HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-12/11/2019 Glenn Goldsmith,President ®f S®(��� Town Hall Annex
Michael J.Domino,Vice-President ®�® 54375 Route 25
P.O.Box 1179
John M.Bredemeyer III Southold,New York 11971
A.Nicholas Krupski Telephone (631) 765-1892
Greg Williams a® Fax(631) 765-6641
c®U ,�
FRECEIVED
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD J A N 2 1 2020
Minutes Southold Town Clerk
Wednesday, December 11, 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, January 8, 2020 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 5:30 PM at the Main
Meeting Hall
WORK SESSIONS: Monday, January 13, 2020 at 5:00 PM at the Town Hall Annex 2nd
floor Board Room, and on Wednesday, January-15;2020 at 5:00
PM at the Main Meeting Hall
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING: Monday, January 6, 2020 at 5:OOPM at the Town Hall
Annex 2nd floor Board Room
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of November 13, 2019
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good evening, and welcome to our Wednesday, December 11th,
2019 meeting. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order and ask that you
stand for the pledge.
(Pledge of Allegiance).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll start off by announcing 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 Hagan and Senior Clerk Typist Elizabeth
Cantrell. Also with us tonight is Court Stenographer Wayne Galante. And the
Conservation Advisory Council member with us tonight and Carol Brown.
Agendas are located on the podium and also out in the hall.
Board of Trustees 2 December 11, 2019
Postponements. If you would look on page eleven, we have
number 15, 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 has been postponed.
On pages 12 and 13, numbers 16 through 24 have been postponed. They are
listed as follows:
Number 16, 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) drywells 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
Number 17, Michael Kimack on behalf of SANTOSHA AFTER 50, LLC requests
a Wetland Permit to remove approximately 111 sq. ft. of existing deck in order to
construct a proposed 111 sq. ft. mudroom to connect the existing 464 sq. ft. cottage
to the as-built 5'x4.3' deck with enclosed outdoor shower, 5.9'x14.1' (83.2 sq. ft.) shed
with washer/dryer and toilet room; as-built 10.5'x5' (62 sq. ft.) deck on seaward side of
cottage; and existing landward shed to be removed and not replaced.
Located: 56155 Route 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44-1-21
Number 18, 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 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 press u re,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
Number 19, McCarthy Management on behalf of BRIAN O'RIELLY 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
Number 20, 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.
B
Board of Trustees 3 December 11, 2019
Located: 7230 Skunk Lane (At Corner of Oak Drive and Hickory Drive), Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-104-6-10.1
Number 21, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of WILLIAM MACGREGOR requests a
Wetland Permit to remove existing fixed dock, ramp and floating dock and replace in
the same approximate location as existing dock a new 4' wide by 80' long fixed pier
with thru flow decking on entire surface; a new 30" wide by 16' long aluminum ramp;
and a new 6' wide by 20' long floating dock supported with two (2) 10" diameter
piles; in addition, there will be a trimming and maintenance of a 4' wide cleared
path from the proposed dock to the edge of existing maintained lawn.
Located: 1120 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-9-2
Number 22, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of FRED & MAUREEN
DACIMO requests a Wetland Permit to replace the foundation of a
36.2'x32' existing residential cottage and raise foundation to FEMA standards,
renovate the cottage, and repair or replace existing sanitary system as needed;
and for the existing 20.8'x68.5' one-story frame storage building with concrete slab;
existing 40.4'x20.3' two-story frame building; concrete shed and fuel tank; existing
10.2'x14.2' shed; existing 74.3'x49'x28.7'x177x51.6'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 23, 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 24, 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.
In addition, I would like to point out that on page 13 and also on page 14, are
two amendments that will be discussed at the conclusion of the meeting, at the end.
If you are here for those, you'll have a bit of a wait.
Under Town Code, Chapter 275-8(c), files were officially closed seven days ago.
Submission of any paperwork after that date may;result in a delay of the processing
of the applications.
At this time, I'll entertain a motion to have our next field inspection, Wednesday,
January 8th, 2020, at 8:00 AM at the Town annex. That's my motion.
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, January 15th, 2020, at 5:30 PM, here at the main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So moved.
Y '
1
Board of Trustees 4 December 11, 2019
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like a motion to hold the next work session at the Town
annex board room, 2nd floor, on Monday, January 13th, 2020, at 5:00 PM, and at
5:00 PM on Wednesday, January 15th, 2020, at the main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: 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
the November 13th, 2019 meeting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: In addition, we have an organizational meeting which will be
held Monday, January 6th, 2020, at 5:00 PM at the Town Hall annex, 2nd floor board
room.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Also, Trustee Bredemeyer pointed out on page seven there is
number three, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of 65 SOUNDVIEW, LLC
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to install +/-100' of stone
armoring along face of existing bulkhead with 1 to 2 ton armor stones; silt fencing to
be used during construction; filter fabric to be used at base of stones; all work to
be landward of apparent high water mark.
Located: 65 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-3-2
is also postponed.
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for November 2019. A check for
$17,327.20 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the
General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
III. RESOLUTIONS -OTHER:
Number one, RESOLVED, the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Southold, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review
Act, hereby declares itself Lead Agency in regards to the
Board of Trustees 5 December 11, 2019
application of MATTHEW STANTON.
Located: 2725 Wells Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-16.
Resolution.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Number two, RESOLVED the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Southold, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review
Act, hereby declare itself Lead Agency in regards to the
application of ANTHONY TARTAGLIA & JAMES HOWELL.
Located: 55255 Route 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44-1-9
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And number three, RESOLVED, the Board of
Trustees of the Town of Southold, pursuant to the State
Environmental Quality Review Act, hereby declare itself Lead
Agency in regards to the application of STUART THORN.
Located: 19375 Soundview Avenue, Southold SCTM# 1000-51-1-20.1 & 21
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: -
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the
following applications more fully described in Section IX Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, December 11, 2019, are classified as Type II
Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review
under SEQRA:
They are more fully described below.
Claudia Purita SCTM# 1000-51-4-6
Josh Auerbach &Whitney Bowe SCTM# 1000-27-4-7
65 Soundview, LLC SCTM# 1000-99-3-2
Jane Seeth Irrevocable Trust & Douglas Seeth Revocable Living Trust
SCTM# 1000-145-4-13
John B. Henry Revocable Trust SCTM# 1000-26-1-15.1
Jeffrey &Anca Lemler SCTM# 1000-104-10-6
William & Karen Goydan SCTM# 1000-123-3-1
Mary Ann Howkins SCTM# 1000-86-2-7
Silvia Campo & David Hermer SCTM# 1000-111-9-4.2
Darcy Gazza SCTM# 1000-103-3-4
Michael & Theresa Smith SCTM# 1000-14-3=2
Frank Doka SCTM# 1000-115-11-4.1
Rogers APRT#1 & Rogers APRT#II SCTM# 1000-71-2-9
S
Board of Trustees 6 December 11, 2019
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 IX Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, December 11, 2019, are
classified as Unlisted Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and
Regulations:
Stuart Thorn SCTM# 1000-51-1-20.1 & 21
Anthony Tartaglia & James Howell SCTM# 1000-44-1-9
Matthew Stanton SCTM# 1000-70-4-16
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.
1. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Jeffrey Patanjo on,behalf of MATTHEW STANTON
requests a Wetland Permit to install 30 linear feet of rip-rap for bank stabilization at entry
to existing dock. Located: 2725 Wells Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-16
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 December 4, 2019, and having considered Jeffrey Patanjo plans for
this project dated October 1, 2019; and the survey of T. Eason Land Surveyor, dated
July 8, 2010, shown at the Trustee's December 9, 2019 work session; and
WHEREAS on December 11, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself
Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees classified the
application of MATTHEW STANTON as an Unlisted Action pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A Rules
and Regulations. A Short Environmental Assessment Form and a field inspection have
been completed by the Board of Trustees; and it is hereby determined that it will not
have a significant effect on the environment, and;
WHEREAS, in reviewing the project plans of Jeffrey Patanjo dated October 1, 2019, and
the survey of T. Eason Land Surveyor, dated July 8, 2010 shown at the Trustee's
December 9, 2019 work session, it has been determined by the Southold Town Board of
Trustees that all potentially significant environmental concerns have been addressed as
noted herein:
No existing rocks or boulders are to be utilized, moved, or relocated on the
beach.
Proposed 5001b maximum weight rip-rap will be angled back towards the top of
bank;
Board of Trustees 7 December 11, 2019
Proposed filter fabric will be secured under proposed rip-rap;
Proposed rip-rap not to extend seaward of existing bank;
Access to the site for construction will be by land;
Proposed activities will be conducted so as to minimize disturbance of existing
vegetation;
A site inspection by the Southold Town Board of Trustees on December 4, 2019
identified ongoing erosion of the creek bank which necessitates remedial action.
