HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-07/17/2019 Michael J.Domino,President ®F S0 Town Hall Annex
John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President ®� ®�® 54375 Route 25
Glenn Goldsmith P.O. Box 1179
Southold,New York 11971
A.Nicholas Krupski Telephone(631) 765-1892
Greg Williams a® Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RECEIVED
�;lid 3�
Minutes SEP 1 9 2019 c .
Wednesday, July 17, 2019 n-
Vo 0 e?�"
5:30 PM
Present Were: Michael J. Domino, President
John M. Bredemeyer, Vice-President
Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Greg Williams, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist
Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 8:00 AM and Wednesday,
August 7, 2019 at 10:00 AM on Fishers Island.
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 at 5:30 PM at
the Main Meeting Hall
WORK SESSIONS: Monday, August 12, 2019 at 4:30 PM at the Town Hall Annex 2nd
floor Board Room, and on Wednesday, August 14, 2019 at 5:00 PM
at the Main Meeting Hall
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of June 19, 2019.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good evening and welcome to our July 17, 2019
monthly meeting. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order and ask that
you stand for the pledge.
(Pledge of allegiance).
I would like to recognize the people on the dais. To my left, Trustee John Bredemeyer,
Trustee Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee Nick Krupski and Trustee Greg Williams. To my right
we have Assistant Town Attorney Damon Hagan and Senior Clerk Typist Elizabeth
Cantrell. Also with us tonight is Conservation Advisory Council member Peter Meeker.
Agendas are located out in the hall and also on the podium.
We have some postponements tonight, for a variety of reasons. On page seven, we
have number three Robert Wilson on behalf of STUART THORN requests a Wetland
Board of Trustees 2 July 17, 2019
Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the as-built removal and replacement of
existing 2,468sq.ft. on-grade seaward side stone patio in-place except the area along
the portion of the northern edge where the new patio will be set back from the top of bluff
to allow for new plantings and a decorative split-rail fence; and to remove and replace
the existing garden wall with new 21'6"x6'0" masonry wall.
Located: 19375 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-20.1 is postponed.
On page eight, we have number two, 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 is postponed.
On page nine, we have number five, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of
WILLIAM FROEHLICH requests a Wetland Permit to demolish an existing one and
a half story, single family dwelling and to abandon existing sanitary system; construct a
new two-story, single family 2,368sq.ft. dwelling including covered porches and
screened porch; install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff; install a new
sanitary system; and install a new gravel driveway with drainage.
Located: 6130 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-128-2-6, has been
postponed.
On page ten we have number ten 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 is postponed at the
applicant's request.
MR. HAGAN: On that application we are waiting for lead agency status with respect
to the DEC, which.we have not received yet and we are not at the time limit for.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: On pages 12, 13 and 14, we have numbers 18
through 26 are postponed. They are listed as follows:
Number 18, 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 (860sq.ft.) wood walk along the landward edge of the
bulkhead; and backfill with ±10 cubic yards of clean upland fill.
Located: 2140 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123.4-4.1
Number 19, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of FLORIANE LAVAUD &
THOMAS ANNICQ request a Wetland Permit to construct 160' catwalk with 66" ramp
and stairs to water level for launching kayak, paddle board, canoe, etc.
Located: 305 Halls Creek Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-116-7-2
Number 20, 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 21, FRANK S. & PAULA C. THORP request a Wetland Permit to replace
approximately 76'6" of existing wood sheathing with vinyl sheathing behind existing piles
Board of Trustees 3 July 17, 2019
to stay in place; new 6x6 stringer; excavate behind bulkhead as required for
construction; repair and replace existing dead men as needed; backfill to existing
elevation; remove approximately 455sq.ft. of wood decking for construction and replace
in-king/in-place; and remove and replace boat hoist.
Located: 2500 Old Orchard Lane, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-37-5-24
Number 22, 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 23, 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
1,445sq.ft. of bluestone patio set in sand/stone dust.
Located: 325 Willow Point Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-5-26
Number 24, 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 25, 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 9,250sq.ft. of vegetated upland area
shall be managed through removal of non-native and invasive species (Wisteria sp.,
Mile-a-minute weed (Persicaria perfoliata), Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
Plume Grass (Saccharum sp.), Bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), with all
existing native plants within the Vegetation Management Plan area to remain; any
disturbed areas are to be seeded with Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) at a rate of
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
Board of Trustees 4 July 17, 2019
Number 26, 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.
At this time I would like to announce that under Town Code Chapter 275-8(c), files
were officially closed seven days ago, and submission of paperwork after that date
may result in a delay of the processing of the application.
At this time I'll entertain a motion to have our next field inspection Tuesday, August
6th, 2019, at 8:00 AM in the Town Annex, and Wednesday August 7th, 2019 on Fishers
Island.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Motion to hold the next Trustee meeting Wednesday, August 14th, 2019, here at the
main meeting hall.
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
Board annex room second-floor, Monday August 12th, 2019, 4:30 PM, and at 5:00_ PM
on Wednesday, August 14th, 2019, at the main meeting hall.
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 the
June 19th, 2019 meeting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The'Trustees monthly report for June 2019: A check for$5,264.92 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.
Board of Trustees 5 July 17, 2019
III. RESOLUTIONS -OTHER:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, RESOLVED, the Board of Trustees of
the Town of Southold, pursuant to the State Environmental
Quality Revie Act, hereby declare itself Lead Agency in regards
to the application of 1280 COREY CREEK, LLC, c/o CHERYL &
RICHARD CORAZZINI, MEMBERS; Located: 1280 Corey Creek Lane,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-4-17
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
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, July 17, 2019, are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA-Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA:
Florence Vasilakis, Alexander Vasilakis & Demetrios Vasilakis SCTM# 1000-135-1-6
Susan &Timothy Milano SCTM# 1000-21-2-9
William Froehlich SCTM# 1000-128-2-6
1050 West Cove Road, LLC SCTM# 1000-111-5-1
Renee Poncet & Stephen J. Fitzpatrick SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.36
Kendall Todd SCTM# 1000-37-5-3
Lydia Defeis SCTM# 1000-90-1-3
William MacGregor SCTM# 1000-104-9-2
Gabriel Ferrari SCTM# 1000-52-5-26
John & Jeannete Collins SCTM# 1000-88-5-60
John & Ellen Bellando SCTM# 1000-117-10-10
Vanston Bear, LLC SCTM# 1000-111-10-14
1240 Gull Pond, LLC SCTM# 1000-36-2-24
Peter& Marisa Patinella SCTM# 1000-38-6-12
Southold Park District, c/o Tom Hellinsky, Commissioner SCTM# 1000-64-1-10.1
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town
of Southold.hereby finds that the following applications more
fully described in Section IX Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, July 17, 2019, are classified as
Unlisted Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations:
1280 Corey Creek, LLC, c/o Cheryl & Richard Corazzini, Members SCTM#
1000-78-4-17
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 6 July 17, 2019
V. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO NEW
YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT NYCCR PART 617:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roman numeral V. Environmental declaration of significance
pursuant to New York State Environmental Quality Review Act NYCCR Part 617. .
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you want me to read this one?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That would be great.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: En-Consultants on
behalf of 1280 COREY CREEK, LLC, c/o CHERYL & RICHARD CORAZZINI,
MEMBERS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock (with
water and electricity), consisting of a 4'x12' landward ramp leading to a
4'x128' fixed catwalk (constructed with open-grate decking, elevated 4' above
grade of marsh); a 3'x14' hinged ramp; and a 6'x20' "T" shaped floating dock-
secured by two (2) 8" diameter pilings.
Located: 1280 Corey Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-4-17
S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
WHEREAS, the Southold,Town Board of Trustees are familiar with this project having
visited the site on July 10, 2019 and having considered the plans for this proposed
project submitted by En-Consultants dated June 3, 2019 at the Trustee's July 15, 2019
work session and Kenneth M. Woychuk Land Surveying, PLLC survey with water depths
dated December 19, 2018.
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself Lead
Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A., and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees classified the
application as an unlisted action under S.E.Q.R.A:, and
WHEREAS, on July 15, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees found the
application of 1280 COREY CREEK, LLC, c/o CHERYL & RICHARD CORAZZINI,
MEMBERS to be an unlisted action negative decision pursuant to SEQRA Rules and
Regulations. A short Environmental Assessment Form and a field inspection have been
completed by the Board of Trustees; and it is hereby determined that it will not have a
significant effect on the environment; and,
WHEREAS, in reviewing project plans submitted by En-Consultants dated June 3, 2019
and water depths it has been determined by the Board of Trustees that all potentially
significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein:
Navigation: The proposed dock meets standards and does not extend beyond 1/3
across the water body. Depths for the dock terminus are within Town Trustees, New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation and United States Army Corps.
Of Engineers guidelines and there is no recognized Federal/New York State/Town
navigation channel in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure.
Scope: The proposed dock is comparable to docks on neighboring properties in
an area where docks historically are used for commercial and recreational purposes.
Scope in relation to the riparian rights of shellfishers: The plan allows a standard
ramp to float design that will not impede access for those seeking shellfish and
crustacea in season.
Scope in relation to view sheds: The seaward end of the proposed dock will not
Board of Trustees 7 July 17, 2019
extend appreciably beyond existing docks. As such the perspective will not be
discernibly different from the existing view.
Environmental upkeep: The dock design projects a usual lifespan of'30 years,
with limited pile replacement so as to minimize disturbance of the bottom.
THEREFORE, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees
Approve and Authorizer the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to
SEQRA for the aforementioned project.
That's,my motion . '
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral VI, Resolutions and
Administrative Permits. ,In order to simplify our meetings, the
Board of Trustees regularly groups together actions that are
deemed similar or minor in nature. Accordingly I make a motion
to approve as a group items one through,four. They are listed
as follows:
Number one, ROSEMARY SCHNEIDER requests a Ten Year
Maintenance Permit to remove invasive Japanese Knotweed by
digging approximately 2' deep by machine, temporarily covering
with landscaping tarp and replacing with approximately 100 yards
of fill/topsoil; replant with native species.
Located: 8095 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-6-16
Number two, Gerald Schulteis on behalf of NEW SUFFOLK
WATERFRONT FUND requests an Administrative Permit to excavate 3'
around building to bottom of sill, remove rotting shingles and
wood sheathing, apply water based waterproofing and affix cement
board with stainless steel screws, backfill trench with porous gravel.
Located: 650 First Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-8-18.1
Number three, PECONIC LANDING AT SOUTHOLD, INC. requests an
Administrative Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to
hand-cut Common Reed (Phragmites australis) to 12" in height by
hand, as needed..
Located: 1500 Brecknock Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-1-25
Number four, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of MARY BETH HENSON
requests an Administrative Permit to remove existing 6'x8'
platform located at top of bluff and replace with 8'x12'
platform using untreated timber decking.
Located: 3300 Sound Drive, Greenport. ,SCTM# 1000-33-1-6
MR. HAGAN: Weren't you going to leave out number one?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Put it over for possible discussion.
(Off the record).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll rescind my motion and approve two through.
four.
MR. HAGAN: For sake of clarity for the record, are you
rescinding your previous motion,and --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm rescinding my previous motion and grouping
together items two, three and four.
Board of Trustees 8 July 17, 2019
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I second that motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, ROSEMARY SCHNEIDER requests a Ten
Year Maintenance Permit to remove invasive Japanese Knotweed by
digging approximately 2' deep by machine, temporarily covering
with landscaping tarp and replacing with approximately 100 yards
of fill/topsoil; replant with native species.
Located: 8095 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#: 1000-59-6-16
The Trustees did a field inspection on July 10th and the
field notes read as follows: We would like to see shorter than
a ten-year permit. Limit to possibly a two-year permit. Limit
the amount of topsoil to be disturbed. And remove the plants
without excavation. This was read and signed by the owner. All
Trustees were present.
Accordingly, I make a motion to approve this application
for a two-year maintenance permit and to remove the vegetation
by manual cutting, no machine. And I guess that would be it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I just wanted to point out on the previous
application, I don't know if the applicant is here, I want to
point out to be aware of the spoils, that wherever the spoils
end up, the knotweed will grow. We discussed that at work
session. I don't know if you want to make that statement.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's being done by the landscaper.
VII. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, Roman numeral VII, applications for extensions, transfers
and administrative amendments. Again, in order to simplify the meeting, I make a
motion to approve as a group items one through seven and nine. They are listed as
follows:
Number one, ELLEN HERMAN requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland
Permit#9058, as issued on July 19, 2017.
Located: 1655 Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-5-8.1
Number two, Michael A. Kimack on behalf of NICHOLAS & BARBARA
PALLANTE requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#9067, as issued on
August 16, 2017.
