HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-08/14/2019 Michael J.Domino,President ®r- Sol#_ Town Hall Annex
John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President ®� ®�® 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Glenn Goldsmith Southold,New York 11971
A.Nicholas Krupski Telephone(631) 765-1892
Greg Williams ® a® Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RECEIVED
�• reg
Minutes SEP 1 9 200119
Wednesday, August 14, 2019 Souf old Town Clerk
5:30 PM
Present Were: Michael J. Domino, President
John M. Bredemeyer, Vice-President
Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Greg Williams, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist
Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 5:30 PM at the Main
Meeting Hall
WORK SESSIONS: Monday, September 16, 2019 at 4:30 PM at the Town Hall Annex
2nd floor Board Room, and on Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at
5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good evening and welcome to our Wednesday,
August 14th, 2019 meeting. At this time I would like to call the
meeting to order and ask that you stand for the pledge.
(PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to announce the people on the dais.
To my left is Trustee John Bredemeyer, Trustee Glenn Goldsmith,
Trustee Nick Krupski and Trustee Greg Williams. To my right is
Assistant Town Attorney Damon Hagan and Senior Clerk Typist
Elizabeth Cantrell. Also with us tonight is Court Stenographer
Wayne Galante and Conservation Advisory Council member Carol Brown.
Agendas are located on the podium and out in the hall.
I would like at this time to announce the postponements.
Postponements can be found on page 15. We have numbers 22, 23
Board of Trustees 2 August 14, 2019
and 24, listed as follows:
Number 22, 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,
has been withdrawn. t -
Number 23, MILL CREEK PARTNERS, LLC requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a 662sq.ft. Seaward side addition in the
southeast corner of the existing building; remove a majority of
the existing southeast first floor deck leaving 17 sq. ft. for
circulation and existing crawl space below; and construct a
second floor deck space above proposed one-story addition.
Located: 64300 Route 25, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-7-2
Number 24, 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
And on pages 16 and 17, numbers 25 through 30. These are
listed as follows:
Number 25, 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 26, Nigel Robert Williamson on behalf of GAIL JADOW
& E&J INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 35'11" x 22'4"`two-story, three-car garage with
accessory apartment above; install two (2) 8'0" diameter
drywells to contain roof runoff; and install an I/A OWTS septic
system for the new structure.
Located: 3655 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-136-2-11
Number 27, 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
Board of Trustees 3 August 14, 2019
property line; and plant 18 shrubs 4' apart along southwest
property line.
Located: 110 Lawrence Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-2-7
Number 28, 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
Number 29, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of
ROSARIA FORCHELLI requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten Year
Maintenance Permit to cut the Phragmites to 6" above ground
level (in March-April), and not lower in the first year; all cut
material and thatch shall be hand-raked and disposed of at an
approved off-site landfill; cutting shall be performed by hand
and monitored by a qualified ecologist to ensure that no native
herbaceous plants or woody shrubs are removed; Phragmites shoots
will be re-cut again in early June to a height of 18"-24" above
soil level in order to avoid cutting native vegetation; one
additional cutting will occur as needed to a height of 18" above
ground level during the growing season (April - October); after
the first year, up to two (2) cuttings per year to a minimum
height of 18" (i.e. cut height shall not be shorter than 18"),
with native vegetation to be identified and flagged to be
protected; if new growth of invasive species is observed during
on-going Phragmites monitoring, it will be immediately removed
by hand; approximately 9,250 sq. ft. of vegetated upland area
shall be managed through`removal of non-native and invasive
species (Wisteria sp., Mile=a-minute weed (Persicaria
perfoliata), Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Plume Grass
(Saccharum sp.), Bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), with all
existing native plants within the Vegetation Management Plan
area to remain; any disturbed areas are to be seeded with
Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) at a rate of 20lbs/acre; and
within a 100 linear foot long area along the southwest property
boundary plant 17 Thuja sp. 6' o/c; five years of
post-construction monitoring will occur during spring and fall
seasons with progress reports on the Phragmites management and
re-colonization of native plants, including representative
photographs to be submitted by December 31st of each of the five
years.
Located: 1635 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-116-7-8
And number 30, 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
Board of Trustees 4 August 14, 2019
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.
Also under Town Code Chapter 275-8(c), files were
officially closed seven days,ago and submission of paperwork
after that time may result in a delay of the processing of the application.
At this time I'll entertain a motion to have our next field
inspection Wednesday, September 11th, 2019, at 8:00 AM at the
Town annex. Motion?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to entertain a motion to hold the
next Trustee meeting Wednesday, September 18th, 2019, at 5:30
PM, here at the main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like a motion to hold the next work
session at the Town Board annex, second floor, Monday, September
16th, 2019, at 4:30 PM, and at 5:00 PM Wednesday, September
18th, 2019, here at the main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for July 2019. A check for
$10,708.19 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the
General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for
review.
III. RESOLUTIONS -OTHER:
RESOLVED, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold,
pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, hereby
declares itself Lead Agency in regards to the application of
Board of Trustees 5 August 14, 2019
WILLIAM & DOLORES KREITSEK.
Located: 2455 New SuffolkAvenue, Mattituck. SCTM#
1000-114-9-14.1
Resolution.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, RESOLVED, the Board of Trustees of
the Town of Southold, pursuant to the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, hereby declares itself Lead Agency in
regards to the application of NORTH FORK LENDING, LLC, c/o
EUGENE BURGER.
Located: 64600 Main Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-7-4.1
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 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 X Public Hearings Section of the Trustee
agenda dated Wednesday, August 14, 2019, are classified as Type
II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not
subject to further review under SEQRA:
D. Cannizzaro APRT & B. Miltakis APRT SCTM# 1000-103-10-29.1
Bim Strasberg &Alexandra Lewis SCTM# 1000-135-1-1
Alexander Wilmerding SCTM# 1000-9-9-3.1
Donna Hobson Campbell'SCTM# 1000-40-1-19
T. Bruestle-Kumra Revocable Living Trust&V. Kumra Revocable
Living Trust SCTM# 1000-51-4-8
William MacGregor SCTM# 1000-104-9-2
Gabriel Ferrari SCTM# 1000-52-5-26
William &Aida Hartung SCTM# 1000-117-5-15
William Froehlich SCTM# 1000-128-2-6
Chocomount Cove Partners, LLC, c/o Elizabeth C. Callander
SCTM# 1000-3-2-6
John & Danielle Venetis SCTM# 1000-87-6-4
Hector& Linda Colombo SCTM# 1000-31-12-14
Laughing Water Property'Owners Association SCTM# 1000-87-3-2.1
5445 Peconic Bay Homeowner, LLC 1000-128-1-5
Richard & Kathleen O'Toole SCTM# 1000-145-2-6
Daniel F. & Kathleen M. Kelly SCTM# 1000-70-4-13
Frank S. & Paula C. Thorp SCTM# 1000-37-5-24
East End Harbor Lights Co., LLC, c/o Enrico Manetta SCTM#
1000-71-2-17
North Fork Lending, LLC, c/o Eugene Burger SCTM# 1000-56-7-4.1
William & Dolores Kreitsek SCTM# 1000-114-9-14.1
Board of Trustees 6 August 14, 2019
Charles G. Pardee SCTM#'1000-126-11-3.1
Mill Creek Partners, LLC SCTM# 1000-56-7-2
Gail Jadow & E&J Investment Holdings, LLC SCTM# 1000-136-2-11
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 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 X Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, August 14, 2019, are classified
as Unlisted Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations:
William & Dolores Kreitseki SCTM# 1000-114-9-14.1
North Fork Lending, LLC, c/o Eugene Burger SCTM# 1000-56-7-4.1
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in,favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral V.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO NEW
YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT NYCCR PART 617:
1. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of WILLIAM
& DOLORES KREITSEK requests a Wetland Permit to construct a dock assembly
consisting of a 3'x80' (240 sq. ft.) catwalk; a 3'x10' (30 sq. ft.) landward ramp; and
access ladder at seaward`-end with catwalk extending ±14' into Marratooka Lake.
Located: 2455 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-114-9-14.1
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 August 6, 2019 and having considered the plans for this proposed
project submitted by R.W. Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., dated June
11, 2019 showing the proposed dock and wetland boundary flagged by Robert Fox on
July 18, 2003.
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees found the
application of WILLIAM & DOLORES KREITSEK to be an Unlisted Action 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, on August 14, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself
Lead Agency pursuant to-S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, in reviewing 'project plans submitted by Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc., dated June 11, 2019 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
Board of Trustees 7 August 14, 2019
across the water body. Depths for the dock terminus are within Town Trustees
'guidelines and there is no recognized 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 recreational purposes.
Scope in relation to the riparian rights of others: The plan allows a standard fixed
catwalk to ladder design that will not impede riparian rights or shoreline access for
others.
Scope in relation to,view sheds: The lakeside end of the proposed dock will not
extend appreciably beyond the shoreline. As such the perspective will not be discernibly
different from the existing view.
Environmental upkeep: The dock design projects a usual lifespan of 30 years,
with limited pile replacement so as to minimize disturbance of the bottom:
THEREFORE, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees
Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to
SEQRA for the aforementioned project.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number two,
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of NORTH FORK LENDING, LLC, c/o EUGENE BURGER requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a ±300' long rock revetment along
the shoreline of Peconic Bay; the revetment will measure 4' in
height and roughly 5'wide, and will be backfilled with clean
sand with a beach grass planting at the top of the escarpment;
the core stone will extend,,the length of the proposed revetment
and installed at 1.5' deep and 3.0' wide; the entire underside
of the revetment to be lined with filter cloth, and the weight
of the stone are as follows: ±300-500lbs. Capstone; ±300-500lbs.
Toe stone; and ±1-2lbs. Core stone with gravel.
Located: 64600 Main Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-7-4.1
S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees found the
application of NORTH FORK LENDING, LLC, c/o EUGENE BURGER to be an Unlisted
Action 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, on August 14, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself
Lead Agency pursuant,to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, the Southold Trustees are familiar with this project having visited the site on
August 6, 2019 and having considered R.W. Anderson-Suffolk Environmental
Consulting, Inc., plans fog this project last dated May 28, 2019 showing the proposed
revetment, plantings and'bluff stabilization; and,
WHEREAS, in reviewing-the project plans dated May 28, 2019, it has been determined
by the Southold Town Board of Trustees that all potentially significant environmental
Board of Trustees 8 August 14, 2019
concerns have been addressed as noted herein:
1. No existing rocks or boulders are to be utilized, moved, or relocated on the
beach
2. Access to the site for construction will be by land.
3. Vegetative, non-structural measures are not capable of stabilizing the erosion of
the bluff alone.
4. Protection of the toe of bluff using hardened structures including rock revetments
is necessary.
5. As time progresses, continued soil loss at the toe of the bluff may lead to habitat
degradation and bluff instability.
6. A site inspection by, the Southold Town Board of Trustees recognized erosion on
this property and the need for a bluff stabilization/erosion control plan.`
THEREFORE, on account of the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees
Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to
SEQRA for the aforementioned project.
That is my resolution.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: 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 seven. They are listed as follows:
Number one, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of
CONSTANCE VICKERS 'requests an Administrative Permit to install
468' of 4' high "Estate Style" fencing around perimeter of property.
Located: 900 Holbrook Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-6-11
Number two, Eligio Lopez, on behalf of JENNIFER B. GOULD
requests an Administrative Permit to replace existing walkway
and landing with 3'x75' bluestone walkway on a cement pad with
8'x10' landing.
Located: 1825 Truman's Path, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-13-3
Number three, CLIFFORD & KAREN CID request an
Administrative Permit to replace existing walkway with a 4'x44'
bluestone walkway with stepping stone path.
Located: 675 Meadow Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-5-7
Number four, CLIFFORD & KAREN CID request an Administrative
Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to hand-cut Common
Reed (Phragmites australis) located on property to 12" in height
by hand, as needed.
Located: 675 & 785 Meadow Lane,-Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-5-7&8
Number five, JOHN & LORENA BLOOM request an Administrative
Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to hand-cut Common
Reed (Phragmites australis) located on property to 12" in height
by hand, as needed.
Located: 1240 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-30
Number six, En-Consultants on behalf of GENIE ARCIGA&
THOMAS JUUL-HANSEN request an Administrative Permit to conduct
Board of Trustees 9 August 14, 2019
construction activity within 100' from crest of bluff to
construct on vacant parcel an approximately 3,411 sq. ft. 2-story,
single-family dwelling with approximately 1,518sq. ft. waterside deck
with steps, 1,632 sq. ft. pool deck, 61 sq. ft. spa, and 680 sq. ft. swimming
pool, all located at least 100 feet from crest of bluff, install
drinking water well and drainage system of leaders, gutters and
drywells; and clear up to 50 feet from crest of bluff.
Located: 500 Castle Hill Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#: 1000-72-1-1.10
Number seven, EDITH M. BERRY, GLYNIS M. BERRY& HIDEAKI
ARIIZUMI, request an Administrative Permit to remove existing
septic system and replace with Innovative &Alternative
Wastewater Treatment System.
Located: 1410 Trumans Path, East Marion. SCTM#: 1000-31-12-11
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. APPLICATIONS FOR
EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVEAMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roman numeral VII, again, in order to simplify
the meeting, I'll make a motion to approve as a group items one
through nine. They are listed as follows:
Number one, 8100 INDIAN NECK, LLC c/o JAN NICHOLSON
requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#9124, as issued
on November 15, 2017.
Located: 8100 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-7-9
Number two, CHARLES PARDEE requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#4966 from Thomas Mastro, as issued on March 24, 1999.
Located: 6760 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-126-11-3.1
Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of TEAMC99A
PROPERTIES, LLC requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#5692 from
Charles S. Trownsell, as issued on January 22, 2003.
Located: 980 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM#: 1000-77-1-6
Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of GENIE ARCIGA &
THOMAS JUUL-HANSEN requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#4525
and Coastal Erosion Permit#72-1-1.10 from William Els, as
issued on September 28,�1995.
Located: 500 Castle Hill Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-72-1-1.10
Number five, Patricia C. Moore on behalf of WCKBH, LLC
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#7874 from Simeon & Ellen
Wooten, as issued on August 22, 2012; and for an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit#7874 for the as-built uncovered
5'x35' wood deck/walkway and 5'x6' wood deck with outdoor shower.
Located: Old Mallory Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-7-6-11
Number six, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting Services on
behalf of SAMUEL J. DiMEGLIO, JR., requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit#9454 to enlarge the attached garage
to 16' wide.
Located: 2280 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-4-6
Number seven, DOUGLAS CARLEN requests an Administrative
Board of Trustees 10 August 14, 2019
Amendment to Wetland Permit#6064 for the use of thru-flow
decking on the 3'x16' catwalk and attached 4'x8' platform.
Located: 5550 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-10-5
Number eight, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on
behalf of ALBERT & FRANCES TROTTER requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland permit#9431 to construct a 1720 sq. ft.
(40'x48') two-story dwelling with attached 160 sq. ft. (8'x20')
attached porch in lieu of the originally proposed 1,440 sq. ft.,
two-story dwelling with a 596 sq. ft. attached garage and a
699 sq. ft. wrap-around porch; to install a 195'x10' (1950sq.ft.)
Gravel driveway with a 2815 sq. ft. gravel parking area in lieu of
the originally proposed 10'x210' (2100 sq. ft) driveway along with
a 3,063 sq. ft parking area; install a 400 sq. ft. walkway in lieu
of the originally proposed 360 sq. ft. walkway between the parking
area and the dwelling.
Located: 34460 Main Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-97-2-9.1
Number nine, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of FRANCINE LUQUE
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8913 for
the as-built location of the existing 6'x40'floating dock; with
the addition of a 4'x6' platform and 3'x14' ramp.
Located: 580 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. SCTM#: 1000-35-4-28.30
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VIII. MOORINGS/STAKE & PULLEY SYSTEMS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under item VIII, moorings, stake and pulley
systems.
Number one, JOSEPH E. WYSOCKI requests a Stake and Pulley
System Permit in Narrow River for a 16' outboard motorboat,
replacing Stake#25. Access: Public
I performed the inspection. The space is available and
vacant. I would move to approve.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number two, EVANGELOS LOUKATOS requests a
Mooring Permit in Gull Pond for a 30' outboard motorboat,
replacing Mooring #12. Access: Public
This mooring is available and is in a space where it remains appropriate.
I would move to approve.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IX. WATERFOWL/DUCK BLINDS:
Under Waterfowl and duck blinds, number one, JAKE E. HAGEN requests a
Board of Trustees 11 August 14, 2019
Waterfowl/Duck Blind Permit to place a Waterfowl/Duck Blind in Corey Creek using
public access. Located: Corey Creek, Southold.