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 GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number two,
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ANTHONY TARTAGLIA &
JAMES HOWELL requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to install
130 linear feet of rock revetment at toe of existing bluff to protect property against
additional storm erosion; existing 4'x13' steps to beach will be replaced in same location,
and one additional set of 4'x3' steps to beach north of existing. Located: 55255 Route
48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44-1-9
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 December 4, 2019, and having considered Jeffrey Patanjo plans for
this project dated October 22, 2019; and the surrey of Heidecker Land Surveying, dated
July 23, 2019, shown at the Trustee's December 9, 2019 work session; and
WHEREAS on December 11, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself
Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees classified the
application of ANTHONY TARTAGLIA& JAMES HOWELL as an Unlisted Action
pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A Rules and Regulations. A Short Environmental Assessment
Form and a field inspection have been completed by the Board of Trustees; and it is
hereby determined that it will not have a significant effect on the environment, and;
WHEREAS, in reviewing the project plans of Jeffrey Patanjo dated October 22, 2019,
and the survey of Heidecker Land Surveying, dated July 23, 2019, shown at the
Trustee's December 9, 2019 work session, it has been determined by the"Southold
Town Board of Trustees that all potentially significant environmental concerns have ,
Been addressed as noted herein:
No existing rocks or boulders are to be utilized, moved, or relocated on the
beach;
Access to the site--for construction will be solely from the landward side;
Damage to existing vegetation will be kept to a minimum;
As time progresses continued soil loss at the toe of the bank will contribute to site
instability;
A site inspection by the Southold Town Board of Trustees on December 4, 2019
recognized severe erosion on this property and need for a stabilization/erosion
control plan.
Board of Trustees 8 December 11, 2019
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 motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number three,
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of
STUART THORN requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7429 and Coastal
Erosion Permit#7429C to install a 12' rock revetment using 3-5 ton rocks in the space
between west end of existing bulkhead and proposed rock revetment on adjacent
neighbor's property.
Located: 19375 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-20.1 & 21
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 December 4, 2019, and having considered Costello Marine
Contracting Corp. Plans for this project dated October 14, 2019; and the survey of
Nathan Taft Corwin III, Land Surveyor, last dated September 22, 2010, shown at the
Trustee's December 9, 2019 work session; and
WHEREAS on December 11, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself
Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2019 the Southold Town Board of Trustees classified the
application of STUART THORN as an Unlisted Action pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A Rules and
Regulations. A Short Environmental Assessment Form and a field inspection have been
completed by the Board of Trustees; and it is hereby determined that it will not have a
significant effect on the environment, and;
WHEREAS, in reviewing the Costello Marine Contracting Corp. Plans for this project
dated October 14, 2019; and the survey of Nathan Taft Corwin III, Land Surveyor, last
dated September 22, 2010, shown at the Trustee's December 9, 2019 work session, it
has been determined by the Southold Town Board of Trustees that all potentially
significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein:
No existing rocks or boulders are to be utilized, moved, or relocated on the
beach;
Access to the site for construction will be by barge, access by or over the bluff will
be prohibited;
Damage to existing vegetation will be kept to a minimum;
As time progresses continued soil loss at the toe of the bank will contribute to site
instability;
A site inspection by the Southold Town Board of Trustees on December 4, 2019
recognized the need for a stabilization/erosion control plan.
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 motion.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 9 December 11, 2019
VI. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral VI, Resolutions and Administrative
Permits. In order to simplify our meetings, the Board of Trustees regularly groups
together actions that are minor or similar in nature. Accordingly, I'll make a motion to
approve as a group items One through Three below.
Number one, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of
DOUGLAS & ELLEN CIAMPA request an Administrative Permit for a
3'x33' (999 sq. ft.) extension to terrace with 13'x33' (429 sq. ft.) roof.
Located: 4380 Paradise Point Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-3-6
Number two, Louis DeSantis on behalf of JOHN HURLEY requests an
Administrative Permit to install a 48"x25" generator on a 55"x35" concrete pad.
Located: 1535 Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-7-10
Number three, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of
PETER LOJAC requests an Administrative Permit to remove approximately
3,800 sq. ft. of lawn area adjacent to creek, replace with native plantings, mulch
and gravel; and for Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to hand-cut Common Reed
(Phragmites australis) located on property to 12" in height by hand, as needed.
Located: 2750 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-44.1
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral VII, Applications for
Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments. Again, in
order to simplify the meeting, I'll make a motion to approve as
a group, items one through five. They are listed below:
Number one, VINCENT & DONNA DALEY request a One-Year
Extension to Wetland Permit#9157, as issued on January 17, 2018
and Amended on September 19, 2018.
Located: 135 Hill Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-32
Number two, Robert I. Brown, Architect on behalf of
FELICITY WOHLTMAN TRUST requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#9372 from Pasquale Sicuranza to Felicity Wohltman Trust, as
issued on December 12, 2018. Located: 705 Bay Shore Road,
Greenport. SCTM# 1000-2-53-3-9
Number three, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on
behalf of MEAGHAN E. BURKE requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#1722 from Clifford Eginton to Meaghan E. Burke, as issued on
October 26, 1983; and for an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit#1722 for an as-built 6'x20' floating dock which replaced
existing, installed perpendicular to ramp.
Located: 780 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-12-11
Number four,,Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of
ORIENT WHARF CO., INC., c/o GARY PARKER requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9583 and Coastal
Erosion Permit#9583C to include the right for a Ten (10) Year
Board of Trustees 10 December 11, 2019
Maintenance Permit for the dredging. Located: 2110 Village
Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-24-2-28.1
And number five, Michael Puglise on behalf of GEORGE
ROCKLEIN requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#8977 for the as-built 2'10"x6'5" outdoor shower, 5'x25'
concrete pad for generator and air-conditioning units; and the
as-built 14'x23'5" bluestone patio north of dwelling.
Located: 875 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-63-7-31.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VIII. DUCK BLINDS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Roman numeral VIII, duck blinds.
Number one, BRIAN TUTHILL requests a Waterfowl/Duck Blind
Permit to place a Waterfowl/Duck Blind in Narrow River using
public access.
Located: Narrow River, Orient.
I move to approve.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The second item in that category, number
two, WILLIAM G. LEE requests a Waterfowl/Duck Blind Permit to
place a Waterfowl/Duck Blind in Richmond Creek using public access.
Located: Richmond Creek, Peconic.
The Board reviewed this proposed location and find it is suitable for
waterfowl harvesting. Accordingly, I move to approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral IX, Public Hearings. At this time, I'll take,a
motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and enter into the public hearings.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is a public hearing in the matter of the
following applications for permits under the Wetlands ordinance
of the Town of Southold. I have an affidavit of publication from
the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may be read prior to
asking for comments from the public.
Please keep your comments cogent, organized and relevant to
the subject at hand. Five minutes or less, if possible.
Board of Trustees 11 December 11, 2019
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, under Wetland & Coastal Erosion permits, Jeffrey
Patanjo on behalf of ANTHONY TARTAGLIA &JAMES HOWELL requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to install 130 linear feet of
rock revetment at toe of existing bluff to protect property against additional
storm erosion; existing 4'x13' steps to beach will be replaced in same location,
and one additional set of 4'x3' steps to beach north of existing.
Located: 55255 Route 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44-1-9
The Trustees did a field inspection at this site on December 4th, and the
notes read as Trustees Bredemeyer, Trustee Domino, Trustee Goldsmith and
Trustee Williams present.
The notes read: Check permit history of deck and bluff and accessory shed.
Only one access stair allowed. Pipes noted through the bluff. No reconstruction
of deck without permits.
The LWRP coordinator found this application to be consistent providing
the following policy were followed.
Number one, prohibit existing bulkhead, and beach to be moved for
construction of the revetment. Require that the bluff slope border of vegetation
be a vegetated control area of active erosion.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support the application.
The proposed plan is insufficient to stabilize the properties, and the applicant
should consider a better engineered plan. That motion was carried unanimously.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. We have
no problem removing the second set of steps for the application,
and any other items that we discussed, that have been discussed at this point
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's a step in the right direction. Are there
any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wishing to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no comments, I make a motion to table this application
subject to the submission of new plans showing one set of stairs.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number two, 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
Board of Trustees 12 December 11, 2019
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
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
for the applicants Josh Auerbach and Whitney Bowe.
Joe Fischetti, the project engineer, has designed the septic system
in the wall, which is needed to retain the fill. I understand we
have been here before the Board our first go around, we had the
surrounding wall or partially surrounding wall centered on the
property line, adjacent to King Street.
The Board requests that we explore building a lower wall
located up the property line. Which we had done. We also
submitted, and before you is revised engineering plans from Joe
Fischetti. I believe they are last dated November 25th. Also we
provided you with landscape plans that our office prepared which
featured a proposed planting area adjacent to and landward of
the existing revetment. And a second planting',area between the
relocated wall and King Street. The fronting part consists of
beach grass, which will do nicely in front of the revetment,
which faces the wall at six-feet wide. And the second is going
to be a row of groundsel bush directly adjacent to King Street,
which is pretty much what exists there today.
Just so you know, by the way, I think I mentioned at the
last hearing, the original design was actually.approved by this
Board. We are happy to work with you to soften whatever impacts
the Board feels is important. It really is to support a
second-story master bedroom above the existing footprint, which
is generally not even regulated by this Board. However, there are
a number of elements in here that are, and that's why we are
before you.
I would like to introduce Joe Fischetti, to walk you
through the design of the septic system, why it is where it is
and how it integrates with the proposed wall as it is most
currently laid out.
