HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-09/18/2019 Michael J.Domino,President �rg so Town Hall Annex
John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President ,L®� ®�® 54375 Route 25
Glenn GoldsmithP.O.Box 1179
OW Southold,New York 11971
A.Nicholas Krupski
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Greg Williams id �® Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECEIVED
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ' i o�
OCT 1 2019e8SSwn�
Minutes Q*t
MooQ-C
�
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
5:30 PM
Present Were: Michael J. Domino, President
John M. Bredemeyer, Vice-President
Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Greg Williams, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist
Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 5:30 PM at the Main
Meeting Hall
WORK SESSIONS: Friday, October 11, 2019 at 4:30 PM at the Town Hall Annex
2nd floor Board Room, and on Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at
5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of July 17, 2019 and August 14, 2019.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good evening, and welcome to our Wednesday,
September 18th, 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 start by introducing the people
on the dais. To my left is Trustee Bredemeyer, Trustee Goldsmith, Trustee Krupski
and Trustee Williams. To my right we have Assistant Town Attorney Damon Hagan,
Senior Clerk Typist Elizabeth Cantrell, and Court Stenographer Wayne Galante, and
also with us tonight from the Conservation Advisory Council, we have John Stein.
Agendas are located out in the hallway and also on the podium.
We have a couple of postponements. If you look at the agenda, on page nine, we
have number three on page ten, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of WILLIAM A. & BINA
/ t
Board of Trustees 2 September 18, 2019
LOIS requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to restore 230 linear feet
of rock revetment; restore 60 cubic yards of clean sand fill and replant disturbed areas
with Rosa Rugosa (@ 1,800 sq. ft.), or any areas which Rosa Rugosa has not been re-
established; replace 6'x12' steps damaged in storm with 6' wide natural stone steps
(revetment as-built repaired up'to access and easterly 35 linear feet remains to be
repaired).
Located: 58105 Route 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44-2-9, has been postponed.
We have on pages 13 through 15, numbers 13 through 23. Those are all
postponed, and they are listed as follows:
Number 13, 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 14, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of ROBERT & KIM CAGNAZZI requests
a Wetland Permit for the existing one-story, 1,271 sq. ft. cottage with 264 sq. ft. attached
covered porch; demolish and remove 3,814 sq. ft. of existing gravel driveway east
of cottage and a 1,824 sq. ft dwelling; construct a proposed 4,439 sq. ft. footprint,
two-story dwelling'with 1,000 sq. ft. attached garage and 1,907 sq. ft. porch and balcony;
install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff; construct a 4,407 sq. ft.
raised terrace approximately 2'-3' above grade; proposed 774 sq. ft. in-ground swimming
pool, retaining walls and steps to grade; adjacent to existing cottage, construct
2,525 sq. ft. of new walkways, stepping stones (total 131.25 sq. ft.), and formal garden
area (235sq.ft.); proposed 457 sq. ft. gravel parking area north of cottage and landward
of gravel driveway (802 sq. ft. within Trustee jurisdiction); 419.63 linear feet of proposed
pool fencing and gate; establish a 4'wide access path to the beach; from Peconic Bay
install and perpetually maintain a Non-Disturbance buffer located between tidal wetlands
and edge of bank, fluctuating width of Non-Disturbance buffer a minimum of 20' to a
maximum of 55', and install and perpetually maintain a Non-Turf buffer along the
landward edge of the Non-Disturbance buffer up to existing edge of clearing; and from
the easterly wetlands establish and perpetually maintain a 35'wide Non-Disturbance
buffer, and install and perpetually maintain a 15' Non-Turf buffer along the landward
edge of the Non-Disturbance Buffer.
Located: 12700 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-116-6-14
Number 15, En-Consultants on behalf of LOIS J. & NICHOLAS M. CAMARANO
requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 1,447 sq. ft. one-story, single-family dwelling
and to construct an 861 sq. ft. one-story addition with 5'-8'wide basement entry
stairs and a 57,sq. ft. one-story front entry addition accessed by 5.2'x11' covered steps
and 5.2'x6.9' uncovered steps; remove an approximately 1,200 sq. ft. portion of existing
driveway and install new pervious gravel driveway located partially in Chapter 275
jurisdiction; and install a drainage system of leaders, gutters and drywells to contain roof
runoff.
Located: 335 South Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-11-19
Number 16, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of ALBERT G. WOOD-requests
a Wetland Permit to remove existing concrete seawall; debris in work area to be cleared
to a N.Y.S. approved upland disposal facility; install ±109 linear feet of new rock
revetment to be constructed with ±13' of stone armoring at north corner and ±1'0' of
stone armoring at south corner; backfill with ±137 cubic yards of clean upland fill;
existing wooden bulkhead to be modified to elevation 5.9 at point of intersection with
Board of Trustees 3 September 18, 2019
revetment; and bulkhead modification to occur within property owner's lines only.
Located: 1000 First Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-7-32
Number 17, 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
Number 18, 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 1Z 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
Number 19, En-Consultants on behalf of MARY ANN HOWKIN_S
requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing dock structure
(consisting of a 4'x41' fixed catwalk, 3'x11' ramp, two (2)
4'x20' floats, and a 6'x20' float), and construct a new fixed
timber dock with water and electricity, consisting of a 4'x111'
fixed elevated catwalk constructed with open-grate decking; a
3'x14' hinged ramp; and a 6'x20' floating dock secured by two
(2) 8" diameter pilings and situated in an "U configuration.
Located: 3245 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-7
Number 20, 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
Number 21, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of DANIEL FOX requests
a Wetland Permit for the removal and replacement of 199 linear
feet of existing bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead in same
location as existing, and a 24 linear foot bulkhead return on
westerly side; proposed bulkhead height to be raised 18" above
existing top cap elevation; install a 4'x6' cantilevered
platform with a 30" wide by 14' long aluminum ramp leading to
-the relocated 6'wide by 60' long existing floating dock; and to
dredge 55 cubic yards of sand from area surrounding floating dock.
Located: 470 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.28
Number 22, 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
drywalls to contain roof runoff; and install an I/A OWTS septic
system for the new structure.
Board of Trustees 4 September 18, 2019
Located: 3655 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-136-2-11
Number 23, JOSEPH BARSZCZEWSKI, JR. requests a Wetland
Permit for the as-built clearing of a vacant lot; adding ±200
cubic yards of fill and grading out in order to raise the grade
of the property; plant 15 shrubs 4' apart along southeast property
line; and plant 18 shrubs 4' apart along southwest property line.
Located: 110 Lawrence Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-2-7
So those are all postponed.
At this time I wish to announce under Town Code Chapter
275-8(c), files were officially closed seven days ago and
submission of any paperwork after that date may result in a
delay of the processing of the application.
At this time, I'll entertain a motion to have our next field
inspection on Wednesday, October 9th, 2019, at 8:00 AM at Town
Hall annex. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll entertain a motion to hold the next Trustee
meeting Wednesday, October 16th, 2019, at 5:30 PM here at the main
meeting hall.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like a motion to hold the next work
session at the Town annex board room on the second floor on
Friday, October 11th, 2019, 4:30 PM, and at 5:00 PM on
Wednesday, October 16th, 2019, here at the main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time, I'll entertain a motion to approve
the Minutes of the July 17th, 2019, and August 14th, 2019, meetings.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
A check for$10,592.42 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office
for the General Fund.
11. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notice's are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
III. RESOLUTIONS -OTHER:
Number one, RESOLVED, the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Southold, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
hereby declare itself Lead Agency in regards to the application
Board of Trustees 5 September 18, 2019
of ANDREW & KATELYN TITUS;
Located: 3140 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-40
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Number two, RESOLVED,-the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Southold, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
hereby declare itself Lead Agency in regards to the application
of 40200 MAIN, LLC (ORIENT BY THE SEA), c/o RWN MANAGEMENT, LLC;
Located: 40200 Route 25, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-9-8.1
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 IX Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, September 18, 2019, are classified as Type II
Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review
under SEQRA:
Scott & Susan Ambrosio SCTM# 1000-104-7-16.1
Brion Lewis & Lesie Simitch SCTM# 1000-40-1-8
William A. & Bina Lois SCTM# 1000-44-2-9
Stephanie Lagoudis & loannis Lagoudis SCTM# 1000-135-1-25.1
Fred & Maureen Dacimo SCTM# 1000-27-2-4
Fishers Island Development Corporation (Fishers Island Club) SCTM# 1000-4-6-9
Black Rock Holdings II,,LLC SCTM# 1000-57-2-27
Robert & Kim Cagnazzi SCTM# 1000-116-6-14
Lois J. & Nicholas M. Camarano SCTM# 1000-106-11-19
Mary Ann Howkins SCTM# 1000-86-2-7
Daniel Fox SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.28
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Resolved to the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Southold hereby finds the following applications more fully '
described in Section IX Public Hearings Section of the Trustee
agenda dated Wednesday, September 18, 2019, are classified as
unlisted actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations.
Andrew& Katelyn Titus SCTM# 1000-87-3-40
40200 Main, LLC (Orient By The Sea) SCTM# 1000-15-9-8.1
Albert G. Wood SCTM# 1000-117-7-32 '
That's my resolution.
MR. HAGAN: Just to be clear, we are moving for both Type,ll and
the Unlisted Actions that are listed in the agenda in a single motion?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, sir.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is that your motion?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
Board of Trustees 6 September 18, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO NEW
YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT NYCCR PART 617:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral V, number one:
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc. On behalf of
40200 MAIN, LLC (ORIENT BY THE SEA), c/o RWN MANAGEMENT, LLC requests a
Wetland Permit for exterior renovation of the existing restaurant structure that consists
of new windows and doors, removing windows, installing windows in new locations,
installing doors in new locations; closing window and door openings; repair the roof as
necessary; repair and replace the existing siding as necessary; install gutters to leaders
to drywells for roof runoff; remove and replace the existing southern deck in-kind and
in-place at 1,418 sq. ft. with a small raised section at 161 sq. ft. near the restaurant;
remove and replace and elevate the existing eastern deck section in-kind and within the
existing footprint at 1,093 sq. ft.; reconstruct an existing exterior bar in-kind and in-place
within the eastern deck footprint; remove the existing north entrance ramp at 305 sq. ft.
