previously
discussed as part of the plan and gutters to leaders to drywells
in compliance with the Town's Chapter 236. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. PORTILLO: Thank you, Board..
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number eleven, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting on behalf of PECONIC LAND TRUST requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a 144 sq. ft. public viewing platform with
attached 457.5 sq. ft. access ramp.
Located: 36960 Main Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-20-3-6.2
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Trustee Bredemeyer did an inspection on June 12th, noting
it was a straightforward application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental, for the
Land Trust. I'm only here to answer any questions should you
have any.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here that•wishes to
speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. Have a nice evening.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 12, Michael Kimack on behalf of NEIL
STRONSKI & PATTI PEREZ requests a Wetland Permit to remove
remnants of existing staircase and landings and construct in
place a proposed new bluff stair consisting of a 4'x8' top
landing, 4'x17.93' stairs, 4'x8' middle landing, 4'x13.66'
stairs, 4'x4.5' middle landing, 4'x2.6' stairs, 4'x11.5' lower
landing, 4'x8.5' stairs to ground for a combined total of
301.9 sq. ft. (128 sq. ft. of landings and 173.9 sq. ft. of staircases).
Located: 7025 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#: 1000-111-15-10
- The Trustees visited this location on the 12th of June.
They noted that the stairs to the beach are replacing what was
Board of Trustees 50 June 19, 2019
there and was straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
this providing they use retractable stairs at the base.
Then I also have a note in the file here, new plans dated
June 13th, with a bolted, removable staircase at the bottom.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
'MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. Any
questions of me?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not at this time. Is there anyone else here,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 KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the new plans dated June 13th, 2019, noting the steps to
the beach will be removable.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 13, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JAMES
H'. RICH III, LESLIE E. RICH & CRAIG B. RICH requests a Wetland
Permit to remove and replace 120 linear feet of existing
bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead in-place; remove and replace 30
linear feet of existing bulkhead return with new vinyl bulkhead
return in-place,; remove and replace 22 linear feet of existing
groin with new vinyl'groin in-place; install and perpetually
maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of
the bulkhead; construct a new 4'x45' fixed dock supported with
8" diameter piles and with thru-flow decking surface; a 3'x14'
aluminum ramp; and a 6'x20'floating dock situated in an "L"
configuration supported with four(4) 10" diameter piles and
cross bracing to hold the floating dock a minimum of 30" off of
bottom at all times.
Located: 1470 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-2.1
The Trustees originally visited this site back in February,
2019, and we have received new plans since then, and we did an
in-house review of them on June 12th, 2019, with notes that the
revised plans seemed straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator found this project to be inconsistent
with the inconsistency being that the 2,200 feet of existing
groin were not located in Town records. In the event that the
replacement of the bulkhead and groins are approved, require
that the existing Spartina alterniflora is protected to the
Board of Trustees T 51 June 19, 2019
greatest extent practicable.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
We have new plans and a revised project description. The
revised project description dated June 18, 2019, reads as
follows: The project includes removal and replacement of 120
linear foot of existing bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead at same
location as existing; removal and replacement of 30 linear foot
of existing bulkhead return with new vinyl bulkhead return in
same location as existing; provide ten-foot wide non-turf buffer
along bulkhead line as shown on plans; construct new 16-foot
long and four-foot wide fixed pier supported with eight-inch
diameter piles and six-foot wide by ten-foot long T-section at
seaward end of proposed pier, landward 30-foot of the pier to
have Thru-Flow decking, the remainder to have untreated decking;
and in addition one ten-inch diameter tie off pile is proposed.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf-of the applicant and I would
be happy to answer any questions you have.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Anybody else here that wishes to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
I 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 with the project description dated June 18th, 2019.
The project including the removal and the replacement of the 120
linear foot of existing bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead in same
location as existing; removal and replacement of 30 linear foot
of existing bulkhead return with new a vinyl bulkhead return in
same location as existing;-provide ten foot wide non-turf buffer
along bulkhead shown, at bulkhead line as shown on plans;
construct 60-foot long by four-foot wide fixed pier supported
with eight-inch diameter piles and six-foot wide by ten-foot
long T-section at seaward end of the proposed pier, landward 30
foot of the pier to have Thru-Flow decking, the remainder to
have untreated decking. In addition, one ten-inch tie off pile
is proposed. And by issuing a permit for this structure, that
will bring the project into consistency with the LWRP. That's my
motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 14, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of MATTHEW
STANTON requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing fixed dock,
ramp, and floating dock; replace with a proposed new 4' wide by
Board of Trustees 52 June 19, 2019
44' long fixed dock supported with 8" diameter posts and
thru-flow decking, 30" wide by 14' long aluminum ramp leading to
a 6' wide by 20' long floating dock supported with two 10"
diameter piles and untreated decking situated in a "T"
configuration in approximate location of existing; install 30
lineal feet of coir logs to be placed at entrance to fixed dock
along shoreline placed in one row being three logs tall; and the
area adjacent to coir logs to be planted with Bearberry or
approved native plants acceptable to the Town of Southold Trustees.
Located: 2725 Wells Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-16
I'll now read the new proposal which the Trustees office
received on June 13th. The revised project description: The
project includes removal of existing fixed dock, ramp and
floating dock and replace with a new four-foot wide by 38-foot
long fixed dock supported with eight-inch diameter posts and
Thru-Flow decking, 30-inches wide by 14-foot long aluminum ramp
leading to a six-foot wide by 20-foot long floating dock
supported with two ten-inch diameter piles and untreated decking
situated in an L-configuration in approximate location of
existing dock; in addition; 30 lineal feet of coir logs to be
placed at the entrance of the fixed pier along shoreline, placed
in one row being three logs tall as shown in the typical
section; and the area adjacent to the logs to be planted with
Bearberry or approved native plants acceptable to the Town of
Southold Trustees.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from the following: Although the dock has
received a wetland permits in 1986, the proposed action extends
the dock further into and exceeds the one-third of the
waterbody. The Board of Trustees placed a condition on the 2004
approval to transfer the wetland permit to the current owner
which states that a boat will not be moored any further seaward
than the dock. Permitted dock in 1986 was approved at 43.3 feet
total length. The new proposed dock is 64 feet in total length.