Located: 4302 Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-14-30
Number three, JOSEPH TRIOLO requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#431
from Harvey McMahon, as issued on June 10, 1987.
Located: 420 Beachwood Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-10-54
Number four, ROSARIA FORCHELLI requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#6172 from James Eckert, as issued on July 20, 2005 and Amended on March 21,
2007; and for an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#6172 for the existing
4'x63' fixed walkway.
Board of Trustees 9 July 17, 2019
Located: 1635 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-116-7-8
Number five, NEIL &AMELIA MacDONALD request a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#1728 from George W. Kreling, as,issued on October 26, 1983.
Located: 855 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-11-5
Number six, KENNETH QUIGLEY requests a Transfer of Administrative Permit
#8814A from Shlomo Weinberg, as issued on June 22, 2016.
Located: 2245 Little Peconic Bay Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-1-16
Number seven, JOHN ARCARA & MICHAEL SCOPELLITE request a Transfer
of Wetland Permit#1061 from Eddie Foy, as issued on April 7, 1975; and for'an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#1061 to install one additional 8'x16'
diameter piling; construct a 3'x2' ramp landward of existing 4'x60' catwalk with a 3'x12'
ramp to a 6'x20' floating dock situated in an "I" configuration; and for existing water and
electric on dock.
Located: 3905 Wells Avenue, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-14
Number nine, Michael A. Kimack on behalf of NICHOLAS & BARBARA
PALLANTE requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9067 for a Ten
(10) Year Maintenance Permit to dredge approximately 300 cubic yards of spoils. ,
Located: 4302 Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#: 1000-111-14-30
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number eight, 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
The Trustees had visited this site on several,occasions, most recently on July 10th,
2019. And just the concern to the amount, the height of the spoils.
So I would like to approve this application with the stipulation that the dredge spoils
do'not amount to more than six inches in height from the existing grade. That is my
motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VIII. RESOLUTIONS -OTHER:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roman numeral VIII Resolutions Other. Number
one, RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees AMENDS
Resolution Adopted June 19, 2019 regarding the property located
at 1470 Hobart Road, Southold; SCTM# 1000-64-3-2.1 to read as
follows:
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees APPROVE the
request of Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JAMES H. RICH III,
LESLIE E. RICH & CRAIG B. RICH requests a Wetland Permit to
remove and replace 102 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; existing northerly timber groin at corner of property,
Board of Trustees 10, July 17, 2019
and existing 25 linear foot long groin to remain undisturbed;
install and perpetually maintain a 10'wide non-turf buffer
along the landward edge of the bulkhead; construct a new 4'x54'
fixed dock supported with 8" diameter piles and with thru-flow
decking surface along the first 30' landward section and ,
remainder to have untreated decking; a fixed 6'x10' section off
of seaward end of fixed dock, situated in an "T" configuration;
and one (1) 10" diameter tie off pile installed to the south of
the end of the dock.
Resolution.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in'favor?
(ALL AYES).
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roman numeral X, Public Hearings. At this time
I'll take a motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and enter into the
public hearings.
_TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is a public hearing in the matter of the
following applications for permits under the Wetlands Ordinance
of the Town of Southold. I have an affidavit of publication from
the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may be read prior to
asking for comments from the public.
I ask that you please keep your comments organized and
relevant to the subject at hand, and five minutes or less, if
possible.
AMENDMENTS:
Number one, under Amendments, 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 ±300 cubic yards of
clean fill retained and surrounded by a 160 linear foot long retaining wall with a top
elevation of 6.5; and to install a native planting scheme featuring the planting of beach
grass over an 88'x20' area running along the easterly portion of the premise and over
the septic system.
Located: 305 Narrow River Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-3-11.
The Trustees did visit this site on numerous times. The last discussion was on
July 10, 2019, whereby there were two questions for the engineer that were addressed
at a later work session on 7/15, and review of the plans.
The LWRP coordinator found this application to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved unanimously to support it with
no conditions.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
Board of Trustees 11 July 17, 2019
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant.
Also with me today is Joe Fischetti, and I'm here to answer any questions you may
have.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll just say, we have a planting plan.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. The idea is, as discussed, any grounds that
can be saved between the wall and the street will be saved, and
the plans provide for augmentation of six feet on center in the
event that there are spaces that can't be saved. So we put in,
the entirety of the site will be planted in native vegetation,
in any event. That is what the plan provides for.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. So looking at the plan and the
predominant vegetative feature along Harbor Road is beach grass
until you got to the proposed driveway. Although King Street
also goes, and Narrow River Road in this location sees beach
grass behind the retaining structure, and then in the portion of
the property seaward, if you will, or street wise, that is where
the Baccharis will be maintained.
MR. ANDERSON: That is correct.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the native fescue will be, in other
words is there sourcing for native fescue sod or will this just be --
MR. ANDERSON: No, it will be seeded. It would not be sodded.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Would the applicant have a problem with a
prohibition against sod so there is no confusion?
MR. ANDERSON: No problem whatsoever.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There had been some discussion at work
session about maintaining the Baccharis so that it would be at
least as small as the reveal of the retaining wall for the
proposed sanitary system. Will that be doable?
MR. ANDERSON: It will exceed the height of the wall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Another additional proposal, I believe, that I
said I really wanted; this won't be a house with grass, this
isn't going to be a house with a lawn. And granted you are not
putting sod. Um, however, I mean, I personally wanted to see a
great amount more of Baccharis preserved because this house is
essentially in a wetland. And it seems to me like what we are
left with after this change is essentially very low Baccharis in
front of the wall, beach grass and fescue. It's not really how
I envisioned this project going.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is it possible --there is an existing thick
population of Baccharis that is along the common line with the
property to the east. In other words, would not the Baccharis
maybe be a better plant to leave instead of replacing with beach
grass. In other words, the whole area behind the house, that
whole area, in other words the house faces Harbor Road. That
whole section behind the house designated as beach grass, it
seems that would be, grade elevations could be kept close to
native. In this whole area here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about on the west side, there is a massive
area of beach grass that is definitely, currently-- I mean, the
whole property is Baccharis.
MR. ANDERSON: I don't think so.
Board of Trustees 12 July 17, 2019
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is quite a bit of Baccharis.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Unless it's gone, it's the entire property.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Essentially, the entire property is
Baccharis
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I like what you said as well. I mean it's
certainly not new information. That is the case that I made
when we were originally going through this proposal, that this
house, in my opinion, was not going to be surrounded by lawn and
grass. It's the wetlands. As much native vegetation has to be
preserved as possible.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, we have to do some clearing to build the
house, obviously. The house is on piles. Um, it's not
classified as a,wetland when we went for a permit for a house,
and under that permit the idea was to create a 15-foot lot, if
you will, of Baccharis starting from the road, and what prompted
the amendment was that the septic system couldn't be installed
in the way originally permitted by this Board. And the reason
for that is because the engineer who was then working on it
placed the septic system directly upgrade gradient from the
neighboring well across the street on Harbor Road.
So the only way to resolve this was.to basically take the
area that was to be preserved on the east side, because that's
where the septic system goes, and then try and preserve as much
Baccharis in the back. Now, I don't think we have any problem with
adding more, let's say between the house and the road, between
the drain, in other words extending that lot there. But I think
it's a pretty sound project, to be honest with you. I don't
think it's -- it's all native plants. I'm happy to work with
you, I just thought we worked this out in the work session.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Are you talking along Harbor Road there?
That section? Extend that?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, you don't want to put it above the septic
system, for obvious reasons. I'm thinking about in here,
actually. To do that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And then on the east side of the well, add to
that? [guess that's the north/northeast:
MR. ANDERSON: We have existing vegetation. We could add more
there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I will say, the area that was previously put
in as a non-disturbance zone and equivalent to that of which we
are losing the, that you know further protection
MR. ANDERSON: We can just add more --that would not be a _
problem.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We'll need a new plan. Is there anyone else who
wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any further questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further questions or comments, I make a motion to
close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
Board of Trustees 13 July 17, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES). `
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
subject to submission of new plans indicating two things:
Number one, there will be a prohibition of sod in the area, the
entire property. And the prohibition of sod within the area
presently labeled on the planting plan as native fescue.
And two, that the addition of Baccharis on the southern
side of the property and,the northern side. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second..
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number two, Michael Kimack
on behalf of PETER & MARISA PATINELLA requests an Amendment to
Wetland Permit#9288 for the as-built demolition of existing
dwelling; as-built new dwelling constructed on existing
foundation with foundation extended 4.3'x16.4' (70.5sq.ft.) for
garage and extended 10.9'x21.1' (230sq.ft.)for covered porch;
new dwelling has a 2,053sq.ft. footprint (with garage
extension), plus porch (230sq.ft.) for a 2,283sq.ft. total footprint.
Located: 440 South Lane, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-38-6-12
The Board of Trustees first inspected this project on July
11th of 2018, and again on July 10th of 2019.
The Conservation Advisory Council has voted to support this
application with the condition the existing vegetated buffer is
maintained, that there is appropriate draining system to contain
saltwater runoff. Which has'been noted by the Board.,
The inconsistency from the LWRP in that the, it was noted
that the structure was located within ten feet of the Coastal
Erosion Hazard Area, the protected natural feature delineated by
the slopes has not been identified, and that the structure had
been constructed without Board of Trustees review or permit.
And then in,the event that,the action is approved, it was
recommended a vegetated non-turf buffer be required landward of
the pre-existing deck to further policy six.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant.
You are correct, there was the original application that
was put in was approved by the Board. Subsequent to that when
they got into the, what was supposed to be partial ventilation,
turned out to be much more than that, as a result of what they
found in the walls, the cement, and it was framed incorrectly.
Be that as it may, there was a stop work order put on it. We
went back to Zoning.'
But the house as you have reviewed it is exactly the same
perimeter that you had approved originally. It was constructed
on the same foundation, the add-ons, the garage section and that
little closed-off section is exactly the same square footage.
Also, the deck on the back, as you had noted, as you've asked,
Board of Trustees 14 July 17, 2019
we took it all out and will be placed even with the house, as
part of the original recommendations.
The Zoning Board had conditioned with, and it's shown on
the plans, the IA system replacing the existing sanitary system
on the site. The CEHA line was visited, when we did it
originally, and it doesn't touch any of the houses. It's not
part of that. And I believe there is a vegetated section in the
original footprint. If I remember correctly. That's pretty
much it, gentlemen.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, thank you, yes. The Chairman and I
did view the lot after conditions were brought to our attention
concerning the original house being stable and having been
already built and reviewing the application had determined it
was straightforward. And subsequent inspections of the bluff
area has been maintained, and there is a ten-foot non-turf
buffer on the original permit. So any questions by the Board members?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, is there anyone else who wishes to speak regarding
this application?
(Negative response).,
Hearing none, 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 application
as submitted noting that an IA system has been installed for this house.
MR. KIMACK: It will be.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It will be, excuse me. And that all
construction is landward of the coastal erosion hazard area line,
and by adopting this application and approving it, it will bring
it into consistency under the LWRP. And the concerns of the
LWRP coordinator for a natural buffer are met with a prior
permit, which we will continue, that we will see a ten-foot
non-turf buffer. That's my motion
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits.
Number one, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of FLORENCE
VASILAKIS, ALEXANDER VASILAKIS & DEMETRIOS VASILAKIS request a
Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a ±137 linear foot long new
steel bulkhead with 10' return on east side, in place of
existing 10'6" high vinyl bulkhead at toe of bluff, and raise
the height of new bulkhead 18" for a total new height of 12%
new bulkhead to be connected to neighbor's bulkhead on west
side; remove existing storm damaged deck and stairs; construct
new wood bluff stairs consisting of a 3'x5' landing at top of
bluff to 3'x9' stairs to a 4'x6' middle platform to 3'x15'
Board of Trustees 15 July 17, 2019
stairs with kayak racks under stairs; install a 10'x20'
flagstone patio set on gravel with gravel filled joints against
the landward edge of the new bulkhead; all disturbed and
backfilled areas to be replanted with Cape American beach grass
planted 12" o.c.; replace the 4'x5' cantilevered platform and
3'x15' seasonal retractable stairs off bulkhead; and to install
and perpetually maintain a 16' wide non-turf buffer that is to
be re-vegetated with Cape American beach grass 12" o.c. as
needed, up to 2,500sq.ft. area along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 21625 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-135-1-6
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent and consistent.
