HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-10/16/2019 Michael J.Domino,President ®F S0 Town Hall Annex
John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President ®� ®�® 54375 Route 25
P.O.Box 1179
Glenn Goldsmith
Southold,New York 11971
A.Nicholas Krupski G Q Telephone(631) 765-1892
Greg Williams :rlh Fax(631) 765-6641
®A cou
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECEIVE®
It
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD r `2Q 0 :3 I pyyl
NOV 1 4 2019 I
Minutes a. n
Southold Town Clerk
Wednesday, October 16, 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, November 6, 2019, at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 5:30 PM at
the Main Meeting Hall
WORK SESSIONS: Friday, November 8, 2019 at 4:30 PM at the Town Hall
Annex 2"d floor Board Room, and on Wednesday,
November 13, 2019 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of September 18, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good evening and welcome to our Wednesday,
October 16, 2019 meeting. At this time I would like to call our
meeting to order and ask that you stand for the pledge.
(PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE).
Recognizing the people on the dais, to my left is Trustee Bredemeyer,
Trustee Goldsmith, Trustee Krupski and Trustee Williams. To my right is Assistant
Town Attorney Damon Hagen and Senior Clerk Typist Elizabeth Cantrell.
Also with us tonight is court stenographer Wayne Galante, and the Conservation
Advisory Council member tonight is James Abbott.
Agendas are located on the podiums and also out in the hall.
We have several postponements, for various reasons. On the
agenda, if you look at page five, number eight, FERNANDO & MARIA VILLA
Board of Trustees 2 October 16, 2019
requests an Administrative Permit for the as-built construction of 6'x6' landing
with steps; 4'x5' addition to existing deck; remove the 11.2'x18" high step adjacent
to concrete patio and fill in at grade; and for the 2'10"x4.5' HVAC enclosure.
Located: 15 Sun Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-76-1-1 is postponed.
Page seven, number 13, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of
DARA VANESSA PAVLICH requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#5129
from Albert J. Romeril, Jr., as issued on March 23, 2000.
Located: 15 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#: 1000-111-1-5, is postponed.
And under Public Hearings section, number one, Michael Kimack on
behalf of COVE CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit#9148 to allow for the first spoil
dredging be used as backfill landward of new low sill bulkhead;
along the north bulkhead at boat dock: In lieu of removing
approximately 145' of existing wood bulkhead, to remove approximately
116' of existing north wood bulkhead (25' and 91' sections); construct
approximately 116' of new vinyl bulkhead with addition of one 12' return at
northern end of 25' section of new bulkhead (±128'total); and raised 12"
higher than existing bulkhead; backfill with clean fill and restore
disturbed area; remove approximately 180' of existing south wood
bulkhead at boat ramp; construct approximately 180' of new vinyl
bulkhead with two returns; 12' on the north end and 8' on the
south end for a total new length of approximately 200' and
raised 12" higher than existing; backfill with clean fill and restore disturbed
area; construction of proposed new bulkheading to consist of 9"x12' pilings
at 8' o/c at approx. 8' below grade, two (2) 6"x6" stringers spaced accordingly,
shore guard 225 at 10' in length at approx. 6' below grade, a wood cap with
3"x6" top clamp, 3/" x 10' tie rods with horizontal lag log, with 8" backer pilings
at 8' o/c set approx. 10' back from main pilings; construct approximately 180'
of new proposed partial low sill bulkhead; backfill with clean sand just below
lower vinyl sheathing; maintain approx. 2 to 1 slope from top of sloughed bank
and then flat to bulkhead; install two (2) layers of burlap, secure with 8" galvanized
pins; plant Spartina alterniflora @ one (1) ft. O/c throughout (approx. 2,800sq.ft.);
for the restoration landward of new bulkheads: Prior to clearing vegetation, remove
and preserve to the extend feasible, wetland plants that can be removed,
preserved and planted; clear and excavate landward approx. 10' from new
bulkheads to place dead men and tie rods approx. Every 8', backfill with excavated
material and clean fill as needed, proposed machinery to be utilized would be small
crawler backhoe with bucket; restore wetland areas disturbed as follows:
Wetland limits of disturbance area approx. 1,025 sq. ft. subsequent to backfill,
replant preserved wetland plants prior to new plantings, plant approx. 70
three-gallon Baccharis plants at 4' o/c±, intersperse plants with approx. 800
Spartina,Patens at approx. 1' o/c; wetland limits of disturbance area approx.
1,100 sq. ft. subsequent to backfill, replant preserved wetland plants prior
to new plantings, plant approx. 75 three-gallon Baccharis plants at 4' o/c±,
intersperse plants with approx. 900 Spartina Patens at approx. 1' o/c; and any
disturbance to the intertidal marsh areas will be replanted with alterniflora.
Located: Meadow Court & 8552 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-5-26
& 1000-87-5-23.9, is postponed.
On page nine, we have number four, 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,
Board of Trustees 3 October 16, 2019
199 square feet seaward; wood landing to remain, 98 square feet seaward.
Located: 62615 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-40-1-8 is postponed.
On pages 14 and 15, numbers 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and
28 are postponed. They are listed as follows:
Number 21, 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,
i 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
Number 22, Michael Kimack on behalf of MICHAEL McCARRICK
REAL ESTATE, INC. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
12'x22' one-car garage with a 7.5' long by 6' wide breezeway
between the proposed garage and existing dwelling.
Located: 415 Lakeside Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-3-13
Number 23, En-Consultants on behalf of TEAMC99A PROPERTIES,
LLC, c/o CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH, MEMBER requests a Wetland Permit to
demolish and remove existing dwelling, and construct a new
two-story, approximately 1,289 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with
approximately 309 sq. ft. of waterside deck with 4' wide steps, an
89 sq. ft. side deck; and a 90 sq. ft. front entry deck; install
drainage system of gutters to leaders to drywells; raise
existing grade within Chapter 275 jurisdiction with
approximately 15 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked in
from an approved upland source (additional 149 cubic yards of
clean fill to be placed outside Chapter 275 jurisdiction); and
contain fill with a 12" wide by 70' long by 3.5' high (max.)
retaining wall on east side of the property, and a 12" wide by
35' long by 5' high (max.) "L" shaped retaining wall on west
side of property; proposed septic system, pervious gravel
parking area, and railroad tie landscape steps to front entry
deck to be located outside Chapter 275 jurisdiction.
Located: 980 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-1-6
Number 24, 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 25, 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
Board of Trustees 4 October 16, 2019
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 26, 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 ±10' 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
revetment; and bulkhead modification to occur within property
owner's lines only.
Located: 1000 First Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-7-32
Number 27, Nigel Robert Williamson on behalf of GAIL JADOW
& E&J INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 35'11" x 22'4" two-story, three car garage with
accessory apartment above; install two (2) 8'0" diameter
drywells to contain roof runoff; and install an I/A OWTS septic
system for the new structure.
Located: 3655 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-136-2-11
And number 28, 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
Those have all been postponed.
At this time I would like to announce under Town Code
Chapter 275-8(c), files were officially closed seven days ago
and submission of paperwork after that time may result in a
delay of the processing of the application.
At this time I'll entertain a motion to have our next field
inspection Wednesday, November 6th, 2019, at 8:00 AM at the Town
annex.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll entertain a motion to hold the next Trustee
meeting Wednesday, November 13th, 2019, at 5:30, here at the
main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like a motion to hold the next work
session at the Town Board annex room, second floor, on Friday,
Board of Trustees 5 October 16, 2019
November 8th, 2019,, at 4:30 PM, and at 5:00 PM on Wednesday,
November 13th, 2019, at the main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time I'll entertain a motion to approve
the Minutes of our September 18th, 2019 meeting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. -
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor.
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for September 2019. A check for
$3,990.19 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the
General Fund.
11. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted,on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
111. RESOLUTIONS OTHER:
r
Number one, resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold pursuant to
the State Environmental Quality Review act, hereby declares itself lead agency in regard
to the application of BRIAN O'REILLY.
Located: 659 Pine Neck Road, Southold SCTM# 1000-70-5-31.1
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the
following applications more fully described in Section X Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, October 16, 2019, are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
S EQ RA:
They are listed below:
Cove Condominium Owners Association SCTM# 1000-87-5-26 & 1000-87-5-23.9
Jonathan Zang SCTM# 1000-87-6-7
Maggi-Meg Reed & Michael Schubert SCTM# 1000-21-1-25.1 (Formerly Lot 1.3)
Barbara Pagano SCTM# 1000-37-4-8
Stephen Carroll SCTM# 1000-107-9-5
Josh Auerbach &Whitney Bowe SCTM# 1000-27-4-7
Michael McCarrick Real Estate, Inc. SCTM# 1000-90-3-13
Greg Schulz SCTM# 1000-104-6-10.1
Emma Van Rooyen & Jane Aboyoun SCTM# 1000-70-4-29
Board of Trustees 6 October 16, 2019
Peter& Diana O'Neill SCTM# 1000-118-1-1.3
Matthew Zash & Courtney Kremers SCTM# 1000-97-7-3
Elaine DeMartino Maas SCTM# 1000-26-2-26
TeamC99A Properties, LLC, c/o Christopher Joseph, Member SCTM# 1000-77-1-6
Frederick Liguori SCTM# 1000-128-2-11
Mary Ann Howkins SCTM# 1000-86-2-7
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved'.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town
of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more
fully described in Section X Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, October 16, 2019, are classified
as Unlisted Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations:
Brian O'Reilly SCTM# 1000-70-5-31.1
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO
NEW YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT NYCCR
PART 617:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral V, Environmental Declaration
of Significance pursuant to New York State Environmental Quality
Review Act, NYCCR part 617.
Number one, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: McCarthy Management on
behalf of BRIAN O'REILLY requests a Wetland Permit to install a
4'x55' fixed wood catwalk; steps to grade off landward end of
catwalk; install a 3'x14' seasonal aluminum ramp; and install a
6'x20' floating dock with chocking system situated in a "T" configuration.
Located: 659 Pine Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-5-31.1
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 October 9, 2019, and
having considered the survey of Kenneth M. Woychuk Land
Surveying, PLLC dated July 26, 2001 and plan of Kenneth M.
Woychuk Land Surveying, PLLC last dated August 1, 2019 with
hydrological data, shown at the Trustee's October 11, 2019 work
session; and,
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees
declared itself Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees
classified the application as an unlisted action pursuant to
S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
Board of Trustees 7 October 16, 2019
WHEREAS, in reviewing survey of Kenneth M. Woychuk Land
Surveying, PLLC dated July 26, 2001, and plan of Kenneth M.
Woychuk Land Surveying, PLLC last dated August 1, 2019, with
hydrological data 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 not within Town Trustees, New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation 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 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 the riparian rights of shell fishers:
The plan allows a standard 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's my resolution.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. RESOLUTIONS OTHER:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral VI, Resolutions other, number one,
Set 2019/2020 Scallop Season:
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees open the following dates to
scallop harvesting and pursuant to Chapter 219 (Shellfish) of the Code of the Town of
Southold: From Monday, November 4, 2019 from sunrise to sunset through Tuesday,
March 31, 2020 inclusive, in all Town waters, as per Town Code.
That's my resolution.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 8 October 16, 2019
VII. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral VII, Administrative permits.
In order to simplify our meetings, the Board of Trustees
regularly groups together actions that are deemed similar or
minor in nature. Accordingly, I'll make a motion to approve as a
group items one, two, five and six.They are listed as follows:
Number one, MARTIN EHRENREICH REV. TRUST requests an
Administrative Permit for as-built 50 feet of 6' high fencing on
western border of property.
Located: 2950 Sound Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-33-1-9
Number two, ELIZABETH GARDNER requests an Administrative
Permit to abandon and remove existing septic system, and replace
with a new Innovative and Alternative, nitrogen reducing septic system.