And construct a new entrance ramp in same location at 197sq.ft.; remove a south
access ramp at 58 sq. ft. and construct access steps at 19.8 sq. ft.; construct new
access stairs for decking at 20.6 sq. ft., new 45.6 sq. ft. exit stair and landing; a new
fuel area stair at 26.4 sq. ft.; remove existing 1,000 gal. fuel tank and surrounding fence
and install new duel fuel tank at 4,000 gallons for diesel and gasoline, and install a 6'
tall, 55' linear foot long surrounding stockade fence; permanent removal of in-ground
4,000 gal. fuel tank; upgrade, repair or replace existing sidewalks surrounding
restaurant; all restaurant work to be conducted from the landward side; and a debris
boom will be installed and maintained during construction in the water surrounding the
restaurant area in order to contain potential fly-away debris.
Located: 40200 Route 25, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-9-8.1
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 September 11, 2019, and having considered the survey of property by
George Walbridge Surveyors, P.C., last dated August 2, 2019 Elevation Datum NAVD
1988, existing marina conditions site plan by S.L. Maresca Associates, Hampton Bays
dated July 24, 2019, and partial site plan by Mark Schwartz &Associates last dated
September 11, 2019, at the Trustee's September 16, 2019 work session; and,
WHEREAS, on September 18, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared
itself Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, on September 18, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees classified'the
application as an unlisted action pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, in reviewing site plan by Mark Schwartz &Associates last dated September
11, 2019, the Board of Trustees has indicated no significant adverse effects to the
environment are likely to occur should the project be implemented as proposed as all
restaurant work will be conducted from the landward side and a debris boom will be
installed and maintained during construction in the water surrounding the restaurant
area in order to contain potential fly-away debris.
THEREFORE, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees
Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to
1
Board of Trustees 7 September 18, 2019
SEQRA for the aforementioned project.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next one, number two:
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: En-Consultants on behalf of ANDREW& KATELYN
TITUS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock with water and
electricity, consisting of a 4'x57' fixed elevated catwalk constructed with open-grate
decking; a 3'x14' hinged ramp; and a 6'x20' floating dock secured by two (2) 8"
diameter pilings and situated in a "T" configuration.
Located: 3140 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-40
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 September 11, 2019, and having considered the survey of Kenneth M.
Woychuk Land Surveying, PLLC dated February 10, 2019 with hydrological survey, last
dated April 8, 2019; and site plan for this proposed project submitted by En-Consultants
dated July 29, 2019, at the Trustee's September 16, 2019 work session; and,
WHEREAS, on September 18,-2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared
itself Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, on September 18, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees classified the
application as an unlisted action pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, in reviewing site plan submitted by En-Consultants dated July 29, 2019,
survey of Kenneth M. Woychuk Land Surveying, PLLC dated February 10, 2019 and
water depths, it has been determined by the Board of Trustees that all potentially
significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein:
Navigation: The proposed dock meets standards and does not extend beyond 1/3
across the water body. Depths for the dock terminus are within Town Trustees, New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation and United States Army Corps.
Of Engineers guidelines and there is no recognized Federal/New York State/Town
navigation channel in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure.
Scope: The proposed dock is comparable to docks on neighboring properties in
an area where docks historically are used for commercial and recreational purposes.
Scope in relation to the riparian rights of shell fishers: The plan allows a standard
ramp to float design that will not impede access for those seeking shellfish and
crustacea in season.
Scope in relation to view shed: The seaward end of the proposed dock will not
extend appreciably beyond existing docks. As such the perspective will not be
discernibly different from the existing view.
Environmental upkeep: The dock design projects a usual lifespan of 30 years
with limited pile replacement so,as to minimize disturbance of the'bottom.
THEREFORE, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees
Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to
SEQRA for the aforementioned project. That is my resolution.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
1
Board of Trustees 8 September 18, 2019
VI. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:,
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral VI, Resolutions, Administrative Permits.
In order to simplify'our meetings, the Board of Trustees regularly group together
actions that are deemed similar or minor in nature.
Accordingly, I make a motion to approve as a group numbers one through three,
and six through nine. They are listed as follows:
Number one, ROBERT &JEANNETTE COANE request an Administrative Permit
to install an 8'x10' storage shed.
Located: 1555 Smith Drive North, Southold. SCTM# 1000-76-2-4.1
Number two, CHRISTOPHER AUSTIN requests an Administrative Permit to
replace wood stoop with bluestone and to add a 5'x5' overhang to front door with a 6"x6"
support post in concrete; for the existing 29.9'x12' bluestone patio; 6'x9''bluestone
landing and 5'x6' bluestone landing; and to install a 12' section of 3.5' picket fence with
3' gate on west side of house and a 8' section of 3.5' picket fence on the east side of
house.
Located: 915 Bungalow Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-3-11.1
Number three, Douglas McGahan on behalf of ROBERT & PATRICIA ELLIOTT
requests an Administrative Permit to install approximately 60' of 6' high privacy fence at
east property line extending from existing fence toward the bluff.
Located: 275 West Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-110-7-11.1
Number six, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of SUZANNE FRASER requests an
Administrative Permit to construct a 4'x8' timber kayak rack.
Located: 800 Lakeside Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-3-6
Number seven, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of STUART THORN requests
an Administrative Permit to resurface the minimal portion of the existing patio around
pool that is within Trustee jurisdiction, (including replacement of"stair' portion with
patio). All work is 99' from top of bluff.
Located: 19455 Soundview'Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-21
Number eight, LEE & CATHERINE SEWELL request an Administrative Permit to
demolish existing 10'x40'deck and construct a 13'x34' deck with approximate 28'x20' on
grade patio with fire pit.
Located: 170 Dolphin Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-7-6 r
And number nine, Condon Engineering, P.C., on behalf of JEFFREY BLUM
requests an Administrative Permit to conduct construction activity within 100' of flagged
wetland line for installation of 15'x30' (450 sq. ft) in-ground pool with 890.5 sq. ft.
framed deck with site drainage and septic system with abandonment of the existing
cesspools.
Located: 420 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-22
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number four, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of
STANLEY CHASE requests an Administrative Permit to remove existing 5' high
stockade fence on westerly property line and replace with 160 If of 4' high spruce
fencing, beginning at Ole Jule Lane and ending 20' from edge'of canal; and to install
160 If of 4' high spruce fencing along the easterly property line beginning at Ole Jule
Lane and ending 20' from edge of canal; clear underbrush while retaining trees; and
for a 10-year maintenance permit to hand-cut Common Reed (Phragmites australis)
to 12" in height by hand, as needed.
Board of Trustees 9 September 18, 2019
Located: 4060 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-26.2
The LWRP found this to be'consistent, inconsistent and exempt.
The inconsistency is the proposal to clear underbrush recommended as inconsistent.
The method and limits of clearing and areas have not been identified. Turbidity erosion
controls have not been proposed.
I conducted a field inspection'on this property on September 5th, 2019. This
application is for an as-built project. The clearing was to access the property, and it is
already filled in, which addresses the concerns of the LWRP coordinator. As such, I'll
move to approve this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number five, STEVEN & DEBORAH WICK request an
Administrative Permit for a 10-year maintenance permit to hand-cut Common Reed
(Phragmites australis) to 12" in height by hand, as needed.
Located: 1541 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-1-19.7
On August 27, Trustee Krupski did a field inspection. The notes read as follows:
Location requires extensive work at least 25 to 30 feet from the current border
retaining wall. Okay to get the permit with the condition of no fill or sod to be
planted.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be exempt.
Therefore, I make a motion to approve this application with the additional caveat
that there will be no clearing encroaching five feet of the mosquito ditch.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral 7. Again, in order to simplify our
meeting motion to approve as group items one through eleven. They are listed
as follows:
Number one, Mark Kaffaga on behalf of ALLAN SCHWARTZMAN
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#8825 from Donald Rynd &
Susan Nahill, as issued on June 22, 2016.
Located: 1165 West Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-110-7-2
Number two, Patricia C. Moore on behalf of RENEE PEPERONE
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#9480 from Martha Stevens
Living Trust c/o Iris Bikel, Trustee, as issued on June 19, 2019.
Located: 2563 Laurel Way, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-121-4-15
Number three, HERBERT & MARIBETH FINN request a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#5213 from James Donohue, as issued on November 22, 2000.
Located: 230 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-17-17.9
Number-four, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of JORDAN & LAURA ROGOVE
requests a Transfer of.Wetland Permit#9457 from Michael & Dana Savino, as issued
on May 15, 2019.
Located: 1945 Bayview Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-6-37
Number five, En-Consultants-on behalf of LOIS J. & NICHOLAS'M. CAMARANO
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#457 from,Dr. V. Krstulovic, as issued on
Board of Trustees 10 September 18, 2019
October 15, 1987 and Amended on June 19, 2013.
Located: 335 South Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-11-19
Number six, BARBARA HAZARD requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit#9369 to provide water and electric to dock.
Located: 1575 Harbor Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-2-1.2
Number seven, Frederick R. Weber, R.A. on behalf of NICOLE LEITCH requests - -an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9282 to construct a 685 sq. ft.
wood deck in lieu of the originally proposed 685 sq. ft. stone patio so as to allow an
existing tree to grow through a hole in the deck.
Located: 1950 Clearview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-10-27
Number eight, En-Consultants on behalf of PHILIP B. CAMMANN
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9442 to
construct a 712 sq. ft., two-story addition in lieu of the originally proposed
611 sq. ft. two-story addition and 101 sq.-ft. covered porch with steps.
L Located: 1500 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-12-21.3
Number nine, Michael Kimack on behalf of CEDAR BEACH PARK
ASSOCIATION requests an Administrative Amendment to Administrative
Permit#9302 to remove a 3' portion of existing dock, construct a 12' bulkhead
with 2' and 6' returns; backfill with 3 yds. of clean fill.
Located: Cedar Point Drive East, part of area along Pleasant Inlet. SCTM# 1000-90-3
Number ten, 1050 WEST COVE ROAD, LLC requests an Administrative Amendment
to Wetland-Permit#9501 to relocate the location of proposed septic system out of
Trustee jurisdiction.
Located: 1050 West Cove Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-5-1
Number eleven, Frederick Weber on behalf of RAYMOND RAIMONDI requests
an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8738 to relocate grill further landward.