The inconsistency states the composite deck will be located
within the FEMA VE flood zone.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection most recently on
June 12th, 2019. This application previously was approved under
the Wetland Code but was omitted under Coastal Erosion, so
that's why it's before us now.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition the use of stainless steel Ticos to address
the inconsistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number two, Frank Uellendahl, R.A. on behalf of
SUSAN &TIMOTHY MILANO requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to extend the currently existing 913sq.ft.
dwelling consisting of demolishing existing 417sq.ft. garage and
130sq.ft. attached covered porch attached to existing two-story
dwelling; existing 640sq.ft. first floor and 273sq.ft. second
floor dwelling to be,renovated by replacing windows, relocate
kitchen, and bathroom; the 1,165sq.ft. one-story addition to be
located landward of the existing dwelling with attached
763sq.ft. two-car garage and attached 150sq.ft. greenhouse;
total existing deck coverage surrounding the existing one and
two story structure is 591 sq.ft.; proposed balcony cantilevering
off proposed north facing dining room to be 66sq.ft.; install an
8'x8' hot tub on the ground and outdoor shower off the master
bedroom with a 12'x15' area to be paved with bluestone for the
hot tub and outdoor shower; install a proposed 8' high and 12'
Board of Trustees 16- July 17, 2019
long privacy wall off master bedroom where hot tub and outdoor
shower is to be located; and install a proposed 32'x16' in-ground pool.
Located: 745 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-2-9
The Trustees most recently visited this location on the
10th of July and note that presently the house is in CEHA.
Options may be limited. There was some concerns that it may be
limited to 25% addition, based on where the house is currently
seated and the future project. Asked to reconsider the
application due to above. Restraints: Perhaps new structures
back behind the line.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent, but asked
that we verify the location of the sanitary system and require
installation of an IA system due to the proximity of surface
waters. Confirm drywell shown near pool is for de-watering pool
and hot tub. And locate proposed pool as far from the top of
bluff as is practicable.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application however they did not get a chance to review the
Suffolk County sanitary location. So they were questioning
whether or not it would be upgraded.
All right, is there anyone here that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. May name is Frank Uellendahl, on behalf of
the owners. And I think Timothy Milano just joined us.
Good evening. I received, as part of the process of
obtaining this approval, back in February it over to the ZBA.
The ZBA, Leslie Weisman, wanted some more information concerning
the conservation district. And we have this letter from Corey
Humphrey. Based on this letter we are actually making some
changes. Their concern basically is the integrity of the bluff,
even though the application does not, is not part of the bluff
or the staircase or anything that has to do with the beach. But
we recognize that the pool location may actually be too close to
the proposed erosion hazard line. And I submitted a revised site
plan where we actually move the pool back around 35 feet closer
to the driveway in order to prevent unnecessary preparations
that might affect the bluff.
As far as the existing structure is concerned it is very
well set to the bluff. We are not touching the one-story
existing structure. We are only going to renovate it, replace
windows. And the second, the attached second-floor addition
will basically remain the same. We are relocating from the
first floor the existing structure, the plumbing, away from the
existing structure to the, into the new addition. So the
kitchen will be relocated. The bathroom will be relocated, and
then the new construction is basically one-story addition
landward of the existing structures. The dining, master
bedroom, there are sticking with the three bedrooms. I hear
there is concern about or questions about the septic system.
It's something I discussed with the owners, so we have to look
into this, and I urge from them that the new IA system is
Board of Trustees 17 July 17, 2019
something that we could consider installing. Perhaps, other
than that--there is no basement. If you saw the side, there are
a lot of boulders, so we basically just have a crawl space or
possibly a slab on grade in order to minimize any impact on the
bluff area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. The Board would certainly like to see an
IA system installed. I believe that the feeling of the Board
based off of our inspection and then some inhouse research and
the work session following, is that in Chapter 275 it does say
100-foot setback from the edge of bluff. Um, I think our
feeling on it is that it would be most appropriate to pull this
project back as far as possible, at the very least outside of
the coastal erosion hazard line. And then maybe work with you
and your client on establishing a non-turf buffer along the top
of the bluff.
MR. UELLENDAHL: Okay, well there is a non-turf buffer, which I
consider to be a non-turf buffer, which is established with a
lot of native vegetation, trees and shrubs. So whatever you
think needs to be done in addition to this, we'll be open to
your comments and recommendations.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It remains a concern of the Board that the
hundred-foot setbacks with properties large enough that are
engaging in construction where predominantly all new
construction with the exception of small existing, that we would
be trying to, you know, maintain maximum bluff setback.
We have been reviewing a number of applications with
actually much less severe potentials for bluff failure or
problems with bluffs that our Board, and the Zoning Board in
their own independent determination, have been hopeful with
structures pulled back. So we felt that most appropriate in
this case for a very large amount of brand new construction that
if the structure can be brought behind that line and with a
small loss of the old existing, you know, work with you with
respect to developing a plan that meets your needs, and
continuing discussion along those lines. In other words, you
know, what do we do with a structure that is now enlarged very
close to the bluff. It goes along that line.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: One of-my concerns as well is the existing
structure you don't know what you are getting into until you add
to it. And many times we open it up and the foundation is
settling, so now more work is entailed in a very precarious spot
so close to the bluff. Oh, we need to, with jack hammers,
chipping out cement, it's just, you know, makes more sense.
MR. UELLENDAHL: The existing structure basically stays where it
is, correct? We are not touching the foundation, and we are
trying to do the minimum as far as the existing structures are
concerned. But the new construction is basically landward of
the existing structures. And with the zoning situation we have,
with the garage and the, and with the greenhouse, we are right
on the front yard setback line. So we can't move back more.
And as, you know, we have to look past at the -- I don't see how
Board of Trustees 18 July 17, 2019
we can actually move it back much further as the topography
behind the addition, the proposed addition, is actually,'you _
know, it's a different situation. So now we are now planning to
construct, or hazard construction, happening where the land is
relatively flat.
MR. MILANO: And we are moving it as far back as we can from the
bluff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So within the hundred foot setback from the top
of what is, I mean everyone agrees it's a very steep bluff. I
believe that the, the Board of Trustees would be willing to
condition a project of this scope provided the removal of any
structures within the erosion hazard zone. I did a rough scale
just now because I didn't have it in front of me, and it looks
like it's only about 20 feet of the existing structure.
MR. UELLHENDAHL: Correct, yes. That's right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It seems like we are too far apart tonight.
Maybe it would make sense to table the application and you and
your client can come into a work session next month and discuss
alternate options with us and shed more light.
MR. UELLENDAHL: So what does that really entail? I don't see
how we can move the addition much further toward the road.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we are necessarily talking about
the addition, per se. It's the existing structure that is
within that coastal erosion that is real close to the bluff.
That is our big concern. So if you are doing a project of this
scope, to do that new addition as part of it as a condition of
that we would like to see everything further away from the
bluff. If that involves removing the old one-story structure
away from the bluff, that is what we would like to see.
MR. UELLENDAHL: So you are.talking about removing the existing
one-story structure.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The one that is closest to the bluff.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Seaward of the coastal erosion hazard area.
In other words, that back portion.
MR. UELLENDAHL: This is something that I believe my clients are
not going to move on. They like what they have right now
because it's been in the family for 60 years and that's where
they spend their summers.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, my advice would be that the Board feels
strongly, including myself, that we are willing to condition a
rather large project here within our jurisdiction based on a
small removal that is going to benefit the bluff, going to
benefit the environment, and essentially benefit your clients as
we experience more and more wave action, more and more intense
storms in the winter. If they want to stay for another 60
years, this is probably a smart option.
MR. UELLENDAHL: We talked about this, too. This is probably not
going to advance forever because it is a scary situation for
people there. And they are aware of the fact that they might
lose the existing structure. But as long as they can hold on to
it, we are really not touching it and would like to use it as well.
Board of Trustees 19 July 17, 2019
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think we are in a very tough spot here
because you can use the existing structure as long as you can or
as long as it survives, but that does not necessarily mean you
get the additions that are you looking for. Which is why I
think if you go back and discuss it with your client, it's
appropriate to either move that back or not go for the addition.
MR. UELLENDAHL: You are talking about moving back the proposed.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The existing. The existing house that is
within that coastal erosion hazard area that is right by the
bluff, that is our major concern.
MR. UELLENDAHL: That's basically lift it up and move it back.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI,: To be clear, we are not saying move anything
back. We are saying remove anything that is seaward of the
coastal erosion hazard line. Which we are talking about 20 feet
of structure potentially.
MR. UELLENDAHL: And that's basically that's what they love.
mean this is what they love.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. So you don't want to table this, in
other words?
MR. UELLENDAHL: Well, I would have to -- I mean, you know
this is Susan is his sister and she will actually move here and
it's going to be her home. And I know they have, they own the
next door property as well, it's all in the family for a long,
long time, and it's been part of their lives for all these
years. And it would be I think heartbreaking for them to
actually demolish part of this house.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: We understand that, but keep in mind, we have
seen much of the bluff along the Sound take a beating over the
years. We are not inclined to approve a project of that
magnitude proposed that close to the bluff. That's our position.
MR. UELLENDAHL: So are there any other options you see? I mean
this is an attached addition to an existing home.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Again, we are not here to design the project.
I would assume they love that structure so much that structure
could be moved back, you know, then they could add on to it.
MR. UELLENDAHL: So you are basically saying if we were to
actually move the existing structure back from the coastal, to
the coastal erosion --
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: To move any structure out of the CEHA line
would be beneficial.
MR. UELLENDAHL: Well, I guess I have to go back to my client and
discuss it with them and we'll be back to you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So are you requesting to table the application
until next month?
MR. UELLENDAHL: I guess we have to.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you want to come in for a work session to
discuss options.
MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes, I would like to do that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right.
MR. UELLENDAHL: Thank you.
Board of Trustees 20 July 17, 2019
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to table this application at
the applicant's request.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Wetland permits, number one, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc. on behalf of SOUTHOLD PARK DISTRICT, c/o TOM HELLINSKY,
COMMISSIONER requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten Year Maintenance Permit to
dredge 225 cubic yards of bottomland; dewater dredge spoils on parking lot surrounded
by hay bales/siltation fencing to reduce runoff and dispose of in an approved upland
location.
Located: 40 Town Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-1-10.1.
The Trustees have visited this site and performed an inhouse review of the file on
July 10th, 2019, with Trustees Domino, Krupski, Goldsmith and Williams present. With
field notes, the project seems straightforward. With questions as to what exactly
happens to the dredge spoils.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
for the applicant Southold Park District.
This is a docking facility open to the public within the
management park district. It has been dredged repeatedly for
many years. It's an area that based on the way it is situated,
most downtown feeds that way, and that is where the runoff goes.
So we would be restoring that area so that the slips remain
useable to the residents of Southold.
In this application as with previous applications, the
dredge spoil has always been dug out of the place of the parking
lot. The parking lot is surrounded with hay bales and a silt
fence so from there you simply remove the spoil to an upland
location to maintain spoil offsite and maintain the spoil at
that one site.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Do any Trustees have any questions?
(Negative response).
Does anyone else here wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll make a motion to close the public
hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll make a motion to approve the application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number three, Michael Kimack on behalf of
Board of Trustees 21 July 17, 2019
1240 GULL POND, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove
approximately 130' of existing wood sheathed bulkhead, whalers,
top cap, tie rods and 8" diameter pilings and dispose of
off-site; install approximately 130 linear feet of new vinyl
bulkhead consisting of two (2) 6"x6" whalers, one (1) 4"x6" back
board, IPE top cap, 8" diameter pressure treated'pilings @ 6'
o.c. with W galvanized steel tie rods connected to 8" thick
retaining wall with 3/8"x6" square steel back plate; construct
new 4'wide dock seaward from existing 193sq.ft. fixed dock
(includes bench) with a two-tread staircase a distance of 64',
with nine (9) sets of 8" diameter pressure treated pilings @ 8'
o.c. (256sq.ft.); construct right angle fixed dock section 4' in
width and 32' in length with four(4) sets of 8" diameter
pressure treated pilings (128sq.ft.); install a 3'x8' aluminum
removable ramp (24sq.ft.); construct and install a 6'x20'
floating dock with two (2) 10" diameter pressure treated pilings
and one (1) batter piling with (2) 10" diameter pressure treated
pilings (120sq.ft.); install four(4) batter pilings consisting
of(2) 10" diameter pressure treating pilings; remove wood
decking from existing fixed dock and reframe deck beams to
fasten new 5/4" thick by 6" wide IPE wood decking with stainless
steel screw fasteners; decking for new fixed dock sections and
floating dock to be 5/4" thick by 6"' wide IPE wood with
stainless steel screw fasteners; total new fixed dock, ramp and
floating dock: 432sq.ft., and overall total dock: 625sq.ft.;
remove 562.5sq.ft. of existing wood decks with staircases and
replace with pressure treated wood framing and IPE wood decking
with stainless steel screw fasteners; remove 396.3sq.ft. of
remaining walkways and staircases and replace with pressure
treated wood framing and IPE wood treads with stainless steel
screw fasteners; remove 436sq.ft. of existing wood walkway/deck
with existing wood retaining wall and piers and replace with 223
linear feet of±8" concrete retaining walls with footings,
filled with gravel and topped with 1 Y2" 2" pea stone o/e for
pervious walkway/deck area; for the existing 44' long by 4' wide
dock (176sq.ft`.) with a 2'x8.5' (17sq.ft.) wood bench for a
total of 193sq.ft.; the connecting staircase is proposed to be
removed and replaced as part of the wood decks, walkways and
staircase replacements (part of 396sq.ft. above); and reframe
deck beams to fasten replacement decking of 5/4" x 6' IPE wood
with stainless steel screw fasteners.