Located: 1665 Shore Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-47-2-30
Number five, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of TONY &
MARIA KOSTOULAS requests an Administrative Permit to plant 250
Native'Switchgrass (Panicum virgatu) as groundcover and to
retain existing trees; remove dead and invasive species.
Located: 1035 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-2-13 '
Number six, Michael A. Kimack, on behalf of COVE
CONDOMINIUMS OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests an Administrative
Permit for a 10 year maintenance permit to maintain as-built
southerly path to water, overall length 130'; first section
4'x60'; second section 3'x35'; and third section 2'x35'; and
northerly path with kayak storage area, overall length 125';
first section 4'x75' with two kayak storage areas of approximately
300 sq. ft. and 400 sq. ft.; remaining section of path 50'x3'.
Located: Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-5-26&23.9
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Complete actions on number three, four and
seven.
, Number three, DAVID & BARBARA HAZARD request an
Administrative Permit for an existing 576 sq. ft. deck.
Located: 1465 Harbor Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-2-1.1
This is inconsistency as noted by the LWRP coordinator
stems from the fact that according to Town records, structures
were constructed.without Trustee permit, and therefore by
approving this Administrative Permit will bring it into.
consistency with the LWRP.
That's my motion. The motion is to approve this
Administrative Permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf,
Board of Trustees 9 October 16, 2019
of DAVID & CARMELINA LEVY requests an Administrative Permit to
reconstruct existing 12'x25' wood deck and a proposed at grade
357"x30'4" brick patio with 6'x6' outdoor shower.
Located: 12860 Main Road, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-14-9
Again this is deemed to be inconsistent by the LWRP coordinator.
The inconsistency arises from the fact that according to Town records
structures were constructed without a Board of Trustee review or permit.
Therefore, by approving this application we will bring it
into conformity with the LWRP, consistency with the LWRP
coordinator's review. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application for review, number
seven, PHILIP LORIA requests an Administrative Permit for the
as-built re-sheathing of 105' of timber bulkhead with vinyl with
an 8' return on the southeast corner; replace dead-men and all
hardware with hot dipped galvanized hardware; bulkhead to be
capped with 2" CCA wood. Backfill with 60 yards of clean sand
from an approved source. All work to be done on the landward
side of the bulkhead.
Located: 1090 First Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-7-31
This project has been deemed consistent with the LWRP and
was inspected by the Board on September 30th, with the
advisement that it needs a ten-foot non-turf buffer. Again,
there are also two letters to the file that the Board reviewed
on field inspection last month, September, and also reviewed a
new letter on October 11th.
Based on the field inspection and the letters in the file
and the provisions of the code, this project will need to have a
ten-foot, non-turf buffer installed, for which we'll need to
have plans submitted showing this non-turf buffer.
Accordingly I move to table this application subject to
submission of a plan for a ten-foot, non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VIII. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral VIII, applications for
extensions transfers administrative amendments. Again, in order
to simplify our meeting, I'll make a motion to approve as a
group items one through 12. They are listed as follows:
Number one, McCarthy Management, Inc., on behalf of RICHARD
&ALICE RUBINSTEIN requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland
Permit#9106, as issued on October 18, 2017.
Located: 470 Goose Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-79-1-5
Number two, Matthew 011en, Goose Neck Property Owners
Board of Trustees 10 October 16, 2019
Association President, on behalf of THOMAS O'NEILL requests a
One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#9102, as issued on October
18, 2017.
Located: Private Canal in Goose Creek & 1600 Smith Drive South, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-78-1-41&76-3-3
Number three, KIMOGENER POINT COMPANY requests a One-Year
Extension to Wetland Permit#9123, as issued on November 15, 2017.
Located: 50 Jackson Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-116-6-24.1
Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of JUJAX PARTNERS,
LLC requests the Last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit
#8930, as issued on December 14, 2016.
Located: 1975 SoundviewAvenue,-Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-94-1-11
Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of 1975 SOUNDVIEW LLC
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#8930 from Jujax Partners,
LLC, as issued on December 14, 2016.
Located: 1975 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-94-1-11
Number six, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of
CHRISTOPHER & MARISSA LAZOS requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#9451'& Coastal Erosion Permit#9451 C from Antoine Van
Horen, as issued on May 15, 2019.
Located: 1200 Leeton Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-1-1
Number seven, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of DAVID &
CARMELINA LEVY requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#5002 from
John T. Sica, as issued on May 26,.1999.
Located: 12860 Main Road, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-14-9
Number eight, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of DAVID &
CARMELINA LEVY requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#8126 &
Coastal Erosion Permit#8126C from Lucia & John Sica, as issued
on April 17, 2013.
Located: 12860 Main Road, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-14-9
) Number nine, CHRISTIAN & ERIKA TOM request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#7160 from Joseph G. Manzi, Jr., as issued on
August 19, 2009; Amended on January 23, 2013 and Amended again
on January 21, 2015.
Located: 355 Midway Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-2-28
Number ten, PHILIP LORIA requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#4209 from Anna Loria, as issued on July 29, 1993. -
Located: 1090 First Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-7-31
Number eleven, MEGALOOP EQUITIES LLC requests a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#1793 from Steven &Andrea Kolyer and Ellen
Violett to Steven &Andrea Kolyer and Megaloop Equities LLC, as
issued on March 13, 1984, and Amended on July 22, 1988.
Located: Cedar Point Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-2-17&18
Number 12, FREDERICK POLLERT requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit#1440 to replace all decking on the
5'x49'.8" catwalk.
Located: 375 Lighthouse Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-6-29.2
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 11 October 16, 2019
IX. MOORINGS/STAKE & PULLEY SYSTEMS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral IX, CHARLES CIRAVOLO
requests a Mooring Permit in Arshamomaque Creek for an 18'
Inboard Motorboat. Access: Private.
Located: 2415 Long Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-8-3
P I make a motion to approve this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:'
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral X Public Hearings.
At this time I'll take a motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and
enter into public hearings.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is a public hearing in the matter of the
following applications for permits under the Wetlands Ordinance
of the Town of Southold
I have an affidavit of publication from the Suffolk
Times. Pertinent correspondence may be read prior to asking for
comments from the public. Please keep your comments organized
and brief, five minutes or less if possible.
Number one has been postponed.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under wetland and coastal erosion permits,
number one, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of WILLIAM A. & BINA
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 (@ 1,800sq.ft.), or any areas which Rosa Rdgosa 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
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. °
The Conservation Advisory Council voted not to support the
application due to insufficient information. The Conservation
Advisory Council requested submission of a complete site plan.
f The Trustees did a field inspection on September 11th at
ten o'clock and suggested that the stone toe armor for the base
and not secure or use any stones from the beach.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes, good evening. Patricia Moore, on behalf of the
Board of Trustees 12 October 16, 2019
Lois family.
Yes, we met out in the field. I have given you revised
plans that show the two-ton stones as armoring in front of the
toe. And aside from that, it's a restoration of a previously-constructed
revetment. So we met with the contractor out in the field, and I think he
knows what he needs to do, and we just need to get started.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else who wishes 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 GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I make a motion to approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER:,The next application, STEPHANIE LAGOUDIS &
IOANNIS LAGOUDIS request a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit for the as-built installed paving blocks over existing
poured concrete slab patios and walkways; as-built installed
paving blocks on grade with a sand base on east side of dwelling
totaling 810 sq. ft.; and as-built 190 sq. ft. front patio entry.
Located: 22615 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-135-1-25.1
This project has been deemed to be inconsistent with the
Town's LWRP in that the patios were constructed without a
Southold Town Board of Trustees review or permit. The Board of
Trustees conducted an extensive review of property improvements
on the site on September 11th field inspection, and with a
subsequent review of the department and office files, and also
conducted a follow-up inspection, follow-up review on October
9th, and the Board did disclose that the review of our file from
September 11th did reveal that these aforementioned patio areas
for which a permit is sought were unpermitted and constructed
without the benefit of a wetlands permit.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application,
indicating beach stairs were not depicted on the survey.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Not seeing anyone coming up to the podium, are there any
comments or questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
Not seeing or hearing any comments, I'll make a motion to close
the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve this application
Board of Trustees \ 13 October 16, 2019
as submitted noting that issuance of a permit will be bringing
this application, this proposal into consistency under the LWRP.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
'TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number three, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting on behalf of JOSH AUERBACH &WHITNEY BOWE requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a
49'x24.9' second story addition above the existing split level
dwelling; a 4'x9' shed off the southeastern facing side of
existing dwelling; construct a retaining wall measuring 115'
long' adjacent to King Street and 27' long section adjacent to
Harbor Road, with a top elevation of 6.5', install a new
innovative, alternative, nitrogen reducing septic system 50"
from the mean high water line; the existing swimming pool is
proposed to be raised to the elevation of the retaining wall at
a height of 6.5' as a consequence of the proposed septic system .
upgrade (675 cubic yards of clean fill from an approved source
will be utilized to accomplish this), and to add two new dry
wells on the northeastern and northwestern sides of the house as
well as a conversion of an existing septic system to a dry well
in order to better manage water run-off from the roof of the dwelling.
Located: 450 Harbor Road, Orient. SCTM#1000-27-4-7
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
the application. The Conservation Advisory Council does not
support the application and recommends a low sill bulkhead or
gabion revetment. There is also a concern with the location of
the proposed IA septic system 40 feet from the wetland boundary
and within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection October 9th,
notes suggest moving the pool seaward and the septic landward,
which could potentially remove the need for the retaining wall.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
for the applicant.
Let.me just start by saying this was an application that
was originally filed under the previous owner Gillooly. In that
application proposed a garage, certain minor expansions to the
house, and an IA system that would be installed in the event
that the existing cesspools fail. They sold to the Auerbach's
and the Auerbach's came back with a more minor plan to show a
relatively modest second-story addition, which I understand
would be normally administratively approved by this Board
because it's on top of an existing structure.
The pool remains in the same location, and what we are,
doing is we are elevating the site to make the septic system
work. It's virtually the same septic system that was previously
approved by this Board. The difference here is it will actually
Board of Trustees 14 October 16, 2019
be installed rather than something that is just on paper, to be
installed perhaps some time in the future. There was a big
struggle with the previous property owner.
We were able to bring our coverages down. You should know
that it is unlikely that we could achieve your recommendation of
maybe moving the pool forward and bringing the septic system
back. I'm not opposed to asking our engineer to look at that,
but I doubt it's viable because of where all the plumbing and
the existing site conditions are. I'm not sure we could even
get the sewage back there. I'm happy to look at it, but I don't
think it's possible.
It's important to note that the system's proximity to the
water in terms of the septic tanks and the digestive under the
essentially closed system, and of course what you are seeing is
an overflow that works its way back toward the back end of the
property.
So I mean, I would leave it to the,Board. It's not, I
don't mind asking the engineer to take a look at this but I just
don't see how it's going to be possible. Based on my experience.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Question. So it appears based on the plans
that the prior plan proposal for a garage is going to be
abandoned at this point, based on the plan?
MR. ANDERSON: That's correct.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We appreciate the fact you are able to bring
this back to your engineer. A question would be whether the !
engineer could engineer in a system of junction boxes or other
that might route sanitary wastewater to the front of the
property, and specifically some of the design elements of these
new IA systems have been, new approvals have been granted by the
Health Department, so it's the understanding of the Trustees
that there can be pressure mains of a treated leachate so that
the systems may not need as high retaining walls, depending on
how they are constructed. So in consulting with your engineer
they would check with the county Health Department and the
current system approvals for the IAs that they might be able to
engineer in a reduction and also a reduction in cost on the
retaining structures.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm not opposed. We are still in the process with
the DEC. We don't have a time issue here. So I take it you are
asking to explore an engineering alternative to lower the wall.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. We have real concerns with the height
of the wall and the location right off the road.