The Board of Trustees inspected this site on August 6th. It is appropriate for a
waterfowl harvesting. I move to approve.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roman numeral X, Public Hearings. At this time
I'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and
enter into the public hearings. '
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is a public hearing in the matter of the
following applications for permits under the Wetlands ordinance
of the Town of Southold. I have an affidavit of publication from
the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may be read prior to
asking for comments from the public. Please keep your comments
organized, brief and if possible five minutes or less.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Amendments, number one, Jeffrey Patanjo on
behalf of D. CANNIZZARO APRT & B. MILTAKIS APRT requests a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#334 from Frank Curran to D.
Cannizzaro APRT & B. Miltakis APRT, as issued on September 25,
1986; and for an Amendment to Wetland Permit#334 for the
as-built 6'x20' floating dock situated in an "I" configuration
as opposed to the permitted "T" configuration.
Located: 1460 Strohson Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-10-29.1
The Trustees did a field inspection on August 6th at 12:25.
All Trustees were present. Field notes indicate that the
transfer of the dock and amendment are relatively straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator deemed this action to be inconsistent.
The inconsistency arises from the fact the length of the dock
does not match the permit issued #334.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application and suggest replacement of sea grass below the bulkhead.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. It's
really a straightforward application, just the dock position
changed. It has sufficient water depth and meets pier line requirements.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would point out that on the plans submitted, the
dock length not including the vessel and ramp, scales out to be
38 feet, which is what was in the original permit, so it
addresses the inconsistency.
Board of Trustees 12 August 14, 2019
Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak to this application?
MS. ROBBINS: I'm Mariow Robbins. I live on the north side of
this property and I have absolutely no objection to leaving the
docks the way they are.
TRUSTEE DOMINO:Thank you.
MR. CANNIZZARO: I'm the owner, David Cannizzaro. I would like
to ask, did I hear that--that the dock is not 20 feet?
MR. PATANJO: No.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: No.
MR. CANNIZZARO: Okay. Sorry.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are there any other 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 DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application,
noting that it will address the inconsistency.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number two, Patricia
Moore, Esq. on behalf of BIM STRASBERG &ALEXANDRA LEWIS
requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#9342 and Coastal
Erosion Permit#9342C for bluff construction of equipment access
for bulkhead replacement,consisting of cutting the bluff
perpendicular to the shoreline with the slope not to exceed 1:6
grade; the side slope will be terraced and stabilized; the
installation of haybales and silt fencing during construction;
upon completion of work, contractor will re-establish natural
grade of slope by adding ±200 cubic yards of additional clean
fill and restoration of disturbed areas with beach grass planted
12" on center; extend proposed new galvanized steel bulkhead
approximately 40' in order to connect to neighbor's bulkhead to the east.
Located: 21225 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-135-1-1
The LWRP coordinator has indicated that this project is
inconsistent, with his report pending, but he made a point of
discussing all the matters concerning the inconsistency with the
Trustees office and the Chairman. And the inconsistencies are
herein addressed with respect to this request for an
Administrative Permit.
The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the
recent activities that were conducted on the site, the subject
of violations that were issued, and they believe the project
should be bonded and include a restoration plan.
I also have a letter in the file that the Trustees received
on August 7th from Conservation Advisory Council member Peter
Meeker, and with respect to the project and noting that there
were compromises, the subject property and the neighboring
Board of Trustees 13 August 14, 2019
properties, and they made note of the fact that the contractor
apparently is not licensed,'and it is requested'that the
contractor be fined to the maximum extent permitted by law to
tighten up the licensing of the work that occurs here again.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MS. MOORE: Good evening. Patricia Moore, on behalf of my
clients Bim Strasberg and Alexandra Lewis. They are both here. I
thought the contractor was going to make-- are you here?
Oh, Ron is in the corner. None of us know what he looks like.
Ron, I think I'm going to need you up closer, please. Thank you.
Sorry, we didn't get a chance to meet. If you have any
particular questions, he is 'very familiar with the job. I
believe you do have a license now, you sent it in?
MR. BARNISH: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Chairman and I had the pleasure of
meeting him in the field, and we do have an application in for
an Administrative Permit with the specifics that I read into the
record at the opening of the hearing. But of particular
interest I know the Board 'discussed at field inspection is that
we want to, we stipulate and want to assure that the 200 cubic
yards of backfill is of grainy size, at least as large as the
native grain. And to be clean. We don't want to see silty
backrun or soils that are not appropriate to the Sound front.
MR. BARNISH: No problem.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions from the members of the Board?
(Negative response).
Any further questions?Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
MS. BROWN: My name is Carol Brown, I'm on the Conservation
Advisory Council. I went to this site along with Peter Meeker
whose letter you just read in, and I want to know what kind of
fines they are going to get. This is so egregious that, I mean,
I stood there, I can't believe that anybody with any knowledge
of a bluff would do what you did to that property. I'm also
concerned about the neighbors on either side.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Carol, please address the Board.
MS. BROWN: I'm sorry. I'm also very concerned about the
neighbors on either side. There is a house for sale to the west.
Do they know about this swath that was cut down, basically
bisecting our bluff? I don't think that they should be ,
allowed --that the application for a license should go through.
I think that any advisor for them should also be fined. It is
just not the right thing to do.
MR. HAGAN: The Board is not able to comment with regard to the
fines that are currently pending with regard to the action for
code enforcement in the Justice Court.
MS. BROWN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to this
application?
MS. MOORE: I just want to clarify for the record. This access is
actually for this property and the adjacent property. The
Board of Trustees 14 August 14, 2019
gentleman's -- Ermogenous, is the adjacent property owner. The
project, historically, all the bulkheads that have been replaced
over the years, including Ermogenous and my client's predecessor
in title, got access this way, and it's the only means of access
to the property due to the rocks that are on the shoreline. My
client did go to all the contractors that are available, that
are in the area, and none of them recommended going by water.
It was impossible due to the rocks on the shore. So this is the
third time that the bulkhead has been replaced on Ermogenous,
and it's the first time it's being replaced on my client's
property, other than repairs that were done on behalf of the
prior owner;that Ermogenous paid for. So it's necessary, and we
are trying to make it all be conforming at this point.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. If I might ask if Mr. Ermogenous
or, if you are helping him With that, if you could refresh our
file; if there is a letter of permission, it should be in the
file indicating that access for Ermogenous will be through
Strasberg.
MS. MOORE: It's actually the consent should be from Strasberg to
--yes, he's right here. He;can put it on the record. The actual
application for Ermogenous, the two permits were being done at
the same time, and the contractor is doing both bulkheads. So if
you don't mind putting the'owner on the record, if that's all right.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I think we would prefer a written letter in
the file.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Something in the file would be good.
MS. MOORE: I can supply that as well. That's not a problem.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: But while you are here, would you kindly
announce yourself for the record.
MR. STRASBERG: Bim Strasberg, 21225 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
And we are doing this with Ermogenous. The previous owners had
granted access both to Ermogenous and Moore on the western side,
and now that we bought the place, we are doing this in
conjunction with Ermogenous to correct the failing bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank,you, very much.
MS. MOORE: Sorry, one more thing on the record.
MR. STRASBERG: Our western neighbor David Moore, his house is
for sale, as mentioned, is-well aware of this project, and we
have his blessing as well. And we had previously, he had
previously gained access-through our property as well. He paved
our driveway, as a matter of fact. So everyone wants to see this
done right, as per your recommendations. I have been following
your lead throughout this'process and we are trying to do
everything by the letter. I'm very sorry if some things were
mis-communicated and was done incorrectly. But we need to
resolve this quickly. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Also as a potential point of information to
raise, Ms. Moore, you had indicated that access had previously
been by bluff cut. If it was during the current term of this
Board of Trustees, I know this Board has not approved bluff cuts
as a condition of a permit. I don't know the reference historically --
Board of Trustees 15 August 14, 2019
MS. MOORE: I'm saying this is the way the access was through
this property, historically, yes. Whether it resulted in a bluff
cut or not, I would not know, I was not part of that process.
But this is the means of access in this case.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In this case. Okay, thank you, very much.
Is there anyone else wishing to speak?
(Negative response).
Seeing none, I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve.this application
as submitted, noting that with the particular stipulation that
the grain size of the 200-plus or minus cubic yards of fill
shall be at least as large as the existing soils on the bluff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland & Coastal Erosion permits, number one, Frank
Uellendahl, R.A. on behalf of SUSAN &TIMOTHY MILANO requests a Wetland Permit
and a Coastal Erosion Permit to extend the currently existing 913 sq. ft. dwelling
consisting of demolishing existing 417 sq. ft. garage and 130 sq. ft. attached covered
porch attached to existing,two-story dwelling; existing 640 sq. ft. first floor and 273 sq. ft.
second floor dwelling to be renovated by replacing windows, relocate kitchen, and
bathroom; the 1,165 sq. k one-story addition to be located landward of-the existing
dwelling with attached 763 sq. ft. two-car garage and attached 150 sq. 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
66 sq. 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' 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 LWRP found this project to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application.
The Trustees visited this site last month, July 10, and we had inhouse discussion
on August 6th.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. UELLENDAHL: My name is Frank Uellendahl on behalf of the
applicants. Thank you, for inviting me to the work session this
week. Last month we decided to table the application because
there were concerns about the closeness of the existing
structure beyond the coastal erosion hazard line. So I went back
to my client and discussed this project and she is willing to
remove the entire 1930s cottage, one-story cottage, and rebuild
or add on to the existing two-story structure to make up for the
lost space. There is a one-story addition to this, which is
Board of Trustees 16 August 14, 2019
basically in place of the demolished portion which touches the
coastal erosion hazard line or stays behind it, and everything
else is landward of the coastal erosion hazard line. And the
redesigned,,based on what Ms. Milano told me, she likes it, she
loves it even better than what we had before.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).,
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the following updated,description:
,Frank Uellendahl on behalf of Susan and Timothy Milano requests
a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to extend the
currently existing 913-square foot one and two-story dwelling;
consisting of 639-square foot one-story structure located
seaward of the 270-square foot two-story structure; the existing
417-square foot garage and 130-square foot covered porch
attached to existing,two-story dwelling, and the existing
366-square foot one-story portion of the dwelling to be
demolished and replaced,with a 171-square foot addition; and the
two-story addition, the existing dwelling to be renovated by
replacing windows, relocate kitchen and bathroom; 1,097-square
foot one-story addition to be located landward of the existing
dwelling; with attached 763-square foot garage and attached
150-square foot greenhouse; proposed balcony cantilevered off of
the proposed north facing living room to be 195-square foot;
install 8'x8' hot tub on the,ground and outdoor shower off the
master bedroom with a 12'x21' area to be paved with bluestone
for the hot tub and outdoor shower; install a proposed 8' high
by 12' long privacy wall off the master bedroom where hot tub
and outdoor shower is to be located; and install a proposed
40'x20' inground pool; a Japanese stone garden to be installed
where existing one-storystructure will be removed.
Located 745 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. We also have new
plans stamped August 13Th, 2019. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I also make a motion to deny the coastal
erosion permit as moot, as the revised plans dated August 14th,
2019 remove the project from within the coastal erosion hazard
area. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. UELLENDAHL: Thank you, very much.
Board of Trustees 17 August 14, 2019
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number two, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on
behalf of ALEXANDER WILMERDING requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a 226 sq. ft. roofed over
deck/gazebo area with a ±27 sq. ft. access ramp and railings on
top of existing 12.1'x12:3' (148.83 sq. ft.) brick foundation
"pump house"; on the "pump house" restore or replace stucco on
walls where necessary and replace existing windows.
Located: 4997 Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-9-9-3.1
The Trustees saw this location on the 7th of August. They
noted it was a pre-existing structure, that it seemed okay; and
some safety concerns about the deck construction.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be a consistent action.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
this application with the installation of gutters to leaders to drywells.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. JUST: Good evening: Glenn Just, agent for the applicant, if'
there are any questions from the Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't believe so. After further review, I
think for the most part we alleviated any safety concerns with
the construction. And then in terms of the gutters and leaders,
it's a pretty small structure. It's not going to have much runoff
whatsoever.
Is there any other comments from the Board or anyone else
here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. JUST: Are you requesting gutters to leaders?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. Okay, hearing no further comments, I make a
motion to close this application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit
as submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I make a motion to approve the Coastal
Erosion Hazard Permit as submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number three, Michael Kimack on behalf of
DONNA HOBSON CAMPBELL requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to install approximately 24 linear feet of
2'x4'x2" (96 sq. ft.) bluestone walkway to staircase at top of
bluff; construct a set of bluff stairs with landings consisting
of 3'x2' (6 sq. ft.) staircase at top of bluff to a 4'x6'
(96 sq. ft.) top landing to a 3'x18.3' (164.7 sq. ft.) staircase to
a 4'x6' (96 sq. ft.) upper middle landing to a 3'x18.3'
(164.7 sq. ft.) staircase to a 4'x6' (96 sq. ft.) middle landing to
Board of Trustees 18 August 14, 2019
a 3'x18.3' (164 sq. ft.) staircase to a 4'x6' (96 sq. ft.) lower
middle landing to a 3'x12.8' (38.4 sq. ft.) staircase to a 4'x4'
(16 sq. ft.) bottom landing with 3'x6' (18 sq. ft.) steps to beach
for a combined total of landing and staircases from top of bluff
to beach to be 333.1 sq. ft:; construct a stone revetment wall at
eroded toe of slope approximately 3' in height at approximately
95' in length, consisting of,'h to 1 ton stones set approximately
two (2) feet below grade at approximately 1 Y2 to 1 slope; place
two (2) layers of burlap over disturbed areas of under and
around proposed staircase and eroded and/or disturbed area above
stone revetment and plant American Beach grass @ 1' o.c.
Located: 63429 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-40-1-19
The Trustees visited this site on August 6th, 2019. All
Trustees were present, reviewing the plans on site.
The LWRP found this project to be both consistent and
inconsistent. The staircase to the bluff was found to be
consistent. The proposedconstruction of a 4'x4' bottom landing
with 3'x6' steps to beach and rock revetment is recommended as
inconsistent with Policies Four and Nine, with notes that the
site plan shows the structure extending 25-foot seaward onto the
public beach, therefore reducing public access now and in the
future. Number two, the rock revetment once constructed can
cause accelerated erosion to the properties without erosion
control to the east and west of the parcel during storm events.
In addition, the Conservation Advisory Council did review
this application. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the
application with retractable stairs at the base. The
Conservation Advisory Council has a concern with the proposed
methodology of the project. Cutting a temporary chute down the
bluff face is not consistent with best practices, and defacing
the bluff would not be supported by the Conservation Advisory Council.
In addition, we have a letter in the file dated August 9th,
2019, received by the Trustees office, same date, August 9th, f
2019. Dear Trustees, as per the notice from the Southold Town
Trustees and consulting with someone familiar with nautical
engineering, it appears the application of Donna Campbell is
based on the creation of a rock revetment. A rock revetment may
create exasperated erosion to the westerly neighbor's property
from northeast storms. To what degree, that is unknown, but it
will have a negative effect. If increased erosion occurs as a
consequence, what will be done?
Please have this letter read into the record. Greatly
appreciated, sincerely, Ann Walsh.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. We'll
talk briefly about the proposed staircase going down to the
beach area. It's a straight line-following the line of the, the
natural line of the slope going down the hill in a location that
is the only place that it actually can be placed, minimizing the
cutting of the vegetation.;
In accordance with DEC standards, it was raised four feet
r'
Board of Trustees 19 August 14, 2019
above the natural grade to the end of the portion of both the
landings and the runways.; And if you can note from this
particular drawing that you,have there, the bottom of the slope
primarily had been eroded.anywhere from two to three feet high,
primarily. The stone revetments were recommended by DEC and --
ultimately approved by DEC. And that application is in your
file. It was done in such a way as to simply be a continuation
of the existing natural grade set in the ground about two feet
and running from property-line to property line.
The erosion on either side probably does exist, which would
not necessarily be exacerbated by the placement of this dock
because the waves would°be coming direct in. We would be able to
minimize the erosion factor on this property but not necessarily
aggravate it on the adjoining properties.
As far as the staircase is concerned, I turned the
staircase primarily at the bottom to be parallel to the rocks in
order not to extend any further out into the beach area as
possible. As I had indicated before, we had to bring the height
down simply because of the requirement of DEC to be that high
coming down the slope and by the time we cleared the rock
revetment and brought it down, it was parallel to that, so it
doesn't extend any more than four feet out from that particular
point. I was not sure where the 25 feet came from and going out
into the water. But it's as close as possible. If you look at
the stone revetment placement, it follows the natural contour.
So the bottom of that is the original natural contour of that,
and this staircase is right up against it. Primarily.
I hope that addresses some of the concerns that were
brought up by the LWRP and Conservation Advisory Council.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Anybody else here that wishes to speak to this
application?
MS. WALSH: I'm at a disadvantage because I'm a little hard of
hearing and I really did not hear. Hopefully my sister heard.