MR. FISCHETTI: Good evening Mr. Chairman and the Board. This
Board was concerned about the wall, and I started to realize
after I left the last work session, that the wall is only 3.7
feet high. It wasn't six foot high. It was elevation six. We
lowered the wall, right now, I have lowered the existing plan,
because you have a new wall that shows the elevation of the wall
at 5.7. 1 was able to adjust some pitches in the piping and I
got eight inches lower. And I also moved the wall fight feet
from the property line. The existing grade at thecorner of King
Street and Harbor Road is three. If the wall is 5.7, it's only `
2.7 feet high. And the grade, the existing grade at the end of
King Street, by the beach, is six. So the wall is basically zero
at this point. -
Okay, so that's on the plans. If you read it that way, we
Board of Trustees 13 December 11, 2019
are still, I still moved it five feet off the property line, and
we still will plant it, and I think it's a non-issue at this
point because it's been looked at differently. , ,
So any questions you have, I would be glad to answer it.
Something happened at the last work session. I would like
to clarify, last month, a non-professional made a comment that
my design should have been a shallow drain field. If you take
the standards of the Health Department and analyze the
difference between a shallow drain field and my galleys, you
would gain six inches with the shallow drain field. But you
would also need 50% more area. That's why we don't use it. You
can only use those drain fields when you have large sites,
because they are spread out more. Galleys are great because they
are tight. They are a little bit higher, about six inches higher
than a shallow drain field, but they use less space. I just
wanted to clarify that. Any questions?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you for that clarification. Given that
the wall tends to disappear more as you go to the seaward on
King Street, there is no possibility of laying the infiltrators
side-by-side, in other words moving several forward to reduce
the wall height at the Harbor Road?
MR. FISCHETTI: It will probably be non-existent at Harbor Road.
If it goes to six feet, I'm required by the Health Department to
anything that is above the ground, if I have to keep a 5% pitch.
I can't keep the 5% pitch.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe I misunderstood you. What you said
originally comports with my understanding of the'area, that a
shallow to groundwater at the corner of Harbor Road and King
Street,, but as you go toward the water, the elevation of the
street goes up, and that's where the wall will disappear. As
you go toward Orient Harbor. What I'm saying is since it is
doing that,,you have to meet minimum distances, is it possible
to have more of the leaching capacity closer to the Harbor,
albeit we realize this is treated and that way we would be able
to have the retaining wall lower at the juncture of Harbor Road
and King Street.
MR. FISCHETTI: I'm not understanding, and you can't just do
that. I have to keep certain drainages. I have to keep 20 feet
from the retaining -- I have minimal abilities to move this. I
have to keep a certain distance from the retaining wall. I have
to keep a certain distance from drainage. I have to keep certain
distances from the swimming pool. I'm very constricted with this
site and where it is now. So I can't do that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, in other words, looking at the plan,
it shows the IA system and a distribution box running to the
first leaching galley, there is a seaward most. What I was
wondering is there is no possibility of running the last several
of them side-by-side as you go downgrade in the leaching so that
possibly the wall would not have to be as high on the corner of
Harbor Road and King Street.
MR. FISCHETTI: There are distance separations I have to work
Board of Trustees 14 December 11, 2019
with. What I have there now is what I have. You have no wall.
I'm not sure what-- I have distance separation of ten feet from
the tank to a galley. If I move any galleys next to it, I'm
losing that ten foot.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Can you approach the dais so I can
show you on the plan.
MR. FISCHETTI: No problem.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So, your first leachate,is going this way.
MR. FISCHETTI: They are all level. I'm going from here to that
first one.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So the question is, are these for expansion?
MR. FISCHETTI: Yes, future.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Could future expansion, in other words
galley to galley.
MR. FISCHETTI: Well, I have 20 feet. That's my minimum separation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's your minimum separation from the pool
on the leaching galleys.
MR. FISCHETTI: Yes. Because it's tight. That is a tight-site.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That answers my question.
MR. ANDERSON: If I may, I want to make a point. If you see where
leaching pool number one is, for example, leaching galley, you
can't do that, nor could you or would you want to advance the
system toward Orient Harbor.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's already there with the first leachate
coming out. But understood.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm talking about DEC.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: To clarify for me, the highest exposure on
that seawall is?
MR. ANDERSON: 2.7 feet.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And you have plantings in front of that.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Five feet is the total wall height.
MR. ANDERSON: It's exposed by 2.7 feet. In other words, visible
by 2.7.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So Glenn just made a clarification that at the
highest point the wall is 2.7 feet.
MR. FISCHETTI: That's correct.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With your new figures. When you first spoke,
it was confusing. I thought you said 3.7.
MR. ANDERSON: So we go from zero to 2.7.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, for the clarification. Anyone
else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Trustees?
(Negative response).
At this time, I make a motion to-close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time I would like to make a motion
to approve the application as submitted, noting and with
Board of Trustees 15 December 11, 2019
appreciation that the re-engineered plans will reduce the height
of the retaining wall to 2.7 feet or less. That's my motion to
approve.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland permits, number one, Jeffrey
Patanjo on behalf of MATTHEW STANTON requests a Wetland Permit
to install 30 linear feet of rip-rap for bank stabilization at
entry to existing dock.
Located: 2725 Wells Avenue, Southold, SCTM# 1000-70-4-16
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application and recommended that the applicant contact Cornell
Cooperative Extension for bluff stabilization plantings.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on December 4th,
noting that the drainpipe from the house is still evident, and
draining into the creek. The project was not staked. And might
want to revise the plans due to extensive erosion south of
planned rip rap to approximately 45 feet.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. I thought
I staked it. Maybe they fell out.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: There was considerable erosion since the last
time we visited the site. That's why we put the notes in here
you might want to go longer with this maybe.
MR. PATANJO: That's why we are here. I did stake it and we
posted the signs. We can have it done. My mistake. So if you
have any questions, we'll comply with any revisions as needed.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: As I said, further to extend the rip rap
essentially further to the south on the creek there.
MR. PATANJO: How much additional footage is recommended?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 15 feet we were looking at.
MR. PATANJO: Is there anything else on the application that
looks like you have any suggestions?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: There was still that issue with some of the
downspouts and everything from up above, that seemed to be
creating an erosion issue down by the bank. That water just runs
right from the street all the way down. So that could be adding
to your problems. So maybe some sort of mitigation to prevent
that.
MR. PATANJO: Okay. And that should be shown on the plans as
well?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: If it's within a hundred feet.
MS. MOORE: Okay. We'll take care of that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: There is a possibility, I'm not making a
Board of Trustees 16 December 11, 2019
J
determination before determination is made, but you can table
this and come back with the plans for 45 feet or you can
continue with this application and then amend it for the
additional 15. The choice is up to you.
MS. MOORE: I'll have to make a revision for, well, I would like
to amend the application and not make any revisions to this plan
under this application so we can get some stabilization started.
So move forward with this application and come back with an
amendment so we can start some of this erosion control.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes. You understand you can only work in the
30-foot area.
MR. PATANJO: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And remove the pipe.
MR. PATANJO: I don't know where the pipe is. I haven't seen it.
Is it just a leader coming off the side of the-building or is it
an actual pipe?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: On the north side of the building there is a
pipe that goes right into the creek.
MR. PATANJO: Okay. We'll have to have that removed. Sure.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: We assume it comes from the roof runoff.
MR. PATANJO: I haven't seen it. Okay, I'll take a look at it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll 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.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number two, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JANE
SEETH IRREVOCABLE TRUST & DOUGLAS SEETH REVOCABLE
LIVING TRUST request a Wetland Permit to remove and replace existing
160 linear feet of timber bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead in same
location as existing and raised height of 12" above existing top
cap elevation, and an 8 linear foot bulkhead return on north
section; remove and dispose of existing wood deck landward of
bulkhead on southern end of property; remove and replace
existing 6'x8' fixed dock on northern end of property in same
location as existing which is part of an existing property
right-of-way; remove existing fixed dock adjacent to residence
and replace with an 8'x15' fixed dock in a slightly southerly
location; all decking and top caps to be un-treated lumber or
composite material; and to install and perpetually maintain a 5'
wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the proposed bulkhead. ,
Board of Trustees 17 December 11, 2019
Located: 175 Mesrobian Drive, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-145-4-13
The Trustees most recently visited this site on th 4th of
December and recommended raising this particular bulkhead 18
inches, and noted that it was a straightforward replacement.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. Required
turbidity controls during construction. Verify the need for
eight-foot width fixed dock, and required vegetated non-turf
buffer landward of the bulkhead.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application with a ten-foot vegetated non-turf buffer and roof
runoff addressed.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. I didn't
add a dimension on the typical section, I don't know if it's
page one or two on the plans, but on the typical section is a
box that says remove and replace in the same location with the
raised elevation of 12 inches above existing. So the 12 inches
was to match the neighboring bulkhead to the south. We are
removing the deck. So we want to match that bulkhead height and
run it through 12 inches.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: That's what we noticed in the field and we
discussed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The neighbor to the south might be just a
bit higher. We noticed, and we had noticed it overtopped. Recent
tides had overtopped down there. That's what keyed us in on it.
MR. PATANJO: Yes. We'll match that height.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, so that's noted. And then you had
proposed a five-foot wide non-turf buffer. Is there any reason
for that?
MR. PATANJO: Just because the limited space in the backyard is
so close to the property. We have done that in the past as far'
as houses that are very close to the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess in the past we tried, I know the
ones that I've`seen, we tried to keep at least six feet. There
is no magic number. It's a very small yard. I don't have a
problem with it, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone else have a problem, to match the
neighbor?