A vessel moored at terminus would impede safe navigation to the
channel. It is recommended that the original condition be
upheld. The installation of coir logs is recommended as
consistent. That explains the inconsistent and the consistent
determination by the LWRP coordinator.
The Conservation Advisory Council on June 12th voted
unanimously to support this application.
The Trustees most recent field inspection of this property
was on June 12th at 12:05. The field notes read as follows. The
proposed and existing dock exceeds the pier line. Landward edge
of the float is on the bottom, at the time of inspection, which
was at low tide. Must design without a float and not extend
beyond one-third rule. The Trustees also noted a drainage pipe
from the gutter went directly into the creek. The drainage pipe
must be removed. Gutters to leaders to drywells is standard
Trustee procedure. Coir logs okay to stop erosion.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
i
I
Board of Trustees 53 June 19, 2019
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. I'm
trying to remember all the comments here.
The drain pipe, the most recent one was the drain pipe from
the leader, that is easily removed. We can put that into a
drywell, which would clarify that issue. As far as the length of
the dock and the pier line, the proposed plan is to not extend
any further seaward with the dock. We had submitted an original
application that brought this proposed end of the dock out
further seaward from the existing by about eight feet. After I
staked the property with the homeowner, he realized, yes, it was
a little far out and he didn't want to impede with any
navigation of the creek there. Jockey Creek. So we pulled it
back and we didn't go any further seaward from the existing. So
the new proposal as shown on the most recent submission of June
13th, plans, we are pulled back the submission, we pulled back
on the application to align the seaward edge of the new float in
line with the existing. So there is no seaward projection. So
really it's just taking that existing size 6x20 float, spinning
it, and now you have additional water depth that will clean up
the water depth issue. We'll have sufficient water depth at low
tide so the float won't hit bottom. Because the comment that was
made regarding the water depth at low tide right now in the
I-configuration, the landward edge is in approximately six to
eight inches of water at low tide. Now with the new proposal it
varies from 12 to say 23 inches, 24 inches of water at low tide.
So the float will be fully supported at low tide conditions.
That's at mean low low water. All these elevations are
referenced to mean low low water, which is a low low water.
That's what our water depth survey provided us.
So by this proposal of spinning the dock into an
L-configuration, we are going to gain additional water
separation at low tides and we are also going to provide for
better docking facilities for the vessel.
If we were to replace this dock in the current
configuration, there is, as mentioned, not sufficient water at
low tide and the boat may be bottoming out. Now in the new
proposed configuration, there will be more water for the boat.
In addition, I also provided a map which shows the channel,
I should say the creek navigation path, and there is more than
adequate room in there. It's 94 feet-- I don't have that map in
front of me. Here it is, I have the map in front of me. It was
this colored one that I provide showing navigation. And we have
more than sufficient room there based on those light green lines
for the parallel pier line.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay. First of all, looking at the plans that we
have stamped received June 17th, which I believe was yesterday,
the 38-foot proposed fixed dock, you have a 14-foot ramp to a
6x20 foot L-shaped configuration. Then the beam of the boat,
using conservative numbers, knowing that the ramp is at 14 feet,
by what would be the hypotenuse of a triangle, assuming ten foot
for that, five feet for the float, then seven feet beam for the
Board of Trustees 54 June 19, 2019
boat, adds up to 60 feet, which is more than halfway across the
creek in the configuration that you are proposing, which is
obviously greater than our one-third rule.
Second point, the plans you submitted, again, on June 17th,
show mean low water at this proposed float at 1.5 foot, which is
consistent with our observation. Sometimes it's hard to tell
from the photographs, you can you see the existing situation is
more than halfway out across that waterbody. And the landward
corner in this photograph is on the bottom. So referencing the
previous application on our agenda tonight, for which you were
the expediter, that application entailed, the first iteration
had a float. The iteration that was approved tonight does not.
It has a fixed dock. Because we are moving away from approving
docks that are on the bottom or the vessels that are on the
bottom or extremely close to the bottom at low tide. This
application before me does not satisfy minimally the criteria
that this Board expects in applications. So the only thing
positive this Trustee can say about this application is the coir
logs. Which are needed to stop the erosion. It's my suggestion
that you take the field notes that we have and maybe we can copy
this for you, or we suggest you redesign without the float and
not to extend beyond the one-third rule.
Is there anyone else that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Understood. I accept and I understand your
comments. One of the things I would like to point out. This
dock is approved in 1986 in its current configuration. It's,
current configuration. As you said, yes, it's very close to the
bottom. The new configuration we have proposed to you would
relieve some of that bottom disturbance that is a problem for
the Trustees, and it's also a problem for New York State DEC. So
in its new configuration you'll have more water depth at low
tide. This float will not impact the bottom like it does now at
low tide, or, at low low tide. So the situation of the water
depth and the boat docking on a permitted dock will be
alleviated and will be, how do I say this, further remedied to
increase water depth by the new L-configuration dock. So that
would, I would assume, help out the situation with water depth.
As far as the one-third rule, on the map that I provided,
and I believe I provided four copies. And I have additional
copies, one, if you would like to see, anybody on the Board
needs to see a copy of this. I did water depths at low tide.