MR. ANDERSON: And --what do you mean location off the road?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It's literally right up against --
MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. Just so you know, that's derived
because I have setbacks between the wall and the system and the
system and swimming pool. That's not done by choice. That's
done by necessity. And it's in the current plan. I think what
you are asking is could the system be reconfigured so it can be
located essentially adjacent to Harbor Road. I think that is
what you are asking me.
l
Board of Trustees 15 October 16, 2019
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we don't want to see a retaining wall
built directly on the property line along King Street.
MR. ANDERSON: I may not have that choice, but I'll certainly
explore it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And a quick question. Is the pool, you are
elevating it how high from its current?
MR. ANDERSON: About six inches, I believe. And it has really
nothing to do with the pool. It has to do with the septic system.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is it a full renovation on the pool?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, it's a vinyl pool. What we'll do is, when we
construct the wall, we'll raise the grade and remove the liner
and install a new liner in the cavity of}the pool. So we are
not changing its location.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The walls would have to go up six inches, too.
When you get into that, it's going to be a whole new pool.
MR. ANDERSON: The idea is to elevate the system. That is what we
are trying to do.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, and I think my point is I would try to
be flexible with the pool to accommodate what we want with the
wall and septic.
MR. ANDERSON: What I'm trying to get you to understand, it has
really nothing to do with the pool. We are not raising the wall
to accommodate the pool. We are raising the wall to accommodate
a septic system.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. But if you could move the septic away
from the wall by repositioning the pool in another location
whether it's the size of the pool or the shape of the pool,
location of the pool, I'm talking about since you are already
fully rebuilding the pool, you may as well be flexible about the
size, shape and location.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm not disagreeing with you. All I'm saying is I
don't know whether or not, where I think you want it, say
between the house and Harbor Road, in that area, whether that is
doable. If it is, and I'm happy to work with you and everything
follows, I get it. I'm okay with that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. I think the IA is a great choice,
obviously, for this location, because it's basically sitting in
Orient Harbor there. But my hang up is a revetment on the public
road there. That's my big --
MR. ANDERSON: It's a wall. We would face it--
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If we face it with 15 feet of grass,that would
work for me
MR. ANDERSON: We are trying to work with separation distances.
We are not putting it on the road because we want it on the
road. We are putting it on the road because that's the only
place it could go.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I would like to explore other options.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Sometimes properties unfortunately have
limitations in developing.
MR. ANDERSON: We are'not developing it. We are putting a second
story addition on. So the tradeoffs here are decidedly in favor
Board of Trustees 16 October 16, 2019
of the environment. No matter where it ends up. I'm willing to
look at it. But there is no doubt in my mind from an
environmental standpoint this would be a vast improvement. If
you look at your survey, you have a house that is served by an
individual cesspool that is 20 feet from the water, as are the
neighbors' houses, directly adjacent. So that's the situation
you're curing. And it's being driven because you are putting an
addition on top of an existing structure, second story addition.
You are not expanding the structure. You are not expanding any
structure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
At the applicant's request I'll make a motion to table this
application so you can explore other options.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under wetland permits, number one, 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 (235 sq. 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
Board of Trustees 17 October 16, 2019
Non-Disturbance Buffer. -
Located: 12700 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-116-6-14
The Trustees initially visited this site, or I should say
most recently visited the site on the 9th of October; noted that
no more than the 16-labeled trees to be removed. Non-disturbance
buffer not to be touched. Suggested a pervious driveway.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
And the LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
I also have a letter in the file dated September 17th, from
Mike Clifford Case, and I'll read the following letter. Dear Trustees. With
regard to the public hearing on September 18th, we just received a copy
of the proposed plan for the Robert and Kim Cagnazzi permit. Myself
Michael Clifford Case, along with the other owners of the
adjacent property at 13020 New Suffolk Avenue have had flooding and
mosquito issues with the wetlands and have concerns this plan
will worsen the problem on the gravel road east of the cottage
that this plan is to remove, has not been used for 50 years
and has become a natural barrier to the wetlands. Secondly, this
road is a right-of-way to our property. Please advise us to your
permitting of this plan as we are concerned about the
environmental impacts.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicant. I have Tim ,
from the architecture firm as well if there are any questions
you might have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to confirm, this project will have an IA
system?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that shown on the plan?
MS. MOORE: Yes, it's on the survey.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's on the survey, okay. I do see the e-mail
about it here.
MS. MOORE: If you want for your records, here is a more detailed
Health Department plan. It's very busy, but it shows you the
sanitary. We gave you a more simplified plan, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Also, will there be any grade change to the
property during construction?Are you going higher with the
house or the guest house?
MR. GANETIS: Timothy Ganetis, Austin Patterson Disston
Architects.
There are some minor proposed contour changes that would be
visible on that sanitary plan,just around the area of the
terrace and the house to kind of mitigate the grade change down
to-the existing grade. So the proposed contours are shown on --
MS. MOORE: You can see there are some lines that go around the
house; and it goes from, what is that number, I can't read it.
MR. GANETIS: That's an eight.
MS. MOORE: A very gradual eight and nine. Nine being around the
the proposed terrace of the house. Kind of goes around the
Board of Trustees 18 October 16, 2019
house. The existing elevation of the property is at its, as you
get closer to the water, it's six-and-a-half. Almost seven.
MR. GANETIS: Closer to the garage proposed to be demolished is
elevation ten.
MS. MOORE: Yes. So by the road is ten and eleven. And then it
kind of gradually tapers down to about seven.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So for the, as compared to where it stands now
is there a grade change with the new house or is it--
MR. GANETIS: The proposed house is raised to conform with FEMA
regulations and as a result--the proposed house is 11.75., And
we are just looking for the existing survey. The existing house
is 9.6 above.
MS. MOORE: So that's a two-foot difference.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then the letter I read into the file spoke
about a right-of-way. Is that a legal right-of-way to the
property?
MS. MOORE: No, not in any of the title work that has been done.
I know that there, New Suffolk Avenue and the Case's, it's a
challenge over there. We actually had the surveyor go back out
several times because the county had the dimensions of the
property different than -- and it went back several generations
of deeds and surveys. So there is a discrepancy of about ten
feet. But it has nothing to do with this property. It kind of
runs from, it's very complicated, but it runs from like the main
road, New Suffolk, all the way down. And it's a surveyor's
headache. But nothing to do with this property. There are no
easements, no right-of-ways on this property. And in fact the
right-of-way they are talking about is going to be extinguished;
the driveway that is by the wetlands, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:,Okay, thank you.
Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding
this application?
MR. GOGGINS: Good evening, members of the Board. My name is
William Goggins, I represent the neighbors to the west. The
actual name is W12600 LLC. And they don't necessarily oppose the `
application, but they want this property to be treated like
their property was treated when they got their permits. They
were required to keep their house and all,structures 200 feet
away from the wetlands, and they, at the time, I think in 2006,
proposed a pool which had to be 150 feet from the wetlands. The
applicant has their pool 117 feet from the wetlands, which is a
33-foot difference. `
So the neighbor to the east would like to propose that the
whole conglomerate of structure, the pool, the house and so
forth, be pushed back 15 to 25 feet, which would make it more
consistent with my client's property to the west, and also have
the concurrent effect of getting all these structures further
away from the wetlands to the east.
As to the flooding, you can see New Suffolk Avenue curves
to the right or curves to the east, southeast. That whole, yes,
that whole area there, that is all wetlands. And I think the
Board of Trustees 19 October 16, 2019
neighbor that wrote the letter has that roadway between the
wetlands. That whole area floods out.
I'm familiar with it because I live near there and the area
where the road is kind of light then gets dark when it goes past
the curve to the east, that gets flooded out. Salt water from
the creeks overflow there. So there is definitely a major issue
with regard to flooding. I'm not sure how that affects that
structure being built, but my client's concern is that this
applicant be treated consistent with when they went through
their process.
So again, they seek that this whole grouping of pool,
planting, what else is here, trellis, the whole thing be pushed
back to the north 20 to 25 feet or somewhere about that. About
there, so it would be more consistent with their property and
further away from the wetlands to the east. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I would like to note that the Board
did review the location of the house, and if you look at the
plans for the proposed house versus the current house, the
proposed house does fall directly in line with the neighbor's
house. The only thing in front of it would be the pool, which I
certainly would request is salt water.
Are there any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would ask that using the, our field notes,
there is a reference that we reaffirm the conversation we had in
the field regarding the number of trees to be removed and the
viability of the non-disturbance zone.
MS. MOORE: If you would like, I do have from the landscape
Architect, the tree count that she identified, so that in the
field that is consistent with what we had planned, we discussed
which trees needed to be removed because of the location of the
sanitary system and the structure, but in a sense it's also
identifying all the trees that are remaining. So that might be
helpful for your file.
TRUSTEE DOMINO:,The total number to be removed is --
MS. MOORE: It's identified here. If you would confirm with me,
the "Xs".
MR. GANETIS: Yes.
MS. MOORE: The plan she has is the "Xs" show the trees to be
removed. Which are commonsense here in the driveway and in this
area. The trees to remain have been, the larger caliper trees
have been shown on the plans, and that is just a starting point
as far as,what is remaining. I do have a landscape plan as well,
if you want to incorporate that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I believe the number was 16.
MS. MOORE: There is a lot of them, so, yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The maximum number to be removed is 16.
MS. MOORE: (Perusing). 16: Right on the dot.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you.
MS. MOORE: If you would like the landscape plan as well that you
saw in the field, I can provide it to the Board. We have extra
copies here. This landscape plan did not have the trees. That's
i
Board of Trustees 20 October 16, 2019
why we got the tree plan. It's up to you, if you want it, it's
for your records.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You saved a couple of those trees.
MS. MOORE: It's nicer when the family has an architect involved
as part of the process, so.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I would like to re-affirm our conversation in
the field that the non-disturbance area is in fact
non-disturbance; no actions, no raking. Non-disturbance.
MS. MOORE: That's fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We had discussed in the field the possibility
of a pervious driveway rather than an asphalt driveway.
MS. MOORE: I think that the issue was the snow removal for
year-round use. Maybe we can come up with a material that, we
were going to talk about a material that might be easily
maintained in the winter but would remain pervious. There are
some products out there now that allow for continued
permeability. There are different options. So if you want to,
we could certainly agree to a permeable material,just what it
is, I don't really know because we don't know what is out there
as far as availability. So. Is that all right? Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any additional comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER:-Only a small reiteration of the concern for
the trees on the plan has been executed and appears to save
large caliper trees on the property.
MS. MOORE: We are keeping the trees. He can't hear you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm sorry. Yes. Concerns about the trees
seem to be met with the project plan. Particularly since they
are in close association with the wetland to the east, they are
very important for recycling.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Also taking into account there really is not a
grade change for this project. So in terms of any flooding
concerns, the project won't cause any additional flooding. It
will be relatively the same. I think the major flooding down
there is there was a row of houses built within the wetlands in
the first place. But in terms of the project changing that, it
will not. Any other comments?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the following stipulations. An IA septic system is
installed; no more than 16 trees to be removed during this
project; the pool will be saltwater only; and a pervious ,
driveway will be utilized.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 21 October 16, 2019
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number two, 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
The Trustees did review this site on August 7th field
inspections, noting the plans seem very straightforward. It was
an in-place/in-kind replacement.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency noted is the structure never received a wetland
permit issued by the Board of Trustees pursuant to Chapter 275
Wetlands and Shorelines of the Town Code.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not review this
application, therefore no recommendation was made.