(Negative response).
Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
(Negative response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
Board of Trustees 18 December 11, 2019
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number three, 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
The Trustees visited this site several times and on 12/4/19
we did an inhouse review, noting that the revised new plans
submitted on December 3rd, 2019, it appears to satisfy the
requirement expressed at the earlier work session.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed the application.
They support the application with recommendation of not raising
the proposed 18 inches.
The LWRP found the proposed action to be inconsistent,
noting the inconsistencies: One, the structure is a groin and
does not meet section 275-11 of the Southold Town Code. And the
applicant has not shown that public access along the foreshore
will remain unimpeded by the wave break.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
.(Negative response).
Any discussion from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe we addressed the inconsistencies
through the review process and the amended plans and with the
lower landward height and setting a sono-tube with the height of
the existing will make sure that the public access along the
beach will be maintained.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: According to the plans and project description
submitted December 3rd, 2019, it does show the revised plan
addressing both of those inconsistencies and public access.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would request, I'm the area Trustee, so I
might be the one to go do inspection. I would request an
additional inspection be a requirement of this permit to ascertain
that the sono-tube that was being put in for the elevation, to
check and meet with the contractor before the construction
starts to make sure that all details of the plan will be met.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Would you like me to make that a stipulation
of the permit?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Kindly.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anybody else here wishing to speak to
this permit application?
(Negative response).
Any further comments from the Board?
Board of Trustees 19 December 11, 2019
(Negative response).
I make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Motion to approve the application as submitted
with new plans dated December 3rd, 2019, with the stipulation,
that the commencement of the project when the sono-tube is
installed, to set precedent for the grade, that area Trustee be
notified for'inspection before commencement of the project. Also
noting that,they have altered the plan to address the
inconsistency, thereby bringing it into conformity with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, 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
replace an existing septic system.
Located: 3825 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-9-5
The Trustees did an inhouse inspection, most recent
inspection, on December 4th, present were Trustee Bredemeyer,
Trustee Domino, Trustee Goldsmith and Trustee Williams and we
inspected the revised plans which were submitted on November
15th, 2019, and noted that they addressed all Board concerns.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
And the LWRP coordinator found it to be consistent.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. CONDON: Yes. John Condon, Condon Engineering.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to thank you for listening to our
comments coming up with this plan.
MR. CONDON: We were just able to fit it with the utilities in
the front. It was tight, but it works.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: You did a nice job. Any questions or comments
from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no comments, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted and described on the new plans received November 15,
2019.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. CONDON: Thank you.
i
Board of Trustees 20 December 11, 2019
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, Condon Engineering,
P.C. on behalf of JOHN B. HENRY REVOCABLE TRUST requests a
Wetland Permit to replace existing cesspool with a new I/A
sewage disposal system; S.C.D.H.S. is considering this project a
"best sanitary upgrade only."
Located: 2360 Village Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-1-15.1
This project has been deemed to be consistent with the
Town's LWRP policies.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports this application
using best management practices.
The Board has reviewed the plans and the site staking for
this project. Is there anyone who wishes to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. CONDON: Yes. John Condon, Condon Engineering.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Question. It's my understanding that best
sanitary upgrade is a new policy prerogative of the Health
Department when we have a failed system and they will come in
and provide expedited engineering to get IA systems in; is that
correct?
MR. CONDON: Yes. As long as you are not doing any work to the
building, and it's just a sanitary replacement, they will let
you --you won't have to go for a variance'where you normally
would. In that situation they'll let you put in a system.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Appreciate that. As a lifelong resident of
Orient Harbor, I think my mom and dad put a house in in '85.
This would be like only the second time there has been an
upgrade of somebody putting new sanitary to standards in on the
Orient waterfront. So l applaud this application, especially
since it's an IA under difficult engineering circumstances.
Is there anyone else wishing to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I•make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number six, En-Consultants on behalf of
WILLIAM & KAREN GOYDAN requests a Wetland Permit to remove
existing floating docks, and construct a new fixed timber dock
with water and electricity, consisting of a 4'x78' fixed
i elevated catwalk constructed with open-grate decking; a 3'x14'
hinged ramp; and a 6'x20' floating dock situated in an "I"
configuration and secured by two (2) 8" diameter pilings.
Located: 1645 Marratooka Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-3-1
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is the applicant does not discuss potential cumulative impacts
Board of Trustees 21 December 11, 2019
to Deep Hole Creek. The cumulative impact includes potential
adverse impact to water quality from dock construction,
operation of the vessel and cleaning vessels with chemical
cleaners entertaining the water body. And also private dock
structures extending into the public trust lands and waters
obstruct pubic use in the area where the dock is located and
does not meet this policy.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application using best management practices, installation of
gutters, leaders and drywells and non-disturbance area landward
of the shoreline.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on December 4th,
noting that it was basically straightforward and that there was
30 or more inches of water at the proposed float.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Good evening. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on
behalf of the applicant. It is a very straightforward dock
application. There is, as you saw in your site inspection, a
series of floating docks that are present on the property now,
that would be removed, and replaced with a catwalk, ramp and
float, which would be situated entirely in 30 inches of water. If
the Board has any questions, I can answer them.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: How about a buffer on this project?
MR. HERRMANN: Typically the Board doesn't require non-turf
buffers for dock applications. There really is no connection
between the proposed dock and a non-turf buffer. I do expect
that there will probably be renovations proposed in the future
on the house, at which time we would propose, and I'm sure the
Board would require, an appropriate buffer.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding
this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted, noting there is an existing dock already there and
it's just a replacement, which would bring it into consistency
with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number seven, SU11 Architecture + Design on
behalf of JEFFREY & ANCA LEMLER requests a Wetland Permit to
install a new sand beach area on top of existing ground in a
f
Board of Trustees 22 December 11, 2019
25'x70' area and the sand filling will be 6" to 12", no deeper
than 12"; the sand will be "Cemex, ARB Certified,
washed/cleaned/kin dried" or similar brand that complies with
this characteristic, approximately 50 cubic yards of sand will
be needed; install a border of landscaping boulders that will be
set to separate the current existing beach area from the new
proposed beach area; 50 linear feet of stones will be needed; on
the inland side of the proposed beach area steel garden edging
will separate the landscape from the beach area; general
cosmetic landscape improvements are proposed: Additional native
vegetation will be planted (26 medium shrubs and 40 small shrubs
and plants approximately); all existing trees to remain; a new
approximately 6'x60' gravel path is proposed from the beach area
to the house which will be contained with flexible steel',
gardening edges, as well as steps needed along the path and
changes in height; approximately 4 cubic yards of gravel will be
needed; areas of wood chips are proposed along the property lot
line and around planting areas, approximately 9 cubic yards of
wood chips will be needed; no structures need to be erected on
site for this work, the sand will be deposited with a small
bobcat; all material and plants will be locally sourced at a
local landscaping installer who will execute and supervise the work.
Located: 320 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#
1000-104-10-6
The Trustees most recently visited this location on the 4th
of December. The notes are as follows: Multiple trees removed
without permit. Fence does not comply with Trustees as per
habitat fragmentation. We need to see a side elevation of stone
wall. Stone needs to be specified. And concerns that sand
migration into wetlands. And again, habitat fragmentation.
The LWRP coordinator found this application to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
the application. The Conservation Advisory Council does not
support the application, there is a concern with the compliance
of the chain-link fence and the potential negative impacts the
placement of sand could have on the ecosystem.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. MORENO: Hi, my name is Maia Muniz Moreno.
So there is no sand replacement in the proposal. We are
adding sand. There is, next to the water is an existing beach,
and we are adding, like extending that part. We are not excavating.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I know the Board recognizes you are not
replacing sand. But this particular location is, I mean it's a
creek. It's not bay front with a beach. And typically this Board
is not in the habit of creating a beach, especially within, you
know, important environmental areas such as Broadwaters Cove.
I don't know if the Board has any other comments from the
inspection there.
MS. MORENO: Is the Board concern the sand washes into the water?
Is that the main concern? Because there is already sand by the
Board of Trustees 23 December 11, 2019
water. We are not--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The concern is that sand liberated toward
the beach in that fashion is going to cover emergent wetland
plants, that plants in that area in the summertime is various
small phorb types of wetland vegetation which will be damaged
and possibly destroyed, that certainly there are known consequences.
MS. MORENO: Yes. And with this boulders and stone wall that we
are creating, isn't that enough to hold sand and not, that's the
idea of the stone there.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: The concern with putting the stone there is
then it creates a habitat fragmentation. The native animals to
the area won't be able to traverse the stone, as they already
can't traverse the not-allowed fence that is there. We would
like to see that fixed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The neighboring properties at that end of
the creek are characterized by very shallow slopes, naturally
vegetated and a natural evolution of vegetation to high marsh,
and the properties on either side already have significant high
marsh that this kind of alteration will prevent the high marsh
from coming back into that area, which is most appropriate. It's
a trap for nutrients coming off lawn areas as well as it
provides vital habitat, as previously discussed by Trustee
Williams.
MS. MORENO: Okay, I understand.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: My inclination, and I'm just speaking as one
Trustee, if you were to want to create a sand area, I can't call
it a beach because we are essentially trying to put an
artificial beach in an otherwise ecologically sensitive marsh
habitat, it would have to be much further up to the house. As
opposed to lawn, beach, water, if we are going to do that it
would be house, beach, and then natural habitat, possibly a
large non-disturbance or non-turf buffer.