Located: 1240 Inlet Lane Extension, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-36-2=24.
The Trustees did a field inspection on July 10th. The
notes read as follows: Possibility of a shorter dock,
through-flow decking on the catwalk to promote health of
vegetation. This is signed by the agent Michael Kimack.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and
inconsistent. The consistency arises from the fact that it
relates to the bulkhead, and although no permits were found for
the below listed structures, which would be the dock.
The inconsistency arises from the following: The applicant
Board of Trustees 22 July 17, 2019
has not demonstrated the following dock standards pursuant to
Chapter 275-11 have been met. The alternative use of seasonal
mooring in areas of low biological productivity and with
adequate water depths is a better option to accommodate vessels
requiring more depth. And extend the permanent dock into public
waters to accommodate private vessels is not supported by the
LWRP.,
Section 9.3, preserve the public interest and use of lands
and waters held in public trust by the state and Town of
Southold. Number one, section A-1. The action will result in
impacts to benthic organisms and the 'construction of the dock
piles and from shading of the substrate. Furthermore, the dock
structures impede and interfere with public use of the waterway.
Applicant enjoys access to public waterways currently. The
opportunity to seasonally moor the vessel is available.
The part that is approved, the residential structure that
is not water dependent, additionally, again repeats opportunity
to seasonally moor the vessel is available. The dock structure
is proposed on public'underwater lands. The longer dock
structures could result in public exclusion areas due to
placement, orientation and length from the shoreline. And
lastly, 9.4, assure public access to public trust lands and
navigable waters provide a free and substantially unobstructed
passage along the public trust shore lanes.
The Conservation Advisory Council on July 10th resolved
unanimously to support the application. Is there anyone here to
speak to this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. I was
trying to remember all the concerns that the LWRP had. I'll see
if I can go through them.
First of all, the existing dock did not have a permit, I
think 46 feet of it, something like that. And one of the
recommendations was not to use IPE wood. I did send you a
revised plan showing it would be through-flow. So one of your
concerns has been addressed for the existing dock. That extends
out beyond the low water line so that there would be an
opportunity to perhaps revegetate with grass underneath it. It
is high above, but primarily even as noted that the sea grass
has not quite taken under the existing dock. So my client had
agreed to use through-flow through there and hopefully may be
able to cut back. But we did ask for that section to be
legalized within this application, knowing full well that there
had not been an original permit for that section.
Some of the other concerns that might have been raised by
LWRP are, quite frankly, I don't find with much merit from this
particular perspective. You really need to look at this, which
you have a copy of in your sheet. It's four and 60 feet across.
My client bought this particular piece of property for the
ability to bring in a fairly large vessel, knowing full well
that he had to meet the.requirements of DEC, which cannot go
beyond 25% navigable water across from low water across to the
.Board of Trustees 23 July-17, 2019
other side. Or your requirements of 33%.
If you will note, this has been laid out in a way that it
takes up 19.5% of the distance,across. So we are not'in the
navigable water. We are well within that particular standard.
Also,'if you take a look at this,particular sheet here, you'll
notice that next to it there is a, the other two back there
extend much further out. But this one next to it also is a
fellow that, he replaced his bulkheads, and in order to be able
to move the boat in and out, we needed to get to at least seven
feet plus of water because he has a six-foot keel on a 42-foot
Valiant, a sailboat. That just happens to,be the size of the
boat and the depth of the water. It is located at the
appropriate depth and at that particular point I don't think, I
didn't notice any eel grass or anything out there in that
particular area, for our situation. There is a lot of mud out
there, talking to the fellow who is going to give us a bid to
build this, said the mud is pretty deep, he would have to go
down 35 feet with the pilings in order to sustain and to, into
the sand. The other concern I think might have been raised to
shorten it. It is at the appropriate distance, and let me
clarify the,point that I made that he would like to be able to,
he had mentioned that's why we have the two dolphins set up on
the inside. The reason for the dolphin set up is not to have a
big boat there except under storm conditions. He felt that with
the northeast wind he did not want the boat positioned on the
outside with the wind blowing against it. He would like to be
able to move it in, in storm conditions, to the inside. And
that's the only time he would put the big boat there, under that
storm condition. But it's set right now at a depth appropriate
for his field depth in order to keep safely off the bottom. If
you look at the depth of that. It meets all of your conditions,
it does not interfere with the benthic strata. Its well within
your 33%. It doesn't involve, if you look at this, it doesn't
involve at,all involving itself out into the navigational
waters. It's far enough away from the moorings that are now out
there so that any boat that is out there would not be impaired
with.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The first question, could you repeat how much
water this vessel draws?
MR. KIMACK: It draws about six feet, basically, under the best
conditions. And I wanted to set that at least at seven, plus
seven, to make sure he has safe bottom underneath there at low
water. And it is set at just that distance. But it was at
seven position that we would be able to move the boat in and out
without interfering with that dock either to the north, which
has the barge hooked to it because of his angle over there. 'And
also to make sure that we had enough distance from there, that
mooring, which is immediately to the east of it, which we do.
And if you look at this, it does show the boat. I superimposed
it on top of that. That is your mooring with the boat right out
there. So there is sufficient distance. It doesn't interfere
Board of Trustees 24 July 17, 2019
with the navigation waters at all.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This water body, Gull Pond, is seasonally
open to shellfishing, and I chair the Town's Shellfish Advisory
Committee, and at some point, the individual's right or concerns
in trying to wharf out steps very strongly against the public's
right to access shellfish, particularly when there are
alternatives available in marinas that will handle vessels with
that depth. And an application of the reasoning you have given,
if you apply that reasoning in similar situations, do we allow a
homeowner on the bay to simply try to exercise their right to
go, you know, the better part of a quarter way across the larger
bay and then literally lock out shell fishers from hundreds if
not thousands of square foot of underwater land.
So typically for the purpose intended, and fairly small
properties, I know this is one Trustee, with the work I do with
shellfish advisory, including water sampling and DNA testing,
it's a heavy hold to keep our waters open to shellfishing, and
don't know if you scaled this project back, the history of docks
in Gull Pond have been rather large in relation to what their
needs are, and already take up an awful lot of public
shellfishing land. I don't know, I would encourage maybe a
meeting in work session with the Board to see how we could
possibly bring this into a different shape and configuration to
minimize the loss of shellfishing.
MR. KIMACK: Well, you can see basically now going to the north
there today, that there are fairly substantial docks that are
already there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Substantially and historically, probably the
wrong thing to do. I mean you would probably find more than one
of those docks had my name with a permit on it back in the last--
MR. KIMACK: Most likely.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It doesn't mean we have to continue down
that road.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I won't support the LWRP coordinator's point
that we are diminishing the public use of this waterway and the
alternatives such as suggested by Trustee Bredemeyer also
include the mooring that is stated several times. Additionally,
if this particular dock was shortened, I understand what you
said about moving the boat around on the west side of the dock,
but you've got two sections that--
MR. KIMACK: He has three boats.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Two sections showing here. And there is only
one vessel.
MR. KIMACK: The big boat he is pointing to. He has two other
boats.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: But the second one -- one of those tie-offs so
that you can move this boat inboard during rough weather.
That's the point I'm addressing.'
MR. KIMACK: That's correct.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: If•you shorten this dock by 19 feet, you still
have sufficient water depth for this vessel to be moved into
Board of Trustees 25 July 17, 2019
that point. And additionally, I see no reason to have a float
here at the end of this L-shaped ramp to a float in terms of,
specifically in terms of securing tying off a vessel of this
size. It would be a far better, there are other ways, better
ways to do it. The floating dock is not secure enough for a
vessel of that mass.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And just to follow-up on Mike's point, with
the water depth, you can definitely move it in and still get
sufficient water depth for that sailboat. You know, I don't
necessarily think you need seven feet of depth for that
sailboat, considering how the entrance in and out of Gull Pond
there at Cliff Park, it just got dredged recently this year.
But when they did it, it was less than three feet going in that
inlet at low tide. So therefore a six-foot keel won't be able
to get in and out regardless.
MR. KIMACK: Where are you talking about?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This here. The boat is within this right here.
MR. KIMACK: Right on the cusp. But the cusp is also
constrained by the inlet itself.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Which gets dredged, if I'm not mistaken,
maybe four to six feet below mean low water. So.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to reiterate the suggestion that
you, if you would like to come to a work session.
MR. KIMACK: That may be appropriate. Because I understand your
concerns. I understand where you are going on the shortening
aspect. I'd probably suggest under these conditions that we
table for the time being. When is your next work session?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We just approved it.
MR. KIMACK: I wasn't paying attention.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: August 12th.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Monday, August 12th.
MR. KIMACK: Okay, I'm back. I'll make an appointment to come in
and we'll discuss it. But I think the overall approach is
consideration in giving, if we can bring it in is something more
in keeping with what you are looking for.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So is the applicant requesting that we table
at this time?
MR. KIMACK: Yes. In order to go to the work session and work it
out so we can come back.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this point I'll make a motion to table this
for meeting at work session.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number four, Samuels &
Steelman Architects onbehalf 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
Board of Trustees 26 July 17, 2019
sides of property, within retaining walls excavate all roots and
soil down to 36", full width of site, in strips 20 feet wide
(seven strips total), truck excavated material to approved site,
and place clean sand fill in excavated strips, one at a time,
compacting as placed; propose to construct a new two-story frame
dwelling on masonry foundation with a footprint of 2,598sq.ft.
over a flood compliant crawl space, and including an attached
one-car garage; construct a 138sq.ft. covered masonry entry
terrace and 226sq.ft. masonry walkway to grade; construct new
544sq.ft. frame deck attached to seaward side of dwelling of
which 280sq.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
1,943sq.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
This application is as herein enumerated in the meeting
agenda and with further additions to this description as
outlined in a revised plan dated June 5th, 2019, as received in
the Trustee office of June 19th, 2019, by Samuels & Steelman.
The additions to the description are to provide a new rock
revetment with the full width of the water line, approximately
ten-foot wide behind the flagged tidal wetland slide consisting
of two to five-ton stones with top revetment approximately two
feet above the natural existing grade. To provide an 18-foot
wide non-turf buffer behind the revetment planted with approved
species. Provide two underground bubbler pools as described in
the project plan as reviewed by the Town engineer which would be
connected to roof gutters and to two underground leaching
pools/distribution chambers, and to extend the retaining walls
along both sides of the property all the way to the revetment.
These will consolidate fill areas and provide stable enclosure
for the bamboo eradication and to provide a wick hole in
driveway area which will penetrate the clay layer and provide
adequate leaching for the sanitary system.
This project has been deemed to be inconsistent by the LWRP
coordinator largely for the drainage concerns which have been
addressed by virtue of these revised plans. These revised plans
were subject to an engineering review of the Office of Town
Engineer. ,.We are in receipt of communication from James
Richter, our registered architect, concerning the plans and the
letter dated July 8th, 2019, where he has described the plans as
being considered compliant with Chapter 236 Storm Water
Management.
Board of Trustees 27 July 17, 2019
And the Conservation Advisory Council did not support the
application with concerns about its location within the flood
zone and with the evidence of standing water and the setbacks
less than 100 feet.
The Board of Trustees has also been to the site several
times. The latest inspection, May 7th, 2019, and subsequent
inhouse review on July 10th. And then on July 15th a discussion
at public work session.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. SAMUELS: Yes. Tom Samuels on behalf of the clients to answer
any further questions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It's very straightforward and addressed all
the concerns.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
to this application?
(Negative response).
Seeing none, I will make a motion to close.the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application with revisions submitted and dated June 5th, 2019,
by Samuels & Steelman as stamped in the Trustee office June
19th, 2019.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second..