You have approximately 94-feet, and this is very vague, you
know, it goes in, it goes out. We have 94 feet. We have a 45
foot, if you look at the pier lines, and this is a beautiful
map. You have a 45-foot wide channel that runs through all of
these docks, runs all of the piers. This is an actual pier line
through this Jockey Creek. Our original proposal and my proposed
dock is in pink. Proposed floating dock location_ . The original
proposal had the new floating dock out at that green line, which
would allow that boat to penetrate outside of that limit. If you
look to the dock one to the north of this one, just one dock on
1
Board of Trustees 55 June 19, 2019
the same side of the canal, just above ours, you see where my
pier line is. My pier line encompasses that boat to the north.
So the pier line is actually, I'm being generous on that one. I
assumed a pier line to the south with a boat docked at that
facility there. There is no dock at that point so it's kind of
tough to establish a pier line when there is a bulkhead.there.
So I placed a boat there. It's an 8x24 foot boat. So if you
take a pier line from that boat to the boat at the end, to the
north of us, and we put a seven-foot wide -- because you are not
putting a huge boat there. Everybody knows that you are not
putting a big boat here. If you put a boat on this proposed dock
the way it's situated in an L-configuration on the proposal I
presented before you, you are going to have more than sufficient
room to not obstruct the navigation rights of any other boat
that will pass here.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I have to admit that I'm having difficulty
following your argument. I look--the LWRP coordinator insists
that we include vessels in consideration of a dock. In the
photograph that you reference shows an L-configuration and the
pier line, and by your own pier line, where you left out the
boat, the boat would be past the pier line and would be in the
channel. Additionally, looking at the hydrologic survey that you
presented to us, showing the original configuration, which you
have pulled back. On the original configuration you only had
two-and-a-half feet of water at the extreme seaward terminus of
the float. Pulling it back, I'm reading depths of .97, .71, .50,
which is more in conformity with what we observed when we were
there. I really -- help me understand where these new numbers
are coming from, when this is what you submitted to us.
MR. PATANJO: I'm looking at .97. That .97 is well landward of
the proposed floating dock. And if you want to have --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is the original proposal. This is the plans
date stamped April 29th. Your new one is supposedly shorter than
this. With a shorter configuration, the float would be less than
one foot of water.
MR. PATANJO: It would be over one foot looking at the
interpolation between the two points. And I'm blind, so I'll
guess here, 2.69 and 0.97 on the northern side, and .71 and a
2.5 something. So if-- you have at least one foot of
water. If I need to have the surveyor go and stake out this dock
on all four corners and give you water depths, I can do that.
But regardless of that you'll have more water on this floating
dock than what currently exists.
In addition, does the Town Chapter 275 code have any
limitation for permit approvals based on water depths? I don't
believe it does. It's up to the Board to determine that. So
would think--
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And as-I previously pointed out to you, your own
application before this conformed to our considerations of water
depth. You know that we are reluctant to approve anything less
than the two-and-a-half feet suggested by DEC on floats, and
Board of Trustees 56 June 19, 2019
that we are moving away from chocked floats. In my estimation,
you guys jump in here, anyone, this is a flawed application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think, it's my opinion it would be advisable
to possibly go back to your client and just discuss the
possibilities of a fixed platform. Then, also, I mean, I think
the strongest option, too, is you can do steps down to a lower
section, which is a.win.
MR. PATANJO: All right, here is how I see this going. I'll
resubmit for an in-kind/in-place replacement, which is a permitted
structure, and we'll have a floating dock that hits the bottom
during low tide. Which is a permitted structure. I'll do an
in-kind replacement. I think as the Board I would rather. have
more water depth separating the boat at low tide and I would
rather have a float separating from water depth at low tide.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's an unsubstantiated inference. You cannot
assume that any Board would approve a dock in -- and I'm
referencing the existing dock-- in that configuration, when the
photograph demonstrates there is no water there. It is
insufficient water there. And code does not allow us to approve
a structure that impacts the bottom. And certainly that is
impacting the bottom and certainly that vessel will impact the
bottom.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Regardless of whether you put it out, what
are you gaining, two inches? It still will hit the bottom and
damage the bottom. So yes, you may get a little more water
depth but not enough to necessitate a float and/or avoid
damaging the bottom.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And notwithstanding what I perceive is the
desire of the Board to have a fixed dock in this location, there
also are options, and we are not designing structures for you,
but options concerning different width float configurations. In
other words'that don't have to be fully six feet wide by 20.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Does anyone else wish to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?'
(Negative response).
Hearing none I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to deny this application as
submitted, without prejudice.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number 15, Jeffrey
Patanjo on behalf of 240 WINDJAMMER, LLC-requests a Wetland
Permit to remove and replace pre-existing ramp and float with
new 30" wide by 16' long aluminum ramp, and 6' wide by 20' long
Board of Trustees 57 June 19, 2019
floating dock with un-treated decking situated in an "I"
configuration, supported by two (2) 10" diameter CCA piles.
Located: 240 Windjammer Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-71-2-11.2
This application has been deemed to be inconsistent by the
Town's LWRP coordinator in that the Town's laserfiche records
indicates the structure may have been constructed without the
issuance of a wetland permit.
The Conservation Advisory Council in their June 12th
meeting voted to support this application.
The Trustees during their June 12th field inspection
indicated the field inspection showed two floats. Only one can
remain in configuration and go no further seaward than the
existing tie off. I believe that may have been superseded by a
subsequent review of the property lines.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. If you
remember, several months ago I did all the bulkheads in this
whole U-shaped area. This bulkhead was, sorry, the dock was
originally there. He had no idea he didn't have a permit for it.