Located: 1150 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM#: 1000-104-7-6
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 12, KENNETH QUIGLEY requests a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#3770 from Thomas Prokop, as issued.on August 25th,
1989; and for an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#3770 for the
existing 4'x26' dock and 3'x12' ramp in lieu of what was originally permitted.
Located: 2245 Little Peconic Bay Lane, Southold. SCTM#: 1000-90-1-16
The Board is familiar with this site having inspected it on August 22nd as well as
on September 11th. Because the existing structure is not in conformity with the
original permit, I would move to deny this application, the transfer of this Wetland
permit..
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HAGAN: Sorry, that last application was a transfer and amendment. You only
made a motion regarding denying the transfer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. At this time with respect to the
application of Kenneth Quigley for transfer and amendment with respect to the
request for administrative amendment to the wetland permit#3770, whereas the
application was not found inconformity to allow a transfer I would move we deny the
administrative amendment in this action.
Board of Trustees 11 September 18, 2019
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
VIII. RESOLUTIONS -OTHER:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under Resolutions - other, by way of background,
Goldsmith's Inlet has been beset with undissolved oxygen and there is some evidence
there were fish kills there. The Town had a rigorous maintenance dredging program
there, as well as Suffolk County, and Suffolk County through the Office of Suffolk County
Leg. Krupski has indicated that the county has reviewed a prior position concerning the
environmental suitability of county support for dredging this inlet. And this resolution is
in support of county support to have a more permanent protection of the inlet through
maintenance dredging to allow for water circulation and better dissolved oxygen.
Resolution in Support of Suffolk County Dredging Goldsmiths Inlet, Peconic
WHEREAS, Goldsmith's Inlet, Peconic, an inlet of Long Island Sound, provides water
flow and valuable nutrient and oxygen exchange essential to the health of this, one of
the last largely undisturbed pristine sub-embayment of Long Island Sound, an estuary of
National Importance; and
WHEREAS, the inlet and associated embayment of the same name represent Public
Lands underwater held in Trust by,the Southold Town Board of Trustees; and
WHEREAS, the Suffolk County Park at Goldsmith's Inlet, encompasses a watershed
containing wetlands, upland woodlands and a natural barrier beach, all inextricably
bound to this valuable and rare unique ecological unit; and
WHEREAS, these public parklands and overlying waters support populations of
breeding and or rare anadromous and catadromous fish, waterfowl and substantial
shellfish resources which all rely upon undisturbed nutrient and oxygen exchange
through the inlet; and
WHEREAS, repeated and persistent blockage of the inlet due to a number of factors,
both anthropogenic and natural, have historically put the inlet's waters at risk for fish kills
from low dissolved oxygen or massive swings in the natural salinity profile; and
WHEREAS, Southold Town and Suffolk County recognize the importance of our
continued stewardship of the inlet and maintenance of strong water flow through the
Inlet; and
WHEREAS, Southold Town and Suffolk County have shared in the continued care of
this inlet; now, therefore, it be
RESOLVED, the Southold Town Trustees respectfully request the support of Suffolk
County in establishing a comprehensive and rigorous dredging program to protect
Goldsmith's Inlet, its pristine waters and environs as we endeavor to meet out Public
Trust obligations.
That's my resolution.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral IX, Public Hearings.
At this time I'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and enter into
the public hearings.
Board of Trustees 12 September 18, 2019
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 and relevant to the
application at hand. And brief as possible.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, SCOTT & SUSAN AMBROSIO request an
Amendment to Wetland Permit#9379 to remove and replace in place all existing
footings and foundation, and add an additional 6'x34' of footing/foundation onto the east
side of the proposed dwelling for a total final footing/foundation to be 40' wide by 34'
deep; extend the proposed two-story dwelling width on the east side by 6' (plus porch
and patio); the front porch depth to be 6' 91/2"; extend back porch overhang by 2' in
depth; reconfigure driveway, add cobblestone to driveway sides and apron; construct a
25'x25' detached garage; install a 1,000 gal. propane tank; eliminate one (1) plastic
shed and install one (1) new 8'x10' plastic shed; relocate a/c units to the east side of the
dwelling; add a 6'x22' addition onto the east side of existing patio, overall patio to be
36'8" x22', and add a patio channel drain system for stormwater runoff.
Located: 1940 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-7-16.1.
The Trustees did a field inspection at this site on September 11th. Notes were
written by Trustee Krupski. They read as follows: Need to stop mowing of the wetlands
down to the dock., Can be no greater than the allowed four-foot wide path. Board needs
to discuss the house location now that the foundation has to be removed. Wetland line
needs to be re-evaluated. The existing foundation is near the wetland line or few feet of
the neighbor. New house should be pulled back now that the project is a demolition. All
Trustees were present.
The LWRP found this action to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council on September 11th resolved unanimously to
support the application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. AMBROSIO: I am. Scott Ambrosio.
I don't understand the lingo. Please explain to me, first of all, what your
determination is, because I don't understand your language in regard to our application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Would you like to address that?
MR. HAGAN: There has not been a determination yet. The Board is having a public
hearing now on your application.
MR. AMBROSIO: The reason I'm asking, there is a couple of things. The property does
not, the house does not cross into the wetlands. If you look at the map, you can see the
wetlands are in some cases 40 feet away from the back of the flag nine on the map.
So if you look to the easterly corner you'll see on the westerly corner is closer to
eleven feet off the wetlands. That's the patio.
What we did do is since the Board had approved the house on the existing
foundation with modifications, we also took a look at possibly, if we are not getting
an approval, to expand the house, if that's not going to be allowed, consider
possibly rebuilding the foundation that is there and putting a new,foundation in place
as it was originally approved where it was rebuilt. And I submitted plans to do that.
Board of Trustees 13 September 18, 2019
So there is a couple things. Our preference would obviously be, because of our
family situation, would be to have the extra six foot on the house. It's very important to
us. And the area that we are going over is toward our neighbor, it's not towards
the wetlands. It's actually towards our neighbor. So our preference would be to
construct the house with the additional six foot.
Now, we have lived in that house for the last eleven years. It's been there for
52 years. There has been no impact on the wetlands whatsoever from that structure.
So we are just trying to be mindful and flexible with this situation because we have
no house right now. That's all I have.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you. I want to enter into the record the fact that we have
received on September 17th the new plans and new project description, which I'll read
later. Any questions?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Okay. Again, acknowledging the fact that we have the submission of new
plans and new project description that flows from the fact that Mr. and Mrs.
Ambrosio attended a work session, Monday night's work session, and the
concerns of the Board were enumerated and the plans were in response to those
concerns.
So again, any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE'DOMINO: I make a motion to approve the new project description and
accept the new plans received September 17th, 2019. The new project description
is as follows:
Remove the existing foundation and install a 34'1"x34' new foundation, and
raise approximately two feet, and raise existing 30'x8"x22' waterside patio
approximately two feet. And the existing house foundation is to be demolished
and removed from the site. A new house and foundation shall be built with the
first floor elevation eleven foot. The house shall be built in the first --the house shall
be built in the same location as the existing house with a ten-foot addition landward
from the front of the existing house. No portion of the foundation will be closer to the
wetlands than previously exists. The existing patio is not to be demolished, and is to
be raised in-place, according to the house from its current surface height to an
elevation of 10.8 foot. The patio will not be expanded more than its existing footprint.
No portion of the patio will be closer to the wetland than presently exists. The existing
steps to the patio shall be modified to reach the new raised height of the patio.
The grade around the patio shall remain the same as the existing grade. And the
existing boxwood bushes shall remain with no change in the size of the grade of
planting bed.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 14 September 18, 2019
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, under Wetland &
Coastal Erosion Permits, number one, AMP Architecture on behalf
of BRION LEWIS & LESLIE SIMITCH requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit for a revision to existing wood deck at
top of bluff; portion to remain, 199 square feet seaward; wood
landing to remain, 98 square feet seaward.
Located: 62615 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-40-1-8
This project was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council, which voted
to support this application.
The project was reviewed by the LWRP coordinator, indicated that it's
inconsistent'with Town's,coastal policies 4 and 6.3, in that deck structures
were constructed without obtaining a wetlands permit and coastal erosion
permit. And that there is significant concern that the ArcGIS mapping
indicates that the deck is built over the bluff. Development is prohibited
on.the bluff other than walkways and stairs pursuant to Chapter 111 and
Coastal Erosion Hazard Area requirements for the bluff area.
Decks are not permissible. I
The Trustees inspected this site on September 11th and
noted that the combined area of all decks near the top of the
bluff exceed the current limit under the Coastal Erosion Hazard
Area, which is decks not more than 200-square feet are allowed if they
are open constructed, indicating that the topography of the land and the
proximity of the bluff that any new construction of a compliant deck should
not go, the landward-most portion of which, should be no further seaward
than the limit of the existing deck that is there.
So in,other words any construction or proposals should be
as landward as the existing.
The Board did, in reviewing at the work session, we did
review the ArcGIS mapping and indicated that based on our field
inspection, the upper, the existing deck is at that landward
most portion, is on stable ground, well vegetated and
essentially level ground, so that some of the concern,based on
the mapping would be alleviated with a deck construction that
stays at the most landward limit.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. SHERIDAN: Good evening, my name is Doug Sheridan. I am a
representative from AMP Architecture on behalf of the owner. We
would like to request that this public hearing be tabled until
next month. We want to, the reason being we want to provide the
reports from our other consultant in regard to the condition of
the existing deck and surrounding bluff. And we would like to
provide this to the Board before the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That sounds very reasonable.
Any questions for the Board while this gentleman is here?
(Negative response).
I move to table at the applicant's request.
Is anyone else here, before we close, anyone else here to
speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Board of Trustees 15 September 18, 2019
Seeing none, I move to table this application at the applicant's
request.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number two, 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 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 LWRP found this to be consistent and inconsistent. The
inconsistencies are the site plan shows the structure extending
25 feet seaward onto public beach, thereafter decreasing public
access now and in the future. 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.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application with retractable stairs at the base.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on August 6th.