My name is Ann Walsh and I live on the westerly side. On
the westerly side of Mrs. Campbell. I lived there for 45 years.
I'm not there all the time because I'm a part-time teacher in
Brooklyn.
I've spent a lot of last week researching revetments, and I
congratulate Mrs. Campbell on her choice because it seems like
it does a lot of good for erosion. But I do have some serious
questions that I think should be addressed.
It was interesting to note that the New York State DEC 505
regulation requires a revetment to last at least 30 years. So
given that, it should last, if they say so. However, the greater
the run, the further the revetment will extend into the Sound.
So I wonder how far this; I could not tell from -- and I did
enlarge it if you would like to see the enlargement of what is
going on. Nowhere could I glean how far this will extend into
the Sound and therefore take away from the beach. But that is
more an environmental issue.
I wondered how much of the beach would actually be
Board of Trustees 20 August 14, 2019
sacrificed. I sincerely hope the DEC and Army Corps of Engineers
is involved in this plan, because it's a serious undertaking.
It's not just piling tons of rocks. They may well ask how and
why the path of the wall was chosen. Why it goes this way. It
does land on my property line at the bottom. I had serious
erosion in the last nor'easter during the winter, and
understand that this would help erosion from her side. I don't
know how it would really affect me. I don't think well. I don't
think the whole coastline there would not be affected by this.
Especially with the placement of it.
I understand that the keystone is to be carefully placed
and should be supervised. The whole slope should be carefully
supervised. The type of cement that is'used is important.
This geo-textile is mentioned in the drawing but not in the
text. And they said that's very important to hold the rocks,
the rocks have to all to be placed in a certain way in order for
the water's energy to flow the right way.
So to make it shorter, I would just say, my real concerns
are of my own property line, number one. Number two, further
erosion still westerly side,-and the project not meeting Army
Corps of Engineers and DEC codes. That really should be
considered. I mean the impact on the whole shoreline is so sad.
That's what has happened. And I think an overall picture should
be looked at. Just not an individual's little piece that they
are concerned with. So it could cause a great beach instability
to the west, especially from the nor'easters.
I don't know if you would like to see an enlargement. I
enlarged what was here, and I think it makes some things a
little more obvious. Should I pass this in, or?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: We have detailed plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have an enlargement. Thank you.
MS. WALSH: You do. Okay. Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Thank you, for your time.
MR. KIMACK: Quickly, the proposed staircase is not on the
neighbor's property. It does come within 15 feet of the bottom,
and the staircase is turned the other way, away from her
property to make sure it comes in closer.
As far as the rock revetment is concerned, it does follow
the natural grade to the toe. It doesn't extend any more than
the original toe would have extended before it was washed away.
And it has already received DEC approval, meeting their
standards. And that application of approval is in your file. I
delivered it.
Some of the other concerns, after the cutting primarily,
underneath it, primarily, DEC doesn't want a disturbance more
than one foot on either side of the staircase going down. That's
in their permit, giving you a feeling there. And after the
cutting there will be two layers of burlap put down and perhaps
American beach grass being planted one foot on center
underneath, to restore it,�and to make sure it's stabilized and
in place, I think those are the major points Ms. Walsh raised.
Board of Trustees 21 August 14, 2019
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just have a couple of quick questions and
points for clarification. One, Ms. Walsh mentioned cement, and I
think you are not using cement, to be clear?
MR. KIMACK: No, I'm not.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand. I do commend Ms. Walsh on her
research on revetments. She is very thorough. I commend her on
that. And then my other question, and I'm not sure if this is
just the typical design you'use for your plans. You show two
large flat rocks labeled half-ton to one-ton stone boulders. Are
you planning on creating a wave break or is that just what you
used to draw your design and you'll use a pile of stone?
MR. KIMACK: I use that for my design. Because the requirement of
DEC is that the stones be,;half-ton to one-ton, I believe, if I
remember correctly. And when you looked at it, I wanted the
stones to be at least 12 inches thick. So when we are going out
to actually find those particular stones, I was unsure exactly
what configuration or size the stones would take. I did note --
I don't think I was able to, if you get a good look at it, to
sustain with the half to one-ton stone area, one ton per cubic
foot, you don't really have that large of a stone primarily, and
it's not enough to cover down two feet into the ground and up to
the point we are trying to reach, tying back to the slope. So
my expectation is that it would not be fulfilled by one stone,
although it might possibly'be that, but basically it would be
filled with those stones of.that heavy equivalent stacked in
that particular manner. That may in fact be the case. But the
weight factor would have to meet the requirement. And if it's
two stones, one on top of,-the other, or one stone, because they
happen to have it and it meets that particular size and it works
that way. But there is a minimum weight requirement for the
stones and. I wanted to have the minimum thickness requirement
also.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So just for clarification sake, this will not
be 101-foot flat wall angled back, by any means, as someone
depicted --
MR. KIMACK: It may well be. I mean, depending upon the stones,
it may well be.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That leads to a question concerning what is
the terminus at the Walsh and/or the easterly property line if
we are dealing with reflected wave energy.
MR. KIMACK: This basically, the angle of this repose, the
one-and-one-half to one,.is recommended by DEC. Primarily. And I
put it in the ground in order to make sure that it was not
undermined and eroded away in case any more of the beach is
left. The repose basically is the actually natural grade itself.
So what it does is it armors the toe but it puts back the
natural grade in a revetment form and ties back up to the height
that the waves originally eroded and caused it to erode down.
And the answer is yes, it:will probably be across that,
replacement of the natural grade with a hardened revetment rock
following that line.
Board of Trustees 22 August 14, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The confusion there arises from the diagram that
you submitted, makes it appear as if you are going to use either
engineered stone or cut stone, which leads to the question from
Trustee Krupski about it being a wall. In other words the
benefit of a revetment usually is, for lack of a better term,
the nooks and crannies that allow for energy dissipation rather
than reflection. That is where the concern is. I'm not trying to
put words in your mouth.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what I'm asking.
MR. KIMACK: But the energy deflection would occur from the
fact of the angle of the stone itself. I mean, if you really
look at it, there is not that much above the ground, maybe about
four or five linear feet is needed to get the height there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: But the stones won't be fitted tightly together
and engineered? That's the crux of the question.
MR. KIMACK: That would depend on the types of natural stone you
are going to get. It's not going to be cut stone, Mike. It's not
going to be cut stone.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's the answer we are looking for.
MR. KIMACK: Natural stone with a certain weight factor put
together to try to achieve this particular repose to have the
energy dissipation that that angle basically allows based upon
DEC standards.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's a very important point because it
addresses Ms. Walsh's concerns.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand the angle is standard best
practice. That's not my concern.
MR. KIMACK: It's natural stone, and however it ends up, it ends up.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For the sake of the benefit of Ms. Walsh, I
don't know if she heard, but the toe of this structure is at the
toe of the existing bluff. It,does not take any beach away.
MS. WALSH: My understanding is this stone is the stone that the
waves first hit and that absorbs the wave energy and then the
armor stones have to touch on three sides.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Ms. Walsh, can you please approach the
microphone. We are in a public meeting.
MR. HAGAN: You need to speak into the microphone for the
recording.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And you can't have a cross dialogue. You need to
address the Board.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Ms. Walsh, if you have anything else you need
to add, you need to speak into the microphone. This is a public
hearing and we are on the record. So everything needs to be
spoken into the microphone.
MS. WALSH: It's my understanding from all the reading that I did
that a revetment does have either a series of concrete slabs to
move or a single one of concrete.
MR. KIMACK: I'll let the Board answer that question.
MS. WALSH: And I did not see that.`Also in your text you say
burlap. And in your illustration you have the correct textile.
Board of Trustees 23 August 14, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Could you go up to Trustee Williams and he'll
show you the cross-section.
MS. WALSH: I just wanted to make my concerns known.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: For the record, this revetment won't have any
cement. It's natural stone placed on that angle.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: For ease of illustration, he drew in two big
slabs here. In reality this will be pieces of stone that weigh
roughly half ton to one ton placed in to take that shape. So
when you look at it, this will look like a natural stone wall
and have nooks and crannies. It won't look like a piece of
cement slab.
MS. WALSH: I'm not concerned with what it looks like, I'm
concerned with erosion on the west.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I can't speculate on that. I'm just commenting
on this gentleman's design.
MS. WALSH: It looks so close to my property. That's my concern.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: We just need to be on the record. At this
point you need to go back to the microphone. I was just
explaining the diagram to you.
MS. WALSH: I was saying I'm not concerned with what it looks
like, whether it's natural stone. I was concerned that it was so
close to my property, which has already been subjected to a lot
of erosion. It would just complicate the erosion problem. I just
wanted to voice my concerns as to what the possibilities of more
detriment to the whole coastline would be.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Mr. Kimack, in past applications
when we have an area of-high erosion and concerns of a neighbor,
we have asked the applicant to bring in either a coastal
geologist or coastal engineer to speak on behalf of the
application so it doesn't fall upon the Board to make a
determination whether it will impact someone else's, neighboring
private property. Is that a possibility that we could --
MR. KIMACK: I mean, I ould imagine, I mean the only one that I
know primarily is the one out of SUNY, basically. Sea Grant.
MS. WALSH: I think you should contact the DEC.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Ma'am, you have to speak--
MS. WALSH: You call it a revetment. It does follow specific
rules how to lay it out. They say the smaller stones should be
set by hand. Don't call it a revetment if that's not what it is.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Ms. Walsh, there is a DEC permit already
issued on this application'. The DEC has reviewed this and issued
a permit, and we have that in our file. You are asking for it,
I'm just letting you know it has already been taken care of.
MS. WALSH: Again, thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I also know, Mr. Kimack, we have done quite a
lot of these at this point and we've worked with a lot of local
engineers who are able to come in and speak on behalf of the
neighboring property. So by no means are you limited to the
specifics of finding a rare --
MR. KIMACK: What you'are asking of my client basically is to
spend additional dollars to bring someone in of some level of
Board of Trustees 24 August 14, 2019
expertise to affirm what the DEC has already found. I think what
you are suggesting is perhaps the DEC did not take into
consideration the impact on the adjoining properties. Is that
the case?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This Board is specifically charged under the
Coastal Erosion Hazard Area ordinance to look into or to protect
the support of lateral lands. The DEC's permitting is under
their tidal wetlands ordinance. We have an additional special
charge coming directly out of Conservation law.
MR. KIMACK: I can approach a professional basically to get you a
letter indicating that particular design and that particular
repose albeit would protect that property, would not have an
adverse affect on the adjoining properties simply because of the
wave action factor. Obviously I could say that. But you want
something in the file based on the concerns of the adjoining
neighbor.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would be appreciated. And also one last
thing. It's possibly I may have missed it. But how do you plan
to access the property?
MR. KIMACK: From the top down. Well, from the bottom, basically.
I think there is an access point further down the beach,
primarily on the side. I could be wrong. But all the way down,
I think it's state land or county land, you have access through
over there. You have to ask permission to run the beach with stone.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: For'the record, there won't be a bluff cut.
MR. KIMACK: There is not a bluff cut.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. KIMACK: For the record.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any other questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: At this point, is there anybody else that
wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
At this point we'll table the application for, I would like to;,
make a motion to table the application for a professional
engineering report.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).,
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, Michael Kimack on behalf of T.
BRUESTLE-KUMRA REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST &V. KUMRA REVOCABLE
LIVING TRUST requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit to demolish and remove, if necessary, rubble from
concrete piers and damaged concrete seawall; replace with
approximately 68 feet of 12"x16' long Shore Guard 950 vinyl
sheet piles with 12" diameter, 20' long CCA piles, three (3)
8"x8" whalers, one (1) 6"x8" follower, %" galvanized machine
bolts and 1" galvanized tie-back helical screws; new bulkhead to
match height/elevation of adjoining bulkheads; and to install a
retractable aluminum ladder to beach.
Board of Trustees 25 August 14, 2019
Located: 20275 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-8
The Trustees did a field inspection on August 6th, all were
present. The notes indicate that the scope of the project is
okay. Perhaps armoring of the vinyl --the applicant wants to
proceed with vinyl and Trustees suggested possible armoring to
protect that vinyl.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and
recommends the installation of a non-turf buffer landward of the
bulkhead. Vegetated, non-turf buffer.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved unanimously to
support this application on August 8th.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. We would
agree, I think we did discuss since it was vinyl, even though it
was heaviest 955 that we would agree to armor it, in a sense you
are basically talking two-inch thick by ten inch that would be
fastened to the walls, primarily. I have already instructed the
engineer to work with Higgins. Higgins will give him a detailed
drawing so it could be put on his sheet and I can submit it for
you.
I do suggest, there is already a non-turf buffer on the
bottom, for the most part, back from the seawall itself, that is
primarily made up of sea grass and/or beach area sand. That goes
all the way back to the first retaining wall. And that's at
least probably 20 feet. You can see that first retaining wall,
it's all American beach grass in there, and that's a fairly,
substantial amount.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would also like to clarify for the record this
project, again, will not be involving a bluff cut.
MR. KIMACK: Yes. The bluff was cut by nature some time ago. All
by itself.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wishing to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
All right, hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, noting there is a significant non-turf buffer seaward
of the dwelling and that there is a vegetated non-turf buffer
from the terracing down to the bluff, therefore addressing the
LWRP coordinator's concerns. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES). `
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number five, formerly
Robert Wilson representing Stuart Thorn, now Patricia Moore,
Esq:, representing STUART THORN requests a Wetland Permit and a
Board of Trustees 26 August 14, 2019
Coastal Erosion Permit for the as-built removal and replacement
of existing 2,468 sq. ft. on-grade seaward side stone patio
in-place except the area along the portion of the northern edge
where the new patio will be set back from the top of bluff to
allow for new plantings and a decorative split-rail fence; and
to remove and replace the existing garden wall with new
21'6"x6'0" masonry wall.
Located: 19375 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-20.1
There is a revised project description for this project.
The existing brick patio which was shown on prior permits to be
removed and reduced in size and replaced with a regular
bluestone patio set in sand with approximately two-inch pervious
joints; brick patio moved from the top of the bluff and will be
moved from the top of the bluff and planted with natural beds
matching the existing beds along the top of the bluff; the
existing slate wall shown on the prior permits adjacent to the
north side of the house to be replaced with a rectangular wall;
the existing drywells constructed in the year 2000 with
additions and alterations with permits located on the seaward
side of the house will be,relocated away from the top of the
bank; all gutters and leaders reinstalled and connected to new
drywells to be located away from the top of the bluff; and there
is a barbecue on the east side of the house. This is consistent
with the set of plans received dated June 14th, 2019 by Nate
Corwin as received and as corrected June 18th, 2019, and
received in the Trustee office June 18th, 2019.
This project is supported by the Conservation Advisory Council.
And the initial concerns of the Board of Trustees on their
February 4th, 2019 inspection have been addressed through this
current revised plan and project description, as is the
inconsistency noted by the LWRP coordinator wherein certain
questions were raised that previous structures, the patio did
not have a permit and the there were concerns relative to
drainage.
The Trustees are also in receipt of a report of the Town
Engineer's office, James Richter, the architect, on June 18th,
2019, approving the site drainage plan.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore.' Thank you, so much, for putting that
all on the record. I was a little concerned when I read the
original description. So, yes, that accurately reflects the
project. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are there any questions?
(Negative response).
It's straightforward. Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Seeing no one stepping forward, I make a motion to close the
hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 27 August 14, 2019
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted with the plans received in the Trustee office June
18th, 2019, whereby bringing this project into consistency with
the LWRP.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland Permits, number one 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 LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies
are that the applicant has not demonstrated that the following
dock standards pursuant to 275-11 construction and operation
standards, have been met. Whether the dock will unduly interfere
with the public use of waterways for swimming, boating, fishing,
shellfishing, water skiing and other water-dependent activities.
Private dock structures extending into public waters decrease
the public use of bottom lands in the nearshore area. It is
recommended that the Board verify the proposed dock meets the
dock line. The action is proposed to be located within the New
York Department of State Significant Coastal Fish &Wildlife
Habitat Area, Cutchogue Harbor and Wetlands. The construction of
dock structures in these areas results in loss of littoral and
marine habitats. Construction of shoreline structures such as
docks, piers, bulkheads or revetments in areas not previously
disturbed by development may result in loss of productive areas
which support fish and wildlife resources of Cutchogue Harbor
area. The extending of the dock structure will result in a net
decrease in public access to public underwater lands.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees did a field inspection on July 10th. We had an
inhouse inspection on August 6th, noting there was insufficient
water depth, as stated on the plans.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. I would
like to table the application for further review of the plans
for my client.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to
Board of Trustees 28 August 14, 2019
speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Are there any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not.at this time.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table the
application at the applicant's request.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number two, 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 most recently visited this site on the 6th of
August and noted that it is close to the end of a very small
bulkhead buried on an otherwise environmentally-friendly creek
and that it might be more appropriate to make the northern half
of the structure sort of transition back to the environment with
some sort of rock structure.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
with a non-turf buffer.