MS. MORENO: Okay, understood. And the chainlink fence that is
existing, we didn't do that. It's there. So I'm going to look
at it. You are saying it's not --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would typically not issue a permit for any
closed-type fence that close to the wetland, to allow for
movement of different species as well as, you know, accounting
for sea level rise, as the wetland sort of marches inland.
MS. MORENO: Okay. And the gravel pad and native vegetation, that
part of landscaping is approved?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It would be a four-foot gravel path down to the
water, yes, the Trustees typically allow for a four-foot natural
path. So that would be acceptable.
MS. MORENO: Okay. I don't know if at this time, do you want take
our comments back to your client and come up with a new option?
MS. MORENO: Yes, that's probably what we want to do. Otherwise
we could amend this. But I think we would rather, we have a lot
of changes to do. So we would rather--
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. So at your request we can table this for
the following month.
Board of Trustees 24 December 11, 2019
MS. MORENO: Yes
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And just another comment based off the
inspection. There were several trees removed on the site and we
do, everything within 100 feet requires a permit otherwise
violations can be issued. So that would have to --
MS. MORENO: I'll look at that. I don't know when or who did
that. But I'll ask the owner about it.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: They were removed during the house
construction, which was very recent.
MS. MORENO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Gail, I see you just walked in. Are you here
for this application?
MS. WICKHAM: What is the name?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Lemler.
MS. WICKHAM: Yes. Good evening, I'm Abigail Wickham, Wickham,
Bressler& Geasa, 13015 Main Road, Mattituck, New York.
I'm appearing as attorney for the adjoining owners to the west,
AGM Associates, Inc. My client could not be here tonight because
they are away until Friday, so they asked me-to appear for them.
They don't like to be in a position of having poor neighbor
relations, but the application before you is, really compels, I
think, a response.
The proposed beach is admittedly so they can have a sandy
beach on their property, and that is just not compatible with
the shorefront of Broadwaters Cove, specifically this section.
We are concerned about the change of grade from the street, all
the way down to the road, at least 25 feet, change of elevation
down to the shoreline, as well as the change of grade from the
properties across the street, across the road and down. It's
going to create, as it has already on the property, a washout on
to the shore. The possibility of storm surge, which is quite
likely at that low elevation where the beach will be, is going
to scour out and put sand into the creek. I don't care what
kind of retaining they may have in front of it. We are concerned
about scouring from the rock revetment that will be in the
front. And we are also concerned about water creating the runoff
and the surge creating water entering our client's property and
bringing with it sand. That is going to be devastating to their
property, because they have a naturalized shore frontage with
all native plantings, exactly as this property has always been,
and most of these properties were originally in:
We think it will have an adverse effect on, when you have
sand washing in, and this designed, as I understand it, it's not
sand. It's Cemex, a Mexican product, which not naturalized
material, natural local material as the application tends to
emphasize. And there has also been a lot of vegetation including
mature trees removed, which has further exacerbated the problem
of runoff into the creek, and we think that should be restored.
Board of Trustees 25 December 11, 2019
Because while sand can be a buffer area, they are not asking for
a buffer area, they are asking for a beach. And sand, when you
have it behind an elevated bulkhead and it settles down, it will
be a buffer and filter. Where you have it here, very close to
the water, the creek edge and the creek elevation, and you get a
big tide surge coming in or a big runoff and rain coming down,
which we have seen a bit of lately, I'm very concerned it puts
extra sand into the water, creating not only a different habitat
in the water but also increasing the water depth, which is not
good for boating. And many of these properties including this
one, have a dock. It's a very -- a friend of mine who does a lot
of shellfishing said there is a very prolific shoreline for
shellfish, so we would be concerned that might be impacted as
well.
There are also a number of inconsistencies in the proposal.
So is the Board still considering making a decision tonight or
closing hearing? Rather than prolong it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Prior to you entering, we were headed toward
tabling at the request of the applicant this evening for a
revision of plans.
MS. WICKHAM: Okay. Then what I would like to do then is rather
than continue,just submit my paperwork that I have here for the
record.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Please do.
MS. WICKHAM: And I would be glad to do that right now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can review that at the next work session.
MS. WICKHAM: Liz, if you would like me to e-mail it to you so
you can circulate it to the Board. V
MS. CANTRELL: Either/or.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Just in brief summary, the Board takes issue with creating
a beach area so close to a natural wetland area, especially in a
very sensitive creek eco-system. Especially, as Trustee Williams
pointed out, where we are looking to close off a small section
in the future for a shellfish nursery,_essentially, to try to
revitalize the clams and essentially oysters and other bivalves
and mollusks in that area. So this is a really important place and
not some place we want to take lightly any decision. So myself,
I would recommend talking to your client and pulling back and
maybe creating a natural buffer not to be touched, whether it's
non-turf or non-disturbance between any basically useable area
and the creek, which is the four-foot footpath through, which is
pretty standard for that area.
MS. MORENO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI;-I make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 26 December 11, 2019
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number eight, Land Use Ecological Services,
Inc. on behalf of ROSARIA FORCHELLI requests a Wetland Permit
for a Ten-Year Maintenance Permit to cut the Phragmites to 6"
above ground level (in March-April), and not lower in the first
year; all cut material and thatch shall be hand-raked and
disposed of at an approved off-site landfill; cutting shall be
performed by hand and monitored by a qualified ecologist to
ensure that no native herbaceous plants or woody shrubs are
removed; Phragmites shoots will be re-cut again in early June to
a'height of 18"-24" above soil level in order to avoid cutting
native vegetation; one additional cutting will occur as needed
to a height of 18" above ground level during the growing season
(April -October); after the first year, up to two (2) cuttings
per year to a minimum height of 18" (i.e. cut height shall not
be shorter than 18"), with native vegetation to be identified
and flagged to be protected; if new growth of invasive species
is observed during on-going Phragmites monitoring, it will be
'immediately removed by hand; approximately 9,250sq.ft. Of
vegetated upland area shall be managed through removal of
non-native and invasive species (Wisteria sp., Mile-a-minute
weed (Persicaria perfoliata), Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), Plume Grass (Saccharum sp.), Bittersweet (Celastrus
orbiculatus), with all existing native plants within the
Vegetation Management Plan area to remain; any disturbed areas
are to be seeded with Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) at a rate
of 20lbs/acre; and within a 100 linear foot long area along the
southwest property boundary plant 17 Thuja sp. 6' o/c; five
years of post-construction monitoring will occur during spring
and fall seasons with progress reports on the Phragmites
management and re-colonization of native plants, including
representative photographs to be submitted by December 31st of
each of the five years. Located: 1635 Meadow Beach Lane,
Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-116-7-8
The LWRP found this to be exempt.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with the condition the cutting is in compliance with
chapter 275.
The Trustees conducted an inhouse review of the new plans
on December 4th, noting that the plans still show plantings in
the non-disturbance area.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BOWMAN: Charles Bowman, Land Use Ecological Services for the
Forchelli's. Mr. Forchell,i is here in case the Board has any
questions for him. Also, Patricia Moore is here with myself,
representing Mr. Forchelli.
I think the basis of this application, according to staff
and the Board, is the previous permit that was issued in
1999-2000 to build the house, which we were provide with, is not
an unusual application, showed a non-disturbance area that was
basically a dirt road, what was there before the subdivision was
Board of Trustees 27 December 11, 2019
put in. So we did revise the plans as per that original permit.
The house has not changed. The house has been there to make sure
there would no disturbance seaward of that previously-approved
dirt road, which I believe shows on our plan there.
I think the only plantings that are going to be occurring,
you know, seaward of that line are really for privacy concerns.
The neighbor to the south does store a lot of equipment along
and actually in an area that should be a non-disturbance area.
And it's really a screen. We are showing a line of arborvitaes
right along the property line. We certainly can change that to
native planting, say red cedars, as a screen to the south
property line, but that's the only plantings that are
contemplated per your discussion. And again, those types of the
red cedars would certainly be allowed, as native species, to be
allowed in that area. So at the Board's pleasure we would
certainly change that as a condition of the permit. But
everything else we try to make conform to the original
subdivision approval and the house construction.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, so our concern is that you are
disturbing a non-disturbance area. You were doing plantings in a
non-disturbance area, whether it's arborvitaes or any other
species, it's non-disturbance based on the previous permit. And
it's staying non-disturbance. And non-disturbance includes no
new plantings.
MR. BOWMAN: Generally, non-disturbance does not mean planting
you can't plant native plants. And that is what certainly has
been a policy not only in the town here but most towns. We could
go in there and we could plant Baccharis, seedlings, or
something to do, a habitat improvement. It's not a disturbance
that is actually cutting down things, excavating. And that has
been the general rule.