We also reviewed this inhouse on September 11th to discuss the
engineer's letter. There is also a letter in the file from Ann
Walsh objecting to the project. We also have a letter from James
J. Deerkoski, Professional Engineer, dated August 16th, 2019, 1
which states:
To whom it may concern, Michael Kimack, agent for
the applicant. Donna Campbell has requested that I submit a
letter regarding impacts that may occur to an adjoining,
unprotected property as a result of the placement of a hardened
revetment wall. Future storm events will inevitably continue to
erode any unprotected slope. The convergence point at the part
of the slope with exposed, eroded slope may to a certain degree
aggravate erosion to the unprotected slope. However not
protecting an eroded and exposed slope will lead to further
degradation with future stabilization methods more expensive and
Board of Trustees 16 September 18, 2019
costly. Any questions, feel free to call.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. I think
the letter pretty much speaks for itself. Also the Board was
probably aware when you do harden one property there may be an -
issue with the property on both sides. To the east and to the
west there is an existing erosion. There are some photos there
that we have taken of the property to the west, which is Mrs.
Walsh's property. There is already erosion occurring on both
sides of this to the property lines and all we can basically do
is protect the slope and protect the property that Donna
Campbell does own up to the property lines, and hope that the
neighbors will in-kind re-enforce their own in order to protect
against any further encroachment of erosion on their properties.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This was tabled from last month. I believe
you addressed it, but the LWRP had concerns that the plans show
the structure extending 25 feet seaward.
MR. KIMACK: I'm not quite sure where that came from. Basically,
if you look at it, the bottom of the steps turns right at the
bottom of the existing slope, on the drawing. I'm not quite sure
where the 25 came from. If you look at the side drawing that I
basically did, the new armored revetment basically replaces the
slope of the one-and-one-half to five. So the point where the
armored revetment basically touches the beach area was the old
slope line, and at that point is where the new set of stairs
comes down. So there is no encroachment other than maybe four
feet beyond the existing, or what used to be existing slope line.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So it's basically at the toe of the bluff.
MR. KIMACK: Basically at the toe of the bluff.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Now, we discussed that engineer's letter at
work session. It left it a little open-ended as far as will it
or will it not enhance the erosion on the neighboring properties.
MR. KIMACK: Let's look at it this way. If we armor the Campbell
property and it's armored appropriately, and the neighbors do
not do anything to protect their slopes or their toes, there is
going to be erosion. To what extent there maybe has been because
of the armoring on that property, I don't think there is anyone,
no engineer will be able to put a quantitative analysis because
one property is armored and the two adjoining properties which
are already exposed to erosion were not armored, that a future
storm will cause further erosion is an inevitability regardless
of whether it was armored or not.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there any engineering steps as far as the
construction of the proposed rock revetment that could
potentially minimize, say if it was an angled return or--
MR. KIMACK: It's expected to be returned on both sides. But it's
a short return because one of the reasons that the original
design on this really that I had submitted to DEC was for a wood
retaining wall, primarily. DEC rejected that because they did
not want any further disturbance, cutting the dead-men back into
i
Board of Trustees 17 September 18, 2019
the slope. Which I can understand. It was their recommendation
that this particular design, the one-and-one-half, using that
particular weighted stone, it would be an appropriate method
with which to protect that slope. I resubmitted that design to
DEC. They approved it. I resubmitted it to the Trustees. So the
- - answer is yes,-we are coming across with a DEC-approved design
that they feel is going to stabilize the slope across, and
obviously in order to do that we have to come back, it's not
very far, because most of the erosion is only about three foot
high. We are not talking about -- it's just begun. My
recommendation to the owner is not, don't let it get any worse
with the next storm, because it will get worse.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
Ma'am?
MS. WALSH: Ann Walsh. I spoke last time. I just spoke with the
gentleman next to me, and I'm still concerned that it's the
stones land right on my property line. I'm not sure whether this
is my property line. I have a very, very old deed. It does
not-- it shows what the footage is across. I think it has to be
re-visited.
Also, I mentioned tonight that if you are aware or not,
that there are old bulkheadings in there that were put in not by
the last owner but by the owner before that, the gentleman named
Kristol: Mr. Kristol. He was very careful to put abutments going
up. Some of them are still there. I have not wandered that far
in, but I have wandered in, to see if they are still there. And
one certainly is. I don't know if the others are. I'm concerned
that the boundary line,on my side may extend more into that
property. So I would be willing.to have someone come and
re-measure everything. And Mr. Gatlin was kind enough to say
that he would mark out where the property line is. But the fact
that there are bulkheadings still imbedded in there, what do you
do when you get to the bulkheading; make a left turn or a right
turn or remove them?
I would think removing them would be detrimental, but I'm not an
engineer.
So those are just two more points I would like to be
entered into the record. That's it. Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I do have a question for you, Miss, if I may.
With the accelerated erosion, do you have any future plans to
armor your property?
MS. WALSH: Well, I have looked into it. I have an estimate from
the people who took away all the debris. I had the debris all
taken away. I was afraid kids would start to climb on it and
things would just get worse. So I'm considering it. I'm not
rushing into it. I'm just waiting to see what is going to happen
next door.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Understood.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What debris was taken away?
MS. WALSH: Well, I had steps going down to the beach that had
Board of Trustees 18 September 18, 2019
been built, they were there when we moved in. And the Campbell's
had a right-of-way to go on our property, to go down to the
beach. The Campbell's property is rented. For the first few
years, everything was fine. Eventually, the renters got a little
out of hand. I was liable for all of this. And I voiced my
concern, in a nice, neighborly way. And when_the erosion
happened, and the stairs went, I had them all removed, got rid
of all the debris that was laying everywhere. It was a very
freaky kind of thing. It was like a river came up and just
washed through. I think you did see it, the Trustees saw it when
they went to visit. So mine is hanging in abatement, waiting. I
certainly would have plantings done and stones put in, but I
don't know if it would be to the health of the dune. I don't
know. I certainly have more beach on my side left than Mrs.
Campbell. And it's kind of really shrinking. But I wish
everybody would get together and take care of that whole line of
the beach. I think there are only eight houses along there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is typically how it's best served, because
we see extreme erosion every month on our field inspection on
the Sound, and really the only thing that is, and unfortunately
going to stop it in many areas at this point is a stone revetment.
MS. WALSH: I wish in some we could instigate a whole general
r caretaker for the whole property that goes from where the motel
units are to the end of where the beach is. It's tremendous
erosion down there, too. Police used to come down scuba diving.
That is all gone. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding
this application?
MR. KIMACK: I'll add to my conversation with Ms. Walsh, we
will stake the lines between the two properties, so she is aware
where the property line is adjoining Ms. Campbell's. It's only
appropriate to do. Because it's on such an odd angle through
there. That's not a problem.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: For the record, we have a survey dated
July 16th, 2019, from Peconic Surveyors. And according to this
plan, the rock revetment is entirely on the Campbell property.
It doesn't extend onto the neighboring property at all.
MS. WALSH: Those are the people that did my original survey.
When I showed them what was going on, I could not get an
appointment to have anything done for a very long time. I think
December. Because everybody is so busy. And when the woman
there looked at it she said why are your steps in the middle of
your property. Which of course as far as I was concerned, they
were not: They were running along the property line. Especially
down at the end. Not on top.
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).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to close this hearing.
Board of Trustees 19 September 18, 2019
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
noting that the rock revetment will be at the toe of the bluff,
not extending into the beach, and that the engineer's letter
addresses the concerns on the neighboring properties.
Therefore, I make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
r
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under wetland permits, number one, 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 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 IPE 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±8" 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 (176 sq. ft.)with a 2'x8.5' (17 sq. ft.)wood bench for a
Board of Trustees 20 September 18, 2019
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
The LWRP coordinator found this to be both consistent and
inconsistent. The consistency lies within the bulkhead portion
of the application. And the inconsistencies are with the dock
structure. He noted that potentially there was a question over
public access along the shoreline and whether or not the dock
would degrade the environmental habitat. And what kind of
facility would be there.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees most recently did an inhouse review on the
file on September 11th. It should be noted for the record that
we have revised plans which were viewed at that time dialing the
dock back a considerable length, and removing a set of dolphins
to allow for one less boat for it.
Is there anyone here at this time wishing to speak to this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. That is
correct, basically, you have received a revised survey which
shows it went back to 64 feet extending dock to 54 feet. And two
sets of dolphins had been also removed.
Another point, too, is we had agreed also that all of the
decking be through-flow, not only on the-existing deck but on the
proposed deck, to make sure that's clarified. Then at our work
shop meeting, I had brought to your attention that I have not
basically put into my prior description that the removal of two
trees that I thought we may be able to hold on to, but found out
we could not. And I submitted a revised site plan showing the
location of those two trees, but also submitted a description
removing those two trees and replanting four three-and-a-half
inch by four-inch caliper Bloodgood Sycamores in the area
between the retaining wall and the bulkhead. The reason that
Bloodgoods were chosen is because they can take inundation from
salt water and they are a very hardy tree.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Sounds good.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak regarding this application or any further
comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this application.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I make a motion to approve this application
with the following stipulations and new project description:
The first stipulation is the dock will be built entirely
Board of Trustees 21 September 18, 2019
with thru-flow decking.
The second is that the dock structure will be built as per
the new plans dated September 5th, 2019, and the new
descriptions dated July 1st and September 16th. September 16th
addresses the tree issue which most recently came up at work
session, and states remove two 20'8" -- excuse me. Remove two 28 —and 20 caliper trees at the base of the existing bulkhead and
between new proposed bulkhead and concrete,retaining wall
replace with four three-and-a-half to four-inch caliper
Bloodgood Sycamore trees planted in the space between the new
retaining wall and bulkhead. I
The new project description dated July 1st: Replacement of
a portion of existing bulkhead. Remove approximately 130 feet of
existing wood sheathed bulkhead, whalers, top cap, tie-rods and
eight-inch diameter pilings. Dispose of offsite.
Install 130 linear feet of new vinyl (medium-weight) bulkhead
consisting of two 6"x6" whalers and one 4"x6" backboard, IPE top cap,
8" diameter pressure treated pilings and six-feet O.C. with W galvanized
steel tie-rods connected to eight-inch thick retaining wall with 3/8"x6"
square steel backplate.
New fixed dock, ramp, floating dock.
Construct new 4'-wide dock seaward from existing dock, elevation
7.39', with a two-tread staircase to elevation 5.5 feet, a distance of 64 feet,
with nine sets of eight-inch pressure treated pilings and eight feet on
center(256-square feet). Construct right angle dock section four-foot'in width
and 32-feet in length with four sets of eight-inch pressure-treated pilings,
(128-square feet). Install a 3'x8'-aluminum removable ramp, (24 square feet).