And the LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent
noting that this structure does not have a Board of Trustees
permit, and also noted that if the structure was approved, that
a non-turf buffer would be required.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. One quick
question. Is the Board still looking to have the rock
revetment, the softer means of protection on the northern end of
the dock-- of the bulkhead as originally discussed?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I believe because of the nature of that
location it would be an appropriate area to transition it back
or maybe armor that area, which would prevent the erosion that
we don't want to see. So if the revetment could be pulled back
for-- not the revetment. If it could essentially become a
retaining structure with armoring in front of it which would, I
think you would start to get some fringe marsh there again,
whereas otherwise it's just right into the water, a bulkhead
sitting in the water.
'MR. PATANJO: I would like to table the application to further
discuss with my client.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here to further discuss
the application?
(Negative response).
Board of Trustees 29 August 14, 2019
Any questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table the application at the
applicant's request.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number three, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
WILLIAM &AIDA HARTUNG requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten Year
Maintenance Permit to dredge 35 cubic yards of sand as required;
sand to be deposited off-site at an approved facility.
Located: 1200 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-5-15
The Trustees visited this site on August 6th, 2019. All
Trustees were present. And the project seemed straightforward.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection however reviewed the plans and supports the
application as submitted.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the application. If you
have any questions..
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
Does anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
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 GOLDSMITH:,Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES). ,
MR. PATANJO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, J.M.O. 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 2,368 sq. 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
The Trustees did a field inspection on August 6th and,
referring back to earlier, on the 7/10/19 inspection, requested
an IA sanitary system, 20-foot vegetated non-turf buffer
landward of the bulkhead.
And the LWRP found-this to be inconsistent. The
Board of Trustees 30 August 14, 2019
inconsistency arises from the fact that in order to minimize the
loss of human life from flooding and erosion hazards, the
structure should be moved as far from flooding and erosion as
practicable. I believe that's the only-- and there is ability
to relocate the single-family dwelling further landward on this
parcel.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
the application because the setback for the proposed dwelling at
67.7 from the bulkhead is not compliant with Chapter 275 Wetlands.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application? i
MR. JUST: Good evening,; Glenn Just for the applicant.
What was the exact concerns from the Conservation Advisory
Council, please?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Again, the Conservation Advisory Council -- I'll
reiterate the LWRP concerns also. That'in order to minimize
potential loss, the structure should be moved as far away from
flooding and erosion hazards as practicable. And additionally,
there is ability to locate the single-family dwelling further
landward on this parcel. That's the LWRP coordinator's concerns.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support
the application because the setback for the proposed dwelling at
67.7 feet from the bulkhead is not compliant with Chapter 275 Wetlands.
Would you care to address those concerns?
MR. JUST: I guess if I can go back and talk-- are there other
questions about the septic system as well?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The septic system as proposed is over 130 feet
from the bulkhead and is out of Trustee jurisdiction.
MR. JUST: I can go back'and talk, the house would be one foot
closer to the bulkhead than it currently exits. I don't know
exactly why that location was picked up on. I have to go back
and talk to the homeowner and the architect, quite frankly.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the distance from the bulkhead to the house?
MR. JUST: 67 -- 68:7 feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think there was some discussion about the
possibility of an IA septic-system in that location as well.
MR. JUST: That's 145 feet away from the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the house is within how many feet?
MR. JUST the existing house is 68.7 feet from the bulkhead and '
the proposed house is one foot closer
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. So the house is within our jurisdiction.
MR. JUST: Correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So there is some interest on the Board with the
IA septic system, if you want to bring that back to your client as well.
MR. JUST: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And there is currently a funding stream
being developed that the;applicant may get support. Check with
the county on their website.
MR. JUST: All right. I looked at that a couple of times and am
familiar with it. I guess I have to, this has to be tabled and
I'll go back and talk to the homeowner.
Board of Trustees 31 August 14, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's probably the best course of action.
Any other comments or questions?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wishing to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application at
applicant's request.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number five,
J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of CHOCOMOUNT COVE
PARTNERS, LLC, c/o ELIZABETH C. CALLANDER requests a Wetland
Permit to remove an existing 'deck, structure and steps;
construct a 1,640 sq. ft. addition onto an existing single family
dwelling with a drywell for roof runoff; construct a 12'x32'
pool with a 24'x60' pool deck; construct a 68' long rock
retaining wall along southerly side of proposed pool and deck
area; construct a 14'x24' shade structure landward of pool
patio; and construct an 822 sq; ft. (Includes steps) deck along the
seaward side of the dwelling.
Located: 12244 East Main Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-3-2-6
This project has been reviewed by the Conservation Advisory
Council and it supports the application using best management
practices.
The Trustees inspected this site on August 7th noting that
the project plans and the site appear appropriate for the
proposal. It appears straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator indicated that this project is
consistent with the concern in establishing a vegetated non-turf
buffer landward of the shoreline.
The Board in its inspection did note that native vegetation
exists already and the unmanaged area that is not intensive turf
management, so I believe that addresses the inconsistency of the
LWRP coordinator.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak to this application?
MR. JUST: Once again, Glenn Just for the applicant.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It appears straightforward.
MR. JUST: Did you folk stop by there last week?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, we did. On Wednesday we did. The
Conservation Advisory Council members also saw this.
Any questions?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to close'the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve this application
Board of Trustees 32 August 14, 2019
as submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number six, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of
JOHN & DANIELLE VENETIS requests a Wetland permit to remove and
replace existing 75 linear foot long timber bulkhead in place
including a 5' long return on westerly side and a 7' long return
on easterly side, using tropical hardwood lumber and hot dipped
galvanized hardware; seaward of new bulkhead, place 25 cubic,
yards of clean sand from an approved source to raise the depth
of the grade below water and allow the growth of intertidal
marsh, and plant 1,000 sq. ft. of new marsh 12" o.c.; and retain
clean sand with approximately 85 linear feet of pinned bio-logs
or equal with a top elevation of 2.0'.
Located: 2600 Takaposha Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-6-4
The LWRP found this to be exempt and consistent. The
proposed action to replace the proposed bulkhead in-kind is
exempt. The proposed action to restore the tidal marsh is
consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on August 6th,
noting that the project seemed straightforward.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application?
MS. MOORE: I'm here, if you have any questions. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
The project being a straightforward wetlands restoration project.
MS. MOORE: I would ask if there is any ability to influence the
Army Corps. I'm dealing;with the Army Corps to extract a
permit, and I have written to them and tried to explain this was
a restoration project, thafreally with the recommendation of
the Trustees, and it doesn't seem to get through. So if you
have any influence of the Army Corps, by all means please send
them a little message. That's all. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Hearing no further comments motion
to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And I make a motion to approve this
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 33 August 14, 2019
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number seven, Patricia Moore, Esq., on behalf
of HECTOR & LINDA COLOMBO requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 6'x52'fixed wood dock; existing 22'x22' gravel
(non-turf area)with inlaid brick pavers 5' diameter circular
(10' width); existing 20' rock wall located parallel to Marion
Lake and continued 10' perpendicular to the shore with 4',wide
steps to grade; existing 13.9'x23.5' wood deck with steps to
grade attached to seaward side of dwelling; existing 54'x23.4'
one-story dwelling; on east side of dwelling, an existing
concrete slab and cellar entrance; existing roofed over concrete
stoop entrance; existing 5'x21.9' wood deck on front of
dwelling; property line fence on north side and south side of property.
Located: 1500 Truman's Path, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-12-14
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 6th of
August. The notes noted that to stipulate any new dock would
have to-be through-flow with non-toxics and at maximum four-foot
wide, to bring it into consistency with the code.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent, noted
that the structures were constructed without a Board of Trustees
permit and that he believes they are illegally constructed
between 2001 and 2004, and do not meet current dimensional
requirements.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding
this application?
MS. MOORE: No. As far we know, as far as I know, this is a
1970s house with the structures that were built prior to my
clients purchasing the property. So they have been there for a
long time. So. We are actually, this permit is to get a permit
for everything that is existing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I will note that in our, during our field
inspections, although the dock is built without a permit, it did
appear to be quite old.
Okay, is there anyone,else here that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP coordinator
by permitting in the structure.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number eight, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf
Board of Trustees 34 -August 14, 2019
of JOHNNY DONADIC, MARCIA DONADIC TRUSTEE OF THE ALEXANDER
ANTHONY DONADIC TRUST &THE OLIVER ANGELO DONADIC TRUST requests
a Wetland Permit to replace existing 31.4'x15.6' swimming pool
in-kind, connect backwash to existing drywell, and raise to
level of patio; replace existing 55' long retaining wall with
concrete wall to match level of pool and house; replace 27' long
retaining wall and raise height of retaining wall from 8" to 12"
high; fill area between existing retaining wall and house with
52 cubic yards clean fill; replace existing patio with
1,445 sq. ft. of bluestone patio set in sand/stone dust.
Located: 325 Willow Point Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-5-26
The Trustees have visited this site several times, most
recently doing an inhouse;review on August 6th, 2019. We had
discussed this at length before.
The Conservation Advisory Council did support the application.
The LWRP found this action to be exempt from LWRP review,
and I know we were awaiting feedback from the Town Engineer's
office. We have notes that the Town Engineer's office, the
drainage amendments are acceptable.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of the Donadic family. I
have Johnny here with me today if you have any particular
questions. But we did have a pretty thorough hearing the first
time, and addressed the neighbors' concerns regarding
engineering and the drainage were addressed by this Board and
asked us our engineering to be sent to the Town Engineer for
review. I believe, as you said, it's been approved. Thank you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Is there anyone else here'that wishes to speak to this application ,
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll make a motion to approve the application
as submitted.
MS. MOORE: Thank you,
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number nine, Michael Kimack on behalf of 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 3/"
galvanized steel tie rods'connected to 8" thick retaining wall
with 3/8"x6" square steel;back plate; construct new 4' wide dock
Board of Trustees 35 August 14, 2019
seaward from existing 193.sq. 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. (256 sq. ft.);
construct right angle fixed dock section 4' in width and 32' in
length with four (4) sets of,8" diameter pressure treated
pilings (128 sq. ft.); install a 3'x8' aluminum removable ramp
(24 sq. 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
(120 sq. 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:
432 sq. ft., and overall total dock: 625 sq. ft.; remove 562.5 sq. ft.
of existing wood decks with staircases and replace with pressure
treated wood framing and]PE.wood decking with stainless steel
screw fasteners; remove 396.3 sq. ft. of remaining walkways and
staircases and replace with pressure treated wood framing and
IPE wood treads with stainless steel screw fasteners; remove
436 sq. ft. of existing wood walkway/deck with existing wood
retaining wall and piers and replace with 223 linear feet of t8"
concrete retaining walls with footings, filled with gravel and
topped with 1 '/2" 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' (17 sq. ft.) wood.bench for a total of 193 sq. ft.; the
connecting staircase is proposed to be removed and replaced as
part of the wood decks, walkways and staircase replacements'
(part of 396 sq. 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
1 had the pleasure of handling this file in a previous
public hearing. It was tabled at that time. At that time I read
into the record the LWRP coordinator's finding that the bulkhead
was consistent, but that actions on the dock were inconsistent.
I'm not going to read all of it, its extensive comments, at
this time, because they were read into the record at that time.
Suffice to say that the LWRP coordinator has concerns about the
public use of the lands, underwater lands, and the length of the
dock interfering with public use of the waterways. And suggested
the use of moorings.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. We did
discuss this at a recent workshop. I know we focused primarily
on the extension and how far out the dock went. There were
concerns that you had about the benthic characteristics of the
Board of Trustees 36 August 14, 2019
ground underneath. It will be through-flow all the way through,
so that should be a minimization of that particular one.
I'm not going to extend this because I think the remaining
concern would be, I know there is a desire on your part to cut
this back in terms of its extension out into the waterway. And I
think one of the things I did want to point out. I gave you a
broader picture there in front of you for two points. One, if
you look toward the legend there, his proposed 42-foot sailboat
is not the only kid on the block. There is a 58-foot now with a
seven-foot draft right across from there. 16-foot beam. Now
there is a few other, most of it is powerboats. The other two
powerboats are 16 footers. The reason I gave you this drawing is
I wanted to show you, the,way I presented that is I cut it back
the eight feet. But one of the issues I didn't approach, and I
apologize for this, is he's got a sailboat. It won't be as
maneuverable. If you can take a look at the angle that it's set
up, the way he's coming in, he really will be inconvenienced in
terms of docking, so in terms of getting away from that
adjoining dock because, pulling it back eight feet he's lined up
right with it. Primarily, in order to move his boat in and move
his boat out, he will have to basically maneuver it pretty
quickly away.
The reason I set it back, basically, is he was able to slip
past it, primarily, now moving it back, and I would still, as a
_result of the fact that I know you talked about pulling it back
further, but the eight foot, as it's represented right there in
terms of how that boat would be angled facing the next dock in
terms of bringing the boat in and swinging it around, as a
sailboat, it's not as maneuverable as a powerboat would be with
thrusters, and I wanted you to have that for your consideration.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: For:clarification for myself and fellow Board
members, this photograph that I'm viewing that you submitted,
this is a representation with the eight feet removed?
MR. KIMACK: Yes. I thought it was the best to do it that way. It
was a little tough on that small scale cutting those little
pieces, guys. But it's very accurate. I made sure that I
followed that as close as possible. And that represents the
eight foot back. But you could see, and I apologize for not
making that point the other night. I didn't want to draw this
out any further, but it becomes a question of bringing the
sailboat in and back out again. You can see how he's set way
back from where the other docks are set out and certainly from
the other two docks even further from there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Additionally, we had discussed removing two
dolphins.
MR. KIMACK: We have no problem with that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: A further point that we are requiring new
plans. Whenever we discuss, not getting ahead of myself. If this --
MR. KIMACK: Understood. Depending on what you decide, obviously
one way or the other, there will be a new set of plans that will
be forthcoming.
Board of Trustees 37 August 14, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Gentlemen?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm inclined to ask for it to be moved back ten
feet, just to keep in good faith with that area.
MR. KIMACK: Do I hear nine?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You hear 12.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I find what you submitted to be acceptable,
with what you submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that per scale drawing, I've
extensively paddled water'in this creek. Based on my own
experience, I don't really have a problem with the eight feet.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Were you going to remove that inner set of
pilings, the dolphins?
MR. KIMACK: The ones closest to the shoreline. I'll take those
off and I'll resubmit a set of drawings moving it in, if we do
the eight feet, and I'll resubmit the survey on the site plan
bringing it in eight feet. So it will go from 64 to 56, if I
remember on the survey, I think is the overall. It would come
out to be about an 18% factor across 460 feet. The extension
from low water to the other side.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH:,Okay. I would like to reiterate my concern
for the record, for a sailboat with a seven-foot draft, under
the most ideal circumstances --
MR. KIMACK: Somehow the guy across is doing it. You know, when
you pointed it out, I looked it and I realized there was a
sailboat parked across and I got the specifications on that boat
because my owner happened to know him and it's a 58-foot 16 with
a seven-foot draft.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH:Which is surprising to me because, like I
said, last time it got dredged it was less than three feet at
low tide. Maybe he doesn't go out very much.
MR. KIMACK: But I think�one of your concerns, all these
powerboats have that low draft, but I wanted to point out we
were not the only kid on the block. There is another sailboat
that has been there for some time. And it is heavily boated, as
you can tell.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Would you be amenable, there seems to be the
consensus of the Board that eight feet is a little on the shy
side. We are not having an auction here, but ten feet
Might be more amenable:
MR. KIMACK: Eight feet works for me because it lines up with my
pilings all the way through as I bring my pilings out. In a
sense, 64 feet was a series of eight times eight, essentially.
But it took me to the seven-foot line. The other reason I don't
want to go back to ten is it puts my heel right on the seven
foot line, primarily, of the,boat. If you look at the site plan
drawing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think there are three gentlemen here you
have to convince. Two of us already stated we have no problem
with it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think I remember at the work session you
Board of Trustees 38 August 14, 2019
were saying you were amenable to ten feet back. So --
MR. KIMACK: Did I open my mouth and say that?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So I would like to hold you to that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You did.
MR. KIMACK: Oh, brother.:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seeing this happens to be tabled for new plans,
I'll just put it out there, this'Trustee would like to see it
pulled back ten feet, when you submit next month. I'm one of
five, so.