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. SAMUELS: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number six, 1050 WEST COVE ROAD, LLC requests
a Wetland Permit for anew 473sq.ft. first floor addition; new
99sq.ft. sun porch; new 18sq.ft. Front porch; existing 360sq.ft.
deck area converted to sunporch; new 80sq.ft. front and side
decks; new 1,118sq.ft. second floor space over existing house
footprint; proposed 16'x44' (704sq.ft.) swimming pool; with 4'
wide (544sq.ft.) bluest'one surround; proposed pool backwash;
proposed (864sq.ft. with 108sq.ft. roofed) barn beyond Trustee
jurisdiction; 'reconfigure driveway with drywells; new conforming
sanitary system.
Located: 1050 West Cove Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-5-1
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistencies are the single-family dwelling does not require
a location on the coast, however the proposed additions cannot
be located further away from the erosion risk bluff through the
attachment to the existing structure. The existing
single-family dwelling is not a water dependent use, and the
proposed action does not further expose the structure to
hazards. And the proposed swimming pool is not a water
dependent use and is located 89 feet from the top of the bluff
line. However the bluff slope is vegetated and appears to be
Board of Trustees 28 July 17, 2019
stable. The toe is protected by the wood bulkhead. The future
loss to the property due to the threat of erosion is low to
moderate under normal weather conditions. During storm events,
the threat increases.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on July 10th
noting the need to install an IA septic system.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. WEBER: Yes. My name is Fred Weber, I'm the architect for the
project. The site has about 200 feet of frontage by Cutchogue
Harbor. The existing waterfront doesn't really have a wetlands.
It's a beach which runs into a bulkhead and then has a fairly
strong and vegetated embankment which goes up to the location of
the house. The northern and central portions of the property
could be defined as a bluff because they exceed 20 feet, but the
southern section of the property is actually less than the 20
feet. So it would be considered a bank. The other thing is the
shoreline of the property is partially protected by a peninsula
of land which sort of shelters the horseshoe cove. And there is
no portion of the site that is similar to bluffs common to the
Long Island Sound. They are proposing to add to the existing
house a second-floor addition which would occur over the
existing footprint of the upland structure, which is
permissible, I guess, under the Wetlands Code. The first floor
additions would be setback at least another 20 feet seaward of
the front of the house, the water side of the house; 59 feet
from the bulkhead and 29 feet from the bluff line. And that
really is only a very small sliver of the proposed addition.
Most of it occurs well beyond that distance. The swimming pool
is going to be setback, it's proposed to be setback 120 feet
from the bulkhead, 89 feet from the bank, where the Wetlands
code requires 50 for wetlands and 100 from bluff. But getting
back to my previous point that at that point of the swimming
pool, there is not a bluff in front of the pool. There is a
bank. And to move the pool further back would push it further
up the hill. It's a wooded, sloped hill that heads down toward
the water. And that would require removing more trees and doing
more site disturbance.
There is also a proposed barn structure but that is outside
the Trustee jurisdiction. We will be putting in drainage and
erosion controls that conform to the Southold code. A new
conforming sanitary system. We have a letter of
non jurisdiction from the New York State DEC and we have
Southold Zoning Board approval for all the variances for the
proposed work. And at the time of the, of that filing with the
Zoning Board, the LWRP was considered consistent. I guess there
has been a change on that.
I would be glad to answer any questions.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The IA system, for the septic.
Board of Trustees 29 July 17, 2019
MR. WEBER: I'm not an expert in those systems. I do know that
the owner would prefer not to put the system in. We, the
property is fairly high. The bottom of the sanitary system
would still be seven-and-a-half feet above sea level. I can let
the owner discuss that with you, if you want to. He would
prefer not to do that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: As a Board we are pretty much making that
standard policy going forward within any application within our
jurisdiction. We are requiring the IA septic system. IA system
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Would you share,with us why the owner would not
want though use the IA system?
MR. WEBER: Well, it's the owner actually has more experience
with the IA systems than I do.
MR. BURGER:'Eugene Burger here. One of the things I wanted to do
is have a bathroom in the basement, and we were hoping for a
deep system. And I do have the ability to push this system
further up the hill. One of the reasons why I'm not totally in
favor of the IA system is I have other systems in properties
that I own, with pumps, and it can be very problematic. And I
have had some problems. And it's very costly. So I'm just
trying to stick with natural simplicity.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is this a year-round residence?
MR. BURGER: It's going to be.
MR. WEBER: We actually have made application to the Health
Department a while ago and,we got all the approvals, with the
exception of the Trustee approval. It did approve the system
that is submitted.
MR. BURGER: Is pushing it further up the street an option? I
did want to have a deep system.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'know that year-round use is even more of a
reason to do the IA system. And in most cases those systems
actually work better with year-round use. It's sort of a
win/win. I know we are getting into this weird area of new
technology to this area and everyone is really hesitant to do
it. But it's, the Board believes that it's the best option at
this time for what we are dealing with.
MR. BURGER: Going back into a little bit of my own, I'm a marine
engineer, so I understand pumps and pumps that are in water and
systems like that very well. And-like I said, I have one of
these systems. I have two, already. Similar systems. Eco 1
systems. And I have problems with them. And like I said, it's
very expensive. But I'll get back to what if I was to push it
out of the jurisdiction. I want to try and do a deep system.
If I don't do a deep system I'll have to have a jack pump in the
basement. And well pumps.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We have been advised that due to the fact
that the project is within the jurisdiction that it's under our
jurisdiction to require an IA system. And especially with the
additional that will add to the sanitary and put more burden on
the sanitary and the environment, it's prudent to go with an IA
system. They have made improvements. There are successful
Board of Trustees 30 July 17, 2019
systems out there that have been tried and tested, so far. And
that has achieved the results that we are looking for as a
Board, and I think overall the town is looking for as far as
reducing the amount of nitrogen that is going into our
waterways, which obviously is one of the top goals of this Board.
MR. BURGER: So you are saying because the structure of the house
itself is within your jurisdiction, the septic system, even
though it was out of the jurisdiction, you still want to force
us to do this. Is that what you are saying?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The source of the sanitary is within our
jurisdiction, therefore the system itself falls within that jurisdiction.
So to clarify what I said, in order to grant the approval
within our jurisdiction, we want the IA system because the
sanitary is caused, created, within that structure that exists
within the hundred feet, within our jurisdiction. So in order
to weigh those setbacks and things like that in the conditions,
that's why we would condition an IA system in order to grant
that approval.
MR. BURGER: It doesn't sound like you are giving me too much
choice. I guess I'll have to agree to it then.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak to
this application?
(Negative response).
Are there any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
So being that the change in the septic system is a major change,
we would need new plans showing that IA system in order for us
to move forward on this application.
MR. WEBER: Right now the Health Department won't approve this
without your, approval.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That is current policy.
MR. WEBER: So why can't we just say we'll get an approved IA
system and move forward so we don't have to come back and revisit?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would it be in the same location?
MR. WEBER: I think it would be.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a
motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
application subject to an IA system being put in in place of the
current sanitary system as depicted on the plans, with new plans
showing the IA system as well as noting that all of the --in
the same location -- as well as noting that all of the additions
are going landward of the existing, which will bring it into
conformity with the LWRP coordinator. That's my motion
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. WEBER: Thank you.
Board of Trustees 31 July 17, 2019
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number seven, Francis J. Yakaboski on behalf
of RENEE PONCET & STEPHEN J. FITZPATRICK requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a two-story 1,372 single family dwelling
with a 500sq.ft. attached garage and septic system.
Located: 702 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.36
The Trustees most recently viewed this application on the
10th of July and noted that the house is straightforward; should
have an IA septic system due to its proximity to the water.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent but noted
that installation of an IA septic system was necessary due to
the close proximity of the ground surface waters and
installation of a vegetated non-turf buffer.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application with the recommendation of an IA system and
appropriate drainage system to contain storm water runoff and
request the applicant save as many mature beech trees as
possible. The Conservation Advisory Council was pleased to see
IPE material used on the existing dock.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. YAKABOSKI: Francis Yakaboski. I request your approval. We
are not going to fight you on the IA. It's expensive. It
requires electricity. So you don't have a system where you have
a storm and no electric. And it's going to be inspected twice a
year. The current cost of the inspections are $400 per. And
the inspections have to be submitted to the Health Department
for review and approval, which again is a burden and an
additional cost. But like I said, we are here for your approval
and we have been working on this project for a little over a
year-and-a-half. We have been to the Zoning board, the Planning
board and now you good people. So we are looking to move forward.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. The only other thing requested was
a non-turf buffer, which to my recollection there is, and it's
gravel and stone, all seaward, behind the bulkhead. It's all
gravel and stone there, correct?
MR. YAKABOSKI: Yes. But that was all previously, you previously
approved the bulkhead and dredging years ago, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Is there anyone else here that wishes to
speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any other comment 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: And I make a motion to approve this application
based on the submission of new plans depicting the IA system in
the current place of the existing system upland.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 32 July 17, 2019
MR. YAKABOSKI: Thank you, gentlemen.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number eight, KENDALL TODD requests a Wetland
Permit for the existing 1-1/2 story, 1,479.5sq.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 236.8sq.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
The Trustees visited this site on 6/12 with all Trustees
present, with notes gutters to leaders to drywells. Currently
there is a pipe that we believe leads toward Spring Pond, and
that should be rectified. Also recommending a 12-foot non-turf
buffer on the northwest concrete retaining wall, and non-turf
buffer in the area of the sea wall of upper retaining walls on
the east.
This application is exempt from LWRP review.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application with proper drainage.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. BURKE: I am Charles Burke, the contractor. It sounds good.
We also fixed his whole fence that was blowing around.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I will note in closer review of the plan there,
is gutters to leaders to drywells on the plan. On the plan
there is currently not a non-turf buffer. Would you be willing
to install and maintain a non-turf buffer in the area between
the concrete retaining wall and the wood bulkhead?
MR. TODD: Is that going forward toward the water?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Just for clarification --
MR. TODD: Kendall Todd. Currently it's a grassy --
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Our mission is to stop any nitrogen
fertilizers from going into the water, so --
MR. TODD: Are you talking behind the concrete wall or in front?
MR. BURKE: Between the bulkhead and the concrete wall.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Yes, in that area. And currently where the
steps lead down to that concrete area that kind of juts out a
little bit. We would like that to be non-turf as well.
So again. And it just can't be fertilized. And as far as turf
that means grass. We would like to see it vegetated.
MR. TODD: So where the walkway comes around you want it between
that and the one retaining wall.
Do you want me to come up?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So we are talking about this area here and
this area here (indicating).
MR. TODD: You want more on here; more stone?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It can be anything,just not turf.
MR. TODD: It's all weeds that are grown. It's not a grassy
area. Originally there was stone there. So you want us to pull
out the weeds?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anything you want, but not turf. No
Board of Trustees 33 July 17, 2019
fertilizer. You can do landscaping.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, beach grass is.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: And the pipe, where is that?
MR. TODD: There is a leader-- so take that out.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Yes. According to the plan I saw in there you
have a drywell. So that's being addressed.
MR. TODD: Small drywells, right?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: In the plan that is stamped by Mr. Schwartz
does show a drywell in each corner.
MR. TODD: All right.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
to this application?
(Negative response).
Any further 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'll make a motion to approve the application
as submitted, noting the addition of non-turf buffers seaward of
the retaining walls on the property. And with the submission of
new plans denoting as such.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So you are just aware, you have to submit new
plans noting that area to be non-turf buffer.
MR. TODD: All right. One more question. So we are able to apply
for a building permit now?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Once you get the Trustee permit. So I would
get those plans in sooner rather than later. And then once you
get the plans, you'll get your, you can ask to be notified when
that permit is ready and you can pick it up in person and go
right next door.
MR. TODD: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number nine, JMZ Architecture on behalf of LYDIA
DEFEIS requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built construction
of a new 100' long by 3' high wood retaining wall along south of
property by existing bulkhead; as-built re-grading of ground on
both sides of retaining wall; and as-built construction of new
28.5' long by 3.75' wide stairs from grade up to existing back deck.
Located: 1165 Cedar Point Drive West, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-1-3
The Trustees did a field inspection at this site on July
10th. Present were Trustees Domino, Goldsmith, Krupski and
Williams. The notes are as follows: The deck appeared to be
original and part of first permit. The area between the
bulkhead and the retaining wall should be a non-turf buffer.
Needs gutters to leaders to drywells. I believe that was
clarified later on. Remove black pipe from the retaining wall
Board of Trustees 34 July 17, 2019
to the marsh. Fish cleaning station needs to be part of the permit.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from the fact that the structure was
constructed without Southold Town Board of Trustees review or
permit.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application with appropriate salt-tolerant plantings between the
retaining wall and the bulkhead. And a review of the durability
of the returns to the north end of the property.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. SMITH: My name is Richard Smith, I'm here on behalf of Ms.