It didn't show on the original application. And he wants a
float. It's consistent with all the neighbors and it has been
there for 40 years. He just wants to put it back.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, thank you. Anyone else who wishes to
speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any additional Trustee concerns?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 16, Samuels & Steelman Architects on
behalf of 4000 GPBB, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 3,292 sq. ft. two-story dwelling with screened porch;
remove and replace existing windows and doors; remove existing
240 sq. ft. entry deck; construct new dormer additions on south
roof-remove existing dormer and replace with 596 sq. ft. dormer,
on north roof-new 200 sq. ft. dormer addition; new 68 sq. ft. entry
porch; remove existing 850 sq. ft. gravel parking area and
curbing; remove seven existing trees; plant t18 new evergreen
trees; remove existing stepping stones from porch to stair at
bank; new 658 sq. ft. stone terrace and stepping stones on grade
adjacent to dwelling; new 250 sq. ft. stone walkway to entry; new
20'x40' gunite swimming pool; new 1,315 sq. ft. stone pool
terrace; new 4' high pool enclosure fencing and gates (280
Board of Trustees 58 June 19, 2019
linear feet); new 4' high gate at existing stair at bank; and
for the two (2) existing A/C condensing units.
Located: 4000 Peconic By Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-128-6-2
The Trustees visited this site on June 12th and noted it
was a straightforward application.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent with
policy 6.3, and also noted that jurisdiction setbacks of the
Southold Town code, the Board of Trustees jurisdiction and
setbacks are incorrectly shown on the survey. The setback was
measured from the bulkhead and not the top of the bank.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MS. STEELMAN: Nancy Steelman, on behalf of the applicant. I
guess first off, setbacks. My interpretation based on Chapter
275, this is an existing bank. It's not an existing bluff. It's
clearly defined in your definitions. Based on that, there are
setbacks from bluff but not from bank. So we have met all the
setbacks from wetlands. But from the bluff, we do not have a
bluff. The pool is 116 feet from the wetlands, from the top of.
So my, either I'm misunderstanding that or the LWRP maybe has
misunderstood that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here to speak regarding
this application?
(Negative response).
Any additional comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Just for the record, I know when we reviewed this site,
regardless of the setback, on the surrey it was noted that we
were, first of all, the house is an existing structure. The
project going in is quite a bit landward of the existing
structure, and even further away from the wetland boundary.
Are there any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP
coordinator.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 17, 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
Board of Trustees 59 June 19, 2019
t10 cubic yards of clean up-land fill.
Located: 2140 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123.4-4.1
The Trustees visited the site back in May with notes this
would be an ideal candidate for a living shoreline project. All
Trustees were present.
The LWRP coordinator found this project to be inconsistent,
with notes it said a wetland permit was not located within Town
records for the existing as-built structures. In the event the
action is approved, a vegetated buffer is recommended in place
of the deck.
The Conservation Advisory Council did review this
application and resolved to support the application, however
does question the need to raise the retaining wall 12 inches.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. COLE: Dennis Cole for Cole Environmental Services, for the
applicant. We have heard from New York state DEC, they have
commented that there is no major objections with respect to this
application.
The rationale for raising the bulkhead is currently there
are some, well, DEC comments had mentioned that there is water
that streams down from the property that goes through some of
the holes that are in the current structure. They call them
drains. They are not really drains but it drains across the
property. That of course would be remedied with the new
structure. And I think the raised structure elevation would
also deal with any runoff from the property because it does
slope downward from the house to the water.
Did I hear the Trustees were recommending a ten-foot
vegetated buffer?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Typically.
MR. COLE: The structure itself is in-kind/in-place. Not in-kind,
but in-place replacement. The stones are to be removed over on
the left side. And the existing Baccharis bush that is there
would be replaced. It's rather large vegetation there.
Any other questions?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: What I see looking at the picture there, at
the site of the proposed work, if you look to the neighbors, you
can see healthy vegetation there that is protecting the
shoreline. And at some point in time I'll assume that a prior
owner most likely wanted a sandy beach and cleared out some
vegetation. When you do that, unfortunately, you do run the
risk, when you have that heavy root system in the banks there,
you run the risk of starting a house of cards of erosion. So I
think from my own perspective, and what I would like to see is to
have that area be revegetated, and that would protect the
shoreline.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think it said it in the field notes if
there is an ideal location for a living shoreline project, this
is it. And I for one would much rather see that than to try and put
a vinyl bulkhead there that is not necessary. You know, what is
there is a four-inch depth of the current retaining wall, if you
Board of Trustees 60 June 19, 2019
want to call it that, that is really not functioning beside just
keeping grass. So.
MR. COLE: It is maintaining the upland in the separation between
the upland and the tidal waters. Certainly it might make sense
to have to revegetate a portion where the stones are coming out.
That portion, it's logical to have it vegetated with indigenous
species. I don't believe the owner at this point wants to lose
the sandy area that he utilizes. And basically that beach area
has been there since at least 2001, checking the aerials, so
it's been there for a quite a while. Not only on this property
but the adjacent property as well.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Continuing the concerns of the Board
members, to my mind, need really is not established with only a
four-inch high division from existing to what is there, and some
combination of coir logs and replanting in close proximity of a
living shoreline seems much more workable.
Any additional height there would appear it would be
catching more in the way of wave action and just eroding more of
the sandy beach and working counter to where there is amply
vegetated shoreline, you know, pretty much throughout the creek
area. The history of operations on the two adjoining properties
would just put the vegetative fringe to disadvantage and I much
prefer to see it be brought back, or certainly an attempt in
this case.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I understand the property does slope seaward,
and by having a vegetated non-turf buffer, that would help
mitigate any runoff, and the vegetation there would absorb the
nutrients and the nitrogen that is now currently being dumped
into the creek. Having grown up on that creek, that was my
playground as a kid. The health of that creek is very important.