MR. KIMACK: Okay. That, and we'll take out one of the insides, I
prefer, and we'll pull it back to ten feet. It is what it is. I
mean, you understand my concern about moving that sailboat in
and out. And it certainly fits all your criteria in terms of
your distances and so on.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Any further comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application pending
submission of new plans indicating a shortening of the dock to
ten feet and removal of the two dolphins.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number ten Michael Kimack
on behalf of LAUGHING WATER PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests
a Wetland Permit to remove approximately 644 sq. ft. of existing
concrete (±12 cu. yds.); excavate approximately 582 sq. ft. to 12"
depth (22 cu. yds.) and dispose off site; place approximately
582 sq. ft. of 3/stone base to 12" depth (±22 cu. yds.); furnish and
install 390sq.ft. (±10 cu. yds.) of reinforced concrete from
asphalt driveway to just above Mean High Water line; precast
(12) 4'x4'x8" reinforced concrete slabs seaward of poured
concrete ramp 12'wide by 16' long (192 sq. ft.), pinned together
with (4) 1 '/2" stainless steel round rods @ 8" in length to
interlock concrete slabs.
Located: 555 Minnehaha Boulevard Boat Ramp, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-2.1
This project has been'deemed to be consistent with the
LWRP. The coordinator is recommending a silt boom during phases
of dredging and removal of existing ramp.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
and recommends the installation of a metal grate at the top of
the ramp to short circuit or cut off any drainage or runoff from
the adjacent access to the ramp.
The Trustees visited the site on the 6th and indicated that
the project seemed straightforward based on the field inspection.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. It's
basically a replacement of an in-kind, essentially, of what they
i
Board of Trustees 39 August 14, 2019
have at the present time. There is a boom on the drawing, if you
look at it, on the drawing there is a semi-circular boom that
would be in-place during construction. It's on the site plan,
primarily, so that addresses one of the concerns that was raised.
As far as the, putting a French drain up top, in essence
there would not be any place to run it into, essentially. I'm
not quite sure how that would -- are they asking for a drywell?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No. The wording was they asked for a metal
grate across. I think we have seen in some situations where the
slopes were not severe, I think some of us have seen at the boat
ramps they imbed a small.trough with a grate that simply passes
water to either side. But there is no specific mention of a
drywell. It merely says recommends installation of a metal grate
at the top of the ramp for drainage or runoff mitigation.
MR. KIMACK: The top of the ramp, that's where the asphalt ends
and the new concrete begins.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe that's the construction I think we
are familiar with seeing. A lot of times we see small stainless
grates to short circuit the water. I guess it would be an
engineering question whether or not it should have a small
drywell associated with it or run into gravel.
MR. KIMACK: Depending'on the soil underneath, it may necessarily
be its own containment in,the sense if you dig it down a couple
of feet and put gravel and sand in it. It's fairly flat on the
driveway going down there, so you really will not have a lot of
velocity to the water.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I don't mind, from my recollection on field
inspection, I don't necessarily see the need for it because
there is no water from the area coming to it, it's simply the
water from pulling the boat out.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the soils there tend to be rather sandy
in that location.
MR. KIMACK: I'm not quite sure which way it pitches. But you
have all of that-- on one side it goes off to the parking area,
into the parking lot itself. '
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: If we were looking at like the Jamesport boat
ramp where you have miles of black top, I could see something.
But in this situation I don't think it's warranted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I tend to agree with Trustee Williams.
Any questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
I'll 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;, noting that there is a turbidity
curtain on the plans dated received by the Trustee office June
26th, 2019.
Board of Trustees 40 August 14, 2019
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number eleven, Michael Kimack on behalf of
5445 PECONIC BAY HOMEOWNER, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a private driveway from Great Peconic Bay Boulevard to
proposed private residence; clearing for 12' wide by
approximately 200' long driveway; and to install an
approximately 5,000 sq. ft: of water line and power line within
cleared areas.
Located: 5445 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-128-1-5
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on August 6th
noting the requirement for,a non-disturbance area around the
pond 75 feet to narrower by the driveway and a culvert under the
proposed driveway.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. We did
meet onsite and that was one of your recommendations, and I did
submit a proposed non-disturbance plan here with the culvert,
primarily. I gave them about ten feet on the one side of the
road in order to put the road in, primarily, to have the
clearing going through there and follow the 12 elevation line,
which is primarily the slope line, all the way down to the area.
It varies, but for the most part it's the major portion of the property.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is that, upon implementation, will that
non-disturbance be separated by some sort of split-rail fence?
MR. KIMACK: I think that's the plan. I don't think he has a
problem with that. He was talking about putting a split-rail
along the --when l,talked to him about the fact that this would
be one of the requirements, he talked about putting a split rail
along the road. So I don't see any reason it would not happen.
Necessarily. We normally do the two footers.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Yes. Something to delineate there is a
non-disturbance.
MR. KIMACK: I don't think that's a problem. He would be
acceptable to that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application`?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE.GOLDSMITH; Any questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's the determination of the Board we are going
to require new plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll respectfully disagree with that unless you
have other counsel on that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I do have counsel.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You do. Fair enough. I have been overruled.
MR. KIMACK: He's reading what the surveyor put on his plan.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH; And while you are getting new plans, you'll
Board of Trustees 41 August 14, 2019
put that split-rail fence along the non-disturbance as well?
MR. KIMACK: Yes. I'll get new plans that basically shows that
from the surveyor, that shows the split-rail fence as well as
the 12-inch culvert.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions?
(Negative response).
Motion to table this application for submission of new plans
depicting the non-disturbance buffer as well as the split-rail
fence at the edge of the non-disturbance buffer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you issue, gentlemen.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 12, En-Consultants on behalf of RICHARD
& KATHLEEN O'TOOLE requests a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace approximately 171 linear feet of existing timber
bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead (in-place and 12" higher);
construct new 10' vinyl return along easterly property line; and
backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards of clean sandy fill
to be trucked in from an approved upland source; remove and
replace existing steps to beach with a 4'x6' timber platform and
4'x6' shore-parallel steps to beach; and to establish and
perpetually maintain a 10',wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 700 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-145-2-6
The Trustees most recently inspected the location on the
6th of August. They noted it was straightforward but would
require a ten-foot non-turf buffer rather than the depicted ten
foot, which would bring it to the top of the small embankment.
Excuse me. A 15-foot no'n-turf buffer as opposed to the depicted
ten foot, which brings it to the top of the small embankment.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application with retractable stairs to the beach. They also
questioned the clean fill and the location of the upland source.
I have a letter in the file as well as new plans dated
August 14th. Dear Mr. Domino, consistent with the Board's
discussions during last week's field inspection I'm enclosing
four copies of project plan prepared by En-Consultants last
dated August 13th, 2019; which has been modified to depict a
15-foot wide non-turf buffer. As I am unable to attend tomorrow
night's public hearing, I'm also enclosing an affidavit of
posting and green cards returned from certified mailing to the
neighboring property owners. It is my hope the Board will be
able to open and close the hearing and resolve to approve the
wetland request pursuant to the enclosed revised plan. But if
the Board has additional questions or wishes-to see any
additional changes to the project, please withhold action on the
application and keep the.hearing open until the September
meeting. Respectfully yours, Robert E. Herrmann.
Board of Trustees 42 August 14, 2019
1 believe that is all.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
(Negative response).
Any comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I make a motion to approve this application based on the new
plans dated August 14th, 2019, and stipulating the removable
stairs to the beach. The new plans do depict the 15-foot
non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 13, DANIEL F. & KATHLEEN M. KELLY
request a Wetland Permit to demolish existing 68'x70' two-story
dwelling along with footings and foundation; using fill that is
excavated for the new foundation, fill a 21'x27' area to the
seaward side of existing foundation and return to existing
grade; abandon existing sanitary system and install new landward
of dwelling, as approved by SCDHS requirements; construct a new
68'x41' single-family, two-story dwelling with attached garage
further landward than existing and will be no closer than 101'
from bulkhead; construct a new 16'x28' masonry patio/deck on
seaward side of new dwelling; install gutters to leaders to
drywells to contain roof runoff; install new underground
utilities, water, natural gas and electric; excavate for a
16'x34' concrete pool with a T wide paving stone patio on all
four sides of the pool for a total pool area of 22'x40'; install
pool equipment area and pool backwash drywell off the north west
corner of pool; install 4' high pool enclosure fencing with
gates to be installed along side yard property lines, and across
the property approximately 20' landward of bulkhead; replace
windows, roofing and siding on existing 14'8"x35'4" boat house;
return property to existing grade when construction began;
install a line of hay bales and/or silt fencing prior to and
during construction; and to reutilize existing entry and
driveway and to install drywells to contain storm-water runoff
in driveway.
Located: 2895 Wells Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-13
On August 5, 2019, the Trustees visited the site with all
Trustees present. Notes in the file, that the project seemed
straightforward, and recommended an IA waste water system.
The LWRP coordinator reviewed this application and found
this to be consistent with LWRP policies.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports this application
with a non-turf vegetated buffer and the trees to be removed
Board of Trustees 43 August 14, 2019
being flagged.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. KELLY: My name is Dan Kelly, I'm the owner and applicant.
Good evening. Basically the whole area, you saw it, is in
desperate need of demolishing. I don't know how else to put it
nicely. We were able to spec out a new home to put on the
property that would be out of the Trustees zone completely,
which would result in removal of about 700-square feet of home
that is in your jurisdiction now. That would be totally
removed, and a new structure would be no closer than 101 feet
from the bulkhead. So it would really be compliant in that
respect.
We are able to do that with a whole two inches to spare,
without going to the Zoning Board. So we are, I guess asking
for permission to remove the structure that is there, put in the
new structure. The request also includes a porch for the back of
the home which will project into your jurisdiction, however it
will project less than the existing approved porch or patio,
whatever you want to call,it, that is there. So we think that it
actually would be beneficial because it's giving back the ground
to the way it should be and not be disturbed.
When we had the inspection with the Trustees, we learned
that the covenant that required the buffer--we have done
nothing to the property since we purchased it in June of last
year, except to try to come up with a new plan. We were informed
at your inspection that the ten-foot non-turf buffer really
didn't apply, however I will tell you this. We have numerous
e-mails between the attorneys at the closing who supposedly
contacted both State DEC and the Town of Southold Trustee
office, that stated what was there was approved and accepted.
However my wife and I will both stipulate that we'll fix what is
there by putting in the white rocks that I guess everyone uses,
both properties to the left.,and right, have that non-turf
buffer. And quite honestly, it looks a lot better than what we
have. I don't want to have to worry about getting down there to
mow it and everything else. So if that's a problem, we'll
stipulate right now not to issue the CO when we are done until
that meets with your approval by putting in that complete
non-turf buffer that I guess should have been there to begin
with.
I guess that's pretty much all we have to say. If there are
any questions, I'll be more than happy to try to answer them.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: What you just pointed out, for clarification
in.your statement there, is that any different from the plan
that is submitted here?
MR. KELLY: No. What we submitted to you is exactly what we
intend to do.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Sounds good.
MR. KELLY: Also we dropped off the approval from State DEC there
with the letter of non jurisdiction for the removal and the
construction of the new buildings, and the permit for the fence,
Board of Trustees 44 August 14, 2019
which is down at the ten-foot elevation level which required a
permit. So they are both on file with you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: In the field we did talk about an IA system.
MR. KELLY: To be honest, I researched it originally and after
again meeting with the Trustees on the property, we started to
research it again. And it's funny, when you dial the 852 number
for the county, where there is this funding program in place;
number one, new construction is exempt from any type of grants
right now for the implementation of the IA systems. But what was
even funnier was when you do make that phone call, it tells you
for further information, they give you another phone number to
dial. Now, I have yet to call up and mention this to them, but
when you call up the other number, you get that wonderful tone
that goes beep, beep, beep, the phone number you are calling is
not in service. So maybe if you know somebody down there, maybe
you can ask them to check it. I'll be honest, I have not had
time to call them to tell them. They may have just done
something with the phone.system and don't even realize it's
disconnected. But we checked with other cesspool companies just
to see if the cost came down from when we had originally
researched it, and at this point, with the new additions to the
building code recently, building on or near the water, the cost
is getting to be crazy. We,don't have the, 1,guess you'd say the
discretionary funds right now to put into that system. And being
the system will actually be located further away again from the
bulkhead, it's probably going to be 160, 170 feet away from the
bulkhead, I don't think it should be an issue right now. I hope
it's not an issue right now: Let's put it that way.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any questions, comments?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a former county employee, are you saying
the county doesn't always get it right?
MR. KELLY: I'll let that go with no comment. I'm glad I'm retired.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: One further question. You didn't have the
opportunity to further find-whether new construction involved
demolition? Do you understand what I'm saying?
MR. KELLY: I never got to really talk to anybody. When you read
their website, it states right in their website that new
construction is exempt from the grant status.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I get that. All right. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm just looking for your non-turf buffer along
the bulkhead. I believe I saw it during work session and field
inspection, but I'm not seeing it now.
MR. KELLY: The covenant says the non-turf buffer, which again I
supplied you with a copy of the covenant, requires a ten-foot
non-turf buffer from the bulkhead landward toward the existing
residence. That paperwork I did submit. I have another copy of
the covenant if you like it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So it's already covenanted.
MR. KELLY: Yes, it's already covenanted. If you would like
Board of Trustees 45 August 14, 2019
another copy.
This is a copy of the covenant filed with the County
Clerk's office. If you would like, when your job is complete on
the final surveys I'll have that delineated on the new surveys,
which have to be done anyway.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: The confusion we have here, unfortunately,
it's just not on this survey, but it's in the covenants. We
don't have an issue with it tonight, but in the future it would
be more helpful if it was on the survey.
MR. KELLY: Okay. Thank you. We'll get that in. You'll get them
redone again when the construction is done.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak to
this application?
(Negative response).
Any further questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll make a motion to approve the application
as submitted, noting that there is a covenant in place
delineating a ten-foot non-turf buffer from the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KELLY: Thank you. Can I just say one other thing. Right
now I'm in South Carolina, so is this quite a process for me.
The staff that you have in,the office is exceptionally
knowledgeable and they were incredibly helpful for me to get to
this point. And I would just like that to be known. Thank you,
very much, and you guys should be proud of what you have there
because it works very well.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We appreciate your comment. Maybe you can pass
that on to the Town Board.
MR. KELLY: I would be more than happy to write a letter or come
to them, if you would like. Thank you, good night.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 14, FRANK S. & PAULA C. THORP request a
Wetland Permit to replace approximately 76'6" of existing wood
sheathing with vinyl sheathing behind existing piles 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
455 sq. ft. of wood decking for construction and replace
in-king/in-place; and remove and replace boat hoist.
Located: 2500 Old Orchard Road, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-37-5-24
The Trustees did field,inspection July 10th at
approximately 10:10 in the morning, and field notes indicate
that suggest a non-treated wood or gravel to replace the
decking. And Baccharis to remain. In other words the Baccharis
Board of Trustees 46 August 14, 2019
is a wetland indicator species growing well behind the bulkhead.
So that's to remain.
The LWRP found this application to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from the fact that the structure that
exists was built without a Trustee permit.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. THORP: Troy Thorp, here to answer any questions.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Thorp, you understand the Baccharis needs to
remain?
MR. THORP: Yes. .
TRUSTEE DOMINO: What are your thoughts on replacing the decking
as suggested with non-treated wood or gravel?
MR. THORP: I actually agree. We have it at a level when the high
tide comes up and actually saltwater treats it. So it,kills
any bugs. And the CCA, I would not want to put there, treated
wood, I would not want to put that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So you prefer not treated.
MR. THORP: Yes. On the decking. I would like to frame it in the
CCA-treated lumber. Because it ties into dirt in the back
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Understood. I don't think that the intention --
it's just the surface decking. All right, anyone else wishing to
speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH:,Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion to approve in application as submitted
with the understanding that the decking, with the condition that
the decking, 455-square foot of decking will be replaced with
non-treated lumber, and Baccharis will remain.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. THORP: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to take a five-minute recess at
this point.
(After a recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay we are back on the record now.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 15, Eileen Wingate on behalf of EAST
END HARBOR LIGHTS,CO., LLC, c/o ENRICO MANETTA requests a
Wetland Permit to excavate approximately 100 cubic yards of
soil, to be removed from sight; construct new 28'x14' swimming
pool with 12" coping stone surround; construct a 63 linear foot
long poured concrete retaining wall, 10" above grade; construct
Board of Trustees 47 August 14, 2019
a 6'x6' spa with 12" coping stone surround; install 344 linear
feet of 4' high pool enclosure fencing with gates; install
650 sq. ft. bluestone raised pool patio 10" above grade
constructed with dimensional pavers within the new retaining
wall; and construct a new 137.5 sq. ft. raised planter landward of pool.