Between the time this application was submitted and
currently there was an amendment to the plan to update the
application to depict the roof runoff would run through
downspouts to three six-foot diameter by eight-foot drywells.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just for the applicant.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
Is there anybody else here that wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response). o
I make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number three, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on
behalf of WILLIAM FROEHLICH requests a Wetland Permit to
demolish an existing one and a half story, single family
dwelling and to abandon existing sanitary system; construct a
new two-story, single family 2,368 sq. ft. dwelling including
covered porches and screened porch; install gutters to leaders
to drywells to contain roof runoff; install a new sanitary
system; and install a new gravel driveway with drainage.
Located: 6130 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-128-2-6
This application before us has been postponed. It was first
Board of Trustees 22 October 16, 2019
reviewed at the August 14th, 2019 meeting, then subsequently at
the September 18th, 2019 meeting. It was reviewed and tabled
both times to accommodate the LWRP coordinator concerns and
concerns of the Board.
I have two letters in the file. I'll summarize the first.
Dear Mr. Domino, I have spoken to the property owner and the
architect regarding the proposed project. Accordingly, the
project proposed a new single-family dwelling not located any
closer to the wetland lines than the existing dwelling. The
applicant agrees to install an alternative -- an IA waste water
treatment system to replace the existing system.
That letter was dated September 6th, 2019.
The second letter, October 1st, addressed again to the
Board of Trustees. Dear Mr. Domino, when the public hearing was
for the proposed project I explained to the Board we agreed to a
20-foot buffer zone located immediately landward of the existing
bulkhead, and for your review I enclosed four copies of the
survey showing the revised buffer zone. In addition, we have new
plans which reflect both of those letters.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak to this application?
MR. JUST: Glenn Just, for the applicant.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else wishing 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 GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).,
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application with
as submitted with revised plans, and the letters outlining the
there will be a 20-foot buffer zone landward of the bulkhead and
an IA system, thereby bring it into consistency with the
concerns of the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item number four, 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
This application has been postponed, tabled at the
Board of Trustees 23 October 16, 2019
applicant's request for submission of detailed plan revisions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next item is number five, Samuels &
Steelman Architects on behalf of JONATHAN ZANG requests a
Wetland Permit to demolish existing dwelling; construct a
two-story dwelling on piling foundation, with footprint of
2,034 sq. ft.; construct garage with swim spa on roof, with
footprint of 443 sq. ft.; construct sanitary system, enclosed by
retaining walls per S.C.D.H.S.; construct masonry front porch
and stairs to grade of 113 sq. ft.; construct masonry side terrace
and stairs to grade of 301 sq. ft.; construct two frame stairs to
grade, each of 26 sq. ft.; construct permeable stone on grade
terrace of 84 sq. ft.; construct frame deck on grade with fence
enclosing outdoor shower, 23 sq. ft.; construct frame deck on
grade with fence enclosing outdoor shower, 27 sq. ft.; construct
permeable crushed stone driveway, 856 sq. ft.; provide leaders and
gutters and subsurface leaching pools for storm water runoff;
provide a 24" wide French drain at inside of bulkhead, full
perimeter; provide 20' wide non-turf buffer behind existing
bulkhead; provide geothermal wells for HVAC system on water side
of residence; provide approximately 500 cubic yards of clean
fill, including between property and private road; provide new
crushed stone at existing private road; provide topsoil, lawn
and landscape; provide underground propane tank; and install
public water.
Located: 370 Takaposha Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-6-7
This project is deemed consistent by the LWRP coordinator.
However with consideration to meet Policy Six, that the non-turf
buffer is vegetated and to require the installation of an
alternative onsite waste water treatment system.
The Conservation Advisory Council supported the application
with the requirement that an IA system and beach stairs be
retractable.
The Board of Trustees performed a field inspection on
October 9th with further discussion at work session on Friday,
October 11th.
And is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of a
this application?
(Negative response).
With respect to the field inspection that the Board performed, I
just want to add that this house had started construction with a
prior Building and Trustee permit. It is unclear to me, are we
fine now with this new information for a request for an IA
whether or not a sanitary system had been installed, because I
don't recall retaining walls in the front yard. It seemed like
it was a large grade elevation to the house when the question
would remain now after seeing the report from the LWRP
coordinator and Conservation Advisory Council whether or not the
sanitary had been installed under the prior permit or whether
they are still awaiting a sanitary system.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Would it make sense to table this application
Board of Trustees 24 October 16, 2019
for further review?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, that makes sense. Any additional
questions of the Trustees of this time or concerns?
(Negative response).
Seeing no one stepping forward to speak to this application,
concerns exist to try address those concerns enumerated by the
LWRP coordinator and the,Conservation Advisory Council, I move
to table this application for further review.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number six, Studio AB Architects on behalf
of MAGGI-MEG REED & MICHAEL SCHUBERT requests a Wetland Permit
for the existing partial two-story, 1,989.77 sq. ft. dwelling with
1,208.54 sq. ft. of existing decks; existing 325.56 sq. ft. shed
attached to dwelling; existing 160.63 sq. ft. shed deck; construct
an approximately 600 sq. ft. addition essentially on top of the
existing west section, attached shed and screen porch of the
dwelling; and construct 338.26 sq. ft. of additional decking on
the landward and seaward sides of new addition.
Located: 815 Rosenburg Road, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-1-25,1
(Formerly Lot 1.3)
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is, according to Town records, the structures were constructed
without obtaining a Board of the Trustee review or regulatory
permits.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on October 9th
noting that the project was not staked and that we would need a
top down rendition of proposed on the site plan.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. SCHUBERT: Michael Schubert, owner of the property. It's my
application, if you have any questions.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: When we went out there, the project was not
staked, so we could not see exactly where the proposed addition
was going. So we would need that staked. We also need a top
down rendition of the layout currently with the proposed
addition on plans so we can review prior to making a
determination.
MR. ARIIZUMI: I'm the architect, Hideaki Ariizumi.
MR. SCHUBERT: I'm not sure what needs to be staked on top of
existing structure. Right, we are building a second floor above.
I can show you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We have 338.26 square feet of additional
decking on the landward and seaward side of the new addition.
MR. SCHUBERT: So this is the house. So right here is his, it's
a two-story and it's just a one-story in this part. And it just
goes up there, from there, and the decking is a second floor
Board of Trustees 25 October 16, 2019
just Juliette deck that you just step out on. It's-not like on
the ground. And then there is a little roof deck that comes up
here off the top. So there is nothing to stake, really.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: That second-floor Juliette deck, will that
expand over another deck?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's on top of the house, correct, so it's not
overhanging?
MR. SCHUBERT: It is, I think overhanging by one or two feet.
Hold on. That's, see the issue here is the end of what is there.
So it did does come out a little. But this doesn't come to the
end. You can see what it is. So on the land side it extends --
this is what exists. So it's just going up. And on the land
side it comes out. I don't know how much that is.
MR. ARIIZUMI: One of these I needed to extend sea side. Water
side. Is that this from here to here is existing screen porch
and one story. And this foundation was not desirable. And of
course we could dig up and replace the old foundation, however
that is, I thought, more disturbance from using just a pile. So
therefore I put the new pile slightly out of existing and just
two spots we can work on that. It's minimal construction.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So is the entire addition staying within the
existing footprint?
MR. ARIIZUMI: Slightly off. It is going out slightly.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On the landward side, how far is that?
MR. ARIIZUMI: Landward side, probably six, eight. Somewhere in
there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One by six?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any other questions or comment from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: My apologies, it was a misreading of the
additional square footage on the deck and we are so accustomed
to seeing it go out toward the waterway. It's my fault, I
carried the file and misinterpreted that.
MR. SCHUBERT: So you can see it's sitting on the roof. That's
the addition going. Just on top and here. And it's over the
house. It's -- okay. I'm sorry. _
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing no further questions or comments, I
make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted, and by granting a permit is bring it into
consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 26 October 16, 2019
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number seven, 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 144.0sq.ft. Seaward side deck with
steps to ground; and construct a'776sq.ft. Second-story addition
with two exterior balconies (3'x26' and 3'x12').
Located: 445 Island View Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-57-2-27
The Trustees most recently visited on the 9th of October
and noted that the project itself was not staked.
Following up, just to reiterate the prior comments from
September 11th, the project not staked; test hole data not
noted; proposed leaching system pool not on plan; proposed needs
to be staked; needs IA treatment system; and requires a large
non-turf buffer preferable; and wetland line needs to be on
survey.
As previously stated last month, the LWRP coordinator found
this to be consistent, required the installation of an IA
system, verify depth to ground water, establish vegetated
non-turf buffer.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to
support this application because the exact location of the
wetland boundary is not clearly defined. It is not enough to
make a recommendation. So they didn't go one way or the other, I
guess.
Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding
this application?
MR. SCHUSTER: Michael Schuster. My wife and are the
applicants. On the recommendation of the Board last month we did
get the property staked out, and it has been staked and the
plans have been submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we visited it, the property, on the 9th of
October, and there was the wetland line was staked, but the
project itself was not staked. So the house expansion, the,
decks, none of that was staked.
MR. LIU: You wanted the expansion of the house staked, too.
MR. SCHUBERT: We were under the impression it was just the
wetland that needed to be staked. That's what we were told.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. (Perusing). So we would need to see that
staked.
Then did you include that wetland line on any of the plans?
Because I don't--
MR. SCHUSTER: Yes. That was submitted to the Board. It was a
survey with the new staking out of the wetlands.
MR. LIU: We basically keep it the same line of the existing
house to make the addition, and the balcony on the second floor
is only, it's along the line, too. It's over the existing footprint.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So you are enclosing the sun room?
MR. SCHUSTER: Yes.
Board of Trustees 27 October 16, 2019
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The concerns for the septic there were just
that it was IA really. Which it is on the new plans. And we do
have the wetlands staked on the survey. So as you see there, the
edge of the lawn is sort of into the wetland boundary. So the
two main things that I need, and I would like to hear from the
other Board members if they have other feelings on this, is on
your site plan, not your survey, I need to see a non-turf buffer
extending landward of the wetland boundary, that was delineated
on the survey. And then we do want to see staking for the
project in terms of any outside expansions, because there are,
any time we get into something significant, we want to see that
on the project itself. So we could visit that next month at our
field inspection.
MR. LIU: On the front porch and the back addition?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. So please stake that. And then also just
make sure you put, we are going to want to see some kind of
non-turf buffer on the plan. So I don't know if you are
familiar, but essentially a line that you can't plant grass,
sod, turf, anything landward of that.
MR. LIU: About 15 feet off wetland.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are requesting 15 feet. It's up to you to
pick. Depending on the property, we usually go ten to 15. This
is definitely a sensitive area, we would like to see at least 15
from the wetland line.
And just to be clear, non-turf means non-turf. It can be,
you know, a planting area, garden type area. It could be
anything, if just can't be turf.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And as far as the staking goes, anything that
expands out of the existing footprint, put stakes in, so when
when we go and inspect it we can visualize where it's going.
MR. LIU: So basically like space stakes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Question. What is your status with the
Suffolk County Health Department approval? In other words have
you received Suffolk County Health Department-approval?
MR. LIU: No, we didn't apply for anything.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Were they proposing an IA on this? Because
of the extremely high ground water elevations on that road, you
may have to include a retaining structure, retaining walls on
the plans to accommodate the IA system to reach elevations to
have proper treatment of the leaching. So that would be an
element that should be included in the design specifications we
would review, and that you may wish to, so we don't have repeat
visits for both your sake and the Board's sake, you may wish to
further develop your IA waste water treatment system with the
Health Department and then incorporate in the plans any
retaining structures that you may need for the property. Because
these properties regularly flood.
MR. LIU: Do we have to stake out the retaining system wall, too?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. If you are compelled to have a
retaining wall for the IA system with the Health Department, it
has to be on the plans-and,it has to be staked.