Construct and install a 6'x20' floating dock, two 10"-pressure treated pilings,
and one batter-piling with two 10-inch pressure-treated pilings. (120-square feet
total). Install four batter pilings consisting of two ten-inch pressure treated pilings.
Decking for new fixed dock sections and floating dock to be 5/4"x6" IPE wood,
with stainless steel screw fasteners. Total new fixed dock, ramp and floating dock
432-square feet.
Remove and replace wood decks, walkways and staircases.
Remove 562.5 square,feet of existing wood decks, staircase and replace
with pressure-treated wood framing and IPE wood decking with stainless steel
screw fasteners. Remove 396.3-square feet of remaining walkways and staircases
and replace with pressure-treated wood framing and IPE wood treads with stainless
steel screw fasteners.
Remove wood retaining wall, piers, wood walkway/deck and replace with
concrete retaining walls/gravel filled.
Remove 436 square foot of existing wood walkway/deck with wood retaining
wall and piers and replace with 223 linear feet, plus or minus of eight inches concrete
retaining walls with footings, filled with gravel and topped with one-and-one-half inch
to two-inch pea stone O/E for pervious,walkway/deck area.
Legalize existing fixed dock, bench and staircase.
Existing dock is 44' in length by four-feet in width (176 square feet)with a wood
bench 2'x8.5'. (17 square feet)for a total of 193-square feet. The Connecting staircase
is proposed to be removed and replaced as part of the wood deck, walkways and
staircases replacements. (Part of the 396 square foot above). Reframe deck
beams to fasten replacement decking of 5/4"x6'.IPE wood with stainless steel screw
Board of Trustees 22 September 18, 2019
fasteners.
Note: overall existing fixed dock (193 square feet) plus proposed fixed deck
extension, ramp and floating dock (432 square feet) is 625 square feet.
After an ample Trustee review, considering the LWRP coordinator and granting
of a permit will thereby bring it into consistency, I make a motion to approve the
application as amended.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number two, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of
FRED & MAUREEN DACIMO requests a Wetland Permit to replace the
foundation of a 36.2'x32' existing residential cottage and raise foundation to
FEMA standards, renovate the cottage, and repair or replace existing sanitary
system as needed; and for the existing 20.8'x68.5' one-story frame storage
building with concrete slab; existing 40.4'x20.3' two-story frame building;
concrete shed and fuel tank; existing 10.2'x14.2' shed; existing
74.3'x49'x28.7'x17.7'x51.6'x31.3' one-story storage building;
existing 8'x8' windmill tower base; and existing 5'x5'
outhouse/public bathroom for marina customers.
Located: 5520 Narrow River Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-27-2-4.
The Trustees visited the site on 9/11, with field notes
that recommend an IA septic. Concerns with project being
segmented, and noting a need to define the sanitary to make
certain the building height is raised appropriately.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed the application ,
and resolved to support the application, with notes that it
would be, the applicant should consider the installation of an
IA septic.
The LWRP coordinator was not able to review the application
due to insufficient application materials.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes, good evening. Patricia Moore on behalf of the
Narrow River marina. I apologize, I said Narrow River Road
'Marina. I also submitted in a memorandum to identify the issues
and specifically the narrow in on the two issues I'm concerned J
with, or that the Board expressed concern with.
This application is primarily to�just get a wetland permit
for all existing structures. All these structures are either
pre-existing or in fact have a permit. There is a permit#6988
for the larger marina storage building that the Trustees issued
in 2008.
The balance of the structures on this property were built
many, many years ago before zoning. We have an existing, there
are two homes on the property; one is the owner's house, which
is on the north side of the property. It's a two-story house. It
is north of the gravel parking area. That too should be
considered part of the permitting application for existing
structures. Again, all these structures have permits or pre-COs, '
they just predate the Trustee jurisdiction, so we want to bring
everything into Trustee jurisdiction with,a permit so that
normal maintenance and repairs can be done to the marina and
Board of Trustees 23 September 18, 2019
marina structures.
The issue is primarily that of the existing cottage. The
existing cottage that is there, and it's a 32x36 dwelling, that
house is in fact a three-bedroom house that has been there,
again, prior to zoning. In my memo I gave you the lineage. That
property was primarily occupied by a couple that lived there
from the 1970s and moved out last -- 2018. And that's when my
clients were able to start to even consider doing renovations to
the house.
We have two options. We can certainly do the interior work
just to make the house safe. You are permitted to do interior,
no Trustee issues, and it's a pre-existing, so we would be
limited to safety issues, electrical, plumbing, that type of
thing, to make sure that the house, since it had been occupied
for so long, we want to be sure there are no safety issues
associated with its continued occupancy.
However, doing all of this, even whether it's cosmetic or
safety, the architect, everybody has recommended that this house
really should be raised to FEMA standards. We would raise the
house to the flood elevation. The flood elevation of this
property and where'the cottage is, I would, I want to say AE-11.
I can check that. It's from my memory. In any case, it should be
on the survey. We have to try to keep the house out of harm's
way, and it doesn't make sense to us to restore it, fix it up,
paint it, fix the floors. I understand it was, somebody walked
through when they were inside. The prior tenant was very
private. She had been there since the 70s and the Dacimo family
when they purchased this property in the '80s, in honor of the
length of time that they were there, kept them there. So the
opportunity to do any interior fixing was very limited. So the
flooring needs to be repaired. It just doesn't make sense to
make the repairs when the property can still be the subject of
flood damage, or in this case it's not just flooding, it's the
flooding that comes off Narrow River Road. You get as much
flowing from the road as you do from the storm tides that many
times Narrow River experiences
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Pat, I have a suggestion. Since we don't
Have -- perhaps you might want to save this presentation for a
future date since we don't have an LWRP determination. We
understand the Building Department is going to go do an
inspection of the site, and we also don't have sufficient time
to read the memorandum that you submitted. So it might be
appropriate, more appropriate to wax eloquent at the
next meeting.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I have notes. Unfortunately, it's an incomplete
submission. We don't have building plans. Due to lack of plans,
the LWRP couldn't review it.
MS. MOORE: I would dispute that. There are no building plans.
Are you talking about to raise the foundation? I guess I just need clarification
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I have a note from the LWRP coordinator that
says I cannot review this application due to insufficient
Board of Trustees 24 September 18, 2019
application materials. Unfortunately, lacking an LWRP report, this
Board cannot move forward with this application.
MS.,MOORE: That is not true. He had 30 days in which to respond
and if he doesn't respond in 30 days you are not obligated to wait.
MR. HAGAN: You could choose to go forward, however the Board does
have the discretion to table an application so they can be fully
satisfied that a full and complete review of the-file has been done.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. But it's not really based on the LWRP.
can certainly provide you with what would be the FEMA compliant
foundation that we can provide you because that much information,
we know that the foundation, it's just going to be a replacement
in-kind in-place, and piles to raise it to the appropriate level.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: You have gone over this in depth. We have a full
understanding of what you wish to do.
MS. MOORE: I understand. Understand something, we discussed it
at work session which unfortunately is not on the record, so
please forgive me.)just want to make sure it's on the record.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: And it's our understanding the Building
Department is headed to the site in short order to review the
habitable status of the dwelling. So I think it would be best to
table the application to allow more input from the Building
Department, also to satisfy the LWRP's requests, and we can
further review your memorandum that you turned in this morning.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. I'll continue this at the next meeting.
We did do a pre-CO inspection several months ago. The Building
Inspector, that was Mr. John Devlin (sic), he wanted to go back to
look at something. He didn't tell us what. r
Understand that this house as is, was occupied by the prior
tenant so, yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand that.
MS. MOORE: Yes. We understand it's a rough condition and that's
why we want to fix it, so. All right, appreciate it. Thank you:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to table this application for
submission of further information.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number three, 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
4
f
Board of Trustees 25 September 18, 2019
the east side of the deck portion of the assembly.
Located: 6760 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-126-11-3.1
The Trustees did a field inspection on August 6th at 2:45
in the afternoon. And notes have been previously read into the
Minutes at that August meeting. All Trustees were present.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council on August 8th resolved
unanimously to support the application. I would note that this
application was tabled subject to new plans and relocation of a
deck and stair assembly.
I would like to read a letter from Suffolk Environmental
Consulting dated August 21 st.
As discussed during Southold Town Board of Trustees meeting
on August 14th, 2019, attached herewith please find the
following: Revised site plans for the subject property prepared
by Suffolk Environmental Consulting on August 21st, 2019.
Original and four copies. The previously submitted site plans
prepared by Suffolk environmental last dated June 5th, 2019,
have been revised to reflect the following changes:
Number one, proposed location of the deck and stair
assembly has been relocated back to its original position.
And two, the area between the upper retaining wall and the
bulkhead located in the southern side of the parcel is labeled
as non-turf buffer.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting.
I have nothing further to add.
TRUSTEE DOMINO:Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application
noting that the new plans and relocation and the non-turf buffer
satisfy the conditions set forth by the Trustees in our August
meeting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number four, 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.
This application was initially reviewed on field inspection on August 6th
and tabled at our August 14th meeting, whereupon discussion at the public
J '
Board of Trustees 26 September 18, 2019
hearing to honor some of the concerns of the LWRP coordinator it was tabled
for the submission of new plans which include a ten-foot non-fertilization
non-disturbance buffer. New plans in accordance with the discussions at the
public hearing were received and stamped in the Trustee office
on September 10th, 2019, and were discussed by the Board on
their field inspections on December 11th.
The concerns of the LWRP coordinator were to provide for a
total of 20-foot non-fertilization non-disturbance buffer with
the addition of plans that includes a ten-foot non-disturbance
buffer, in addition to the existing high-water mark'that was
seen at the lake during field inspection. The effective
non-disturbance non-fertilization area that will go forward is
in fact over historic water levels of the lake, essentially 20
to 25 feet. It's a very ample non-disturbance area based on the
plans submitted and the staking and the photographing.
The LWRP coordinator had determined this was inconsistent.
Additional concerns were that plans did not indicate that the,
that no non-treated lumber would be used. Otherwise the project
had been discussed previously. It was supported with best
management practices by the Conservation Advisory Council. _
One other'concern in reviewing the plan is piling size.
Typically there is a limitation, in addition to non-treated
lumber, typically the Board doesn't see larger than six-inch
dimensional lumber. I may have missed it on the plans.