Located: 905 Harbor Lights Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-71-2-17
The Board of Trustees performed an inspection on August
5th, 2019, wherein we specifically made a request for plans to
show the pool fence, the equipment, drywell and pool equipment,
and we are in receipt of a new set of engineering plans from
Condon Engineering dated received August 8th, which shows the
pool equipment area which is landward of the proposed pool, and
a drywell for the pool immediately adjacent to the pool, just
seaward of the retaining wall.
The project has been deemed to be consistent under the
LWRP.
And the Conservation Advisory Council supports the
application using best management practices.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application?
MS. WINGATE: Hi, I'm Eileen Wingate.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe the questions from our field
inspection largely address, and of course I know you are aware,
we wanted the project staked, and there was some confusion there
apparently. Any questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: One comment, on the project description it says
the soil is to be removed from "sight." In this day and age with
spell check, I believe that,should be s-i-t-e.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: But both work, I guess. Okay, very good. Any
other questions or concerns?
(Negative response).
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Seeing no one, I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH; Number 16, 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
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies
are: The very low water depths in the area are inadequate for
the operation of motorized vessels during periods of low water.
Board of Trustees 48 August 14, 2019
The dock will result in adverse ecological impacts. Operation of
motorized vessels in areas of very low water depth can cause
bottom scarring, turbidity and loss of benthic species. The
continued construction of dock structures within significant
fish &wildlife habitat and critical environmental area will
affect the public use of the,area and degrade the ecological
quality of the area through introduction of contaminants,
disruption of marine life habitats, etcetera.
Correspondingly, physical and functional loss of wildlife
has been found to occur through the loss and/or impairment of
habitats, destruction of habitats and migration patterns and
introduction of harmful contaminants. The most common
contaminates associated with docks is wood preservatives
impregnated into the wood used to prolong the life of the dock.
Three trace materials, arsenic, chromium and copper are the most
common. These three metals have the greatest potential to
increase harm to estuary environments from docks. The dock does
not comply with the existing pier line. The extension beyond the
existing pier line creates a navigation hazard for small
watercraft. Approval of the dock would establish the precedent
of allowing longer docks in the sensitive water body. The
extension the dock structures into public waters hinders the
public use of such waters;where the dock is located.
The applicant presently enjoys access to the water body due
to the waterfront location of the lot. Given the shallow water
depths and environmental sensitivity of this water body, the
seasonal mooring of vessels is more appropriate in this area.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolves to support the
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection. This was tabled
from last month. So we have a work session where we reviewed the
plans on August 6th.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. MANGUS: Gary Ma6gus, applicant.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH:Okay, so can you address some of the LWRP
concerns regarding the length of the proposed dock?
MR. MANGUS: Well, we do have our boat mooring so I want to be
able to use the dock so we can come in to get to the boat, back
and forth when the tide allows. When it's not dead low. The land
is privately owned. The creek is a privately-owned body of water
and none of the neighbors, adjacent neighbors or anybody in that
portion of the creek have permission, or will get permission to
have a dock. So there is not an established pier line for that
reason. Um, the dock as proposed would project, it's a little
over 200 foot wide at the location we are proposing and it would
project less than an eighth of the way, so well less than a
third. And it is not where;the deepest part is. It's all shallow
in there. So it should not affect navigation. I'm not sure what
else.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'm just a little confused about the
statement there are no docks. On the survey you provided both
Board of Trustees 49 August 14,2019
adjacent properties do have docks as well as there is another
one further, what direction is that, on the survey here. So
there is three different docks in addition to your proposed dock
on your survey. And the LWRP's concern, and as depicted on this
survey, is your proposed dock exceeds the pier line of all the
adjacent docks in that area.
MR. MANGUS: The adjacent docks are on their property. They don't
project into the creek, which is privately owned.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: From this picture it looks more like a deck on
the property line more than a dock existing over water.
MR. MANGUS: That is correct.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: On the survey they are all labeled as docks,
not decks.
MR. MANGUS: But they can't really get a boat to them. I mean the
one they could possibly once in a while, but the other one, not ever.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Which also brings up one of the concerns is
the reason they can't get a boat to them is because there is no
water depth in the area?
MR. MANGUS: One of them doesn't really go to the water. The
other one, their land projects a little bit out and they've gone
as far as they could out. But none of them have permission.
There is other docks further in that have permission by the
owners of the property that own the creek to put docks in, and
we have been given permission to put a dock in.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH:,Also we have a number of different sets of
plans that you submitted,-all at varying lengths. So which one
are we looking at?
MR. MANGUS: The one I would really like to do is the 16 foot
offset. I brought in some others in the event that that does not
seem to work. 'But the 16 foot access ramp. So a 6x20 dock
running parallel to the bulkhead, to the lower platform 4x6, to
let us get down to the water, um, and it would be accessed by a
catwalk 4x16.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH:'I'm trying to find -- do you have anywhere
the water depths?
MR. MANGUS: The water depth?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The water depths at the proposed docks?
They were provided on the hydrologic survey which was submitted
by Heidecker.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH; Is there an overlay where your proposed
docks, the depth of water they would be in?
MR. MANGUS: I don't believe there is an overlay with that on
there. It sort of shows with the depth out. But it is shallow.
That's why I have the boat on a mooring, so when the tide
allows, I can come in. We put kayaks and paddle boards in I use
to get to the mooring.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: With the hydrological survey that you
provided, the maximum water depth that I see on this survey is
0.88 feet.
MR. MANGUS: The minimum or the maximum?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH; The maximum depth on this survey is less than
Board of Trustees 50 August 14, 2019
a foot of water depth
MR. MANGUS: It is not uncommon at high tide to be pushing
two-and-a-half to three feet.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: How would a boat at low tide affect the --
MR. MANGUS: At the low tide I don't use the boat. I use a
mooring. I come in to go fishing or if I want to pick the kids
up for wakeboarding or a tube. We come in when there is water. I
have a paddle board and kayak I can go out to the boat. The
paddle board draws, you know--
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So for the record, you are submitting the
plans with the 16-foot length. That's the one we are considering.
MR. MANGUS: Yes, I have a backup, but yes, that's it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Just to clarify, we are not allowed to choose
between plans. So we are going, you are presenting us with a
16-foot plan
MR. MANGUS: Yes.
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).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I would like to make a comment. When we
initially visited the site, it was a proposed floating dock as
per our on-field discussion. The applicant has agreed to go to
a fixed dock, and I'm comfortable with a 16-foot length, and the
applicant's willingness to work with us, and the description of
the dock, he has a boat to bring in to put his family on there,
and I'm comfortable with a 16-foot length.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I unfortunately am not, and with the 16-foot
dock that is proposed, it does not address the inconsistencies
with the LWRP as far as water depth, as far as pier line.
Again, with the hydrological survey, it's less than a foot. So
if there was a boat on that dock at low tide, that boat will be
on the bottom, which we cannot approve for anything that would
adversely affect the bottom.
MR. MANGUS: That's why I have a mooring to keep the boat at.
Because I can't go in or go out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Part of the problem this Board runs into is,
and you can say that you are never going to leave a boat on it.
And I believe you. And you have worked with us, which I
appreciate. But if you end up selling the property, the next
owner, there is no guarantee that that practice would be
continued. So that is certainly one of my concerns. I want to be
fair and honest with you, based off my concerns.
And the other one really comes back to the pier line that
the LWRP coordinator's concerns, making it inconsistent. We are
bound to the code, which is law. We don't change the law. We
have to uphold it with our determinations. And it's my
determination based off the current code that I can't see a way
to bring this into consistency under our current code and
constraints. That's my problem. I'm just one of five. But that's
Board of Trustees 51 August 14, 2019
my concern with the application.
MR. MANGUS: There would not be any way to have anything there,
no matter how far out it went or how close in it was that would
meet that concern. I mean we do have kayaks and paddle boards
and stuff, and it's like 50 inches down from the bulkhead to the
water. My wife actually fell in last week trying to get into the
paddle board. So we don't have access to the water. That's why
I originally wanted a floating dock. But the concern was the
thing sitting on the bottom. So that's why I went to the fixed
dock. And I thought with keeping the boat on the mooring and
having it come in when it's an appropriate tide, I don't know
how one could get around that. But that's the intended use. I
mean we feel really fortunate to be there and have that amazing
environment there and I don't want to do things to spoil it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think my concerns mirror both Trustee
Krupski's and Trustee Goldsmith's. We are really limited to an
extremely shallow drafted outboard that would conceivably not be
on the bottom at 0.88 feet, which, I can't mention names, but
there are only about two or three types.
MR. MANGUS: I have a Whaler, draws eight or nine inches.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. Carolina Skiff, Whaler, and there are a
couple of others. The possible configuration, we don't generally
design for applicants but an extremely small through-flow
catwalk with an onshore/offshore pulley system, which would keep
the outboard further seaward and not entail the bottom coverage
with the silting up --that particular waterbody has been
dredged at least once, possibly twice, since I have been on the
Board, and it has a tendency to silt up. So additional
structure there might -- although the dredging there was further
toward Carlucci. I don't see the depth situation improving, and
adding a dock at that location would only exacerbate it.
MR. MANGUS: Where it's been dredged is considerably further in,
so I don't think this should impact that either way. But I know
we talked at one point going out less far, that's why I provided
the two sets of plans. One with ten foot. But that would not
address any of those other issues.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I understand your concerns and I understand your
desire to enjoy and have access, but my recollection of the very
first field inspection at this site, discussing a ramp to the
float, there was exposed bottom at that time. And it was low tide.
MR. MANGUS: Exceptional low tide, yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And there were fiddler crabs walking around
where the proposed structure was. And we expressed at that time
this was very problematic for us. So I want to support the
comments from Trustee Bredemeyer and Trustee Goldsmith and
Trustee Krupski.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak to
this application?
(Negative response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Board of Trustees 52 August 14, 2019
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 deny this application
without prejudice.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll request a roll call vote, starting with
myself and progressing. And to be clear, the application is
denied without prejudice.
MR. HAGAN: Is there a second that still stands?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second still stands.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Once again, I'll request a roll call vote
starting with myself and proceeding to my left. I'll vote to
deny.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I vote to deny.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I vote to deny.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I vote to deny.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I vote to approve.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So moved.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Does the applicant have a question?
MR. MANGUS: What doe's that mean, to deny without prejudice?
MR. HAGAN: It means you are free to apply in the future.
MR. MANGUS: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 17, Cole Environmental Services on
behalf of FLORIANE LAVAUD &THOMAS ANNICQ request a Wetland
Permit to construct 160' catwalk with 5'6" ramp and stairs to
water level for launching kayak, paddle board, canoe, etc.
Located: 305 Halls Creek'Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-116-7-2
The Trustees most recently discussed this application on
the 6th of August and noted that we were holding for Board
action at the public hearing and that the Board was essentially
still felt the same as the previous review and comments at other
inspections.
The LWRP coordinator gave a quite lengthy report which has
been previously reviewed and read into the record. He found it
to be inconsistent. A brief, brief summary of the
inconsistencies, which again were already read into the public
record: The proposal does not fully meet the definition of a
catwalk. The catwalk extends past the high water mark and does
not gain access to a residential dock. The catwalk exceeds
one-third of,the water body. No dock length shall exceed
one-third of the total water body. The depth terminus of the
catwalk is very shallow. Water depths are inadequate to operate
a vessel safely. The proposed action is located within a DEC
critical environmental area. The New York State DEC
environmental mapper indicates that protective rare plants and
animals may occur on or,'in the vicinity of this parcel.
Activities during construction can destroy vegetation. The
construction of a catwalk in the proposed location would be
Board of Trustees 53 August 14, 2019
directly visible from a public roadway, New Suffolk Avenue,
identified by the community as possessing high scenic value. The
catwalk would impact that natural setting of viewshed looking
south.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any further comments from the Board at this time?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I want to clarify something. For the record, the
most recent Trustee field inspection was June 14th at the 305
Halls Creek Drive, was conducted during a waxing gibbous moon,
associated with a typical tidal range. Full moon spring tides
occurred following that on'July 17th. On that date Trustee John
Bredemeyer and myself planned to make observations at 15 minute
intervals before and after low tide to demonstrate, to place
stakes at the stair terminus, take photographic evidence to
demonstrate the hypothesis that under normal conditions, normal
low tide conditions, it presented too little water to launch or
retrieve even a shallow-drafted human-powered vessel. We did not
anticipate the dangers we encountered as we set out with these
bamboo stakes in hand across this still-draining meadow.
Walking was difficult as the surface was saturated. We crossed
more than one trough that contained two to three feet of water
and as we neared what I'll call the rivulet, because I don't
think it's a creek, the salt meadow cordgrass gave way to
Spartina alterniflora, clumps and hummocks and the pace
slowed, we used the bamboo to probe for proper footing. John it
was in the lead and I was following, and with no apparent
warning the bottom liquified and John sank into the muck. The
photographs I took after he extricated himself with the use of
the bamboo probe showed that over two-thirds of the nine foot
long bamboo rod easily penetrated the saturated sediment. The
viscosity of the sediment was about equal to plain water and
John could not discern the bottom. The material exhibits
thixotropic properties and we determined it was too dangerous to
go forward.
I took additional photographs, recorded our observations
and had the applicant read and sign our field notes. John
apprised him of the dangers the marsh posed to his children and
we later repeated those warnings to both parents at the
subsequent work session. During every tidal cycle, seawater
floods and saturates the tides associated with this marsh. When
the tide withdraws, and the sponge-like area laterally drains
and becomes thixotropic:"Material on the surface appears solid
can instantly become dangerous as the lateral movement of the
water lubricates the sediment, creating a colloidal hydrogel not
unlike quicksand. This phenomenon most likely occurs at this
site twice every tidal cycle. That is with the incoming water
and withdrawing water.
Following that field inspection, conversations with people
Board of Trustees 54 August 14, 2019
made it evident that locals and some duck hunters have had
firsthand experience of this phenomena at this marsh and
neighboring marshes. In theory, the small unconscious child
being slightly less dense than the colloidal mixture would never
fully, even if they were unconscious, would never fully sink
into the muck. Because of the chest cavity, the legs sink first
and even though unconscious, should not'sink. But buoyancy and
gravitational forces should'balance out at roughly chest level.
But the conditions could turn deadly if a person panics and
struggles, because Newton's third law guarantees that every
upward movement of an arm or leg will result in a downward and
opposite force. So it's a very real danger here that a child
could become submerged in this material.
As demonstrated before, the depth was not discernible and
certainly greater than six feet. And fatigue would be an
additional compromising factor. So what merely starts out as an
inconvenience can turn deadly.
In closing, the probability of a tragic outcome is
increased when individuals would be invited to cross what is
normally a flooded meadow, are being invited by the means of a
catwalk. The public would also be put at risk should someone who
pulled into the navigable rivulet try to use any structure to
turn around.
This application does not minimally satisfy the criteria
set out in Town Code chapter 275-12 standards for issuance of a
permit.
In Chapter 275-12, has subcomponents (a) and (b), none of
which are met. 275-12(a), (b), (d), (f), (g), (h), (i) and Q),
any one of which is sufficient grounds for denial. This
application presents a clear danger to the applicants and their
children and should be denied.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mr. Chairman that was extremely well
written. As someone that joined you on that field survey and
one that generally doesn't shrink with going in with a pair of
hip waders, that place really concerned me for my personal
safety and not only the safety of the family but the safety of
the community that might entertain any activity in the vicinity.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I would also like to note we brought up a
number of concerns to the applicant in a work session and
previous public hearing, none of which have been addressed to
this point.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
regarding this application or any further comment from the Board
members?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Based on the lack of any concerns being
Board of Trustees 55 August 14, 2019
addressed at our prior public hearing and work session, due to
extreme environmental concerns, public access, public viewshed,
safety, which was clearly described by Trustees Domino and
Bredemeyer, lack of water-for navigation, extending further than
the one-third rule stated in Town Code, all of which has been
previously noted in detail on public record, I make a motion to
deny this application without prejudice.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would recommend a roll call vote again;
beginning with myself. I vote to deny.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Vote to deny.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Vote deny.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Vote deny.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Vote to deny.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Denied without prejudice.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: 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
The Trustees visited this site several times. The last site
visit being July 10th, 2019.
The LWRP program coordinator found this application to be
inconsistent. A wetland permit was not located within town
records for the existing as-built structures.
The Conservation Advisory Council supported the
application, questioning the need to raise the retaining wall 12
inches.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: At this point none of our concerns have been
addressed, correct?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Correct. A couple have been discussed at two
prior Board hearings. The construction of the, as they call it,
bulkhead, or retaining wall, is not, as practice, it was
constructed without a permit. None of our concerns that the
Trustees had and none of the concerns of the LWRP have been
addressed since the last hearing.