Board of Trustees 28 October 16, 2019
MR. SCHUBERT: That happens with a discussion with the Health
Department?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Health Department will direct you after
consultation with engineers and completing their application
process, the design elements necessary for the IA system based
on whichever system you choose to put on the property, there are
a number of approved designs. Some also, if you heard prior
discussion at hearings tonight, some also will reduce somewhat
the height of the retaining walls necessary to keep project
costs down, but you'll have to fully develop a plan and approval
from the Health Department. And the Board, at its discretion,
the Board can hold on final approvals until the Health
Department and other agencies grant you permits.
MR. LIU: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In this case it might make more sense to go to
them first so you don't have to come back to us.
MR. SCHUBERT: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak
regarding this application, or additional comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number eight, Condon Engineering, PC on behalf
of BARBARA PAGANO requests a WetlandPermit for the existing
two-story dwelling with attached garage; and to construct a
25'x27' new attached garage; a 21.8'x8' front addition; a
12.3'x8.5' front addition; a 12.1'x6' rear addition; a
22.1'x4.3' rear addition; a 1.4'x20.1' rear addition; construct
an 11'x16' and 12.1'x16' rear deck addition; and install gutters
to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff.
Located: 2335 Cedar Lane, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-37-4-8
The Trustees reviewed this project in the field on October
9th, 2019. The only field notes suggesting a 15-foot non-turf
buffer to match the neighbor.
The LWRP coordinator reviewed the project, found this
project to be consistent with some notes to require a non-turf
buffer and to require the installation of an IA-OWTS.
The Conservation Advisory Council did review this
application and resolved to support the application with notes
of a 15-foot non-turf buffer.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak with regard to
this application?
MR. CONDON: John Condon, Condon Engineering, on behalf.of the
owners.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
to this application?
(Negative response).
To clear up the LWRP coordinator's notes on the requirement of
Board of Trustees 29 October 16, 2019
an IA system, you are not putting in a new septic system, so
it's not triggering the need for an IA, you'll use the existing
septic, correct?
MR. CONDON: The existing septic system is eight or ten years
old.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Were there new plans for the buffer on that?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Yes. We did get new plans submitted on October
11th, clearly depicting a non-turf buffer along the seaward face
labeled 15-foot wide non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Anybody else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to close the public hearing..
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted, noting that the receipt of new plans dated received
October 11th, 2019, depicting 15-foot wide non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES):
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number nine, Condon Engineering, PE on behalf of
STEPHEN CARROLL requests a Wetland Permit to install a new I/A
nitrogen treatment unit with an infiltrator leaching system to J
replace an existing septic system.
Located: 3825 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-9-5
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council on October 9th resolved
to support this application.
The Trustees did a field inspection on October 9th and the
notes read as follows: Where was the test hole. Test hole
references 19-foot elevation but there is no 19-foot elevation
on this property. Or survey. And questions if the system could
in fact be moved to the front yard rather than being on the
seaward side.
In respect to the question about the test hole data, we
couldn't locate on the survey where this test hole was and noted
that-- it says approved Health Department.
MR. CONDON: John Condon, Condon Engineering. We are actually
getting a test hole. DEC is requiring one. So we should be
getting one next week or so. So I'll add that to the plan.
I didn't move it to the front yard because it's a lot of
driveway area and the utilities. So I thought it's best to just
leave it where it was.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Most of us surmise that the concern was that the
test hole shows that an approximate 2.1 feet to ground water.
And considering the conditions that we saw it, it was a rainy
day, nor'easter, and the possibility of sea level rise, this
might not function the way it's intended. So we understand that,
Board of Trustees 30 October 16, 2019
but that's why we ask if it is a possibility. We also recognize
some of those nice trees might have to move. But it might be a
better product all along if that-- is there any possibility of that?
MR. CONDON: I can look into it. We are doing a, we are
out-pumping it, so we could pump it up along the side yard up to
the front, with the IA unit in the rear yard and leaching in
front, possibly.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: In other words the cast iron will still exist on
the seaward side and then pump.
MR. CONDON: We could explore moving it out to the front. I'll
look into it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Would you be open to tabling this so you can
research that more?
MR. CONDON: Yes. That's no problem. We can do that:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Question. Have you received final Health
Department approval on the IA yet or is that still pending?
MR. CONDON: Their approval is pending DEC and your approval.
DEC's comments were just looking for a test hole and I had to
fill out some other form.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is it possible-that you will need to put a
retaining wall, in the current location you need to put a
retaining wall?
MR. CONDON: No, the leaching field is shallow enough. We don't
need one.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else who wish to speak to this
application?
MS. MILNE: I'm Kathleen Milne. I'm the neighbor to the east,
and my property floods very easily. Like I'm sure it will flood
after all this rain. So that concerns me with another cesspool
adjacent to my property now. But if they could move it
somewhere else, I think that would be better. Plus I have a line
of cedar trees on the boundary and I'm worried that digging
holes right, you know, three feet away from the trees, that will
weaken the trees, they will topple over. They are 50-years old.
That's my concern, you know, with the flooding and two feet away
from the system. And I know, you know, it floods now, and the
system that is there is in the backyard, so. I don't know how
much of that is going into the creek. That's my concerns.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, for your concerns.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this
application?
(Negative response)..
Questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application at the
applicant's request for further data.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE'DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 31 October 16, 2019
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number ten, McCarthy Management on behalf of
BRIAN VREILLY requests a Wetland Permit to install a 4'x55'
fixed wood catwalk; steps to grade off landward end of catwalk;
install a 3'x14' seasonal aluminum ramp; and install a 6'x20'
floating dock with chocking system situated in a "T" configuration.
Located: 659 Pine Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-5-31.1
This project which the Board has enacted it's environmental
declaration significance, did note a lack of water depth.
The LWRP coordinator did note that there are concerns
concerning degradation of water quality and resuspension of
bottom sediments and turbidity, and that the application,does
not discuss cumulative impacts to water body.
The Conservation Advisory Council supported the application
but noted the project was not posted or staked. And they had
recommended 15-foot non-turf vegetated buffer and runoff
mitigation because of the ravine or steep nature of the
property.
Board of Trustees inspected this property on October 9th,
and in the course of inspection revealed that there appears to
be insufficient water for vessel operations; the project was not
staked; and there were concerns although not readily inspectable
because of the lack of staking concerning the pier line; there
was no existing dock as may have been alleged; and there was a -
question about an outdoor shower permitting, which the Board
will have to review.
Is there anyone-here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. LADEMANN: John Lademann from Cutchogue, but I own property
next to the property on Jockey Creek, and I'm really not in
favor of anything going in because it, we've had five
generations live on the property where we are, and now we'll
have to put up with looking at a dock because of census, and
there is not much water there. And even though years ago they
had a mill on our property, on Jockey Creek, a lot of people
don't know that, but there was a mill on it, on the edge of the,
but definitely my whole family and people that come visit us,
the like to sit on the porch and look down at boats going down
the creek, coming up, and we'll be faced with something a total
of 75 feet out into the water. My great grandfather used kayaks
and grandson they have canoes. It's not right to put something
to total of 75 foot out into the water and one-third across
Jockey Creek. To me, it better not happen because there will be
accidents or something. So.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where is,your property compared to --
MR. LADEMANN: Right next door to it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Looking at the picture, you are to the left? r
MR. LADEMANN: It's between the marina which is, right up on the
marina.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.,
MR. LADEMANN: Definitely my whole family is against'it because they
t
Board of Trustees 32 October 16, 2019
come down and some have lived there and some go down and visit.
One of my grandson's is living in a house there, so. I just want
to let you know that we are against it. I mean people can put a
small dock in, like people across the way. Years ago my father
put in an application that would not allow us to have a dock on
that side of the creek, many years ago.
MS. MUDD: Hi, I'm Pat Mudd, Jack's daughter. I just want to say,
the kids are always that kayaking, paddle boarding, and there is
a 75-foot dock going there? That means they have to go out to
the channel. The channel there is very narrow. I don't know when
you visited it, if it's low tide. But when it's low tide, the
channel is way on the other side, that means the kids have to go
way out to the channel, which it's very narrow with boats and
whatnot. I don't think it's a very safe thing. Like you said,
if it was something small on the side. But the water there is
very, very low. And it is down the end, as you can see, down the
end,of the creek. I just don't think it's a really,safe thing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else here who
wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response). C
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll just issue my thoughts on this. It
definitely didn't seem that there was enough water for the dock _
in this location. I would think that it would be more
appropriate to put a smaller, narrow catwalk in basically a
fixed pier with through-flow decking. Something shorter.
Because you won't get depth anyway. Maybe a ladder at the
bottom to be able to use a kayak. But it's my opinion that in
the current configuration it's not an appropriate dock for this
application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that is similar discussion that we
had at work session. Any other Board member wish to comment on
this?
(Negative response).
Due to the deficiency of the project not being staked, I think
it would be advisable to contact the applicant and to indicate
the shortcomings that we found, and then provide an opportunity
for maybe staking a smaller dock configuration that would meet
the depth requirement or some of your suggestions, possibly
reach out to scale this back, because clearly we have a problem
that the Board found and clearly now we have public testimony
that this is failing with respect to depth and safety.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Out of curiosity was there a defined vessel in
the application? I don't remember.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't recall, either.
I see only a proposed seasonal floating dock with chocking
system. No mention of a vessel on the project plan.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you prefer to push it off due to staking
rather than vote on it now, or?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have no preference either way. I have no
decided preference. I would move to table it, if it's lost.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I would agree with Jay in the absence of the
Board of Trustees 33 October 16, 2019
owner or applicant here and the questions that we have, lack of
vessel, possible reduction in size, and it might make sense to
give them an opportunity to answer those questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Fair enough.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further discussion?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to table the application in this
matter in an effort to develop proper plans that meet the site
conditions that the Board has encountered.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number eleven, GREG SCHULZ requests a
Wetland Permit for the as-built cutting and discarding of rotten
vegetation and dead tree; and to revegetate with native plants
within the approximately 16'x24' disturbed area at the property
of the Donald P. Brickley Irrevocable Trust.
Located: 7230 Skunk Lane (At Corner of Oak Drive and Hickory Drive),
Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-6-10.1
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent and consistent. The
inconsistency is according to Town records, clearing work was
completed without obtaining a Board of Trustee review or
regulatory permit. It is consistent, the re-vegetation of the area is
consistent with the LWRP.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on October 9th,
noting that the clearing was done without permit. And it was the
need to discuss with the Town attorney as well as we would
require a re-vegetation plan.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. SCHULZ: I'm the homeowner at 1040 Oak Drive. And we had an
excavator and land clearer hired, and he went above and beyond
his duties and cleared across the street. He knew it was my wish
but he was cited and I'm here to make it better.
TRUSTEE-GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
MR. WOLLEBEN: Yes. I'm Robert Wolleben. I'm the homeowner at 260
Broadwaters Drive, which is the property adjacent to the
Brickley Trust, and I'm here as a result of the review of the
application, and I have really three concerns. One is the
proposed revegetation plan is substantially different in nature
than the vegetation that was removed. That's number one.
Number two I want to make sure that when the Board does
approve-the project, and I understand the Board will approve it
eventually, that there be no further grading of the property,
because it is a small hillock that serves as a barrier to the
tidal erosion and tidal overflow. And it does overflow obviously
during full moon high tides sometimes, definitely during
hurricanes.
Board of Trustees 34 October 16, 2019
And third, that when the Board approves the permit that it
does not convey to the current applicant any authority to
further modify the revegetation, trim, replace, whatever;
whatever goes in there, is going to stay there for the life of
the property, as was the case for the 64 years that I've lived
at the property. So, thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
MR. SNEIDER: Yes. Thank you. Ken Sneider, Cutchogue. Good
evening, Board. Mr. Schulz is new to our neighborhood, and I
find it appalling that he took it upon himself to trim trees and
vegetation and adjoining property without any permits or
anything of the sort. He has had issues with other neighbors and
I'm just really appalled that he took it upon himself to do
this. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here
wishing to speak regarding this application?