Defeis: -
TRUSTEE DOMINO: After attending a work session, you made some of
the changes suggested by the Trustees. We received photographs
of that, documentation from that. The fish station, cleaning
station, is removed. The poly pipe was removed and blocked off.
And my understanding is that you agreed to a non-turf buffer
between the retaining wall and the bulkhead with pea gravel or
river rock, as you call it:
MR. SMITH: Yes. I believe on the original plan should be a
footnote stating we intend on putting six inches of
three-eighths inch of what I call river rock. As you guys told
me in the workshop previously, we can't put amber underneath, on
top of sand before we put the rock down. And we intend on
accomplishing that as quickly as you folks say it's okay to do that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Looks like a good project.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further questions or comments,, 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 plans resubmitted that show the non-turf buffer and noting
that the poly pipe and fishing station were removed. _
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. SMITH: Thank you, for your help, guys. I learned a lot in
of the-last few days.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, we'll take a short break.
(After a recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next item, number 11, En-Consultants on
behalf of VANSTON BEAR, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to
throughout an approximately 86,400sq.ft. area (including
approximately 5,OOOsq.ft. "north ravine" area and approximately
6,OOOsq.ft. "south ravine" area), selectively remove existing
Board of Trustees 35 July 17, 2019
noxious and/or invasive vegetation (e.g. mile-a-minute weed,
Russian olive, Phragmites, poison ivy), and establish both
replacement and supplemental native plantings (e.g. bayberry,
serviceberry, various native grasses, ferns, and sedges); remove
(to stumps) two existing black locust trees (all other existing
trees to remain) from top of bank to north of proposed dwelling
location (see Town Wetland Permit No. 9462); and establish and
perpetually maintain a 1'0'wide, approximately 1,500sq.ft.
non-turf buffer on the west side of proposed dwelling to be
planted with native grasses (e.g. big bluestem, switch grass).
Located: 5250 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-10-14
The Board of Trustees reviewed this project on field
inspection on July,10th in my absence. I also had the
opportunity to review the plans with the Board at work session'
on the 15th, extensive planting plan as developed by Margie
Ruddick Landscape as received in the Trustee office on June 10th.
The project has been deemed to be consistent under the LWRP.
And the Conservation Advisory Council supported the
application, however noted the locust trees were not flagged.
And the Board comments were generally favorable on the
field inspection and review of work session.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. Also, Brett Schneiderman for Margie Ruddick
Design is here as well.
Generally, this application picks up where our discussions
left off in connection with Wetland permit#9462 a couple of
months ago, which as the Board undoubtedly recalls was issued
for the reconstruction of the dwelling and other activities on
the property. Generally, we discussed submitting a separate
application for a comprehensive landscape restoration plan,
which is this one, and where noxious and invasive vegetation
would be selectively removed and replaced with native vegetation
which would also be supplementally planted throughout,the
project area.
As we discussed at field inspection, the project
methodology is outlined in the lower left-hand corner sheet one
of two of the design plan. Some notable aspects of that is that
as part of this plan all existing trees are to remain except
those two black locusts. Those are the same two black locusts I
think which may have been included for removal on the original
Wetland permit, and-I know the Board knows where they are.
All invasive removal shall be immediately followed by the
native plantings to ensure soil stability, which was one of the
issues Trustee Williams had mentioned having concerns about in
the site inspection. No mechanized equipment is to be used on
slopes greater than 20%, and all invasives shall be disposed of
at a DEC-approved facility.
Also of note in the design is the establishment of the
ten-foot wide non-turf buffer which is adjacent to the top of
bluff on•the west side of the proposed dwelling, and that area
Board of Trustees 36 July 17, 2019
in place of the existing lawn will be planted with a native
grass mix that includes bluestem and switchgrass. And also of
note, although not really necessarily typical concerns of the
Trustees, but we did talk a little bit at the field inspections
about what I think the Board viewed as a positive additional
component to the plan, is that the approximately 4,600 square
foot of lawn area that is to be located immediately to the
Waterside of the proposed dwelling is to be planted with a
so-called Eco-lawn which consists of a mix of certified fine
fescue grasses that are less water dependent than traditional
turf lawns. So generally, I think a lot of, again, a lot of
thought and detail went into this design of this plan to try to
maintain and restore the native conditions of the site as much
as possible.
If the Board has any additional questions, either Brett or
I are happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The Eco-lawn, can we discuss that just for a
second?
MR. HERRMANN: Sure.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It doesn't require a lot of water but would you
characterize it as low maintenance, maybe low fertilizer?
MR. HERRMANN: I'll let Brett answer that.
MR. SCHNEIDERMAN: Brett Schneiderman from Margie Ruddick
Landscape. It's low maintenance and no fertilizer. Eco-lawns
is a mix of fine fescue grasses, it's virtually low maintenance,
no maintenance. We won't be fertilizing it. It should self
establish in low soil places.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Very good. As a matter of fact, Long Island.
Cauliflower Association calls it no low fescue mix, all five
different fescue varieties, each individual species. I'm not .
advertising for them, but they are locally available. But in
researching more specifically the fescue species and their
individual components, so those Eco-mixes and stuff that are out
there provide a very viable alternative. My son happened to put
in one of those lawns and it's gorgeous lawn. Just as far as
people that got locked into the Kentucky bluegrass mentality,
it's, in my mind, is even superior.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: One further point, is it possible to define low
fertilizer use? Is that an accepted general term in your industry or--
MR. SCHNEIDERMAN: I guess -- it's a low maintenance as in it is
virtually no mow. Our maintenance is basically,irrigation. We
may come through to do aeration to get, to keep aeration, no top
dressing of fertilizers, no herbicides, no pesticides,
virtually establishing this grass, and if it recedes and we need
more establishment in clumps, then we'll over seed in the
following Fall cycle.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: These are readily available?
MR. SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes. Eco-lawn is a product--we are also
with Glover perennials, another local source materials, trying
to stay within a five to ten-mile radius of where we are servicing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you. 1
Board of Trustees 37 July 17, 2019
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to ask
questions or speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, anyone else in the audience?
(Negative response).,
Seeing none, I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application as submitted. The plans dated June 10th, received
in the Trustee office June 10th, 2019.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 12, En-Consultants on behalf of 1280,
COREY CREEK, LLC, c/o CHERYL & RICHARD CORAZZINI, MEMBERS
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock (with water and
electricity), consisting of a 4'x12' landward ramp leading to a 4'x128' fixed
catwalk (constructed with open-grate decking, elevated 4' above,grade of
marsh); a 3'x14' hinged ramp; and a 6'x20"'7 shaped floating dock secured
by two (2) 8" diameter pilings.
Located: 1280 Corey Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-4-17
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistencies are that the applicant has not demonstrated that
the following dock standards pursuant to Chapter 275-11
construction and operation standards have been met. Private
dock structures extending into public waters decrease public use
of bottom lands and nearshore area. The action is proposed to
be located within a New York State Department of State
Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat area, Corey Creek.
The construction of dock structures in these areas results in
the loss of littoral and marine habitats. The alternative use
of seasonal moorings in areas of low biological productivity and
with adequate water depth is a better option to accommodate
vessels requiring greater water depths. The dock structure will
result in a net decrease in public access to public underwater
lands. And a public boat launching ramp is located to the east
of the parcel at the end of Corey Creek Lane.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application and requests that the area landward of the tidal
wetland boundary be designated as non-disturbance buffer.
The trustees conducted a field-inspection on July 10th,
noting it was a straightforward application. l
Is,there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. This dock is proposed, general at the northwest
head of Corey Creek, west of three neighboring docks to the
east. I put'in a very similar dock in the immediately adjacent
Board of Trustees 38 July 17, 2019
to the east, which was constructed pursuant to Wetland permit
#1825. The Board initially looked at this property in June of
2018, at which time your recommendations concerning a potential
dock proposal on this property should be designed similarly to
this immediately adjacent dock and constructed with open-grate
decking.
Contrary to the LWRP comments, the dock has been
specifically designed in compliance with all of the construction
operation standards for docks set forth in section 275-11 of the
Town Code. It maintains a 15-foot lateral separation from the
east property line. It's a minimally invasive dock. It's
virtually really only the hinged ramp and float that extends
seaward of mean low low water. Extends 19 feet from mean low
low water, less than one-third of the width of the waterway,
leaving seven to eight feet for a vessel on the outside. It
also maintains the 25% water width standard of the US Army Corps
of Engineers, and we have also been given verbal indication that
the New York State DEC has approved the dock as designed.
So with that, if the Board has any other questions, I'm
happy to respond.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just for clarification, what is the depth under
the proposed float?
MR. HERRMANN: 30 to almost 36 inches. Which, I apologize, I
realize the DEC asked the same question. If you look at the
site plan, it is a little bit difficult to read because of the
font is cluttered. But basically the inside of the dock is
designed to hit 30 inches of water, which is the New York State
DEC standard, and that can be seen also on the cross-section
that basically is the inside of floats are right around that 30
inch mark. The bottom actually drops pretty quickly.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So you are two-and-a-half to three feet of the
whole of the float?
MR. HERRMANN: That's correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
noting that there is sufficient water depth for a float and that
the dock standards as in Chapter 275-11 have been met, thereby
bringing this into consistency with the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, for hearing us.
Board of Trustees 39 July 17, 2019
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 13, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of WILLIAM
MACGREGOR requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing fixed
dock, ramp and floating dock and replace in the same approximate
location as existing dock a new 4' wide by 80' long fixed pier
with thru flow decking on entire surface; a new 30" wide by 16'
long aluminum ramp; and a new 6' wide by 20' long floating dock
supported with two (2) 10" diameter piles; in addition, there
will be a trimming and maintenance of a 4'wide cleared path
from the proposed dock to the edge of existing maintained lawn.
Located: 1120 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-9-2
The Trustees originally visited this site on the 10th of
July at approximately 1410. Trustees Domino, Krupski and
Williams are present, and they noted that at the current time,
which was 1410, that there was only about two feet at the
current float, two feet of water depth. Need to verify the
depth of the float.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be an inconsistent
action. The existing dock structure, permit 1614, in 1981 for a
similar but shorter dock. The proposed dock is 14 feet further
into public waters. The applicant has not demonstrated the
following dock standards pursuant to chapter 275-11 and
operation standards have been met. The action as proposed to be
located within New York Department of State Significant Coastal
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area, Cutchogue Harbor and wetlands.
The dock structures in these areas result in loss of littoral
marine habitats. Construction of structures such as docks and
bulkheads or revetments in areas not previously disturbed by
development may result in loss of protective areas which support
fish and wildlife resources in Cutchogue Harbor. The extending
of the dock structure as well as net decrease in public access
to public underwater lands.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Is there anyone here to speak regarding this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. A few
couple items that I would like to point out is the as mentioned
for permit I believe it was 1614, was the original dock permit,
it's, the proposed plan extends this dock out I believe it's
actually about seven or eight feet past the landward end of the
existing dock. And the main purpose of that is to extend, to
get a little bit of additional water depth. This Broadwaters
Cove has way more than sufficient area in there to extend it
out, and it's not going to be a problem for navigation for any
of the surrounding property owners or any of the navigation
through that cove area.- As you look on the proposed plan at an
aerial photograph, the shoreline pretty much is in projection
with that, the proposed dock, as well as the application
probably in 2013, Valner (sic), which is two or three properties
to the east of this one. So there is no further projection by
the seven foot that I'm proposing to extend this one out.
The whole purpose of this is to obtain a little bit of
Board of Trustees 40 July 17, 2019
additional water depth as opposed to what is existing there.
And it varies from say two-foot four-inches out to 2.5, so
two-foot six-inches, which is right in that 30 --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's not correct, for the record. If you
look all around the dock, that is not a correct statement.
MR. PATANJO: Okay. I'm looking at the water depths that were
done, and actually he is here today if you would like to discuss
it. I do have the licensed land surveyor John Heidecker, who
did all the water depths, which are in conformance with New York
DEC requirements. Maybe he can give you a little bit of
overview of his methodology, of how he does his water depths in
relation to mean low low water. Which is not the typical
observed low water here. It's mean low low water, which then,
I'm not an expert on mean low water evaluations, maybe he can
help you out with that.
Do you want some additional information on that? I can ask
John to explain that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I don't know if we necessarily need the
methodology to find it. The numbers speak for themselves. So
currently on the Heidecker land survey received May 24th, 2019,
it shows 2.4 currently close to the end of the existing float.
You said to go out further gets you more water depth. According
to this survey, you go out, you are at 2.3. So in actuality,
going out gets you into less water depth. And going out further
still you get to 2.1. So all of these depths on this survey,
99.9% are under two-and-a-half feet. There's really one spot,
two spots that have more than two-and-a-half feet.