Are there any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 56 August 14, 2019
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to deny without prejudice
based on concerns brought up by the LWRP and Board of Trustees
that have not been met since the last work public hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Clarification. We are moving to deny?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: We are moving to deny this application without
prejudice based on the concerns brought up by the Trustees and
the LWRP at the last public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Once again, I'll recommend a roll call vote. I
vote to deny.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I vote to deny.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I vote to deny.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I vote to deny.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I vote to deny.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 19, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of NORTH FORK LENDING, LLC, c/o EUGENE BURGER requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a ±300' long rock revetment along
the shoreline of Peconic Bay; the revetment will measure 4' in
height and roughly 5' wide, and will be backfilled with clean
sand with a beach grass planting at the top of the escarpment;
the core stone will extend the length of the proposed revetment
and installed at 1.5' deep and 3.0' wide; the entire underside
of the revetment to be lined with filter cloth, and the weight
of the stone are as follows: ±300-500 lbs. capstone; ±300-500 lbs.
toe stone; and ±1-2 lbs. core stone with gravel.
Located: 64600 Main Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-7-4.1
The Trustees did a field inspection on August 6th and field
notes indicate that the project is straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted unanimously to
support the application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
here to answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else here to speak to this application?
MR. BENFIELD: Yes. John Benfield, 50 Blue Marlin, Southold.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: What comments do you have, sir?
MR. BENFIELD: My comments are several. I have concern about this
retaining wall. I certainly admire the one that was built
previously. It was done very well. From the plans that I saw. I
think this new one will be'built very well. So my issue is not
there. My issue is with the land behind it. From our perspective
and our understanding it's clearly a wetland. There is a creek.
I would like to pass this to you, if I may, some Google pictures
with some notations.
The picture that came, showed the wall in a green area and
it was in isolation. It was very clean and made sense and looked
Board of Trustees 57 August 14, 2019
very solid. It couldn't be argued with. But understanding what
is behind it was a concern,to me and my neighbors, who will
speak. There is a creek or,a rivulet, or whatever you want to
call it, I don't know my geography or geology. But there is a
creek that runs through to the adjacent, to the corner of my
property in the bottom of the, if I can point right over there,
where the corner of the property is, the east corner. The
southeast corner comes right within maybe 40 feet or so of the
end of our bulkhead, which leaves a gap that won't have a wall
there. So I have one concern about the possibility of erosion
or a scour out, or if that wall cuts off all drainage from the
entire wetland, which in fact impacts the entire neighborhood.
It's wet there during a rainy system. All the moisture will be
diverted to that one outlet, which might cut it even larger. I
don't know that. But it causes me concern on the erosion issue.
Plus adding soil, removing soil, I don't know which, but it
seems to me something might happen there.
Regarding the stream that goes through, if you look at the
chart I gave you, there is a sort of winding line running
through the property. That is actually walking the creek where
that creek goes back in the woods. I respect you gentleman went
to the site, but walking back through the thorns and everything
else there is quite a feat. So having gone to the end, that is
where it really goes, where that red line shows. It goes,
coincidentally just to the mid center of the fish market across
the street. I'm told, anecdotally, I've never seen it, I was
told the stream runs through the basement of the fish market,
and if you run a dotted line, it runs right to the line that you
mapped there. And if you look at the pond behind it, if you
expand Google Earth larger, you'll see that the water feeds
right to behind Charlie's place, through the fish market, I
presume, and into that creek and runs out. That's clearly a
wetland. The other pictures I put there to document the creek
are phragmites. Those reed looking plants. If you look at
Google Earth and you expand it, that's a Fall picture. The
picture that I have there. ?I think mine is two-years old. It's
an older picture. So more foliage. More green. If you know what
you are looking at and know the red path of the line, you can
see the phragmites thereon the trail that goes along through
the woods. So basically it's a stream with wetlands under a
canopy of forest. And if you look at the pictures I have there
you can see, I think it's on the second page, you can see actual
wetland underneath the forest top that doesn't show up on Google
Earth. So there really water there, which to me is a concern.
Additionally, the pictures show that, and my neighbors can
speak better than I, because I'm not clear on it, but it appears
as though the parking lot,of next door has expanded in real
life, not in the Google pictures, into that wet area a bit. And
if that's the case, that's a question.
And also the pictures I have there show how under that
canopy of the wetland plot, there has been a clearing to make
Board of Trustees 58 August 14, 2019
sort of a park setting and avenue underneath. There has also
been put, I don't know the dimensions, 25-foot, 20-feet,
18-foot diameter fire pit that's in there as well. That there is
a picture of.
So it's I think a protected area. I'm not certain of my
facts. But I think it's a protected area. There is already
infringement occurring there, and there is wetland going through it.
Again, I'm not taking issue with the wall. The wall is an
excellent wall. They'll do aJantastic job. My question is a
wall with that kind of expense and value,being put up just to
save the wetland, I'm suspecting, and I'm only speculating,
there might be an ulterior motive behind that, some sort of
purpose down the road, development, something else. And I would
hate that.
So I would ask, if this is approved, I would ask that a
covenant be put on that property not to build on it. Then the
wall probably would be a good thing, as long as the erosion
thing is squared away. But if the erosion thing is not squared
away and the drainage is not squared away, and it's being put
there for the purpose of development, then strikes me as not a
good idea. So I ask you to consider that. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
MR. COLE: Good evening, gentlemen. My name is Dennis Cole,
and I am here in my capacity as President of the Southold Shores
Association, Inc., which is the homeowners association for the
adjacent community. We have a number of concerns. Obviously we
share the concerns for the area behind the homes on the west
side of Dolphin Drive. Actually I'll be mentioning a few streets
here, gentleman. I have a map on which numbers and streets are
marked out. I can provide�them to you, maybe we can all follow
along. I hope I have enough copies there for all of you. I
believe the properties that Mr. Benfield was referring to are
his own, which is marked number 50, and that's on the south side
of Blue Marlin Drive. There is another home, number 105 Blue
Marlin, which is on the north side of Blue Marlin. And the
other numbers you see are the west side of Dolphin Drive. And as
you can see, their backyards kind of abut where Mr. Benfield was
speculating that water might be diverted for this wall to be built.
In addition to being an,association for the benefit of the
community, we own property, the Southold Shores Association
does. One of those properties is a beach which is located
actually at the east end of Albacore Drive, which is number 1360
on the map that I have given you. The concern there is, again,
if the tide or the current is diverted eastward by this wall,
the concern is that the erosion that is already taking place
down at our beach could be accelerated. We don't know that for a
fact. We would sure like to find out that it won't be. But in
any event, we would like-to see a little more investigation into
what the impact might be on the properties on the west side of
our community which abut it. In addition, we have one other
concern. The applicant, as you all know, is not a residence, as
Board of Trustees 59 August 14, 2019
all the other application I think we have seen here tonight.
It's a commercial establishment. It's known as the Peconic Bay
Yacht Club. To our knowledge, it is not a club but rather a
rental venue for weddings and other celebrations or
entertainment activities. We have had issues-with it, our
community in the past, due to some of the noise, obviously not
made by the owner but by'those who rent from it. Our concern is
that something might be going on here to facilitate the
development of an outdoor venue down by the bay. And if that
happens, it's really going to be a nuisance for our community
big time. I don't know if that's in your gentlemen's
jurisdiction, but I would hope that you can look into what the
plans might be for this property and get some assurance it won't
be turned into one of those where you bring your own tent, bring
your own generator, bring your band and your caterer and have a
wedding on the bay. That I think, both environmentally and for
us as its neighbors, I mean they are right on top of us, would
be a disaster.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Excuse me, sir. We are not, as you suggested,
that's not in our purview. So I would really like you to
confine your remarks to the application before us, which is the
environmental aspect.
MR. COLE: Well, I've stated those, sir, and I hope, again, if
you inspect further you'll inspect on our side of the property,
and hopefully take further steps. There was some mention of a
geological survey that can be done, or whatever, of what the
possible impacts might be on us if this wall is completed as it
is designed. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. I would just like to mention
something. My family has,,Goldsmith's boat shop, which is
literally adjacent to this property, so I'm familiar with what
you are talking about. With concerns for the beach to the east,
I don't necessarily see the concern from this wall on this
property necessarily affecting that beach. I think that beach is
more affected by the bulkheads all along the shore there,
Southold Shores. So I appreciate your concerns, and I get it.
That's a very wet area to begin with. It's clay bottom. I
completely get it. I just don't necessarily see the impact of
that proposed rock revetment, if it's going to necessarily
adversely impact your beach all the way to the east. But you
have many valid concerns and, like I said, I know this property,
I've got to, we as a marina next door, have.gotten the
notifications. I see a survey up here, or proposed survey, that
caught our eye when we first received it way back, I think 2006.
So I don't necessarily know the intentions of this project. But
that project from 2006 was a previous owner and that is not
something that we as a Board can address.
The project in front of us currently is for a rock
revetment and what environmental impact that would have.
MR. COLE: At least we stated our concerns on the record if
something comes up down the line. With that, that's all I have
Board of Trustees 60 August 14, 2019
to say about that. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. NASH: Hi, folks. My name is John Nash, 105 Blue Marlin
Drive. My property is adjacent to this property. Part of my
property is wetlands, not useable, not buildable also. My
understanding,, and maybe that's why I'm here to ask questions, ,
is that that was un-buildable. From my conversations with some
local builders and a local engineer, neither can see any other
reason for building this rock wall or this bulkhead, would be to
develop it.
What I would like to ask is what review was done to make an
understanding there is erosion? And what are we trying to
protect? We are going to build a wall to protect what. I'm
trying to figure out what. So what review was done that says
there is erosion, and second, why are we building a wall to
protect exactly what?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Generally speaking, the Board entertains an
application based on the specifics and what the applicant is
asking for. Post Tropical Storm Sandy, large reaches of Peconic
and Southold bay are subject to usual erosion and subsequent
winter storms did a tremendous amount of scouring. It's based
on the Board's experience and actually having written permits
for a revetting structure immediately to the west, based on that
scouring, and with respect to buildability and notions of that
you may hear aspects pro and con, but that's really dependent on
an in-depth application process. Now I just did two inspections
in the last month on both Tarpon and Dolphin Drive, and I
generally concur with that'notion. But it's loosely based on
seeing submerged areas and red maples in that parcel. As far as
buildability, the Board can't make those determinations or
statements about that from the dais because we don't have an
overview, we are not reviewing that for buildability. We are
looking at it for erosion protection.
MR. NASH: I understand'that. I just•wanted to put it on the
record because that's what it seems to be. I can tell you from
what I would like to know'also, what review if any was done on
the environmental impact to this ecosystem, as John, my
neighbor, had mentioned. That is absolutely wetlands, exposed
roots, and so on. There is everything from ospreys to deer to
all types of waterfowl, turtles, reptiles. Everything lives
within that ecosystem there. What study has been done to see how
this will impact them and will there be some kind of study to
say what will impact them. The osprey alone that live in there,
that hunt and fish right there, you have your property there,
they are all over the place, right then and there is protected
species by the State of New York. At least we should take a look
at what impact this could,have.
To speak to the other, and this is kind of an older
picture. That lot that is there, that parking lot there, grows
and grows and grows every year. So now there is 20 feet past
that parking lot has been cleared. That was wetland. It's
Board of Trustees 61 August 14, 2019
cleared now. Grass is there. Trees were ripped out. The park
that John had pointed out, that fire pit down at the bottom,
that was cleared. That's wetlands that was cleared and something
built on it. That is our issue. If everyone on the Board
understands, that is our hesitation about this. Saying one thing
and doing,another is a problem. And having a permit to build a
parking lot and keep extending on it to take wetlands that no
one can touch, and to take them and build and clear on it, tells
us they are trying to build some type of facility down there.
And I know it's a business and I understand --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We can't speculate. I would like to point out
the LWRP coordinator did a review of this project, the
application before us and found it to be consistent. This Board
is not, at this point, we are.addressing the application before
us, which is simply, and it's been pointed out before by other
Trustees, simply the revetment that is proposed on the southerly
border of this property. In addition, if you think there is a
violation concerning a fire pit or something, you should draw it
to the attention of the appropriate code enforcement people.
This Board has not seen any growth, and we have been there
several times, in that parking lot. And if it can be
demonstrated, that is a separate action.
MR. NASH: So related to just this application before us, I want
to know what reviews were done to see the environmental impact.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's all we can speak to.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think what Trustee Domino said was the
Trustee coordinator did an extensive review on the property and
found it to be consistent, based off Town Code.
However, my personal feeling on the property, because I
have walked part of the property, but as we were reviewing this
for a revetment right on the beach, I cannot say I walked
through the briers and out behind your houses and your
properties.
My personal feeling on this is, and again, we can't speak
to what might happen. It's not possible. And I don't see any
proposed fill on here, which should alleviate that concern. At
least partially, environmentally. But I personally would like
to table this for further field review. That's my sense. Just to
really take a good look at,it.
MR. NASH: You are more than welcome to come through my property
and you can get a really good view. And you can see it's a very,
very vibrant ecosystem there, and I think we'll damage it, and I
think we'll change it, and maybe not for the better.
I also have concerns about flooding, I'm just being honest
with you. We are taking a whole bunch of water, streams,
multiple, that run through the property and now bulkhead it,
even though it's a natural bulkhead, and push it all into a
corner. Does that push it onto my property and flood me then?
All this, I keep going back for what end. What end are we trying
to fix. There are no buildings on that property. What are we
trying to fix?
Board of Trustees 62 August 14, 2019
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have no problem with people trying to protect
their property, but I don't want it to lead to a further
outcome. Your points are well taken. I appreciate you all
sitting here for many, many hours tonight to voice your concerns
over your own property. And that that is where I sit. I would
like to take a more extensive look at it in the field.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I have no problem with doing another review.
I want to make the point this Board in the past has done a
diligent review of this property. I personally walked through
that property when Jim King was president, with Jim King, and
knowing that it was situated upon probably 40, 50, maybe more
feet of clay, the entire area is sitting on clay,just looking
at the survey that was presented to us on June 11th, it shows a
proposed canal on part of the subdivision of your association's
property, which was done many years ago, showing ten-foot wide
drainage parcels. So I guess the point I'm making is everyone
knows this is an area that has very poor porosity and
permeability and this is subject to flooding as it is.
Additionally, I walked this property once with Cliff Benfield,
so I understand those concerns.
And I'll finish up with I would be more concerned if this
was an application for a bulkhead, which I would believe would
have zero permeability, and perhaps Mr. Anderson can speak to
the permeability of a rock revetment and filter cloth fabric
before we go proceed any further.
MR. ANDERSON: This is --Trustee Domino is correct. This whole
area, the residences, including across the street, including
what we used to call the Mill Creek Inn, (inaudible). We put the
septic system in for what you call Mill Creek Inn. We had to dig
down 50, 60, 70 feet to establish a hydrologic connection
between the septic system and the groundwater. That septic
system was placed adjacent to the highway, away from surface
waters. And it was quite an undertaking. I believe Charlie
Manwaring did the same exercise, the fish store across the
street. So it's, this land, it's not so much that there is
these raging streams that;cuts through. What really happens is
the rainfall, the water doesn't infiltrate through the earth
because of this packed clay. What it does do is it moves toward
the bay. What we are proposing here is a revetment, and that
revetment is constructed out of placed rock and filter cloth
behind it to the extent that water will drain off this land
across the beach into the,bay. There is no anticipation that
will change. In other words, there is no expectation the water
will suddenly move in.an easterly direction abutting these homes
because, (a), their land is higher, and (b), the natural water
goes from north to south, and the revetment itself is porous.
So it's our position that the revetment will serve to
protect the land but will not impact upon those homes.
MR. NASH: That's your anticipation.
MR. ANDERSON: That's my professional opinion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Please address your comments to the Board.
Board of Trustees 63 August 14, 2019
MR. NASH: My point being that is your anticipation, but if it
does, then I'm on the hook for it, and it will flood my
property. And I'm being honest with you. I'm more concerned
about my property, as I am about the ecosystem. Part of my-- I
live here. It's wetlands. It's my assumption, my thought was,
that we protect it. The piece of my property, the prices out
here these days, is worth some money, the part I can't use. But
I'm okay with it, because that's what we do. I'm protecting the
environment. I just want to make sure we are all doing the same
thing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: One more time. You are not directing your
comments to this application. You are directing them to the
particular piece of property and what you think may happen in
the future. We can not consider that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Again. From being an adjacent property owner,
I can verify there is an erosion issue in this area. We have it
on our property as well. So it's not, you know, a made up
condition. There is obviously erosion going on in this area. And
this application addresses,just that issue. It doesn't address
the wetlands or further up. This application as presented before
us is an attempt to protect;their property, protect that wetland
that already exists from further erosion.
MR. NASH: And I'm just trying to protect mine.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Gotcha.
MR. NASH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions or comments?
(Negative response).
from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to respect Trustee Krupski's
suggestion that we table this for another field inspection by
the Board of Trustees to make sure that we in fact go above and
beyond our normal due diligence before we move forward.-
TRUSTEE,BREDEMEYER: Is that your motion, Mr. Chairman?