MS. DOWNES: My name is Elizabeth Downes. I'm adjacent to the
Schulz's property. I can say that on May 17th it was a really
horrible day to hear chainsaws and chipper and go and take a
look and see guys tearing down trees and shrubs and bushes on
the wetlands. And they pointed out that it was Mr. Schulz who
had employed them to do so. The property does not belong to the
Schulz family. The Schulz property is across the street. And
there were two large trees that were taken down and a lot of
substantial bushes. And they are not little, low growing. They
were three, four, at least, feet high. I questioned in the
proposal from Gregory Schulz how it was determined that one of
those trees was dead, because I have information from the Group
from the East End that a tree, even though it has a hollow spot
in it, is still a viable and important part of the wetland
because the root system is still there, and so I don't think we
can consider when he put in the proposal that there was a dead
tree. I disagree with that wholeheartedly.
It is my strong request for the Trustees to revisit this
proposal and to readjust exactly the pictures I believe that you
have at hand about what the property looked like prior to this
cutting, and require substantial replication of those trees that
were cut down. Thank you.
MS. BRANKER: Good evening. Claudia Branker. I'll be fast.
As Mr. Wolleben said, the area is like a little hillock,
and when the, when we have severe storms it does help prevent
from the serious flooding. Um, so my question is that when the
trees were cut down and the shrubs, now those roots will die and
the integrity of that hillock is now compromised. And it's not
just, you know, so the flooding can be not just during a
hurricane, it can just be during crazy moon and high tide. So my
question is who does the new planting?Who supervises that?
Like, especially since it's wetlands, you can't just, I think,
have some local yokel landscaper come down. Like what is going
to be addressed about that whole integrity of the hillock?
Board of Trustees 35 October 16, 2019
That's it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, very much.
So in reference to that question, whoever is to do the work
would have to have a coastal contractor license with Southold
Town.
MR. SCHULZ: He does.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak?
MR. HAGAN: Just for the sake of clarification, on top of that,
any revegetation plan would have specific planting's located, and
prior to the closing out of the permit, the area Trustee would
review the vegetation plan that had been presented to the Board
of Trustees to make sure it's in keeping with the approved plan.
So that's that enforcement side of it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And typically, the Board also will have a
discussion during'the permitting phase about survivability and
subsequent visits to the property to make sure that the
vegetation is well established and doing --
MS. BRANKER: How long does that go on for, a couple of years?-
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would be part of the permitting
discussion, but,typically for several years.
MS. BRANKER: It's a little weird. It almost looks like there
was a pesticide put down. I don't know the last time you were
out there. But, it was not just that trees were cut down. It is
dead. You know, everything else around it is growing except for
this 24-foot area, wouldn't you say.
MS. DOWNES: I apologize for coming back up to the podium. But
that is my point about substantially changing the look of the
hillock. What was there was an accumulation of trees, two trees,
I believe, if my memory is correct, but salt tolerant reeds that
grow 12 to 15 feet. And it looks as though, I don't know what
actually happened, I was not here, but it looks as though some
herbicide was applied to these salt tolerant reeds. The
revegetation plan says Rosa Rugosa, which is not going to grow
12 to 15 feet. So my question, really is my request to the
extent that it can be accommodated, is that the revegetation
plan substantially recreate the conditions that were there
before. I'm not saying put in more locust trees, although there
are locust trees up and down that stretch of the road, but that
vegetation that was 12 to 15 feet high, that should be \
re-created and not replaced with a rose bush. Respectfully.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: As Trustee Bredemeyer mentioned, whatever
planting plan we do approve, it will have a survivability
inspection so to make sure whatever does go in there will
survive and revegetate. We have discussed putting seven eastern
red cedars on that parcel, planted by hand, with no further
disturbance of anything else on that property. And we will need
new planting plan depicting that.
MR. SCHULZ: Red cedar trees?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, seven red cedar trees, two-and-6-half
minimum caliper.
Board of Trustees 36 October 16, 2019
MR. SCHULZ: There was only one tree on the property, I have
pictures of it.,Why do I need seven now?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Again, we need a plan with seven eastern red
cedars of minimum two-and-a-half-inch caliper planted by hand
with no further disturbance to that property. And there will be
a condition about survivability to make sure those plants do
survive. Then we can revisit that at a later date.
So is there anyone else here, any more questions or comments?
MR. HAGAN: Just so I can be clear, so before the Board would be
willing to vote on something like that, you would need to see new
plans that would depict those items in place.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Correct. Because the planting plan we
currently have in our possession of 30 Rosa Rugosa will not
suffice. So we need a new planting plan with the seven red
cedars of two-and-a-half inch caliper before we can proceed.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to direct the Assistant Town
Attorney to further clarify from the owner that there is in fact
permission to do any work here on this, what is not Mr. Schulz's
property.
MR. HAGAN: There is a letter in the file from the owner of the
property saying they would not get involved, that does have
contact information, for clarity of the Board. And I will do as
directed by the President of the Board and discuss with the
property owner a consent for a revegetat ion plan on the
property, because right now we don't have a written consent from
the property owner.
MR. SCHULZ: She's very sick. It's her daughter we are dealing L
with. She has power of attorney.
MR. HAGAN: Well, there was a letter that was sent to the file
that stated affirmatively that they were not giving a consent
that they were not taking a position with regard to this.
MR. SCHULZ: She might want to be notified she is getting new
trees on the property rather than what was there.
MR. HAGAN: Yes, so that is going to be verified by my office for
the benefit of the Trustees as directed.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Additionally, I want to commend,the eloquent
questions and presentation from the neighbors and reaffirm that
once, when and if any action is done on this, on the revocable
trust property, that this be, there will be no further action
taken by anyone on, that it be non-disturbance in perpetuity.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to table this application for
a planting plan.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 12, Cole Environmental Services on
behalf of EMMA VAN ROOYEN &JANE ABOYOUN requests a Wetland
Permit to remove existing dock and construct new in-place
consisting of a 4'x±13.7' fixed landward ramp to a 4'x±57 linear
foot long fixed dock using thru-flow decking (to 4'6" above
Board of Trustees 37 October 16, 2019
existing grade); a ±28.5"x4' wood hinged ramp; a new 6'x20' wood
frame floating dock situated in an "L" configuration with two
(2) 8" diameter piles to secure floating dock; new±8.7'x2.6'
wood frame bench seat to be built on fixed dock; all wood and
pilings to be pressure treated; new/existing floating docks not
to rest upon bottom of creek; dock pole depth to be determined
by height of pole above grade; if height above grade is greater
than 10', dock pole depth below grade to be equal length to
height above grade; if height above grade is 10' or less, pole
depth to be 10' below grade min.
Located: 575 Hill Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-29
The Trustees visited this site on the 9th of October, noted
that there is insufficient water depth at low water to warrant a
float.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent noting
that there was a wetland permit grandfathered for a dock, but
the current configuration is not•compliant with the permit.
Noted that the water depths are shallow in the waterbody in
proximity to the proposed dock; installation use of the proposed
dock to prevent power boat traffic and possible following
negative impacts may.occur: Degradation of waterbody,
resuspension of bottom sediments and turbidity. The structure -
proposed
tructure -proposed extends further seaward into the waterway and may
impede or hinder use of public seaward by the public seaward of
mean high water mark.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Okay, is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. COLE: Chris Cole, Cole Environmental Services for the
applicant, here to answer any questions as needed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the Board of Trustees as well as the
LWRP coordinator that there is really not sufficient amount of
water depth at this location for a float. I mean, I personally
would recommend coming back with plans for just a fixed catwalk
with thru-flow. And then also, just to verify on your plans,
because you have a nice overhead there showing three quarters
across in the,distance there, but if you can just verify the
existing pier line there. Because we can't extend'out past that,
too.
MR. COLE: We were not intending to go any further seaward from
where we currently were. We just were intending to have the
ramp, add thru-flow and widen the dock from three feet to four
feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. But unfortunately you don't have the
water depth, so, and you also, the dock that is there is not the
permitted dock. So I mean I personally would request that we get
plans for a fixed dock at that location with thru-flow and not a
float. Because we can't have float resting on the bottom,
obviously.
MR. COLE: Would the Board be okay with chocking the float?
Board of Trustees 38 October 16, 2019
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No.
MR. COLE: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other questions or comments?
MR. COLE: I think we would request to table the application to
go over this with the client and come back with a potentially
new set of plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Very good. Thank you. Is there anyone else here
wishing to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to table the application at request of
the applicant.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 13, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of PETER
& DIANA O'NEILL requests a Wetland Permit to clear underbrush,
saplings and dead leaf matter along existing bluff area; install
two (2) drywelis in the driveway (6' diameter by 6' deep), to
capture all driveway runoff prior to overflowing bluff and
connected to roof leaders to capture roof runoff.
Located: 5875 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-1-1.3
The Trustees visited this site on October 9th. All Trustees
present. Field notes concern about runoff, extreme erosion could
result if removal of leaf coverage and vegetation. Currently
good environmental buffer. Would need a planting plan. Drywells
would be okay in driveway.
The LWRP coordinator found this action to be inconsistent.
The proposal is unclear. What is considered a sapling is
undefined. Is it recommended that the Board set a certain DBH of
trees to be cleared.
The Conservation Advisory Council did review this
application. They have concerns with runoff. They support the
application using best management practices.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on`behalf of the applicant. Hearing
those comments I would like to maybe suggest tabling the
application for another modified onsite inspection which would
include marking the trees we would like to remove, and in
addition providing some sort of a planting plan for erosion
control on the project, whether it be plantings or some sort of
jute mesh fabric or some sort of seeding program that we can
develop together.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: That sounds,reasonable. Is there anybody else
here wishing to speak to this application?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. I will say that I did meet with one
contractor at this property already and the way it seemed to be
trending is they were looking to really clear out the property
and put, I mean basically get rid of all the woods, underbrush,
all the natural vegetation and put some turf-like material in.
Might not be turf in name, but essentially that. And that's
Board of Trustees 39 October 16, 2019
really not the direction this Board is looking to go in terms of
steep property into a poorly-flushed creek.
MR. PATANJO: What kind of, types of plantings or some sort of
clearing of the dead underbrush would be recommendable or should
we have a meeting regarding that?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: You can come to a work session and discuss it
if you want. I personally would be open to some limited
terracing, some limit of trees. I would assume that the property
owner is probably looking to get a better view of the water and
just make the property looking a little neater and cleaner to
some extent.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you applying for terracing?
MR. PATANJO: No, I'm not.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'm just,giving a suggestion. But at this
point in time you mentioned possibly tabling it for a planting
plan. So come to a work session and have a discussion and we
have can have some back and forth.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the notion what we were discussing
on the field inspection is an understanding they may wish to
have a limited lawn area close to the house for entertaining or
other purposes to fit in, but definitely not looking to what
Trustee Krupski may have encountered with discussion with the
landscaper and contractor. We are not looking for--
MR. PATANJO: I don't know who that was. I think I have to talk
to the homeowner in a little more detail. I think I was hired
for the initial plan of clearing out the underbrush and making
it a little more visible to the creek.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One thing I did notice is directly behind the
house there is a really, I don't know how to put it, scrappy
area, that would definitely be appropriate to clear because it's
just a mess of vines, and I forget what exactly was there. It
was downpouring at the time. But definitely an appropriate area
to clear. But as we get further down the slope and it really
picks up in angle, I think that's more what we are concerned
with. I mean a serious buffer of some sort.