MS. MOORE: If I could interrupt for one moment. My client has
pictures of what he's trying to screen and you will see that
actually in that general area, there are some red cedars that
have grown naturally, but they are not blocking anything,
they've grown quite large and they are next, they are on the
other gentleman's property. So we just want to show you, it's
not, it won't affect anyone's views. So that's, he stores his,
just typical behind the garage type of stuff. Nothing noxious in
any way, but it's some slate and his boat and ladders and that
kind of thing. And you can see there are some, you can see some
evergreens that are-popping up on his side of the property. On
our side, there are not any evergreens or any kind of screening
that it would be much, you can see, again, here is, I think--
so you can see he's, it's a little unsightly. You know,
everyone has their prerogative of, yes, to store some things
somewhere. But maybe the --
MR. BOWMAN: And if I can add, too. If you are using a native
species, what you are trying to do is actually provide some
additional habitat, and as long as it's native then it's
conducive to the habitat that you are trying to put in there.
Board of Trustees 28 December 11, 2019
So I know it can't be looked at as disturbance. This may be
screening, but it's also providing, certainly the red cedars
will provide shelter for many bird species in the wintertime.
Again, it's a pretty minimal type of planting.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm not going to read the definition of a
non-disturbance buffer that is in our code Chapter 275. But just
to paraphrase: No operations without the permission of the
Board of Trustees.
MR. BOWMAN: That's why we are here asking for permission.
Correct. Absolutely.
MS. MOORE: May I suggest if the red cedars were a little more
staggered rather than in a row, they could provide the screening
but also look more natural as far as natural growth. Which the
red cedars I was telling my client that he could go to my office
and pluck them as seedlings in my office. So.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
MS. MOORE: Did you want to put on the record any conversations
or discussions?
I think Justin -- again, your non-disturbance, generally in the
code you are allowed to plant. Planting is always,something that
the Board encourages to create a natural habitat.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not always. Just to be clear. It's a lot of
things are getting thrown around in our direction. But
non-disturbance is a disturbance. So if you put a shovel in the
ground, it's a disturbance. So yes, you may be in some case
allowed or required to plant, based on the Board, but that
doesn't mean we say oh, put whatever you want in a ground in a
non-disturbance. It's non-disturbance, just to be clear. Just to
clarify the record.
MR. FORCHELLI: We are asking permission, we changed it to native
species that will actually increase the habitat. And just so
you know, red cedars, too, they also seed in. And anywhere you
plant them in the appropriate area, it is also encouraging
diversity of habitat as well, so.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So on the plans that we have. It has
arborvitaes. So if you are proposing a potential change to that
to red cedar, we would need new plans which would necessitate us
tabling this application to review a new potential planting plan
with a different species.
MR. FORCHELLI: We have no problem changing it and submitting new
plans to you. Hopefully they'll be approvable by the Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I personally, because it is a non-disturbance
zone, want to see an in depth planting plan, amount, spacing,
size, caliper.
MR. FORCHELLI: Not a problem at all
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I also want to make you understand that it is
not a guarantee you are going to get what you are asking for.
JUSTIN: Okay. I think the reasonable way to go about it is to
give you that information. We are taking your comments very
Board of Trustees 29 December 11, 2019
seriously. That's why we changed it to a native species. We
spent, myself and our company, spend most of our time doing
habitat restoration. That's why we are trying to change this to
make it more conducive with the habitat that is there. To change
the plans to adhere to the approval of the house. So I think
the owner is being very reasonable in trying to make this
compatible with the Board policy.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just a question also. From the site plan
that you do give, it does show the paper road tends to sweep, I
guess somewhat toward the east as it goes to the creek. Is that
from, I can't tell from this, although I have been to other
sites here with a paper road. Does that appear to be the start
of the paper road?
MR. FORCHELLI: I have no idea, John. We took this from the
original permit. The road doesn't, no semblance of a road
exists. m
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not looking at the road. I'm looking at
the elevation. Excuse me, I'm sorry. I stand corrected by
Trustee Goldsmith. Thank you.
I think Trustee Krupski addressed the concerns on planting
and possibly look at that area, not as a straight road but as,
you know, a proactive restoration as maybe a little more break
in the design with spacing.
MR. FORCHELLI: Okay, no problem. Your comments are noted and
we'll submit a new plan.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Are there any other questions or comments?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this hearing to get a
more detailed planting plan in accordance with the Board's
recommendations
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of MARY ANN
HOWKINS requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 2,161 sq. ft.
one-story dwelling with attached garage; replace existing deck
with a 15.5'x39.9' wood deck on seaward side; remove existing
stone patio; abandon existing sanitary system; install walkway
with 2'•stone pavers 369" linear feet along waterfront side of
dwelling; 20' existing cellar entrance; on north side of
dwelling a 5'1"x4'4" outdoor shower enclosure; generator and air
conditioning units on 3'x5' concrete pads; continue walkway with
2' stone pavers 54.7 linear feet; new sanitary system beyond
100' from wetlands line; renovate dwelling with new cedar
shingles, new windows and doors, new roof shingles; on south
side of dwelling, a 3'10'x11' cellar entrance with railings;
remove existing asphalt circular driveway and install a proposed
48.1'x12.5' gravel driveway with 20' parking area; install and
maintain silt fencing during construction; and to install
Board of Trustees 30 December 11, 2019
7
gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff.
Located: 3245 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-7
The Trustees visited this site on 12/4/2019,,noting the
plan is straightforward and noting the absence of drywells and
gutters.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this
application. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the
application and recommended an AI septic system, and designation
of a non-disturbance buffer between the top of the bank and
limit of tidal wetlands.
The LWRP program coordinator reviewed the project and found
the proposed action to be consistent, with two notes to further
Policy Six. One is to require the installation of an-AI/OWTS, and
two is to clarify the drainage of an outdoor shower.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore, on behalf of the applicant. My
description and the site plan I thought included the drywells.
We actually have the architect is here, actually, provide me
with the same drawings that you have, but highlighting where the
gutters and drywells, well, on the cross-section, showing where
the gutters and leaders are;and on the site plan he put like a
little, what's it called, little blowup of where the drywells
are. It's a busy plan and there is a new sanitary system, the
drywells and things, so we, let me just give this to you. I
gave one to Elizabeth already. I E-mailed it yesterday, but we
want to make sure, sorry, I don't know, Greg, I apologize. So
the drywells have, were shown in the front and in the side. And
the architect very kindly just reprinted it for us and blew it
up so it can be seen better. I also have the elevations of the
house, which you already have. And the elevations actually drew
in the gutters and leaders. Usually you don't show it on your
elevations, but I did have it described in the project
description right from the beginning,,and it is a requirement
under 236; so it would be required by the Building Department,
for a building permit. Aside from that.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Are there any plans on drainage for the
outdoor shower?
MS. MOORE: The outdoor shower, I think it's just a passive
shower that just, the water just goes on to whatever pad you are
on. Generally, the Health Department doesn't want to see any
kind of tubing or any kind of gray water, because if you do
collect it, it has to be go into your sanitary system. So most
of the outdoor showers is the recommendation is you allow it to
be a passive type of drain. We can certainly put gravel stone
under it, just to keep it pervious. I think that's the plan.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: And additionally, comments from both the CAC
and LWRP coordinator requiring an'IA septic system?
MS. MOORE: We already received Health Department approval. It's
In,place. So the system was a standard system. And the Health
Department has approved it. So.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: And you are putting in a new septic, correct?
Board of Trustees 31 December 11, 2019
MS. MOORE: It is a new system, yes. The old system is being
abandoned. That was on the, I believe on the waterfront side, so.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Currently, how many bedroom house is existing?
MS. MOORE: It's the same, two-bedroom.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It will remain two-bedroom?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MR. FAY: Two bedroom with a den. And the septic system is
designed --
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: If you would state your name, sir.
MR. FAY: Jason Michael Fay, with Reade Street Studio. It's an
existing two-bedroom house. We are reconfiguring the interior
add a den. The septic system that was approve by the Health
Department is with a four bedroom.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anybody else here that wishes to
speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Gentlemen, any input on the recommendation of the IA from both
the LWRP and Conservation Advisory Council?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: My inclination, because they are not changing
the amount of bedrooms for the house, and it's under the current
policy that we have been following it would be appropriate, I mean it
would be ideal, certainly for the homeowner to put it in, but.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Does anybody else have any comments?
(Negative response).
With no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the --
actually, I have one question. So we have new plans. What are
we doing with shower drainage, gentlemen? i
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm okay with that.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted and as written, noting with a clarification there in
the project description there is gutters to leaders to drywells.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number ten, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of
SILVIA CAMPO & DAVID HERMER requests a Wetland Permit to
replace two (2) existing wood retaining walls perpendicular to top of
bluff with new cement retaining walls, first retaining wall to
be 26 linear feet length and second retaining wall to be 32
linear feet in length; replace existing wood platform and beach
access stairs consisting of an 8.3'x9.5' landing at top of bluff
to 3'x12' steps to a 6.5'x5' upper middle landing to 3'x16'
stairs to a 6.5'x5'-lower middle landing to 3'x9' stairs to a
954.5' lower landing at bottom of bluff to a 3.8'x3.5'
cantilevered platform off of bulkhead with T wide retractable
stairs to beach; and to repair or replace as needed, lower 32'
Board of Trustees 32 December 11, 2019
of existing railroad ties adjacent to lower platform.
Located: 3675 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-9-4.2
The Trustees did a field inspection on December 4th, about
12:50 in the afternoon. Present were Trustees Bredemeyer,
Domino, Goldsmith and Williams, and notes read that the
application is straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator found this application to be
consistent and inconsistent. The consistency relates to the two
retaining walls perpendicular to the bluff. The inconsistency
arises from the fact that the original staircase was built
without a Trustee permit.