Typically in fresh water areas it's total non-treated and
non-dimensional lumber-- did I miss it?
MR. ANDERSON: The plans show 4x4.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's fine. Just to reiterate it. Thank
you. So that's, we received new plans. It's an ample
non-fertilization and non-disturbance buffer with the project
plans and concerns about non-treated lumber.
Is there anyone that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting.
I think we have done what we have been asked to do. I don't
think we have an objection that non-treated piles are put in
there. It's not a requirement of the code, as far as I know.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Non-treated lumber is mentioned in Wetland
code for freshwater areas -- in areas of justification of areas
of poor circulation so we don't have an accumulation of toxic--
MR. ANDERSON: I think we are fine with that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. Questions or comments from the
Trustees?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Seeing none, I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve this application
in accordance with the revised plans dated September 10th, 2019,
1
Board of Trustees 27 September 18, 2019
displaying a ten-foot non-fertilization, non-disturbance buffer,
and with the addition of no-treated,lumber in any portion of the
dock will bring this application into consistency with the LWRP.
Motion to approve.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number five, 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
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies
are the wood products which the dock will be constructed have
not been specified. The proposed dock will extend further
seaward of the existing dock to the north and will not comply
with the pier line. The proposed dock will extend into public
waters resulting in a net decrease in public access to public
underwater lands and the near shore area.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees conducted an inhouse review of this
application, most recently, noting the same comments as prior,
September 11th, 2019.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicant. In our last, or I'll say back in July, we were
asked to obtain a survey of the dock that was built and
permitted next door. We did that. We prepared an overall aerial
site plan so you can see how the docks lined up.
We appeared before your work session yesterday. My
understanding all the concerns have been addressed. Just so you
know, the plans do feature the top decking to use open-grate
throughout. The piles will be pressure treated in this
situation. So I think that would solve the LWRP concerns.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
Board of Trustees 28 September 18, 2019
noting that open-grate decking will be used throughout as well
as a new survey was submitted September 17th, 2019, depicting
the pier line and showing that this dock does not exceed the
pier line, therefore bringing into consistency with the LWRP
concerns. I make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number six 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
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory.Council resolved to support the
application.
And the Board most recently visited this application on the
6th and noted all were present and noted it seemed like a
straightforward application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding_ this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting.
As I understand it, we left it at the last hearing the Board was
simply conducting an inspection. So we are interested in what
you have to say. There was nothing further, I believe, that we
submitted on our behalf.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Board did in fact inspect the property
again, I misspoke, it was on September 11th, and found no
wetland structures within the 100-foot jurisdiction of this
project, aside from the bay. Additionally, I believe the thought
was with the design of this structure that water would not be
held behind it because it was designed with large stones and toe
stone. The area has a lot of clay and there is certainly a lot
of runoff.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. COLE: Good evening, gentlemen. I'm Dennis Cole, I'm
President of Southold Shores Association, it's the community
just east of the property. We appreciate your taking the time
and effort to do another inspection.
The last time we were here, some aerial photographs were
given to you showing some clear cutting and apparent fire pit
having been installed on the property. I was unaware of the
Board of Trustees 29 September 18, 2019
,extent of that, so I went by it by boat on August 24th and saw
row upon row of white chairs set up in what I guess had been cut
down area, what'had been woodland. The question I guess I have
is were there wetland permits required to'do that work, and if
so, did you grant those permits at some point?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Typically, when it comes to tree trimming, we_-__
issue a tree letter if you were to come before the Board. They
would submit a tree letter. Whether or not they were issued for
this particular application, I'm not sure at this time. But
what we are here reviewing is'the rock revetment and
unfortunately we have to keep our judgment and our comments
specifically focused on that. -
MR. COLE: I think what was shown to you, and again, I have not
seen it before it was, but it appears to have been clear
cutting, not tree trimming. And apparent paving over of the
area with something. Again, do you simply issue permits if there
has been work done without permits that should have had permits
or can people just do what they want and then come and get a
permit for what might be a little more obvious.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As I stated before, we are focused on this
application and the rock revetment only. If you see someone in
the future clearing a piece of property, please feel free to
contact the office and/or the bay constable. But there is no
work that has undergone there recently that we can determine in
the field at this time. So if you see something, you have to say
something.
MR. COLE: We didn'-t see, we saw photographs.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's everyone's job to sort of help out. The
five of us can't be everywhere at once.
MR. COLE: Thanks.
MR. NASH: Hi, my name is John Nash, I'm at 105 Blue Marlin
Drive, the adjacent property.
Just a couple of questions, relating to what Dennis had
said. I know we seem to keep going around and around here, but you
are going to issue a permit to a property that has done things
to that property without a permit, that is obvious to everyone.
There is land and wetlands that have been cleared with structure
built on to it. And I have just a couple of questions.
When you folks were out there looking at the property,
did you stake any of the property? Because I have stakes on my
property now that I don't know where they came from. But after
September 11th, somewhere in there, I have stakes on my
property. It's not a big deal, I just want to know if that's
from you or is that from someone else.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did they say "Southold Trustees" on them?
MR. NASH: It's just a stake with a pink ribbon on it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It sounds like a land surveyor stake.
MR. NASH: Okay, that's something I have to figure out, because
it's literally on my property.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: One of the things that we did notice, we
r
Board of Trustees 30 September 18, 2019
noticed a'number of people on Blue Marlin had been dumping their
lawn clippings and tree clippings and garbage in that area that
was of concern to us.
MR. NASH: I would not know anything about that. It's not from
me, I can tell you that:
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: We all also were a little surprised.
MR. NASH: I'm not trying to be sarcastic here. You saw the
clippings but you didn't see an entire area cleared with the
fire pit in it? It's huge. It's not little. It's a big area
cleared with a fire pit right in the middle of it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We try to keep our focus on the application
at hand, which is for a rock revetment, because like we said, we
walked on to that property and there was clippings all up and
down the length of it. So we were focused on the rock revetment.
So.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The appropriate time is not when we are at a
hearing for something else to address these issues. If you want
to contact the office or bay constable about any issue of
something you think was built recently without a permit, please
feel free in doing so, we appreciate the help in that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: In addition, I would like to add to the record,
the stake you are referring to is a stake put in by the
applicant's surveyor, indicating where his property line is. So
that stake denotes the applicant's property, not your property.
MR. NASH: From my survey which we just had it done, I bought the
house a year ago. I had the survey done a year ago. From that
survey, he's on my property. So we have some kind of dispute
where that property line is somewhere along the line.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: That's not an issue with this Board.
MR. NASH: That's not here nor there. It's just my issue. Another
last question, does that property have a license or permit to
run the catering business on it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I honestly couldn't speak to that right now. We
are specifically here addressing, and I'll be honest with you,
I'm unaware of, but we are specifically here addressing the
retaining wall. It has nothing to do with the catering business.
MR. NASH: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And again, I'll reiterate, if you see
something, please call. We appreciate the public comment on
that.
MR. NASH: Thank you.
MR. BENFIELD: Good evening, I'm John Benfield, 50 Blue Marlin,
adjacent to the property we are talking about. Keeping my
comments to the wall for the moment. I see where the stakes for
the wall are along the beach. In fact on the last one closest
to my property I put an orange buoy that had drifted up on it.
So it's very obviously visible. It's been there for weeks. But
between the,end of that stakeout and my property there is about
a 60-foot gap through which that stream opening comes, the
runoff comes, all that comes. But that gap is there. And my
question is how is the end of the abutment treated, because
Board of Trustees 31 September 18, 2019
let's just say that it sounds like a really good wall. No
problem with the wall itself, or a structure. But if that's a
solid wall that goes all the way up to that point and stops,
what happens to the exposed land and runoff from the other space
that is in that gap, that I'm estimating 50 or 60 feet of beach.
Which some portion of which, if not most, is probably property,
Peconic property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You are saying 50 to 60 feet that is exposed --
MR. BENFIELD: Yes. I actually took tape measure in increments
and walked down and measured off 300 feet. 300 feet from the
dead end of the wall that is there to where the orange buoy or
where the last stake that was put up sits. That's fine. That's
300 feet. That's maybe what is entitled and what should happen.
My question is beyond that 300 feet there appears to be another
50 or 60 feet. I'm not great with distance. Maybe 45 or 65: But
there was distance there that won't have retaining wail and it
faces that property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So what has been happening now. It would be 50
to 60 feet of land that would remain in current condition. So
is that a problem currently?
MR. BENFIELD: It's not a problem. I'm trying to understand the
consistency or rationale behind putting the wall that way. If
it's to protect property, why not protect the property instead
of 70% of the property.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: That's up to the applicant's discretion.
MR. BENFIELD: So I don't understand the logic of that. And I
don't understand or know what the impact is of leaving that
space empty. Will it exacerbate the erosion in that space or
will it fill in? I don't know.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The reason I'm such of a fan of rock revetments
is that they rarely exacerbate erosion. If there is water
coming, they'll take it in. If there is water hitting it, they
disperse energy. That's one of the many positives of rock
revetments as opposed to a retaining wall or a bulkhead.
MR. BENFIELD: Okay, I guess that's my comments.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting.
I think what the gentleman is referring to is that when this map
was created there was to be a canal that ran along the back of
the lots, residential lots for this, where these folks live,
within our property. The canal was never built. That is our
property. So there is not a gap. It goes to the end of the
property and stops. And the survey shows it's not 300 feet, it's
292 feet, according to the survey. There is no gap, is the
point.
MR. NASH: I'm sorry, can I just ask a question. There is a whole
bunch of us here and no one understands that statement. Maybe I
just don't understand it. Maybe you can clarify. There is a gap
between John's property and this --there is a gap. There is
absolutely a gap.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So there seems to be some dispute about the
Board of Trustees 32 September 18, 2019
property line, which again, the office, the Trustees office does
not get involved with. That is left between applicants and
homeowners. However environmentally speaking, whether there is a
gap or is not a gap, I see no issue with where the retaining
wall ends in terms of the impacts to the property.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Anderson, can you approach the dais. I want
to ask you a question.
(Off the record).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So based on the survey submitted June 11th,
2019, it says the proposed canal along the side of the property,
but that is included in that property. It's part of the
subdivision of that property. And based off that survey, the
scope of this project does go to the property line. So I
unfortunately can only go off the stakes we observed and the
survey in front of me. So my understanding is that this
revetment goes from his property line to his property line.