MR. PATANJO: Yes, it varies up and down. I see that on the
plan. I agree.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So I just don't understand how moving it out
gets you to greater water depth.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's essentially a wash, whether you move it
out or not.
MR. PATANJO: Right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I don't know that I'm personally opposed to
moving it out, I just, I would say at those water depths I would
be opposed to having a float there, as we discussed in the past.
MR. PATANJO: As far as the proposal, I see if the Board in
general is objecting to moving it out that additional eight
feet, I think the applicant would have no problem keeping it
where it is in the current locations, more essentially going to
be revised to show remove and replace existing dock, where it
currently is situated as in its current configuration.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So if the application is to remove and replace,
we would want to bring it into current conformity with the Town
Code. If the applicant decides to repair it in stages, that's
allowed under the Town Code. But, I mean, I would strongly
suggest that you discuss with your client the possibility of
doing a fixed pier. It's a really a nice location for one.
MR. PATANJO: If I remember from the comments that were
originally addressed, is permit number 1614, how this is being
Board of Trustees 41 July 17, 2019
permitted as a floating dock. And if I remember correctly from
your comments, it was tucked back by 15 feet, or there was a
seaward extension of the dock, as originally approved. 'So by
that methodology that you are discussing right now, if I pull
this thing back 15 feet I'm going to have less water depth on
the permitted dock structure than what is right now in place
that I'm asking to remove and replace in-kind.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, the comments by the LWRP coordinator were
that the dock, the proposed dock extends 14 feet further into
public waters. Not that your current dock needs to be pulled
back. That isn't right.
MR. PATANJO: So I think in a happy medium here, for lack of
better terms, would be to remove and replace where it is existing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It still doesn't have sufficient water
depth, according to the information that you provided us. Well,
essentially, the policy has been, over the last year or so,
there is no depth, no float. Fixed dock.
MR. PATANJO: Understood. However, it's a permitted structure.
So if the Board is saying to, if you are not going to approve us
to remove and replace in its current condition, technically, by
code, we are-allowed to remove and replace what is permitted.
So you are asking, again, another application that you are
asking us to do a fixed dock. You are saying that this dock is
permitted previously at a lesser water depth, and you are saying
that we can't put it in this proposed elevation. Now we have,
you are allowing us, and like was just mentioned, you want us to
remove and repair it in its current configuration, we'll have
less water depth.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can I say something first? We don't know that
it was permitted'at a lesser depth. That's an inference on your
part. If you are looking at that photograph, every single one
of those structures shows shoaling around it. Which means when
you put a structure there, the water depth is probably
decreasing over time.
MR. PATANJO: Absolutely 100% 1 agree. So we are trying to
extend it further to gain more water depth, which helps with the
environmental impacts of a floating dock.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Which we showed you is not possible.
MR. PATANJO: Right.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: With the float. And this is something that
we discussed for months and months. And so it's nothing new.
It's been standard policy, if you don't have 30 inches, you are
not getting a float. So whether it's this application or
another one, it's been consistent throughout.
MR. PATANJO: Understood.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And if you want to go fixed and talk
extension, that's a possibility. But as far as a float is
concerned, if you don't have 30 inches, you will not get a permit.
MR. PATANJO: That's understood. However I think that something
should be done with Town code chapter 275 that references water
Board of Trustees 42 July 17, 2019
depths. You are making reference to 30 inches of water, which
is a guideline established by New York State DEC.,That is in
their written requirements. The Town of Southold Chapter 275
makes zero reference to water depths for fixed and/or floating
docks. Therefore denial of a floating dock based on water depth
is, I'm not an attorney, but there are words, capricious, and
stuff like that, that I don't understand. But the attorneys do.
So it's one of those things that, this proposed dock, had I
submitted as a remove and replace existing, I would be happy to
revise my application to submit it as a remove and replace
existing. Which is in the same location, same water depths,
with the same exact thing.
Now, just for guidelines, as far as what is done and what
I'm doing on other applications, and I'm going to be completely
open here, is I will tell them remove and replace it, do 1/3 a
year, which is considered maintenance. You'll have your dock.
I don't care if you have one foot of water at low tide. The
Trustees will not allow you to go, even though it's in the pier
line, you'll have two foot of water at low tide, and you are
going to gain additional water depth, they won't allow it. Even
though you are permitted. So a permitted structure, a permitted
dock, which is legally there, that you can remove and replace
one-third of that every year, you are not going to have
sufficient water depth. Your boat is going to sit on the
bottom. Your boat load will hit the bottom. I'm coming in with
something that meets your pier line requirements, meets your
one-third or 25%water depth requirement. And this is all going
to be on the record, I hope. Because it's going to be used --
what is the requirement for that?
MR. HAGAN: I'll direct the Board not no answer that question.
MR. PATANJO: I would like to be part of your scoping sessions,
if you have one, to modify the code. And your Chapter 275
requirements for fixed docks and/or floating docks. Because
- it's one of the things that I deal with a lot. And it's, I want
to be part of the determinations and help you guys out to say
this,is settling. This makes sense. Because some of the rules
completely don't make sense. Specifically pier lines.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can always come in to a work session and
discuss --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like you to move this along and keep
your comments relevant to this application, not on speculation
of where the code is going to go.
MR. PATANJO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can always come into a work session and we
are more than happy to discuss anything with you at that time.
MR. PATANJO: I believe all these comments are specific to this
application, which is regarding the water depth.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So would you like to move forward with this
application or would you like to table it and discuss with your
client different options?
MR. PATANJO: Well, I would like to get the Board's feelings, if
Board of Trustees 43 July 17, 2019
we could remove and replace existing --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you have a permitted structure, you can
always -- you cannot remove the entire thing but you can always
repair it.
MR. PATANJO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, I mean, you have a permitted structure
there. There is no reason that you can't repair it over time.
It's all good.
MR. PATANJO: What is the Trustees, is it one half of the
structure? Is there anything written in Chapter 275 for repairs?
MR. HAGAN: The code speaks for itself.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. It's specifically in the code.
MR. PATANJO: Understood. If that's the case, I would like to
table the application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
regarding this application or any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
At this time I would make a motion to table the application at
the applicant's request.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 14, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of KAREN
& CAREY FLAHERTY requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing
fixed dock and steps to beach, and replace with a proposed
4'x68'fixed dock supported with 10" diameter cca piles; install
a seasonal 30"x16' aluminum ramp; install a 6'x20' seasonal
floating dock with un-treated timber decking situated in an "I"
configuration and supported by two (2) 10" diameter cca piles.
Located: 1077 Bay Home Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-5-39
The Trustees visited this site on July 10th. Trustees
Domino, Goldsmith, Krupski and Williams were present, noting
that there is no existing fixed dock. There is a catwalk with
steps to beach. Water depths on plans needs to be verified.
Field inspection indicates less than two foot of water at depth
of dock terminus.
The LWRP report dated April 10th, 2018 did find this to be
inconsistent. The inconsistencies were covered under prior
public hearings. I don't need to read those in. And there will
be -- let me just see. Bear with me. Counsel has advised me
to read the highlighted inconsistencies. The inconsistencies
were the following notations: Policy one, foster development in
the Town of Southold that enhances community character,
preserves open space, makes efficient use of the infrastructure,
makes beneficial use of the coastal location. Then advises,
minimizes adverse effects of development. Policy three, enhance
visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town
of Southold. Policy six, protect and restore the quality and
ecosystems. No CCA-treated material proposed for the piling or
other features of the dock. Bio-accumulation of the pesticides
Board of Trustees 44 July 17, 2019
in marine animals has been shown to occur. Treating wood will
introduce harmful contaminants into the waterbody. The proposed
action is located in a New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation Critical Environmental Area and
Peconic Estuary Program ecosystem.
A lot of this does apply to the prior application and not
to the new submitted plans, so I'm going to look over it.
Construction of the dock structure in public waters removes
and hinders public use of waters and bottom lands. No dock
structures located. A mooring could be established at this
location. Moorings can be designed to minimize harmful impacts
and are temporary. The proposed private dock structure in this
location will extend into public waters resulting in a net
decrease in public access to public underwater lands and near
shore area. Private dock structures extending into public trust
lands and waters obstruct public use of navigable waters and
other public use in area where dock is located and does meet
this policy. Additional use of the waters include free and
unobstructed access to the near shore for commercial uses and
recreation by the public. Alternatives to long piers and docks
include dinghies to reach moored boats in nearby marinas.
Potential impact to natural resources has not been currently
discussed in the application.
The Conservation Advisory Council did review this
application and resolved to support the application having a
ten-foot non-turf buffer planted with native vegetation landward
of the edge of the lawn.
Is there anybody here wishing to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. Um, a
couple of things that I remember from the LWRP and Conservation
Advisory Council comments. This is a carryover from a previous
Board hearing where it was discussed the original application
was a longer fixed dock with a floating dock--fixed pier with
a floating dock. The application changed quite significantly
from the original. The new fixed pier is 70 foot long by four
foot wide. We have changed the application to add structural
integrity to the fixed, the entire fixed portion of it,
utilizing 12-foot diameter Greenheart piles, 12-foot diagonal --
it's pretty consistent on the Greenheart piles there. They are
through and through. They do have a 12-foot butt at the tip of
it for this length pile, which is probably going to be 22 or
28-foot pile. There will be ten or 11. They are pretty, very
sturdy and strong pile. So we changed the application to have a
completely fixed dock along with a fixed elevated 6'x12'
T-section at the seaward terminus of it with steps leading down
to it.
We have specific requirements to have four-foot above the
sand by New York State, sorry, the department of, US Army Corps
of Engineers, so we are going to need steps to get down to the
lower platform. And that is typical for every application.
They want four-foot above the existing grade. So we need steps
Board of Trustees 45 July 17, 2019
down.
The 6x12 platform is going to be again supported by 12-foot
Greenheart piles, like the rest of the entire pier structure
which is all going --the entire structure will be built out of
untreated materials, specifically Greenheart. Greenheart is
typically used, is a strong, choppable, hardwood materials.
There is no treatment. There is no contamination of the waters.
All of the piles for the proposed pier, the entire pier are
going to be placed butt down. Butt down increases structural
rigidity, increases uplift strength. There is no fear of a '
failure during a storm event. In addition there is going to be
through-flow decking on the entire structure. The entire pier,
including the 6x12 platform at the end will have through-flow
decking. Through-flow decking will let sunlight through, a lot
of water through. It will promote, if ever, the possibility of
any wetlands grasses or native vegetation should grow underneath
it, even though it's predominantly a sand and gravel area, it
will promote the growth. It will also have no overnight docking
of boats. This is going to be a daily docking facility for the
client to bring their boat up or to use it for swimming or to
use it for boating activities during the day, if they have a
house guest. They bring up their boat, then they dock it
somewhere else.
In addition, one of the LWRP comments was provisions for
public access along the beach area. We have provided four-foot
wide steps on both sides of the pier with a hand rail. Should
somebody be able to traverse the rock jetties, which are about
three or four feet in height and are jagged and boulderous, they
can go ahead and cross over the four-foot wide stairs with
handrails, which would be beautiful for them to get across the
rock jetties. And the rocks, which hurt your feet if you have
no sandals on.
So that being said, I believe I reviewed all of the LWRP
comments as well as the SEQRA determination with regard to
conditions that needed to be met. Public access, public use and
navigation. I believe the proposed dock, fixed dock, helps with
navigation, for public navigation, for fishing and boating
activities. If somebody is coming, heading east to west, along
the shoreline in a boat that has two-and-a-half foot of water
and they don't see this dock, precursory to the dock to the
west, they will hit the dock that is existing one house directly
to the west. Instead of noticing this dock. So the proposed
dock right here, even though it doesn't extend much further, I
would stay about eight to ten feet further out than the rock
jetties that currently exist at the current site, they will hit
the dock to the west. If navigation is actually an issue. So
the dock to the west extends out 113 or-- I had that on a
proposed plan. I don't have it in front of me. This dock
extends out no further than eight to ten feet further than the
existing rock jetties on either side of it to the east and'west.
In addition, for the record, I would like to point out that
Board of Trustees 46 July 17, 2019
1 do currently have a New York State DEC permit for the original
proposed structure which goes out quite significantly further,
which had a floating dock. So that permit that I have will, 68
foot long with a 16-foot long ramp and 20'x6' float. So I do
have a permit from New York State DEC for the original
application that will need to be amended based on the
determination from tonight. That's all.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
to this application?