The,Conservation Advisory Council on December 4th resolved
to support the application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
(Trustee Williams leaves the meeting room).
MR. HAGAN: If I could just chime in for a moment, for the sake
of the record, we need to note that Trustee Williams has just
left the meeting to go to a prior engagement that he discussed
with the Board, but we still are a quorum present.
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore, on behalf of the Campo's. I also
have the architect here in case there are any design questions.
You had previously seen this property. This is just a
completion of the project, of the retaining walls and the
staircase, which had actually been constructed long ago before
Trustees had jurisdiction. That's why it didn't have a permit.
We are actually bringing it into compliance by including it as
part of the Trustees permitting process.
There is, the architect was telling me that there is one
wall on the north side that says "existing wood retaining wall."
Apparently, that wall is a wood wall that is falling apart, and I
don't know if the Board, how it feels about including what is a
north wall, it's on your plans showing as the existing wood wall
all the way up at the top. It also needs to be replaced. At the
time I was doing this, I didn't realize it, so it's excluded
from the description. But it is about 90 feet from, it's on the
side and behind the house. So it is not vey close to the top of
the bluff. It's further out. I would be happy to point it out to
the Board, which one. This has already been replaced because it
was not in your jurisdiction. It's this portion here has not
been replaced yet.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Where is the top of the bluff?
MS. MOORE: Is here. So it's within your jurisdiction. It just
didn't get included.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: You have to amend with new plans.
MS. MOORE: That's why I'm asking. I can certainly have the Board
just complete this process and I'll put in a simple amendment.
That's fine. I don't want to delay the project. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Board of Trustees 33 December 11, 2019
J
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, noting that the approval will address the
inconsistency and bring this in conformity with the LWRP
coordinator's review.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number eleven, William
Toth Construction & Robert Wilson on behalf of DARCY GAZZA
requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing 1,275 sq. ft.
dwelling with attached garage and construct new two-story
dwelling with attached garage in same 1,275 sq. ft. footprint on
the existing foundation; construct an additional 14.1 sq. ft.
addition on landward side of dwelling and an 80 sq. ft. addition
on seaward side of dwelling; construct a 388 sq. ft. deck attached
to seaward side of dwelling; and to install and perpetually
maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of
the wetlands.
Located: 1500 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-3-4
This application has been reviewed by the LWRP and is
deemed to be consistent with the LWRP_policies. However specific
recommendations were made by the LWRP coordinator. Number one of
these being to require the installation of an alternative treatment onsite
wastewater treatment system due to the proximity of the parcel to
Eugene's Creek, which is an enclosed creek in Southold.
And number two, require that the non-turf buffer proposed be vegetated
native salt tolerant species to increase the width of the buffer to achieve great
benefits. And that is the report of the LWRP coordinator.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
but recommended an IA innovative alternative septic system. And
the buffer should be designated on the plans as a non-disturbance buffer.
For the record, the Board after performing field inspections on Monday,
did receive a new set of plans to address the Board's concerns that were
enumerated in the field for having a better set of plans, and on the plans
received and dated to the Trustees office on December 9th, there is in fact a
non-disturbance area and a ten-foot wide non-disturbed vegetated buffer and
as well as a non-turf buffer as well added to the plans.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. WILSON: Robert Wilson, on behalf of the homeowners. And I'm
here to answer any questions. I was going to mention the extra
buffer, but you brought it up, so. We also have the contractor here.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Great. We have three-part concerns, the
Board of Trustees, in developing policy for the requirements for
IA systems, are heavily weighing determinations for requiring
IAs for enclosed creeks and headwaters of creeks and waters that
could be impacted by excess hydrogen which could cause harmful
Board of Trustees 34 December 11, 2019
algal blooms. We also-have dual recommendations from both the
LWRP coordinator and also from the Conservation Advisory
Council. So I'm greatly concerned that this problem with the
project that should get the IA system regardless of, technically,
the issues surrounding the distance of the proposed system,
which is in the front of the house, but this is an important
creek which is also currently subject to potentially reopening
to shellfishing. So we want to minimize impacts to the creek. I
don't know if you are in a position to speak to the owner at
this point on that.
MR. WILSON: We have the application into the Board of Health for
a new, traditional septic system. I can't speak, I mean it's a
significant added expense and delay of time. I can't for right
now speak on behalf of the owners about putting in the IA
system. Is it going to be a requirement going forward or is it a
requirement already?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I can't speak to the discretionary decisions
of the Board but I just outlined a case of our concerns and the
advice and determination of the Conservation Advisory Council
and the recommendation of the LWRP coordinator.
You might wish to table the application and confer with the
owners.
The project is within the jurisdiction of the Board by virtue of the
proposed activities. And we could compel it. It would be --
MR. WILSON: Can we have a second? '
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. How about we go for a five-minute
recess so the members can use the restroom while you discuss it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Five-minute break.
(After a five-minute recess, these proceedings continue as
follows).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We are back on the record.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are back on the record with the matter of
William Toth and Robert Wilson on behalf of Darcy Gazza.
I believe Mr. Wilson and Mr. Toth have been in conference with
the owners.
MR. WILSON: Yes, we have.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you have anything to report?
MR. TOTH: It sounds like we are going to be willing to table
this until the next meeting while we talk them into the IA
system.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. That's much appreciated. We
appreciate your comments.
MR. WILSON: Were there any other concerns that the Board has
that we can address between now and the next meeting?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the one that was articulated in the
field is we did appreciate the new plans but that lawn
generation onsite in the future would be for a seeded lawn with
a low fertilizing requesting mix, such as a fescue mix, as
opposed to Kentucky bluegrass down to the --
MR. WILSON: I think Switchgrass is what they were planning.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In the non-disturbance, but landward of
Board of Trustees 35 December 11, 2019
that, you logically may want, in what was the tennis court, you
may want some lawn and not Switchgrass all the way up to the
house, I presume.
MR. TOTH: They are pretty natural people there. It's not like we
are putting a golf course back in there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You may wish to, with the IA plans that
would be forthcoming, if they go that route, Switchgrass is a
pretty hefty grass. You might want a four-foot path to the
creek, which is ordinarily what the Board policy allows a
four-foot path. And we would much appreciate that. That much
Switchgrass would be fine. Speaking for the Board.
MR. TOTH: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time I'll make a motion to table the
application at the applicant's request.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 12, Shawn F. Leonard, Architect on
behalf of MICHAEL & THERESA SMITH requests a Wetland Permit to
install a 12'x30' in-ground swimming pool with a dry well for
discharge, Sta-Rite Max E Therm Nat 400,000 BTU heater, Hayward
T-15 chlorine generator; install a surrounding on-grade pool
patio in stone (travertine or concrete block) consisting of on
the east, approximately 8' from pool edge, west, approximately
3' from pool edge, south, approximately 3' from pool edge, and
north, approximately 12' from pool edge; and install 4' high
pool enclosure fencing around edge of pool patio with two
locking gates.
Located: 1405 Terry Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-14-3-2
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application, using best management practices.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection December 4th,
noting it was straightforward with the pool, had some concerns
with the size of the heater.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore. We do have some information
regarding the heater, that I'll just put on the record. Just as
a point of fact, the heater is actually outside the Board's
jurisdiction but we do have information that the Board asked.
So we'll just give it on the record.
MR. MATO: Richard Mato, architect. The model that was specified
is an energy efficient heater at 84%, however we could reduce it
to 335 BTU heater but the, I spoke with the pool contractor, he
said it's going to be about the same use in propane, having a
bigger one at higher efficiency. So that's the information I
have on that.
MS. MOORE: We got the information for you, because you did ask.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I know there was a suggestion also for a
solar pool cover, if possible.
Board of Trustees 36 December 11, 2019
MS. MOORE: I don't recall the solar pool cover.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I thought in the field, maybe it was
mentioned. Because that would potentially reduce energy costs.
MS. MOORE: We'll pass it on to the client. It probably makes
sense.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The question is how is the heater out of our
jurisdiction if the pool is in our jurisdiction.
MS. MOORE: Because the mechanicals are out of your jurisdiction.
They are next to the house. The pool itself is just at 100 feet.
The patio is encroaching, and we wanted to be sure that because
there is offsets, we want to make sure there is a permit for the
disturbance that could occur within your jurisdiction. So that
was the reason the application went in. The original application
had the pool closer, and when the Zoning Board reviewed it they
actually had the pool put parallel to the house and outside the
100 foot, so it did not require a zoning variance. But they did
approve it in the side yard. So that's, I don't know if I
answered it or not, but, so you can see that the pool is at 100
feet, okay, and as I said, the patio is within your jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So on the plan where it says "proposed pool
equipment"that would be the location of the proposed heater,
correct?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So if the edge of the pool is at 100 feet and
30 foot pool, you can figure at least 120 foot away.
MS. MOORE: Correct.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And you are going to make that a smaller
heater?
MS. MOORE: Well, I mean, again, it's the cost-wise, we are not
really talking cost-wise, but the larger heater is more
efficient. So it's actually a better, that's why it was specked
by the pool company, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Speaking for myself,'I don't want to get
involved in making determinations concerning efficiency because
I played with it on my personal side of the house, and I know
that's a decision to be made, a more highly efficient heater can
run less, it becomes a consideration, where you articulated it's
out of jurisdiction, for me, I don't have a problem with it.