There has already been seasonal shellfish closure in the past due to
nitrogen levels and we want to do our best to protect that body
of water. As a resident of that creek I would be inclined to do
a non-turf buffer to help mitigate that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I really think, I mean as you can tell, the
Board is not very inclined to put a hardened wall or bulkhead in
a creek at this point. For a number of reasons, that you are
aware of. I mean, I personally just feel it would be advisable
to come up with another solution. I'm not going to design that
solution for you. But I would like to see you come up with
another solution.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And I believe the LWRP, the wall that is
there now does not have a permit. Correct?
So the Town Code prevents us from putting a new bulkhead on the
bay. So if that's not a permitted structure, we by code cannot
authorize a bulkhead in its place.
MR. COLE: I can't speak to that. I do know it's in been there,
it shows up in aerials for many years.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: People do unpermitted work all the time
unfortunately.
MR. SCOTT: I'm Scott Colletti. I'm the homeowner. How are you.
Board of Trustees 61 June 19, 2019
1 bought the house three years ago and obviously I also bought
the bulkhead, assuming that we would be able to replace it. Not
expecting to be able to do anything other than that. And we
didn't change anything, there was no vegetation there. And
understand everyone's feeling of wanting to protect. And trust
me, we love the north fork and love what everyone has done with
protecting the north fork. I can't even believe I can say this
but paying the 2% Peconic Land Trust was a tax I actually
enjoyed paying. Everyone has done a great job out here. But, you
know, this is my piece of property and to be told I can't
replace something that is there, to protect my little, tiny
piece of property that is there, that I'm watching disappear,
that is the one upsetting thing is that it's a little, tiny
piece of property. It's like that was the one thing when I
bought the house was that me and my wife, I wish we had a little
bit more land. It's a tiny piece of property. And we are
watching it disappear into the water. And all we want to do is
replace what is there. We are not looking to do anything else.
And my neighbor who lives next to me, has been there for over 30
years. That bulkhead has been there for 30 years. That beach has
been there for 30 years. So nothing has changed. It's not like
this happened ten years ago or 15 years ago. That bulkhead has
held up for over 30 years. And, you know, it's difficult to
swallow, to have somebody tell you you can't replace what you
just paid a lot of money for. And I'm not looking to do
anything other than what is there already. And I respect, like I
said, everything that has been done out here, and I respect the
fact--we don't use any chemicals on the grass. I believe
in everything that you guys are trying to do. We don't, you
know, we make sure nothing is sprayed or anything like that. But
all we are trying to do is preserve on our little piece of land.
That's all we are trying do. Because trust me, if you came and
really looked, it's disappearing. It's disappearing
'TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I ask you a question, Mr. Colletti. Where
exactly are you losing the land from on your property there? Is
it in front of the wall?
MR. COLLETTI: Right behind the wall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Landward of the wall.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Away from the sea.
MR. COLLETTI: Yes, away from the sea.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. So the wave action is going up and over?
MR. COLLETTI: No, the wall is now no longer able to hold. It's
not functioning properly anymore. And so the water is getting
through and pulling -- like the grass is going underneath. It's
disappearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So what I believe Trustee Goldsmith said
earlier is that we are bound by the code and law that we cannot
issue a new bulkhead on a creek or bay that is, there is no
permits, it's non-functional, anything like that. We are willing
to work with you to protect your property. And there are a long
list of alternatives that Cole is very capable of working on
Board of Trustees 62 June 18, 2019
suggesting. Because we do want to see you be able to preserve
your property, obviously. We were here to find that balance
between the environment and property rights, so.
MR. COLLETTI: This is six months I have been cancelled and
delayed, so now you are telling me I can't do anything again.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I believe we've met on pre-submissions at
least twice, and we expressed these concerns to both the
contractor and the expediter on multiple occasions. And I know
I met, and I was at all of them, and we all expressed the same
concerns on all of them. And we all expressed the same concerns
on all of them, and nothing has been addressed to quell our
concerns. And it's the same application since day one.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And to be fair, it's been six months for you,
it's been six months for us,making the same recommendation. So
it's not like our time is not valuable either. We are making the
same recommendation over and over again. So it's goes both ways.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you. Additionally, two quick points. This
is not a bulkhead. It does not meet the definition of a
bulkhead. You continue to call it that. It is not a bulkhead.
MR. COLLETTI: What's the definition of a bulkhead?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I don't remember the date of the pre-submissions
but at the pre-submissions, as presently stated by Trustee
Goldsmith, all the comments that the Board is making now, are
reiterating now, was stated then and should not come as a
surprise to anybody. The only thing we didn't know at that time
was the permit history. And the permit history shows that there
is no permit for that so-called bulkhead. And the law is clear,
we are not allowed to issue permits for a bulkhead. No new
bulkheads.
MR. COLE: Well, if it's not a bulkhead, if it's a retaining
wall, can he get a retaining wall?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The definition of a "retaining wall is it does
not get its feet wet.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: To make my third point. We are not denying you
an action. You asked for more'land. We are not denying that.
MR. COLLETTI: I'm just asking for the land to be -- .
TRUSTEE DOMINO: A living shoreline would give you more land. A
living shoreline would do that. We do approximately five-hundred
of these reviews a year. So we have a pretty good idea what is
going on.
MR. COLLETT[: I'm not denying that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And we are not going to design s-omething for
you. The guidelines that we presented at the pre-submissions go
a long way toward satisfying everybody's needs here. Ours,
legally, and yours.
MR:COLLETTI: I hear you. I mean, I heard some crazy stuff up
here today. All I'm looking to do is replace what is there. It
doesn't seem --
TRUSTEEWILLIAMS: Unfortunately, what is there is not a permitted
structure. Unfortunately, the prior owner of the property did
work that he probably shouldn't have done and did work in an
Board of Trustees 63 June 19, 2019
irresponsible manner to the environment and to the property. Because
at this point the work that was done, if you are saying you are
seeing land loss, it was not done correctly and obviously it was
not done with a permit.