MR. NASH: So that gap or space is --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is no gap. Maybe a stake was
inadvertently removed or taken out before inspection was made by
yourself or others, we would not know. But based on the
application and the survey submitted, it goes the full length of
the property.
MR. NASH: Okay, that was not our understanding, but.
MR. BENFIELD: If I can just ask one question for clarification.
If the property comes up to what would be in effect the west
side of the canal, the west wall of the canal, if my geography
is right--
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Which canal are you referring to?
MR. BENFIELD: The one that has not been dredged. The paper
canal.
MR. ANDERSON: The canal is part of this property. The canal
doesn't exist. It's just simply on this lot where it was laid out.
MR. BENFIELD: So then Mill Creek Partners owns the ground space
of the canal all the way across to the other-wall?
MR. ANDERSON: That's correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are not here to dispute that, unfortunately.
We are specifically here to consider--
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: As a point of clarification, North Fork
Landing owns that land.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, is there anyone else here that wishes to
speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES). ,
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the stipulation that the new structure not contain water in
a pond-like manner backing up onto the property.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 33 September 18, 2019
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. Have a good evening.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number seven, MILL CREEK PARTNERS, LLC
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 662 sq: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
The Trustees visited the site several times, most recently
on 9/11/19. All Trustees were present, and notes that the
project seemed straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator found this project to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council,reviewed this project
and resolved to support the project.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this project?
MR. WEBER: Yes. My name is Craig Weber, I'm the architect for
the project. A request was made to add a proposed dining room
addition to the Peconic Bay Yacht Club. The facility is a
catering hall primarily used for weddings and special events as
well as marina with boat slips. The addition is proposed on the
southeast corner of the structure. A large portion of the
existing first-floor deck will be replaced by the addition. The
area of the waterside of the proposed addition has a full and-
substantial bulkhead which forms a hard barrier and should
minimize any environmental effects. Care will be taken during
construction as well. The area of the flat roof of the proposed
addition will be used as expanded second-floor area. The dining
room addition is sought to make room for lost seating that
occurs when band and dance floor areas are set up during events.
I just want to, in your actual agenda Minutes, it,says we
are leaving 17 square feet of decking when it's actually 170. 1
don't know if that's a typo or whatever. I just want to mention
that. And I would be glad to answer any questions on the project.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
to this project?
MR. NASH: Yes. My name is John,Nash, 105 Blue Marlin. Just a
quick question and comment. There is noise issues on this
location already. There has been past, there has been recent.
There,was, when this location was put in place there was a kind
of noise decimal meter put in that is supposed to be read by the
police department, if it's over the certain amount. No one from
the Southold Police Department knows how to read that. So it's
useless at this point. What prevents this from becoming just a
louder, noisier place on this expansion? Is this top deck open?
Is it closed? Just some questions about that.
The noise problem already, how does this make it better?
It probably just makes it worse.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know that that-specifically is an
Board of Trustees 34 September 18, 2019
environmental issue of something this Board would look at
pertaining to the wetlands. However I will add that there will
be, based on the structure going in and reviewing the plans,
there would be essentially no change to the outdoor space.
Because if it's a second-story deck it will cover the same
-,surface area as the single-story deck. There is no change to the- - -
footprint of the structure.
MR. NASH: Twice as many people. If you have people on one deck,
now you have people on two decks.
MR. WEBER: Can I just explain. The proposed dining room area
expansion is going over the existing deck, which is on the east
side, the southeast corner of the building.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Please direct your comments to the Board.
MR. WEBER: Okay. It's an open deck right now and it's in the
southeast corner of the property. Approximately, probably a
little more than three quarters of that deck is now going to be
enclosed, okay, in a structure with windows and no sound, you .
know, going from that room. It's probably air-conditioned.
So what remains is 170-square feet of deck on that first
floor, which is just for circulation, for exiting from a now
enclosed space. Then on top of that there is a flat roof. And
the deck will be expanded there, but there is an existing deck
on that second floor as well that exists. And we are not
proposing any increase in'occupancy.
MR. NASH: Thank you.
MR. BENFIELD: Just to comment, I'm not familiar with
the plans. What was just said sounds sensible. My question is
this. At the last meeting, and just a moment ago it was said
that it's not the purview of this group to rule on buildings or
businesses. It's just strictly waterfront environment. Which I
completely understand. So my question is if this permit is
granted then when'or where is the forum to address the business
'issue of it? I know you are responsible for the waterfront a
certain distance. But since this business is so close, where
does the business interaction and commentary permitted?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll defer that question to our counsel.
MR. HAGAN: The,Board of Trustees is limited in their
jurisdiction with regards to this. If you have an issue with
regard to noise or businesses that are operating outside the
scope of their existing certificates of occupancy, then that
would be directed to code enforcement. You can go on the Town
website, which is South oldTown NY.gov, and in the upper
right-hand corner you'll see a button that says "how do I."
When you click on that button there is submit request and
there is a button where you can press to submit a code
enforcement complaint. And you can address your concerns to code
enforcement if you think that a business is operating outside
the scope or purview of their certificate of occupancy.
MR. BENFIELD: So that addressing this particular issue on .gov
or whatever, you can only commence once the permit to do it has
been granted here?
Board of Trustees 35 September 18, 2019
MR. HAGAN: Your permit, the requirements for a permit are listed
throughout the Town Code as to what does and what is legal work
and what would be illegal on a site and location. Provided that
an applicant to the Building Department is operating within the
scope of the permitted, you know, the permitted setbacks and
permitted uses for a property, they'll be issued a building
permit. If there is a situation wherein somebody is exceeding
the scope of a certificate of occupancy or a permitted use, you
can certainly bring that to the attention of code enforcement
for them to investigate to see if there is a violation of the
Town Code.
MR. BENFIELD: Just for the record, I'll state my concern,
I'm not asking you to make an opinion on it. But given the
manicuring or stripping of the woods on the adjacent property,
the eastern half of the woods, it's now made it so the
properties from the south shore, mine, John's and others can
stand in our driveways and look straight through into the
parking lot and stand there and hear conversations back and
forth. We hear every single word of every single best man speak
at every single wedding. Outdoors, anything on the lawn that was
talked about before, that's not under question here. But if the
yacht club is being expanded to become a larger wedding venue,
larger catering hall, then it will just exacerbate that problem
and it will infringe more. And that's not even considering what
they'll do with that property. What they have done with the
middle property has already made things uncomfortable. So I
just want to say that for the record. Thank you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anybody else here that wishes to
speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none I 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, noting the typo of 17 square feet in our agenda is
written correctly in the plans dated July 8th, 2019, as
170-square feet.
I make a motion to approve the application as submitted
with that notation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. WEBER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eight, 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
Board of Trustees 36 September 18, 2019
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 have been to this property most recently on --- - - - - -- -- --
August 6th. The notes were written into the agenda on the August
6th hearing. And most recently the Trustees did an inhouse
inspection on September 11th noting that revised plans with IA
system and setback is wetland compliant.
The LWRP coordinator has some concerns again that were
written into the previous record. To summarize them, it is
suggested that, number one, that the building move back as far
as practicable and that recommended the installation of an IA
system.
The Conservation Advisory Council on July 10th resolved not
to support the application because of the setback for the
,proposed dwelling is at 67.7 feet from the bulkhead is not
compliant with Wetland section 275 of the Wetland code. And we
are in receipt of a letter written by JMO Environmental
Consulting addressed to the Board of Trustees dated September
6th. ;
Dear Mr. Domino, I am presently writing you as a follow-up
to the questions that this Board had at the meeting held on
August 14th, 2019, regarding this application. I have spoken with
the property owner and his architect regarding the discussion,
and we have, regarding the proposed project, according to the
project architect, the proposed new single-family dwelling will
not be located any closer to the wetlands line than the existing
dwelling, and would like to construct a new dwelling as
proposed. Applicant agrees to install an I/A OWTS system to
replace the existing system. Upon your review, please feel free
contact me.
Is there anyone,here that wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. JUST: Good evening. Glenn Just, JMO Environmental
Consulting. Just on another note, I neglected in the most recent
letter that Mr. Domino just read,,the applicant also agreed to
the 20-foot vegetated buffer that the Trustees had noted in that
field inspection.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is that 20 foot.
MR. JUST: I have a copy of the Trustees inspection on July
8th --July 10th, I believe it is. And they had asked about the
IA system and 20-foot vegetated non-turf buffer landward of the
bulkhead which we are in agreement to as,well.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, sir. Anyone else wish to,speak to
this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing none, I make a motion to close this
Board of Trustees 37 September 18, 2019
hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted with the addition of a 20-foot non-turf buffer and the - - - - -
recommendation that the applicant will install an IA system,
both of which will address the inconsistencies. And it will
require submission of new plans showing the non-turf buffer and
the location of the IA system.
MR. JUST: We'll do that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right. Excuse me. The motion is to approve
subject to new plans. So I'll rescind that motion and move to
table subject to new plans showing the non-turf buffer and the
IA system.
MR. JUST: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, J.M.O. Environmental
Consulting Services on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION (FISHERS ISLAND CLUB) requests a Wetland Permit for
the existing ±156'x22' golf cart barn and to remove a 156' long
stone retaining wall and foundation, and construct a new 156'
long wall and new foundation in place with footings; and to
remove the existing 22'x156' roof and reconstruct in place a new
roof with no increase in lot coverage.
Located: Off East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-4-6-9
This project was not inspected by the Conservation Advisory
Council. They were unable to get to Fishers Island. The project
has been deemed to be inconsistent by the LWRP coordinator in
that it does not have,'did not have a Chapter 275 permit, it
being constructed by visual observation well before we had
jurisdiction in that area.
The Board performed an inspection on August 7th, noting
that the plans_ and the structure, proposed structure are in
keeping with the existing building size and didn't note any
imminent issues or concerns in the surrounding property that
would require additional modification.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. -JUST: Good evening. Again, Glenn Just, on behalf of the
applicant.
I just want to follow-up that I spoke to the project
engineer, Dick Strauss with CNE Engineering earlier today and he
has been in contact with Mr. Verity at the building department,
and we'll be modifying the plans. I couldn't have them for
tonight's meeting, but all the roof runoff, we had not addressed
roof runoff for the new roof, but Mr. Verity would like to see a
field set-up where we do some plantings and things like that,
and we are working on that now to make sure everything will be
Board of Trustees 38 September 18, 2019
regenerated right back into the groundwater.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I take it you are requesting.to table at
this time for a supplemental drainage plan?