MR. PATANJO: I would request to table the application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would reiterate, our field inspection was
conducted at 1:12 PM, during a heavy downpour. And we checked,
there was no runoff into the creek. In other words the
understory that is there was doing, and the leaf litter and so
forth, and the trees involved, were doing the job and maximizing
infiltration and reducing the runoff to essentially zero.
Therefore, I see no advantage to going in and grubbing out
the area, cutting it down, terracing, whatsoever. Our mandate as
Trustees to protect the environment, and what was there seemed
to be doing a pretty good job. So I'm not inclined to look at
this application favorably.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any other questions, Jeff?
MR. PATANJO: No. I would like to table to go to work session
and discuss further.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any Trustees have anything to add?
l -
Board of Trustees 40 October 16, 2019
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application at the
applicant's request.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 14, 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
This application is previously on 9/16, tabled at the
applicant's request.
The LWRP coordinator comments were previously read into the
record. To reiterate, it is inconsistent. The applicant has not
demonstrated the following dock standards pursuant to 275-11
have been met. And this is the summation of two-page comments:
Dock structures extending into public waters decrease the public
use of bottom lands in near shore; it is recommended the Board
verify the proposed dock meets the pier line or the dock line.
Additionally, section 9.3, extending the dock structure will
result in net decrease of public access to public water and
underwater lands.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application on July 10th.
The Trustees inspections of this property, several
inspections of this property, on 7/10/19, at 2:10 in the
afternoon, measured two feet of water at the current float. Need
to verify depth. Need to discuss at work session. Which was
done. On August 6th, insufficient water depth. New plans ;
requested. And then on October 9th, new plans and data refers
to mean low water instead of mean low low water as before.
Discussion to be continued at next work session.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. I forgot
my plans at home. So, I'm going from memory here. During the
work session that we went to, we had discussed the mean low
water in lieu of mean low or low water. So water depths got
better, and I believe I now only have to piles with no chocks
and we do have sufficient water depth for the float.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: My memory from the plans was that if there was
six numbers around the float, half of them have sufficient or
close to sufficient water depth and the other half still do not.
MR. PATANJO: However, wasn't this an originally permitted,
previously permitted dock structure?
Board of Trustees 41 October 16, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The previously permitted dock structure was
14-foot shorter than this one. That is one point. Your plans
also show, the newer plans, show mean low water, zero feet of
water. And additionally -- on the side elevation. Additionally,
as per previous Trustee comments, there is, at the seaward
terminus of the float, is 2.3 feet of water. 2.34. 2.57. Which
is, but if you go further, approximately ten feet further, the
depth diminishes to 2.18, 2.16. 2.13. So your own data
demonstrates there is insufficient water at this site for a_
float as per our current guidelines.
MR. PATANJO: So the stance of the Board -- I guess that's it. So
what I would like to do --you know what, let me table it for
revised plans with the new proposed application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none; I make a motion to table this application at the
applicant's request.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 15, Jeffrey Patanjo
on behalf of GABRIEL FERRARI requests a Wetland Permit to remove
and replace 47 linear feet of existing bulkhead with new vinyl
bulkhead in same location as existing, and raise the,bulkhead
height an additional 12" higher than existing; remove and
replace in-place 25 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead return;
install and perpetually maintain a 10'wide non-turf buffer
along the landward edge of the new bulkhead; and to install 10
cubic yards of clean sand fill.
Located: 295 Bayview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-5-26
This was reviewed at the last hearing. This received a
determination of inconsistent at that time because there still \
was a record it was prior structure was not built with the
benefit of a Trustee permit.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted to approve subject
to a ten-foot non-turf buffer, which is on the plans. We are in
receipt of revised plans dated October 8th, 2019, in conformity
with the Board request concerning the addition of some armor,
rip rap, 30 linear feet of rip rap revetment in the same
location as the existing bulkhead. And that's what I have on the
inside of the intake on this.
The Board reviewed the plans on October 8th, during the
course of, sorry, it was reviewed on the date of field
inspection on October 9th, by the whole Board.
Is there anyone that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. If you
have any questions I would be happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else wish to speak to this
Board of Trustees 42 October 16, 2019
application?
(Negative response).
Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make motion to approve this application
based on the October--stamped in October 8th, 2019 plans
showing the proposed 30-foot linear feet of rip rap revetment in
the same location as the existing bulkhead, thus bringing it
into consistency see with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 16, 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
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent, provided
the following is required. Required turbidity controls.
Establish a vegetated non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the
application with the condition the lower tier is planted with
native vegetation. The CAC questions the location of the dredge
spoil disposal area.
The Trustees most recently conducted a field inspection on
September 11th and reviewed the plans inhouse at our latest work
session, noting it was straightforward. Also noting that plans
dated received August 5th, 2019, do show a ten-foot wide
non-turf buffer.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. If you
have any questions, I'm here to answer them.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Silt boom during construction, good with
that?
MR. PATANJO: Sure.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this,application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Board of Trustees 43 October 16, 2019
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion to approve this application with the
condition of a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer as well as silt
boom used during construction, as depicted on new plans dated
received August 5th, 2019.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. PATANJO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 17, En-Consultants on behalf of MATTHEW
ZASH & COURTNEY KREMERS requests a Wetland Permit to construct
onto existing 1,347 sq. ft. one-story, single-family dwelling a
354 sq. ft.i one-story addition (remove existing stoop and outdoor
shower from proposed footprint); reconstruct in-place existing
garage walls and roof, replace 4' garage roof overhang with 12"
overhang, and install solar panels; construct a 3.5'x9' roof
over existing front stoop; construct new 572 sq. ft. waterside
deck in place of existing 171 sq. ft. waterside deck; and
reconstruct 5'x6' steps to deck; construct a 14'x26' gravel
patio in place of existing gravel patio; remove existing septic
system on the seaward side of dwelling and install new septic
system more than 100 feet from wetlands; install drainage system
of leaders, gutters, and drywells to be located more than 100
feet from wetlands; and to establish and perpetually maintain a
10' wide, approximately 1,130 sq. ft. non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the wetland boundary.
Located: 400 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM#-1000-97-7-3
The Trustees originally visited the property on the 9th of
October, noting it is largely straightforward. Would require
roughly a 15-foot non-turf buffer and need to discuss the
possibility of IA system.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent, with the
installation of a non-turf buffer landward of the wood bulkhead
and requests the applicant install an IA system.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
this application, and recommends that an IA nitrogen system be
installed.
Is there anyone here to speak regarding this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. We did meet in the field last week. It's a fairly
straightforward application. We had originally proposed a
ten-foot non-turf buffer, and the Board had requested
establishment of a 15-foot non-turf buffer in our discussions
which I confirmed with the applicant and just handed up to Jay a
revised site plan prepared by Ken Woychuk last dated 10/14/19,
now showing a 15-foot rather than ten-foot wide buffer adjacent
to the wetland boundary.
Board of Trustees 44 October 16, 2019
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any comments in response to the IA system?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, all three of us agree, between us and
the LWRP coordinator and Conservation Advisory Council.
MR. HERRMANN: We are sort of stuck in the same box. I mean, my
specific, in general response, specifically, the topic was
discussed at the outset. There is an existing system that is
about 56 feet from the tidal wetland boundary, and that system
is being removed and replaced with a proposed conventional
system located well more than 100 feet, nearest components the
septic tank located 127 feet from the wetland boundary and thus
outside the Board's jurisdiction. So that in and of itself is
actually a no-permit required activity.
There was conversation nevertheless about an IA system. The
difficulty here is where we are removing a conventional system
from a nice, convenient location between the house and the
wetlands where there is lots of room. We have to move it up to
the side of the driveway area in the front: If we, if they for
even voluntarily were to go with an IA system because of the
additional depth of the OWTS, they have likely have to put in a
raised system here which would require installation of retaining
walls, greater setbacks from the northerly property line and an
amount of fill, all of which we would really like to try to
avoid. But again, the general response, we are sort of in this
situation still until the town changes the code that the
proposed system is actually outside the permit, outside the
Board's permitting purview. So the applicant has not proposed an
IA system. I understand that may change at the town level at
some point. But at the moment that is what we are dealing with
in terms of the code requirements.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: As a point of clarification, we have the
discretion to request an IA system for any activity connected to
any activity in our jurisdiction. So we do have that in our tool
box.
MR. HERRMANN: Not sure I follow, Greg, sorry.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Even though the septic is more than 100 feet
from the wetlands, the activity is taking place on a structure
that is in our jurisdiction, and we do reserve the discretion to
require what type of septic be hooked up to the activity in our \
jurisdiction.
MR. HERRMANN: How would you enforce it?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Carefully.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What do you mean how would we enforce it?
MR. HERRMANN: Let's say the Board imposed a condition on a
wetland permit to install an IA system that is outside your
legal-jurisdictional area and they opted not to install that
system, how would you enforce it?
In�other words, you recall years ago, before the IA systems
came about, we used to put in these permits as mitigation, that
we would be removing a system located within jurisdiction and
putting one outside, and you remember your assistant town
attorney at the time Lori Hulse eventually made us stop doing
Board of Trustees 45 October 16, 2019
that because she was saying the Trustees don't have the
authority to have a permit speak to structures located outside
their regulatory jurisdiction. So you can't put the septic
system in the permit. And I would argue, well, yes, but we want
that to be acknowledged, because the applicant is doing
something good. But we were still told not to do that.
And to that point, I think that's why the code is currently,
written why it's written. In other words, if we came in and
didn't propose the renovation and only proposed that we were
going to remove this system and install a new general system
outside your jurisdiction, we don't need your permit. It's not
something the Board regulates under Chapter 275.
So it seems like the Board doesn't want to force the
applicant to play a chess match, but I would rather see the
applicant rewarded for removing the non-confirming system and
putting in a new system much farther from wetlands, more than
100 feet away.
I mean, they are doing the right thing. I know from your
perspective; they can do more. But the reality at the moment,
especially for seasonal residents, is some of these things are,
you know, the additional cost, they would have to hire an
engineer, for another four or$5,000 to design it. And then the
installation cost is double. So there is not an incentive right
now, I mean this guy didn't even want to install the new system.
But we made that part of the project as mitigation.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Can you clarify for me what is the water
depth on that test hole?
MR. HERRMANN: The water elevation is 1.3. Elevation is 9.7. And
we have a, looks like in the design, there is a three-foot
minimum elevation to the cesspool. It doesn't show what the
distance is to the septic tank but I know the OWTS is several
feet deeper than the septic tank. So we might end up in a
situation where we would have to raise the system.
Again, it's not something that has been explored, in
other words no engineer has been retained to design the IA
system for this project because it has not been proposed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would it be possible for you to explore that
option?
MR. HERRMANN: That's what I'm trying to testify, is that we, and
just knowing that the Board has been asking this., On my senses,
most projects, I have been discussing this with my clients.
Certainly any system that is located even partially within
Chapter 275 jurisdiction I have just been telling people it's
going to have to be an IA system. But at the moment the code
doesn't require it. So most people are trying to avoid the
additional design and installation cost, especially with a
seasonal residence.
And again, counsel can correct me if I'm wrong, but my
understanding is that part of the project that involves the
removal of the existing system within your jurisdiction 'and
installation of a new system out, actually does not require the
1 n
Board of Trustees 46 October 16, 2019
Board's approval.
MR. HAGAN: The Board does have the authority though to condition
their approvals on projects existing within Trustee
jurisdiction, on conditions that they deem appropriate with
regard to environmental concerns.
MR. HERRMANN: I understand that, but what I'm trying to say is
that I would disagree that the Board can require what can be
installed outside of their jurisdiction, because they don't have
the'authority to enforce what goes in that area.
In other words, we can propose a six-story condominium 110
feet from the wetland boundary and the Board has no say over it.