MS. FLAHERTY: I'm Karen Flaherty, the homeowner. So you know,
we tried very hard to listen to your concerns. I think you guys
made some good points about the floating dock given the width of
the water way, right, could be dangerous in storms also. So
that's gone. (Indaudible). So I think that's unlikely. I've
never seen a person walking that beach ever. We are past the
jetties, so it's more than a mile to navigate by us. So I don't
see how we are interfering with public waterways. There is no
vegetation there. It's clay and rocks. So, frankly putting a
mooring block there would impede navigation more if you have a
boat swinging around. So I don't think this is going to cause
any problems.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Are there any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. We have the matter of a previous
scoping and a request for an'EIS. So that has to be responded
to and the concerns of that have to be more fully fleshed out
and addressed. And I'm sure the Board appreciates the fact that
you have been working hard on this in making some changes. But
some of these concerns, particularly concerns that deal with
wave fetch and safety of docks, because our analysis of this and
a number of other sites are making it, one of the items, what
came up in the scoping is that very item. And we need to have a
more elaborated discussion of that or else we are putting the
cart before the horse. We still have not addressed any concerns
of the EIS.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Unfortunately, the revised plans do not address
the concerns raised in the scoping session. We are going to
need the submission of a full EIS and the opportunity to review
that EIS before making a determination.
MR. PATANJO: Is there any specific parts of an EIS -- as you all
know, the EIS is a huge document. This proposal is no different
than any other new dock for the Town of Southold which is seen
before the Board many, many times before. Can the Board
elaborate more on what specific sections of the EIS this is in
reference to?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That return, on asking for additional
information, is incumbent on you to provide us with the EIS
going systematically through those items. The reason, you know,
'the new plan looks like a new plan, nice new plan, but it has
not addressed specifically those concerns about wave fetching,
wave height and how vessels will be handled there. And many of
the items you discussed this evening and your own verbal
Board of Trustees 47 July 17, 2019
elaboration might fit into those pieces but it's not coming in
an organized manner as part of the EIS. So you are asking us to
speak to hypotheticals when we have not gotten that bill of
particulars called an EIS.
,MR. PATANJO: Understood. Where can I find the Town Code Chapter
275 or 113, whatever it might be, that dictates what is required
for an EIS to the Southold Town Trustees?
MR. HAGAN: The EIS, descriptions of EIS are set forth pursuant
to SEQRA. You can look at the DEC SEQRA code and that will help
you, give you guidance as far as what it is you are looking
for. I think the Board has been expressing some of the items
they are looking for as stated in the scoping session, and as
Trustee Bredemeyer just said, he gave an example of one of the
points that was not addressed in that.
MR. PATANJO: So follow--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a specific Town Code section that
deals with SEQRA, and our counsel can speak to it, but largely
it's state DEC. I presume, in your line of work you have done
EIS's before.
MR. PATANJO: Yes. So follow a typical New York State DEC SEQRA
EIS, which is a full EIS for this application, correct?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board has outlined the parameters
through the scope so for that you have a document that you can use.
MR. PATANJO: Understood, okay. In light of this, I would like
to table the application for a full EIS.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any other questions or comments from the
Board?
(Negative response).
At this point I'll make a motion to table the application at the
applicant's request.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 15, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of GABRIEL
FERRARI requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 47
linear feet of existing bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead in same
location as existing, and raise the bulkhead height an
additional 12" higher than existing; remove and replace in-place
25 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead return; install and perpetually
maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of
the new bulkhead; and to install 10 cubic yards of clean-sand fill.
Located: 295 Bayview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-5-26.
The Trustees did a field inspection at this site on July
10th and notes read as follows: Straightforward for the first 30
feet from the south. Position from there, 17 feet northern
direction with rock revetment to blend in with wetlands.
Present were Trustees Domino, Goldsmith, Krupski and Williams.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from the fact that this structure was built
without review or permit by the Trustees, Board of Trustees. In
Board of Trustees 48 July 17, 2019
the event the action is approved, recommend that a vegetated
non-turf buffer be required.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with the same condition, installation of a ten-foot
non-turf buffer.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. This
proposal is exactly very, very similar to the one that was
completed by myself several, several years ago, Judith
Hockenmeyer(sic) right next door, which is right next to a boat
ramp. It's really a continuation of that application which is a
remove and replace of an existing bulkhead, and it's an
installation of a bulkhead return. In addition to it, the
proposal is to add a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer as
recommended by the Trustees as typical.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Let me give you a little background so you can
understand. If you notice to the north right there is
considerable marshland, and a number of the Trustees felt that
it might be nice for the environment if instead of replacing
that bulkhead that does not have a permit, to transition roughly
30 feet from this point to approximately here.
MR. PATANJO: I'm blind, I'm sorry.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is the marshland we are referring to. So
this point, roughly here, the vinyl bulkhead here. And
transition to this point, to blend it in to that rather than
continuing the hardening along the strip.
MR. PATANJO: Okay. So the option of switching over to a
revetment from a fixed bulkhead, what's the purpose of that?
Because you have a foreshore in front of the bulkhead which is a
wetland area. I want to point out also that I have a DEC permit
for this project, which is a remove and replace. It's a
standard, straightforward application, as the Trustees say all
the time. Which is remove and replace --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll allow the other Trustees to respond in a
moment. But again, referring to the photograph, you can see
there is no foreshore before the bulkhead. There is always --
and you have worked sufficient applications before this Board to
understand that the reflection of energy and erosion there, we
are trying to establish that does not happen with a revetment
and therefore revetment from there forward, north, could allow
reestablishment of marshland, which we all agree is beneficial
to the Town waters.
MR. PATANJO: Absolutely. I agree.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the disturbance caused by a bulkhead
replacement along the length will destabilize the existing marsh
fringe in front, therefore the minimal disturbance of,
everything that President Domino said, makes a lot of sense.
Our experience with higher water levels every day of the week,
every hour, and more reflective wave energy is what we are
concerned with. And certainly it can be done esthetically and --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean my personal opinion is that every
Board of Trustees 49 July 17, 2019
bulkhead has to end somewhere, whether you do a return or a rock
revetment. It's not really an issue, I mean -- and the other
question is why not. You know, you end it and transition to it
into a natural habitat, basically, you'll start to build up more
of a marsh fringe there by doing that. It's a win/win for
everyone.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think the picture that is on the screen
right now does not exactly do it justice because if you zoom
out, you can see that that whole area is marsh, the sides, it's
right in front of the bulkheads.
MR. PATANJO: Understood.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: On the property that is in question here,
half of it has pretty good marsh, and we would like to protect
that and encourage more growth, and we feel that by doing the
rock revetment, we've seen time and time again, it helps promote
the stability of the marsh and encourages growth as opposed to
reflective energy off of the vertical bulkhead.
MR. PATANJO: Okay. So right now as it exists, the bulkhead is a
timber, smooth-faced wall. But a timber, smooth-faced bulkhead
has reflective energy of the waves washing along it and tearing
apart of the foreshore. So the proposed bulkhead now is going
to be a vinyl corrugated wall, which inhibits the movement of
the wave and it breaks apart the waves along with the Navy-style
wall which has wales on the outside. 6x6 wales ori the outside,
which breaks up waves. So as it stands right now--
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can you point to a published study that proves that?
MR. PATANJO: No.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I can tell you --
MR. PATANJO: May I retract that. Do you have a published study
that references a rip rap or a gabion, not a gabion, that's a
whole different story. But is there a published study on rip
rap rock revetment walls?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. PATANJO: There is?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. PATANJO: Then I would like to see that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: In addition, we have this photograph. Can you
go back.to the other photograph?
MR. PATANJO: That photograph looks like a smooth-faced wall is
doing a great job of establishing a wetland.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The first one. The one I referred to before.
MR. PATANJO: Those are nice stairs.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Right there.
MR. PATANJO: That looks good.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The wall is doing a great job of reflecting
energy and scouring out the material in front of it, whereas to
the north of it I see a well-established marshland and a
foreshore. I rest my case.
MR. PATANJO: So how would a rock revetment help with that
situation?
Board of Trustees 50 July 17, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's a rock revetment--from this point on, it would allow this to
further establish along here.
MR. PATANJO: How would that happen? Just because of the fact--
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we are here to teach you about
littoral drift and how it works. I think this is pretty much
common knowledge. I think everyone in the room knows it, and
think we should discuss how we are going to move forward with
the application tonight.
MR. PATANJO: I will have to, because I think it's silly what you
are asking for, I'll have to table the application to talk to my client.
'TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Do you want to come to a work session?
MR. PATANJO: Yes. I think this is ridiculous.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like you to not use terms like that.
MR. PATANJO: I apologize.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to table on the applicant's
request.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to table at the applicant's
request for a work session.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion is made and seconded.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: THE next application, number 16, Jeffrey
Patanjo on behalf of JOHN &JEANETTE COLLINS requests a Wetland
Permit to remove and replace 100 linear feet of existing timber
bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead in same location as existing
and removal of existing timber steps to beach and replacement
with new 4'x4' platform and 4' wide by 8' long steps to beach
along bulkhead face; and to establish and perpetually maintain a
10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 515 Watersedge Way, Southold. SCTM# 1000-88-5-60
This project has been deemed to be consistent with the
LWRP.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with retractable stairs at the base of the bulkhead, and
recommends a 15-foot non-turf buffer.
This application was inspected by Trustee Krupski noting
that it is a straightforward bulkhead replacement and with the
suggestion that steps should be bolted so they can be removed
seasonally.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant.
We don't have problems bolting the steps to be removed
seasonally.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions from the Board?'
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
Board of Trustees 51 July 17, 2019
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 17, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JOHN
& ELLEN BELLANDO request a Wetland Permit for the existing
20'x42' in-ground swimming pool; and to remove and replace
existing +/-54'x36' pool patio with new brick pavers in same
location and elevation as existing; and to install a line of
silt fencing seaward of the work during construction.
Located: 1370 Jackson Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-10-10
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is that the structures were constructed without Southold Town
Board of Trustees review or permit. Note that Town records
indicate that the pool and patio existed in 1994.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application, however the work has been completed. There is a
question concerning the legality of the existing staircase and
consistency with best management practices, and whether the pool
house is in compliance with the Town Code.
The Trustees conducted the field inspection on July 10th,
noting that he put the shed with the pool equipment on the
application as well.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. I would
be happy to answer any questions.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Our concern was the only thing that is on is
the pool, but there is a couple of existing structures that were
not on this application. So while we are going to permit them,
we want to permit them all.
MR. PATANJO: Great. I think the original submission was just
for the pool patio. He wanted to remove and replace the patio
and do it right. He said, hey, I want to get an application,
let's do it right, my brick guy wants to get it permitted. And
I was advised by the Trustees which is, thank you, very much,
they said the pool is not permitted. So I said let's add the
pool to the permit. I did not know about the shed. If at all
the Trustees can include the shed on the permit, that would be
very, very beautiful, just so that is permitted as well.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It is on the plan.
MR. PATANJO: Yes. I was advised by the Trustees, yes, it's on
the plan. I was advised by the Trustees office that the pool
was not previously permitted, and I tried to clean that up. So
if you in your hearts you can say, hey, we'll add that to the approval.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Board of Trustees 52 July 17, 2019
Hearing no questions or comments from the Board, 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
as submitted noting that the existing shed is depicted on the
plans dated stamped May 22nd, 2019, and the shed will be added
to the description. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Does Jeff need to submit that description?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No.
RESOLUTIONS OTHER:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, Resolutions, other, page 14, number one,
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.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Can I raise a point of information. You
opened the public hearing on this and I just wonder if we should
go, in other words establish that this will be a hearing, that
we voted last month to have the hearing. We have not formally
opened the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Was the hearing not opened already?
COURT CLERK: No. It was announced we would be holding a public
hearing tonight.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So we would have to open the hearing, in
other words is there anyone here to speak in this matter. In
other words, we have to do a reso to create the public hearing
before we can do the approval.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So this is a public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. So I make a motion we open the public
hearing in the matter of the proposed resolution extending
certain waters in Hashamomuck Pond.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to
this hearing in this matter?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is nobody here to speak but there is a
Board of Trustees 53 July 17, 2019
letter in the file in relation to a concern about docks in the
aforesaid creek that doesn't seem to be addressing material
aspects of this request to have a special area shellfishing.
Seeing no one, I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second, to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
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.
Now having held that public hearing, 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 410 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 72° 24' 55.37"West running westward to a painted
yellow 4"x4" stake in front of a large rock at a point located
at 410 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
Board of Trustees 54 July 17, 2019
jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not affect the
validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than
the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid.
IV. EFFECTIVE DATE
This shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Town
Clerk as provided by law.
That's my resolution.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to adjourn
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
Michael J. Domino, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVE®
SEP 1 9 2019 �n eft\
�`�
?oXho I'd To Clerk