MR. JUST: I should have it within the next two or three days.
But whatever the Board --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have to review that plan. We didn't note
any imminent problems with the size of the building and existing
grading. If that's being required of the Building Department
we'll need it for our file, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, is there anyone else who wishes
to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to table this application pending further
review of drainage plans, whatever design has been approved by
Building and/or the Town engineers. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number ten, En-Consultants on behalf of
ANDREW& KATELYN TITUS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
fixed timber dock with water and electricity, consisting of a
4'x57' fixed elevated catwalk constructed with open-grate
decking; a 3'x14' hinged ramp; and a 6'x20' floating dock
secured by two (2) 8" diameter pilings and situated in a "T"
configuration.
Located: 3140 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-40
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is: In 1999 the New York State DEC denied dock structure on
this parcel due to insufficient water depths of the water body
with concern of ecological damage to the bottom lands by prop
dredging. Alternatives are proposed, however none of them are
reflected within the proposal. Water depth shown on the
submitted plans at the terminus of dock is 29 to 30 inches.
Representative vessel has not been provided.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on September
11th, noting it was basically a straightforward application.
There is also a letter in the file from an Antoinette Tisbo
r objecting to the dock.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN:. Rob Herrmann, En-Consultants, on behalf of the
applicants. We did meet at the site, and generally it is a
straightforward application . I did want to just speak to the
LWRP comments. It is true that 20 years ago the DEC objected to
a dock application for this property. Although not noted in the
LWRP memorandum is that the Board of Trustees issued permit
#4981 for a dock at that time, and of course it has since
expired without the dock's construction.
Board of Trustees 39 September 18, 2019
But that proposal that the DEC objected to was for a dock
that ended a little more than 20 feet closer to the bulkhead and
in water that was as shallow as two feet. So it was a
completely different proposal that was insufficient water depth
at that time. I don't know why the applicants pursued that
particular length at that time, but they simply abandoned the
application.
The application before the Board does reach sufficient
water depth at a location that is aligned with the pier line at
the site, as you saw. So it's a different proposal where the
float reaches, sits in different water conditions.
So that's all I have, 'unless the Board has any other
questions.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH:` Just for the record, it says it's 30 inches
but this is at mean low low water. So mean low water.
MR. HERRMANN: That's correct. So you would see several inches
deeper on the inside. So where you see 24 inches just past the
catwalk, for instance, that would probably be closer to 27 or 28
inches and so forth and so on after that. But even at the lower
datum we still do reach 30 inches.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So where the'float is proposed we'll have
more than 30 inches of water depth.
MR. HERRMANN: Correct. At mean low tide.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wishing to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Any other comments from the Board? .
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Four.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
noting that there is more than 30 inches of water depth at the
float, thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, for hearing us.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number eleven, Pei-Dau Liu, Architect on behalf
of BLACK ROCK HOLDINGS II, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 1,183 sq. ft. one-story dwelling and to demolish first
floor interior spaces and existing seaward side sunroom;
construct a 12'x26' seaward side addition to dwelling in area of
sunroom; construct a new 4'x20' open porch with steps to ground
on landward side; construct a 4'x14' rear side deck with steps
to ground; for the existing 144.0 sq. ft. seaward side deck with
steps to ground; and construct a 776 sq.,ft. second-story addition
with two exterior balconies (3'x26' and 3'x12').
Board of Trustees 40 September 18, 2019
Located: 445 Island View Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-57-2-27
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent but
recommended we require the installation of an IA system onsite
water treatment system, and require that we relocate SYS number
two basin further from the wetland system and verify the depth
to groundwater at the new location, and establish a-vegetated - ---- - – ---- – — --
non-turf before landward of the wetland line.
' The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support
the application. The Conservation Advisory Council did not
support the application because the exact location of the
wetland boundary is not clearly defined. This is not enough
information to make a recommendation.
The Trustees most recently visited the property on
September 11th. All were present. They noted several things.
The project was not staked at the time of inspections. The test
hole data was not noted. Proposed leaching system and septic
pools are not on the plans. Proposal needs to be staked in its
entirety. Needs an IA on water treatment septic system. Requires
a large, non-turf buffer, approximately 15 feet. And that the
wetland line needs to be on the survey.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. LIU: My name is Pei-Dau Liu. I'm the architect, and on
behalf of the owner. I understand the information required, so
we will provide the information.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Great. Do any Board members have any further
comments at this time or does that pretty much sum up --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just as you can see, when we vote on a plan,
we need the full plan. So if there is going to be a proposed
non-turf buffer or IA system, we need to have that on plan in
order for us to make a determination.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the project needs to be staked in
advance of field inspection. So in this instance we'll have to
perform additional field inspection with that set of plans in hand.
MR. LIU: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other concerns?
(Negative response).
Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, I'll make,a motion to table the
application at the applicant's request for additional information.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 12, Inter-Science Research Associates,
Inc. on behalf of 40200 MAIN, LLC (OREINT BY THE SEA), c/o RWN
MANAGEMENT, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for exterior
renovation of the existing restaurant structure that consists of
new windows and doors, removing windows, installing windows in
new locations, installing doors in new locations; closing window
L
Board of Trustees 41 September 18, 2019
and door openings; repair the roof as necessary; repair and
replace the existing siding as necessary; install gutters to
leaders to drywells for roof runoff; remove and replace the
existing southern deck in-kind and in-place at 1,418 sq. ft. with
a small raised section at 161 sq. ft. near the restaurant; remove
and replace and elevate the existing eastern deck section
in-kind and within the existing footprint at 1,093 sq. ft.;
reconstruct an existing exterior bar in-kind and in-place within
the eastern deck footprint; remove the existing north entrance
ramp at 305 sq. ft. and construct a new entrance ramp in same,
location at 197 sq. ft.; remove a south access ramp at 58 sq. ft.
and construct access steps at 19.8 sq. ft.; construct new access
stairs for decking at 20.6 sq. ft., new 45.6 sq. ft. exit stair and
landing; a new fuel area stair at 26.4 sq. ft.; remove existing
1,000 gal. fuel tank and surrounding fence and install new duel
fuel tank at 4,000 gallons for diesel and gasoline, and install
a 6' tall, 55' linear foot long surrounding stockade fence;
permanent removal of in-ground 4,000 gal. fuel tank; upgrade,
repair or replace existing sidewalks surrounding restaurant; all
restaurant work to be conducted from the landward side; and a
debris boom will be installed and maintained during construction
in the water surrounding the restaurant area in order to contain
potential fly-away debris.
Located: 40200 Route 25, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-9-8.1
The Trustees visited the site most recently at our August
field inspection. On 9/11 we did an inhouse review with notes
that the application seemed straightforward.
The action is exempt from the LWRP. The LWRP coordinator
did have some notes, some concerns he had. There does not seem
to be erosion controls around the oil tank work. Also he has
been participating in the Suffolk County Department of Health
discussions on alternative sanitary systems. They are now
available for commercial use. This is a restaurant on the water
and a sanitary system upgrade to an IA system should be
addressed.
The Conservation Advisory Council did review this
application and resolved to support this application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
MS. POYER: Lisa Foyer, Inter-Science, on behalf of the applicant.
Just to clarify, I was reviewing the notice, and in there
discusses about a new fuel, tank. It's actually 4,000 gallons
for diesel on one side and one-thousand gallons for gasoline.
It's one tank. It's split. That's in the application form. I
wanted to clarify that. We believe the application is pretty
straightforward with regard to we are trying to modernize and
upgrade the existing restaurant facility at the site. We are not
proposing to expand it in area. We are not proposing to increase
seating inside. We are strictly moving some windows and doors
around, changing just the layout interior slightly, and then we
are looking to reconstruct the existing decks in-kind/in-place for
the southern deck, and then to raise in elevation the eastern
Board of Trustees 42 , September 18, 2019
most deck because of the circulation with the restaurant. There
is two different levels right now.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Just a question regarding Mr. Terry's
comments. If I recall from our onsite visit, when Jay and I went
for our pre-submission conference, the septic system on there in
the restaurant is relatively new. _._ . _ ---.___. -
MS. POYER: It has been reviewed by the Health Department about
ten years, eight or nine, ten years ago. They didn't have,any
issues with it at that time. We are not proposing to increase
the seating inside as per the Health Department regulations. We
don't have to do a sanitary upgrade.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Understood. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess there was a question of we had
discussed at that preliminary meeting subsequent pump-out
facility.
MS. POYER: That would be --there is a subsequent application
that would be following dealing with the marina work.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With the marina work and bulkheading.
MS. POYER: Yes. It will be filled in'with that application. We
felt it was more tied in with that at this point in the narrative.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Understood. I see now the project, the way
the project was split up in ordinarily fashion to deal with the
base and then --
MS. POYER: Right. So they can get started doing the work there,
then we'll move forward with a little bit bigger,issue stuff.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: During the work session we spoke with Mr. Burke
about the stipulating a portable pump out facility until,such
time'as you moved forward with the rest of the plan.
MS. POYER: It's our intention.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We conferenced it during the work session,
for possibly a portable, for the pendency. Is it your intention
to put a fixed pump out at the facility?
MS. POYER: I believe so, yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: When do you anticipate phase two of the
application?
MS. POYER: If this approved tonight, we would turn a new-one
around and file it in the near future. Next couple of weeks.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Counselor, should I, in my motion --
MS. POYER: If you want to make it a condition, that's fine. We
are pretty near the end of the season.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any other questions or comments from the
Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further questions or comments, I make a motion to
close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
Board of Trustees- 43 September 18, 2019
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted noting that the plans for the application are by
Architect Mark Schwartz &Associates, dated 9/11/19, received by
our office on 9/12/19, accompanied by a survey by George Albrich
Surveyors dated January 3rd, 2019, with revisions on 6/26/19 and
again on 8/12/19, received by our office on 8/5/19. Also
accompanied by a marina site plan prepared by SL Maresca
Associates dated 7/24/19, received by our office on August 5th,
2019. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. POYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to-adjourn
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
m
0
Michael J. Domino, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
OCT 1 8 2019 b'. SS v;
So old Townqlerrk