So again,,it puts me in an awkward position, because I
understand the Board's motivation for this, and it would be a
lot easier if the Town would change the code or the Board would
change the code in 275 so that for all new construction or new
renovations or substantial renovations, whatever is required,
because then when it comes to us, like it does in the Town of
Southampton, it's not a point of discussion. We just say this is
what is required.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Every property is inherently unique, and when
you change the code in many cases you paint with broad brush,
where with our discretion we can pinpoint where it makes sense.
If you have a sensitive area near the headwaters of a creek, if
you have an area with limited depth to water, it makes sense. If
you are on a bluff with 150 feet to water it may not be necessary.
So in long discussions between the Board and the Town
attorney's office, it has been made to our understanding any
actions happening in the jurisdiction of the Trustees we have
the discretion to regulate what kind of septic it is.
MR. HERRMANN: To regulate what is going on outside the Board's
jurisdiction?
MR. HAGAN: The Trustees have the authority to condition their
approvals for activities within Trustee jurisdiction on factors
that they believe will deal with the environmental concerns that
would arise within Trustee jurisdiction on the proposed project.
MR. HERRMANN: I'm not an attorney but I would disagree with
that. So if the Board is looking to impose that as a condition
here, I would ask for the application to be tabled so the
applicant can retain counsel. Which I will say I think is the
wrong message to send to somebody who is doing the right thing.
They are proposing to remove this existing nonconforming system
and put a new system 127 feet away from wetlands, and the Board
is effectively looking to impose more that creates additional
burden on the applicant. And you don't agree with that. Because
I believe it creates a disincentive for people to propose what
the applicant has proposed. Or at least it does in some cases.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would certainly be open to listening to other
opinions of other Board members, if anyone has any in this.
matter. I feel mildly strong about the location being the
headwaters of the creek, and my crabbing industry all of August,
but I'm open to listening to other opinions.
Board of Trustees 47 October 16, 2019 .
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll reiterate what I said at work session, that
this is a modest home, 1,300 or so square feet. And it's a small
addition to it. By removing the septic system farther away from
the creek, and I thought it appropriate to ask for the IA
system. But didn't feel it strongly enough to make a real push
for it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I concur wholeheartedly with the President
of the Trustees, and I'm concerned that I don't see a refinement
in the tools we need here to impose it in a case like this,
whereas I think with a total home replacement on a waterfront
lot it might be a different situation. That's all I have to say.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'm looking at the Trustees website at the
moment, and it says the Board of Trustees August 15th, 2018 work
session determined that in the future we will require alternate
wastewater treatment systems for all applications within
Trustee jurisdiction that would normally involve a new septic
system or relocation of the system. So just under that--
MR. HERRMANN: That's for a septic system within Trustee
jurisdiction or any activity requiring a permit?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So I'm flexible on this. I know it's a little
bit of a moving target atlthe moment. So.
MR. HERRMANN: It is a difficult position for us, for me in
particular. It's something we wrestle with on all these
applications, and --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So as you said, it can go either way on this.
It's an environmentally sensitive area being the headwaters of
the creek and pretty low elevation to groundwater. However they
are making an improvement, as you said, moving the current
system further away. So it is an improvement over what exists.
MR. HERRMANN: And that was my position on it, Glenn, was that
between the increased non-turf buffer and the relocation and
upgraded septic system and installation of the drainage system,
it's really a lot of bona fide real mitigation that will leave
the site better off than where you are finding it. And I think I
work very hard to talk clients into all these things. Most of
which they don't want to do. As you know, most clients just want
to build stuff. But we work hard to get them to make these
concessions.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, I just think the policy in the past where
it goes more than 100 feet, regardless of what type of
application it was, that might not be the case going forward.
Not necessarily in this case, but if it is a new build of major
renovation, just because somebody locates that septic system 101
feet as opposed to the 100 feet, but the rest of the project is
a big project that exists within our jurisdiction, that they are
combined going forward.
MR. HERRMANN: I guess what I would ask counsel is if the
applicant withdrew this application and submitted a request only
to replace the existing system with a new upgraded system
outside your jurisdiction, isn't it a fact under current code
that that activity does not require a permit? I mean I could go
Board of Trustees 48 October 16, 2019
find the section of the code if you want, but I assume you know
it.
MR. HAGAN: Sorry, your question is if you withdrew an
application and then put in a new application where nothing
occurs within Trustee jurisdiction, you would not be making an
application for Trustee jurisdiction.
MR. HERRMANN: No, you misunderstood the question. If we withdrew
this application, the applicant could then go out, without going
to the Trustees, and remove this system and put in a had new
system outside jurisdiction because that activity doesn't
require a permit.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: He gave you the answer. Because septic system
as currently exists is in our jurisdiction, and that activity
would give us the right --
MR. HERRMANN: That's incorrect.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Let's not debate that here.
MR. HERRMANN: With all due respect it's not debatable. Your code
specifically says that the removal of an existing septic system
from within Chapter 275 jurisdiction, and installation of a new
system outside Chapter 275 jurisdiction does not require a
permit. Including the removal of the existing system.
MR. HAGAN: And in your example, so you are not doing any work
with regard to the home, you are simply moving --
MR. HERRMANN: At that point, correct. We would take the old
system out, put the new system in and five months later come
back with this application for a renovation.
MR. HAGAN: Okay, without speaking to the renovation portion;the
code is clear as to what would happen. If there was an
application simply for the removal of the septic system from
within Trustee jurisdiction to outside of Trustee jurisdiction,
that's detailed in'the code. However, I would also tell you that
should there be an application wherein you are increasing
intensification of use of that public property or otherwise
increasing the property within Trustee jurisdiction the Trustees
have the authority in order to, in review of that application to
approve what conditions at its discretion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll reread what Trustee Goldsmith read before.
It says here, determines that in the future we will require
alternate --
MR. HAGAN: I would advise you to move on.
MR. HERRMANN: Again if the Board is looking to impose that as a
requirement of the permit, we would ask that the application be
tabled.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO:,All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I make a motion to approve this application as submitted and
request a roll call vote starting with me. And I vote yes on
this application.
'TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
Board of Trustees 49 October 16, 2019
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Nay.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Yes.
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 18, En-Consultants on behalf of ELAINE
DeMARTINO MAAS requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing
294 sq. ft. and 62 sq. ft. elevated decks with steps and fence, and
construct new 97 sq. ft raised masonry terrace with steps onto new
664 at-grade masonry terrace; construct 129 sq. ft. covered porch
addition with 3'x7' steps onto existing 99 sq. ft. front porch;
renovate exterior of existing 2,016 sq. ft., two-story dwelling
with new windows, doors, siding, and roofing; install drainage
system of leaders, gutters, and drywells; and to perpetually
maintain the 15' wide naturally vegetated non-turf buffer along
the landward edge of the existing bulkhead.
Located: 1500 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-2-26
The Trustees inspected this site on October 9th. We found
the project to be straightforward.
The LWRP program coordinator found this action to be
consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council supports the
application with a recommendation that the terrace is pervious
and the non-turf vegetated buffer is depicted on the survey.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: As a point of clarification, the non-turf
buffer is depicted on the survey. That's nothing you have to
discuss, Rob. Putting that out there.
MR. HERRMANN: Is does show on the site plan, right?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Yes.
MR. HERRMANN: As,you confirmed, the existing non-turf buffer is
shown on the proposed site plan. It is a straightforward
application. We discussed it in the field. The Board doesn't
have any other questions, I don't know, I don't have any other
input.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Anyone have any questions?
(Negative response).
Is there anybody else here that wishes to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Motion to approve the application as submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 50 October 16, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 19, En-Consultants on behalf of FREDERICK
LIGUORI requests a Wetland Permit for the complete
reconstruction of a 12'x12' second-story deck, which replaces a
previously existing storm damaged deck attached to an existing
634 sq. ft., two-story frame building; construct a 12'x12' raised
masonry patio beneath reconstructed deck; and maintain an
existing outdoor shower, 8'x12' shed with attached 4'x4' access
ramp; a 3'x6' storage box, and two sets of steps (4'x8' and
5.2'x8') off existing retaining wall; and a proposed drywell to
be installed outside Chapter 275 jurisdiction.
Located: 5600 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-128-2-11
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from the fact that the garage structure and
apartment on the second floor is constructed on a nonconforming
lot, is located within FEMA flood zone AE elevation six foot.
These areas are subject to inundation and by 1% annual chance
flood event, and may flood during storm events. It is also
recommended that the applicant identify how wastewater is
disposed of. And an IA system is recommended.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection, therefore no recommendation was made.
The Trustees did a field inspection at 2:55 in the
afternoon on October 9th. They questioned the permit history of
the building, whether or not this was a segmentation issue and
requested a review with the Building Department.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant.
With respect to the history, this is a, it's a pre-existing
building that has been present since the 1950's. It has a CO as
a garage with apartment above. There were some unpermitted
renovations made to the interior of the building, in addition to
the commencement of the reconstruction of the deck on the
waterside of the house which originally triggered a stop-work
order, I think a violation from the Building Department.
Before I was retained, the owners went to the Building i
Department to try to resolve all this but were told that they
first had to come to the Trustees to obtain a wetland permit for
the reconstruction of the deck, and subsequently a raised patio
within the same footprint of the deck was proposed underneath it.
Originally, the submission of that application to the
Trustees office resulted in your usual review by the Building
Department who identified the possibility,of the project needing
a variance for lot recognition if the lot had not been created
prior to 1957. After many months of legal research and review,
it was figured out that the lot was actually created by deed in
1958. So just missing the 1957 cutoff. So we had to go to the
Zoning Board of Appeals for relief for lot recognition for the front
lot line with less than a hundred feet, which would have been
required at that time. I think it's 79 or 80 feet, something like that.
So we went to the Zoning Board of Appeals and we obtained
Board of Trustees 51 October 16, 2019
their approval, so the lot is now officially recognized.
In order to get back to the Building Department to try to
square away the interior renovations which are not within the
Trustees purview, typically, we need to get the permit for the
deck and the patio.
There was a question raised I think at the work session,
not the work session, the site inspections about the existing
septic. We actually did get the report back from Precision
Mark-Outs. The septic system was actually not where Nick
thought it was on the waterside of the house. It is on the east
side of the house the. I can give you this mark-out for your
file. It shows the existing septic in green. So we would have
to, as a condition of Zoning Board approval, we would have to
provide some sort of certificate of approval from the Health
Department for the existing system. Otherwise, I think that's
it. There is a couple of other existing structures on the lot.
There was a storage shed, some steps coming off_of the landward
side of the retaining wall behind the bulkhead that we included
in the application since they were just installed there at some
point without Trustee permit.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here 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 BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion to approve this application as submitted,
noting that the approval will bring this into consistency and
that the concerns of the LWRP coordinator on the septic have
been addressed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 20, En-Consultants
on behalf of MARY ANN HOWKINS 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 "L" configuration.
Located: 3245 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-7
This project was first visited-by the Trustees on field
inspection on September 11th. Subsequent discussion concerning
the depths and presentation made by Rob Herrmann of
En-Consultants concerning the datum used, the Board visited the
Board of Trustees 52 October-16, 2019
site on field inspection on October 9th, and where we were
presented with the new set of plan's stamped in the Trustee
office October 7th which were modified just slightly with prior
application, and with depicted hydrographic datum indicating
that the water depths are at least 30 inches at the float in
this job, we subsequently reviewed the project at our work
session on October 11th and the deny also to remediate the
inconsistency questions concerning depth leading to
inconsistency.
And the Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this
application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
application. Jay summarized the history of the application, the
current proposal perfectly, so I don't have anything else to add
to that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional Board concerns?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. I make,a motion to close the
hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Imould make a motion to approve this
application based upon the plans received October 7th in the
Trustee office.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Motion to adjourn. r
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
m
Michael J. Domino, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
NOV 1 4 20190- 3'.S1P
S Ahold Town'Cer