MR. COLLETTI: It was 30 years ago. So it's failing after 30
years.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It doesn't look like 30-years old. I'm in and
out of there all the time on a boat, so, I remember when I was a
younger man than I am now. I remember that. But it can be
remedied. It can, there are steps you can take to stabilize the
shoreline to ensure that you don't have any more loss. But a
bulkhead is not one of them.
MR. COLLETTI: Okay. What about the two adjoining properties have
a bulkhead. On either side of us. Of me.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are not here to review those.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: The two adjoining properties, they may or may
not have permits.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Also, a lot of things were done in this town, I
mean, we are talking earlier how the town has made great strides
to preserve its way of life and its environmental health, but a
lot of things were done before prior Boards, as educated as we
are, prior Boards had different mentalities. If they come in
with a non-functional bulkhead, rest assured they are not going
to walk out with a bulkhead. Because we are legally bound by
law. And we don't change the law. We use the code and make
decisions based on it. But we can't change the code. You know,
just application by application. That's legally not how it
works.
MR. COLLETTI: So if you could just explain to me, and I'll walk
away, what is it that it would be so bad about replacing this
bulkhead? I'm seriously not fulling understanding.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It would be illegal for us to do that.
MR. COLLETT[: But other that than that, environmentally--
MR. HAGAN: As counsel to the Board, I think you have been very
clear with regard to that answer and there is not a need to go
beyond that and give other explanations, other than the code is
clear. No bulkhead on the creek.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll add, in my opinion that bulkheads were
done in that creek were done as, prior bulkheads that were done
were mostly done as a land grab. And that was done before
current code. And again, we'll call it the wild west, when you
could do whatever you want. Fortunately, now we realize the
implications of doing bad work and we don't allow it anymore.
That is not a creek that gets much wave action. There is really
no need for, you know, not much going on in there. It's a pretty
small body of water.
MR. HOUGH: Tim Hough. The one property, I guess that would be to
the south of it --
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: More to the mouth of the creek?
MR. HOUGH: Yes. It looks like it just recently had a permit
issued to repair it and they put in a non-turf buffer on that.
Board of Trustees 64' June 19, 2019
So I believe that one is permitted. I didn't look into the other
one. So that could possibly, may not be permitted. But that's
definitely new construction on that repair. It's hard to see in
that picture.
MR. COLE: I have a copy of-the permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I Can answer you one at a time. You are allowed
to repair a permitted existing structure. Not 100%. But you can
make repairs to it. If it's permitted and existing and functional.
MR. HOUGH: Then I would not, I don't know if it's just this
bulkhead is not non-functioning. It's just failing. It's not
non-functioning. It's failing in --
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Which bulkhead?
MR. HOUGH: Mr. Colletti's. I would not call it a
non-functioning bulkhead. It's definitely still functioning.
It's doing what it needs to do, but it's failing. I don't know
if that's just--
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I don't know that bulkhead is the proper
definition of what is there.
MR. HOUGH: I understand. His, the owner's main concern, I don't
know if it's, he does have a, I guess it sort of'conflicts with
your concerns. The beach he has is rare on a creek like that.
And he enjoys that. He didn't cause that beach. It's been there
for a while. He doesn't want to lose that beach. So a living,
when it's explained to him from a contractor or expediter, like
a living shoreline, that takes away his thought process on he
walks from his grass to the beach. And he is more than happy
with taking the grass away, the non-turf, with what you are
concerned with, the nitrogen and fertilizer and all that. He's
fine with that. But at the same time he wants to keep his, the
separation from --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, as I said earlier, and maybe I was not
quite clear enough, you know, many of the other Board members
suggested a living shoreline. We just make suggestions. But I
said there is a list of alternatives. So there are definitely
other options that could accomplish what we both want.
MR. HOUGH: I understand.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So what might make sense is if you come up
with a couple of ideas, you can come to our work session and we
can come up with a decision as to what might work.
MR. HOUGH: Perfect. Thank you.
MR. COLLETTI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So at this point, do you want to --
MR. COLE: Postpone. We would like to postpone.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So table the application.
MR. COLE: Yes.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll make a motion to table the application
at the applicant's request.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
.Board of Trustees 65 June 19, 2019
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 18, Cole Environmental Services on
behalf of FLORIANE LAVAUD &THOMAS ANNICQ request a Wetland
Permit to construct 160' catwalk with 5'6" ramp and stairs to
water level for launching kayak, paddle board, canoe, etc.
Located: 305 Halls Creek Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-116-7-2
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. It was a lengthy
review, so let me just go through it one by one.
The proposal does not fully meet the definition of a
catwalk. The catwalk extends past the high water mark and does
not gain access to a residential dock. The stairs at the
terminus of the catwalk exceeds one-third of the waterbody and
does not comply with the intent of Chapter 275-11 construction
and operation standards. The water depths at the terminus of the
catwalk are shallow. The applicant submitted data that the water
levels occur between .7 feet mean low water and three feet mean
high water at the end of the catwalk, and actual water depths to
the substrate is 2'3". The elevation of the substrate is not
given. The water depth information appears to be incomplete and
incorrect. The water depths are inadequate to operate vessel
safely, including manual powered. The very narrow channel also
poses restrictive challenges to the safe navigation and
operation of a vessel. The operation of vessels in the area at
periods of low water or seasonally-influenced tidal regions
creates turbidity in the water column resulting in an adverse
effect on submerged vegetation and shellfish species.