MR. ANDERSON: The Board has a right to do that, if you feel you
need to do that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes. All right, I'm just asking for your input.
MR. ANDERSON: I think you understand what our position is, what
we are trying to do.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments or questions from
the Board, I'll make a motion to table this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER:-Next application. Number 20, Suffolk
Environmental Consulting on behalf of WILLIAM & DOLORES KREITSEK
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a dock assembly
consisting of a 3'x80' (240 sq. ft.) catwalk; a 3'x10' (30 sq. ft.)
J
Board of Trustees 64 August 14, 2019
landward ramp; and access ladder at seaward end with catwalk
extending t14' into Marratooka Lake.
Located: 2455 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-114-9-14.1
This project has --the Conservation Advisory Council voted
to support this application using best management practices for
runoff mitigation.
The LWRP coordinator determined this application is
inconsistent, had concerns about cumulative impacts of
residential and commercial docks changing the waterway or the
environment. And placement of private residential docks within
this freshwater wetland system would adversely affect the open
space character of the water body and set precedent and whereas
there is the existing public,access to this water body, he
outlined access at three locations. There are currently two
public access points to the lake: Marratooka Lake Preserve,
Mattituck, New York, which donated to the Town in 1997 by the
nature conservancy. The approximate nine-acre preserve was
originally donated to the nature conservancy in 1973 by Mr. And
Mrs. Willard Hagan. The Marratooka Lake Preserve consists of
10.7 acres on the north shore of Marratooka Lake. Approximately
eight acres or 80% of the preserve is successional shrub land.
Most of this area is former pasture, hay field and cropland, and
additionally parks, beaches and open-space work land in 1983
identified the parcel to the east of the subject parcel as
Marratooka Lake south, south Mattituck at 115 323.1. A 1.9 acre
waterfront parcel used for fishing access to Marratooka Lake.
Public access point located on this property is available to
launch non-powered vessels. The ramp is located 480 feet from
the subject parcel.
In the event that action is approved, a 20-foot wide
vegetated non-turf buffer along the shoreline is recommended.
And use of non-treated lumber is specified but not indicated on
the plans. And pursuant to the requirements of LWRP, the Board
is to make its recommendation and terms of addressing the
inconsistency.
The Trustees inspected the property on August 6th. And the
Board questions the need for a dock in this location. Some of us
have been to the property previously and discussed prior
structures approved there, noticed that the range of the water
level of the lake does fluctuate tremendously seasonally, and it
was noted on the field inspection report if the Board is to
consider a structure in this location, it would be natural with
non-toxic or through-flow. Is there anyone to speak to this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicant. This was an application that was filed and
approved by this Board on October 20th, 2010. Identical
application. So all the specs are identical. It was, the Board
determined that while in that application process that a 20-foot
buffer be imposed and they effectively found to bring it back
into conformance with respect to the LWRP.
Board of Trustees 65 August 14, 2019
Trustee Bredemeyer is correct in that we talked about a
20-foot buffer. The 20-foot buffer was probably there when you
were there, but under the water at that time. It is part of the
old permit. And we are not,proposing anything different than the
old permit. It did'receive approval from NYS DEC. Their position
is they want people to use;these resources and a similar
application was granted to-us directly across the pond -- McKay
-- I don't believe that dock'is there. I think it was built. I
didn't see if there was a float on that. But it was there
today. So our expectation is it should be granted because it
does enhance the use and the enjoyment of the waters and I think
'it's promotes these freshwaters. As per non-treated wood, we
already specified it would not be treated -- it would be
non-treated, with the prior-proceeding on this.
Then the thing about commercial docks, I don't know what
he's talking about. There is no commercial docks on this pond.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe that's general language coming out
of the LWRP. In other words, it's the expansive language of the LWRP.
Any questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the planned use for the dock?
MR. ANDERSON: To access the water. The water is used by canoes
and paddle boards. There are no motorized vessels in this
water, as far as I'm aware"of.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a prohibition in use of motorized
vessels in this body of water just like in Great Pond.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is it currently through-flow?
MR. ANDERSON: I believe that's how we spec'd it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It doesn't say it in the description.
MR. ANDERSON: It will be entirely through-flow, yes. It says
pervious decking throughout.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On-the project plan, right.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Questions or concerns of the Board?
Go ahead.
MS. BROWN: Carol Brown from the Conservation Advisory Council. I
just want to put on the record that there were five of us at the
Conservation Advisory Council meeting. Two of the three of us
who reviewed this site said nay. And I was one of them. Peter
Meeker was one of them:Again, for all the things that were
listed by the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. So the Conservation Advisory Council
in the majority supported the application to two minority votes.
MS. BROWN: Correct. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I was on the Board in 2010 that approved the
dock and for the purposes of, to our minds, for the purpose of
accessing bona fide conservation uses, a non-toxic'dock
stretching over fresh water actually provides a little bit of
habitat diversity in providing shade for organisms.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: And it's a good fishing spot.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Exactly. And we asked for the need, and the
need establishes access,for those legitimate purposes, for
Board of Trustees 66 August 14, 2019
boating, kayaking and fishing. So as far as I'm concerned I
think it meets that basic need.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: What about a buffer of some description,
because the lawn goes right literally into the lake.
MR. ANDERSON: When you were there, the shoreline is there, it's
such a gradual drop, the plans showed a buffer. When you were
there, you looked at it, you saw the trees --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The 20-foot buffer that we approved in 2010
MR. ANDERSON: The trees grew right into the water. It's kind of
there but under the water.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: To Trustee Goldsmith's point, we need a
larger buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It's,a difficult one to do because right now
think the lake is extremely high. I have been to that property
several times. They do have a one-foot high chicken wire fence
that delineates the buffer that is underwater at this point.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So what is the point of a non-turf buffer,
right? It's to stop nitrogen'being spread on the lawn and
running directly into the lake, right? So when the water is
high, in the summertime or spring, you are telling me that no
one is putting nitrogen on the lawn so there is, it doesn't
matter it that the buffer is underwater?That doesn't make any
sense. Right now we have a seasonal non-turf buffer. That
doesn't work for me at all.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I will say that everything that was roughly 20
foot landward of the water was dead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is one definition of non-turf. That's also
a good point. Everything that was landward 20 foot is dead,
which suggests that it has been submerged, so what is the point
of it being turf versus non-turf when we can make it non-turf
20-feet from the water and call it what it is.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Would the applicant--
MR. ANDERSON: I have'a problem. The only problem is we don't
have a good way of mapping it.,
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: My suggestion would be the possibility of
going back to the owners,and discussing the Board flagging a
delimiter, flagging it so we established an area that is just
let it go natural and not mowed. Because I don't think the geese
are clipping the grass all the way down.
MR. ANDERSON: All I'm saying is you can take a swath of land
with respect to where the shoreline is today and create a buffer
based on that line, based on the measurement.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And measure from the house.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. You can do that. But that's what the answer
is, believe it or not because it's just, you should know,
because we have had this problem in some of these places farther
from the shoreline. And you may not know that you had record
rainfall in December, January, February. You had a wet spring,
relatively dry, very dry July into August, except for last
night. And so you are seeing unusually high water levels today.
Board of Trustees 67 August 14, 2019
So it's not presumably reflective over the long run is the point
I'm trying to make.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, I would assume that at some point,
maybe ten years, you can use the deck as a non-turf buffer.
Because we might be up there. That's just my guess.
MR. ANDERSON: I don't think I want to speculate about that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We know we have record high water level now.
It's more than we have ever seen before. I think the chicken
wire is good evidence of that. Is it possible we can get an
additional ten feet on that and then map it on the set of plans.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And then also the cover type that is
described by the LWRP and all the surrounding properties tend to
have established natural vegetation, shrub land and natural
weeds and forbs of the lake environment, and this is essentially
what I think the Board's concern, is that we see lawn from the
house on this general slope going right into the water, so the
idea is sort of leave it alone zone with a four-foot wide access
path going to the dock.
MR. ANDERSON: I believe it was the first house built on, it was
the old Penney house.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Understand, I remember when George was
there.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'm not sure if the Penney house or the
Lindsey house was built first. It's a close tie. What I was
thinking for a non-turf buffer would be if we go to the site now
and measure ten feet back from where the water is currently and
set that mark off the house and measure it from the house. For
instance if it's 58 feet, that will be the new marker.
MR. ANDERSON: I could do that for you if you'd like. That's easy
for me to do.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because ten feet from the line now we speculate
that would still be underwater.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Surrounding that lake, that is the most unique
property where it's veryshallow. Most of the other houses, next
door is the Selic house, they have a pretty steep pitch. So
that's the, the problem is if there is a six-inch rise in water,
could be 20 feet on their property where everybody else doesn't
have that runoff.
MR. ANDERSON: That is correct.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Possibly we can table this.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. We'll come back. We'll take the measurements,
revise the plans and,get them to you. You can go out and look at
them again if you so wish.
TRUSTEE-WILLIAMS: And if you could possibly just stake it in the
field. Some little flags.
MR. ANDERSON: And what we'll probably do is the measurement of
this won't be taken from the shoreline. It will be taken from
the house.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Then just be aware under new protocol it can't
be just drawn in the plan. It needs to be a whole new stamped
Board of Trustees 68 August 14, 2019
approved. New set of plans.
MR. ANDERSON: We'll put them on the plans.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It can't be just drawn in and initialed. We
need a whole new set of plans.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, any further comments?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table this application at
the applicant's request for submission of new plans detailing
the measurement from the house to the proposed non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 21, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
on behalf of CHARLES G:PARDEE requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 26'x16' stone patio on the southeastern side of the
existing single family dwelling; erect a 6' high wooden fence
along the southwestern corner of the subject parcel adjacent to
the western property,line and replace the landward retaining
wall in-place using corrugated pvc sheathing of which 106.0'
linear feet to be replaced;'relocate the existing wooden deck
and beach stair access assembly consisting of a 4'x10' set of
upper stairs to a 10'x10' deck to 4'x10' lower steps installed
±20' east of its original location (±15.0'from eastern property
line) and to reorient the lower stair portion of the assembly to
the east side of the deck portion of the assembly. Located:
6760 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-126-11-3.1
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on August 6th.
Field notes mention a non-turf buffer from the crest of the bank
seaward to match the neighbor to the east, and gutters to
leaders to drywells.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. VALENTE: Susan and Louis Valente. We are the adjoining
property. We take exception and object to the proposed location
of the deck and the beach stair access. It is the structure they
are proposing is considerably larger than what has been there
for 20 years. What they are proposing is a 10x10, 100-square
foot deck suspended, pushed all the way up against my property,
20 feet to the east, suspended over the bulkhead. And because
of that they will be looking down on my bulkhead rather than
sitting in the center of their property. They have 106-foot
frontage on the waterfront, and originally the beach access
steps and a small landing and steps was equidistant from both
properties. They request that they move it 20 feet to the east
up against our property. And because it's up in the air, they
are looking down at our bulkhead. So I was hoping that you would
deny just that portion of it because it's a detriment to our
I
Board of Trustees 69 August 14, 2019
property, and it certainly changes, because of this size of the
structure, and no doubt they want to move it because where it
originally was, was sitting right in the middle of their
property, and now at the size of this structure it would be
blocking their view. So are requesting to move it 20 feet to
the east and placing it up against plus or minus 15 feet of my
property. It seems that there are other alternatives available.
I don't understand why it's necessary for them to move that up
against my property. It's built on what is considered a fragile
berm, very close to my berm. And at the same time we feel that
we are losing our privacy. When there are other alternatives and
options available to them. Every other part of the application
seems fine, but I think for those two reasons it should be
restricted that they cannotmove that structure, which
incidentally has turned into 100-square foot party deck complete
with a built-in bar. And many other aspects that you may not be
aware of, but that the builder has told us about.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Must have left the bar off the plans here. I
don't see it.
MR. VALENTE: May I speak?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, sir.
MR. VALENTE: Thank you, very much for being here at this hour.
My,name Lou Valente. I'm a former teacher and pizza man. I been
at this house for 24 years. When I bought it, I bought it with
money in two pillowcases: And I been very happy and very proud
to be a member of this community. I'm retired. I'm here all the
time. And I'm here to appeal to your common sense.
In the 24 years I have',been here, I have had six owners at
this house. I've gotten along with all of them, including one
who needed to rebuild his bulkhead and he didn't have enough
room on the side of his house, I let the bulldozers on my side
and then he fixed it. He did the right thing.
Now we get these people that come in, bought me a bottle of
wine and some tomatoes with garlic in it, thinking I'm Italian,
you like garlic. Little did she know I was a pizza man, I'm sick
of garlic. Anyway, she brought me a bottle of wine and tomatoes.
I don't eat tomatoes. But she bought the tomatoes. She is the
companion to Mr. Pardee. And she promised me all kinds of
things. And I'm like an idiot, yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm watering
the edges, the water, to make sure that they grow because on
their side, they dug them up, the roots are coming up. Because
it didn't dawn on me they were building a deck. Now in the
morning when we sit out to have coffee, if I forget the milk in
my coffee, I could say Jill, Julie, whatever her name is, could
you put some milk in this because we right here. That's okay.
.And I'm all for progress and making money. I understand. Let
them make money. I want workers to work. Fine. Provided they
are legal. There's three or four illegal workers there, even on
Sunday morning. Sunday morning. I'm putting up with cutting
stones. And in the neighborhood they keep telling me, dad,
that's okay. My family got three boys, it doesn't end here.
Board of Trustees 70 August 14, 2019
Everybody's got to make money. Including the planners. Because
they going to have to review the plans. And it costs money.
That's all right. Just I'm appealing to your decency. He has 160
feet or whatever. He's been here six months or seven months.
It's not one of us. I think it's an interloper. So the bottom
line is, the decency is, please, you can approve it, that's
fine. But please let him go back to where the steps and the little --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Valente, please speak to the application. We
understand your concern.
MR. VALENTE: The hour is late and I understand, nobody wants to
be here.
MS. VALENTE: Can I ask a question? Isn't it the spirit of the
law would also be that is itinecessary? Are there alternatives?
And does it impact in the detrimental manner a neighbor. So
could that one section, the fact that the 20, why is it
necessary to move the stairs 20 feet against my property?
MR. VALENTE: We are going to go. We been here too long.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No,,we are happy to answer your questions.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: If you could give us a moment to discuss it.
You are more than welcome to be part of the conversation.
MR. VALENTE: Sure. I'm going to go back out and check my blood
pressure.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: No, no. Have a seat, Mr. Valente.
Bruce, if I could ask yo,u, is there a reason that it's
being moved toward the east?
MR. ANDERSON: I have no idea. What I would suggest we find out
that answer and see if we could move it more to the center.
Because I do understand your concern, okay?
It would probably have been better if they had called us because
I could have maybe done this. So what I would suggest we do is
table it, let me talk to the Pardee's and relay these concerns.
10'x10' deck is not a gigantic deck of any sort. I don't think
that's the issue. I think it's the proximity. It was laid out 15
feet from the property line because that's what complies with
the code. That's not to say it couldn't be further from that
property line as an accommodation to a neighbor. And I think
that is what is being asked.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I think also some of the neighbor's concern
is that if they are going to,put a bar and other structures out
there that we don't approve. So please make it clear to your
client when you go back to him that what he applies for is what
he gets. And we'll be there for review afterwards, and obviously
if they built something that is not on the plans, there is
probably a couple of people who will call right away on that, so
we'll hear about it.
MR. ANDERSON: We are trying to get a handle on this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. And obviously a lot of work was done
there that was not permitted. So we are keeping a close eye on
this property right now.
And then the other thing, too, is when you do come back to
us, and this is somewhat related, you might want to consider
Board of Trustees 71 August 14, 2019
putting a non-turf buffer on your plans.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, the whole area between the bulkhead is sand.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes-It needs to be labeled though. It needs to
be officially labeled.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay, that's fine.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions or comments?
MR. VALENTE: Thank you, for everything. I said my daughter
already put all the objections and she mailed them to you
people._ So I do thank you 'again and it's time to go home.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So at this point what will happen is the
application is being tabled at the applicant's request for
further review. He'll talk to the property owner and see if the
stairway can be moved further from your property line as a
courtesy to you. Depending on when he gets new plans in, there
will be a continuance of this public hearing. So if you want to
touch base with,the clerk Elizabeth Cantrell, she can, before
the next public hearing to see if this is on the agenda.,
MR. VALENTE: Thank you; all of you, have a good night.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wish to speak regarding this
application?
(Negative response).
Questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none motion to table this application at the applicant's request.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, very'much.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So moved.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO:'AII in`favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
m
t
Michael J. Domino, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
1t�
SEP 1 9 2019 @3 y7p
n •
S rho 0Q'CZ��