The proposed action is located within a DEC critical
environmental area. New York State DEC environmental mapper
indicates that protected rare plants and animals may occur on or
in the vicinity of the parcel. The installation of a catwalk
through the wetland will disrupt the use of the area by wildlife
by fragmenting habitat. The installation of chromated copper
arsenic, CCA treated materials in this area, will result in the
leaching of pesticides into substrate and waters. CCA is a wood
preservative pesticide containing chromium, copper and arsenic
that protects wood against termites, fungi, mites and other
pests that can degrade or threaten the integrity of wood
products. The proposed construction practices of the catwalk in
this sensitive wetland have not been identified. It is
recommended that the applicant identify the proposed
construction practices. Activities during catwalk construction
can destroy vegetation either above or below the tide line by
pulling them from the substrate or destroying their root system.
The peat beds underlying salt marshes can also be compacted
through the improper use of heavy equipment. The installation of
CCA treated posts will result in a net loss of vegetated
wetlands, including Spartina. The construction of the catwalk in
its proposed location will be directly visible from the public
roadway, New Suffolk Avenue, identified by the community as
possessing high scenic value. The catwalk would impact the
natural setting of the viewshed looking south.
The construction of the catwalk would set precedent that
Board of Trustees 66 June 19, 2019
could result in increase in catwalks in areas of high quality
wetlands and/or with inadequate water depth conditions.
The Town of Southold provides adequate opportunities to
access public waters and the launching of manually and motorized
power vessels. Throughout the town a total of 303-plus public
and quasi-public access points have been established to allow
for access to the foreshore and navigable waters. These access
points include boat launch facilities, road ends, beaches,
managed parks and town-owned properties.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Could you repeat the very first comment from the
LWRP coordinator?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The proposal does not fully meet the
definition of a catwalk. The catwalk extends past the high water
mark and does not gain access to a residential dock.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on June 14th.
Trustee Bredemeyer and Trustee Domino went back out to survey
the property and they have extensive field notes that were
reviewed and approved and signed by Thomas Benik. The field
notes state: The entirety of Spartina patens area shows signs of
standing water at 3:45 PM on June 14th, 2019 when low tide will
be at 4:14 PM. Traversing Spartina patens is very difficult due
to soft silt and mud bottom and what appears to be water-filled
trough parallel to bank up to three feet deep. Too dangerous to
determine depth of mud at stair terminus. Measurements at end of
catwalk seaward terminus, June 14th, 2019, four-inch depth and
15 feet across, at 3:45 PM, and tide flowing out. 75 to 85 feet
south only two feet wide and three inches deep. The last 20
feet before bank is composed of floating hummocks; probe
indicated six feet of easily penetrated mud.
At 4:00 PM, no water at location previously measured as
three inches at 3:45, and two inches at stair terminus. Ulva
lactuca sea lettuce exposed on bottom. Tide still flowing out.
Those are the field notes of June 14th, 2019, reviewed and
signed by Thomas Meeker. Is there anyone here that wishes to
speak regarding this application?
MR. COLE: Chris Cole, Cole Environmental Services, for the
applicant. We wish to table the application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to table this application at the applicant's
request.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 19, Ocean Consulting on behalf of
JERRY J. CALLIS REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to
remove and shorten existing timber (non-treated) groin to 67
Board of Trustees 67 June 19, 2019
feet; in same location; up to 6" higher(same elevation as
concrete wall and 30" above grade at seaward end).
Located: 2350 Paradise Point Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-3-19.3
We'll go through these individually.
The Town Trustees performed inspections on June 12th and at
that time the Trustees observed equal amounts of sand on either
side of the deteriorating timber groin, and at the current
existing construction there is no impediment to public access
moving along the foreshore. And based on the fact that there
appears to be an equal amount of sand and no appreciable beach
loss, based on maintaining the public right to easily pass and
repass and maintain riparian rights, the field notes indicate
that the current groin is 13 inches lower than the top of the
concrete wall as a marker with the Board consistently of the
impression that a structure should not be higher than the
existing groins which allow, as previously indicated, people to
move along the foreshore.
The Town's LWRP program coordinator indicated that the
Town's laserfiche records indicates that the structure was
constructed without Southold Trustee review or issuance of a
wetland permit, and in fact it may predate the Southold Trustee
permitting because I think I recall this existing when I was
very small, and that's a long time ago.
And the Conservation Advisory Council has resolved to
support this with the stipulation that they replace the groin at
the existing height so that it does not block lateral access
within the public domain of the foreshore.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. ENRICO: Yes. Joseph Enrico, on behalf of the applicant. I'm
just here to answer any questions basically.
The only issue that I know is most of the properties, I
guess the actual property goes beyond the concrete wall down the
length of the beach somewhat. Some go actually to the mean high
water. I don't know how that affects public access. It's not the
intent of the applicant to prevent public access across each
side. The intent really is to raise it a little higher just to
increase the beach profile, to keep any storms from hitting the
concrete wall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Generally speaking, when the Board sees
these structures and they are functional, there is no reason to
raise them higher. And we typically will not permit them in in
that fashion. And with respect to the ownership, that doesn't
preclude moving along the foreshore below mean high water and in
the vicinity of the foreshore, I'm not thinking that strictly
the ownership of property stands in this case. And that is a
whole different issue. We are really not here to determine
ownership of property.
MR. ENRICO: I understand that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For all three of these applications you are
actually shortening what is currently there, the overall length?
MR. ENRICO: Yes. We were directed by New York state DEC and New
Board of Trustees 68 June 19, 2019
York Department of State to shorten the existing groins to no
further than the line of mean low water, basically in keeping
with the LWRP. So that was the directive. So there is some
mitigation in the sense of replacement of the existing structures.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think what Trustee Bredemeyer is driving at,
just to reiterate, is kind of they are functional now.
Shortening them is obviously going to be a win for traversing
the beach for everyone, so, because we take into account public
access largely here, too. And the height will come into play
because that is also public access.
It's also the public viewshed, and they are functional.
And to be quite honest with you, we do a lot of these, and
Paradise Point has one of the nicer beaches. It's just a nice
little protected area. It's a really non-issue with the walls
there, compared to some of the stuff we really see.
MR.'ENRICO: I understand. And it's a groin field eastward to
Paradise Point.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: If you can see from the picture there, it is
consistent. Same on both sides of the groin, which usually
indicates that they are not functioning or not necessary.
MR. ENRICO: It's quasi-functioning. A lot of the boards are
missing and rotting out. If you generally inspect it, you would
see at some point it's starting to fall apart. The timbers are
all creosote, so obviously they are still probably leaching,
especially down at the bottom. So it will, we'll mitigate that,
obviously, with non-treated timber material. -
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll ask if there is anyone else to
speak to this application?
(No response).
It doesn't appear there is.
Would your, speaking for this individual property, would
there be an objection to a limitation on the height that this
Board typically would impose?
MR. ENRICO: Personally, I don't think there will be a
objection to a limitation on the height. It's been a long road
to get to this point. So if the Board decides that is something that is
really, you know, pertinent and needed and required, then I'm
sure that the applicants will basically understand that.
I tried to make the case that just somewhat six inches higher,
the description where I think I was going to bring it up to
the concrete wall is incorrect. It's basically only six inches
higher than existing. So it won't be a real impediment.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Having visited the site, one of my concerns
with making it any higher is, again, public access stepping over
it. And you know, and what we don't want to see is fences on the
beach viewshed, as Trustee Krupski had pointed out. So we want
to keep those as low as possible and still functioning.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have a limitation of 18 inches above the
existing beach grade. You are not quite there now.
MR. ENRICO: Down at the terminus end, at the seaward end, it
will probably be at least two-and-a-half. It's about
Board of Trustees 69 June 19, 2019
two-and-a-half now. At low tide. At the seaward end. But people
generally are not really walking in that area.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Can't go any higher. Any other comments from
the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would personally be most comfortable, and
truly I'm not, I think it will work at the current height with
new sheathing and the new length, although I would not put the
property owners at risk if I didn't think that. So I would be
mostly comfortable with leaving it at its current and`but
allowing obviously the shortening.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I agree with Trustee Krupski
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I wanted to jump on that wagon myself. And this
is, they have missing boards but the photographs show and field
inspection shows they are functioning at the present elevation.
They are longer than what you are asking for, but I agree with
Trustee Krupski's assessment that even at the shorter length and
that elevation, they'll continue to function.
We are working hard to preserve the public's right to access
this foreshore. I don't think by doing that we are going to put
those dwellings at risk. I would recommend the same elevation,
shorter.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe the sentiments are across the
Board unanimous and reflect the Board's position and the field
notes.
MR. ENRICO: Understood. I have no further comments.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's great. Anyone else have any comments?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve this application
subject to new plans with the height, the same height as
existing which is to be no higher than 13 inches below the top
of the concrete wall in place in this location, whereby
permitting this will bring it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 20, Ocean Consulting on behalf of JOHN &
JOAN PETROCELLI requests a Wetland Permit to remove and shorten
existing timber(non-treated) groin to 67 feet; in same
location; up to 6" higher(same elevation as concrete wall and
30" above grade at seaward end.
Located: 2240 Paradise Point Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-3-19.6
The Trustees reviewed this application on the 12th of June
and determined the beach was stable and healthy. It's the exact
same configuration, elevation, length would be best for the
environment and public use of the foreshore.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent.
Board of Trustees 70 June 19, 2019
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
this application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. ENRICO: Joseph Enrico, on behalf of the applicant.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm assuming your comment's are the same?
MR. ENRICO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other questions or comments?
MR. ENRICO: No further questions or comments. I
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any further comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Essentially, for the record, this application mirrors the prior
application. Hearing no further comment, I make al motion to
close this hearing. i
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. i
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Motion to approve the application subject to
the stipulation that the groins go no higher than existing,
which is 13 inches lower than the top of the cement wall,
thereby bringing this application into consistency with the LWRP
coordinator. I
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. i
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL,AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number 21, Ocean
Consulting on behalf of NH SAG, LLC, c/o MICHAEL SCIARRINO
requests a Wetland Permit to remove and shorten existing timber
(non-treated) groin to 69 feet; in same location; up to 6"
higher (same elevation at concrete wall and 30" above grade at
seaward end.
Located: 2100 Paradise Point Road, Southold. SCM# 1000-81-3-19.7
The Trustees inspected this site on June 12th,and noted an
equal amount of sand on either side of the groin. It appears
functioning, and that the existing groin is 13 inches below the
present concrete wall.
The LWRP coordinator indicates that there is no record of a
permit for this structure in the Town laserfiche record.
The CAC voted to support this application with best
management practices.
Accordingly, mirroring the applications previously
discussed on neighboring properties of John and Joan Petrocelli
and Jerry Callis Revocable Trust, it's the position of the
Trustees that the shortened groin is appropriate and that
honoring the existing height, no higher than 13 inches below the
concrete retaining wall is appropriate in this case.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this
Board of Trustees 71 June 19, 2019
application?
MR. ENRICO: Joseph Enrico, again, on behalf of the applicant. No
further comments, similar to our previous discussion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Any comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else?
(Negative response).
Motion close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I make a motion to approve this application subject to
submission of new plans indicating that the height is the same
as the existing groin and to be no higher than 13 inches below
the existing concrete wall, and whereby granting a permit will
address the inconsistency and bring it into consistency for
purposes of the LWRP. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ENRICO: Will I receive documentation from the Board with
that request or should I just re-file the plan.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just re-file the plan and drop it off.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
Michael J. Domino, President
Board of Trustees