Thank'you, for looking into it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak to
this application?
(Negative response).
Questions or comments from the Board?'
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm conflicted. I'm not pleased that onsite I
asked to consider a greener version of this heater, and it
appears that did not come to fruition. So.
MS. MOORE: No, actually --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I request a roll call vote on this.
MS. MOORE: I would, as a point of reference, we actually did
check out a greener, which would be a size 335 BTU system. It's
a smaller system but as we pointed out it's less efficient so it
Board of Trustees 37 December 11, 2019
has to be work harder.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's smaller. That's not greener. There is a
difference. But let's not get into that.
MS. MOORE: That's what we got from our pool company. Sorry.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Seeing how the pool heater is outside of our
jurisdiction, I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roll call vote, starting with myself, I vote no.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The ayes have it. Motion passed.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 13, AM Architectural Designs, PC, on behalf of
FRANK DOKA requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built 8'x38' basement
extension under the 8'x38' first-floor covered deck and 8'x38' second-floor
balcony in the seaward side of dwelling; and for the as-built two-story 35'x31'
garage.
Located: 755 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-11-4.1
This application was most recently visited on the 4th of
December and then prior to that in November, dealing with
construction that started without a permit within the
jurisdiction. I do have a new description for this project that
I can read into the record later on after we get into it.
And the LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent and
recommended requiring storm water controls, vegetated non-turf
buffer landward of the wetland line. They also noted the wetland
permit is not located within Town records for the existing
as-built structures.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
this application.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. MANGELS: Angela Mangels, AM Architectural Designs. We are
here as a continuation of the application from last month. So
that as we were requested to amend the statement for what we
were actually planning for, to also include the on-grade patio,
the brick patio that is there. And in addition we had to include
the 20-foot wide non-turf buffer. Since then, the drawings have
been amended and submitted to the Board as well as that property
description had been amended.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response)
Any other comments from the Board?
1
Board of Trustees 38 December 11, 2019
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the following amended description: To include 10.3'x38'
brick patio on-grade with progressive four-foot wide steps on
sloping grade with bottom; 4'x3' platform; and 20' wide non-turf
buffer; new IA Septic Star .75 wastewater treatment sanitary
system in accordance with the Suffolk County Department of
Health sanitary system. Additionally, citing the received
November 15th, 2019 plans. That is my motion, which would
therefore bring this into consistency.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES)'.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 14, Steven Affelt on behalf of ROGERS
QPRT#1 & ROGERS APRT#II requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing two-story dwelling to be renovated and altered;
existing second story is to be removed and replaced in the same
location with new walls, roof, floors; construct a new +/-8'x55'
second floor balcony over existing first floor raised deck; new
roof over first floor entries; proposed altered dwelling
footprint is 2,921 sq. ft. (+88 sq. ft.); new covered porches
proposed combined 138 sq. ft.; existing first floor deck 670 sq. ft.
Located: 420 Schooner Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-71-2-9
The Trustees did,a field inspection on December 4th and all
Trustees were present. The notes indicate that the project
seemed straightforward, needs gutters and leaders to drywells.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be exempt. The exemption
is because, from the fact that this is not changing the
footprint of the building.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved on December
4th, to support this application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. AFFELT: Good evening, my name is Steve Affelt, architect.
TRUSTEE DOMINO:Steve, can you address the concern about the
drywells, because we noticed that on one side they are just open.
MR. AFFELT: When you say open, you mean exposed?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, the gutters --
MR. AFFELT: They lead straight out to the lawn. The house is
older than most of the codes and regulations that do cover
wetlands and this has been a dredge canal with a bulkhead prior
to the New York State DEC's jurisdiction as well. So any
drywells that need to be added we can definitely accommodate
for. It's not out of the budget to make that happen.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good. Okay. Any questions or comments from the
Board?
(Negative response).
Board of Trustees 39 December 11, 2019
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
MR. AFFELT: I do have a question for the Board, though. We had a
requirement that was handed to us from,the Zoning Board of
Appeals after the meeting for an IA system. So if I was to have
to go, because right now we are keeping our existing sanitary.
We are not changing the number of bedrooms. If I have to add an
IA system, which I was able to keep it 100 feet from the
bulkhead, would I have to reappear before the Board?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Frequently we request IA systems within our
jurisdiction. If it were beyond the 100 feet, the answer is no.
MR. AFFELT: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, any other questions or comments?
(Negative response).
Hearing none I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion to approve this application as submitted
with the addition of drywells will be installed to connect
gutters to leaders to drywells.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. AFFELT: Thank you.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Seeing the remaining applications under Wetlands
were postponed, I move to now move to Amendments, to number one.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number one, Costello Marine Contracting
Corp. on behalf of STUART THORN requests an Amendment to Wetland
Permit#7429 and Coastal Erosion Permit#7429C to install a 12'
rock revetment using 3-5 ton rocks in the space between west end
of existing bulkhead and proposed rock revetment on adjacent
neighbor's property.
r_ Located: 19375 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-20.1 & 21.
This project has been deemed to be consistent with the
Town's LWRP policies.
The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the
application due to two previous failures.
The Board of Trustees inspected the project on December
4th, and it appears straightforward. There was a question on the
history of a vinyl retaining wall, which that is a separate
matter we'll take up during the course of office work.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costello and we are the agents for
this application. And it is an avoidance of a void. There is a
vinyl bulkhead and then there is a rock revetment, and they
relocated, are in the process, they relocated the stairway and
there is going to be a 12-foot void between the existing rock
Board of Trustees 40 December 11, 2019
revetment and the bulkhead. And the gentleman that just moved
his stairs off his -- it was over the property line. And he's
putting it, moving the stairs on to his property, and in that
process this void is created. And he's paying, as part of moving
the stairway, he's paying to have the rock revetment placed in
there so there is no void. With the void there could be a little
bit of a problem on the rock revetment to the west. So that is
the purpose of it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Any questions or concerns
of the Board?
(Negative response).
Other than the issue, I don't believe we had a chance at the
field inspections to research the permit history on vinyl
bulkhead. I remember approvals in the file for the wood
bulkhead. That's a matter to investigate and we may have to get
back to the owner, just so you know.
MR. COSTELLO: Fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else here?
(Negative response).
Seeing no one, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to approve the application as submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number two, Costello Marine Contracting Corp.
on behalf of CLAUDIA PURITA requests an Amendment to Wetland
Permit#9276 and Coastal Erosion Permit#9276C to allow for the
"as-built" installation of 1.5 to 3 ton rock armoring in front
of the newly constructed bulkhead, :0,260 cubic foot (60.5 tons)
of rock to be placed below spring high water level; as-built two
11-foot high concrete terracing block retaining walls in lieu of
the previously approved 5-foot high retaining walls on face of
bluff; install a pervious gravel'splash curtain landward of
bulkhead; construct a revised stairway and walkway consisting of
a 4' wide terraced walkway from top of bluff towards top
retaining wall; construct 3' wide by 147' long stairs off top
retaining wall to area between two retaining Walls; construct a
5'x4' cantilevered platform with 3' wide by 147' long set of
steps to area in between lower retaining wall and bulkhead;
construct a 5'x4' cantilevered platform off bulkhead with
3'x9'2" seasonal aluminum stairway to beach; and to revegetate
bank with native plantings.
Located: 19995 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-6
The LWRP found this inconsistent and consistent. The
as-built concrete terrace blocking was inconsistent. According
to Town records, the structures were completed without obtaining
Board of Trustees 41 December 11, 2019
Board of Trustee review or regulatory permits. The proposed
construction of the stairway and walkway was deemed to be
consistent.'
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
the application due to two previous failures. Consideration to
move the house further landward is recommended.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection December 4th. We
have multiple issues. We also have a letter in the file stamped
received today, December 11th, 2019, from Costello Marine
Contracting Corp., outlining their rationale for the concrete
retaining walls.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. COSTELLO: Again, John A. Costello. I'm representing Mrs.
Claudia Purita on this application.
Originally the property was basically managed by her
husband Frank, and we went over what needed to be done, and
there was a minor failure that was becoming more and more
severe. And the documentation that I gave you, I tried to_
rationalize as much as possible why we did and what we did, and
when we did it. We did it quickly, and unfortunately, I know
that by doing that, I bypassed a lot of the Trustees
jurisdiction, but I also thought that the emergency, in the
letter that I've given you, I have given you a letter and
photographs. Now, I can read the letter into the record if it's
desired. But it's pretty extensive. And why I did it, the
liability and the materials going out into the Sound, including
the wood and the bulkhead, it was the intention, and I can, any
questions, if you want me to read this into the record, I
certainly would. But it would be at the discretion of this
Board.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No, we have it. It's in the record. So you
don't need to read it.
MR. COSTELLO: But I can highlight what it is. We were concerned
about continually losing the fill. There were multiple retaining
walls on the property and there is five retaining walls on the
adjacent property to the east. They are in the process of
failing. They are starting to fail because when you take soil
that is loose, there is no possible way of structurally tying it
back. And I've consulted, and I enlisted the engineer,
structural engineer. To put tieback systems into loose soil,
you are wasting your time and it is not going to hold up.
This double wall concrete system is self-supporting. It's
like building blocks. Each unit. And he recommends, the
engineer recommended that if you want to do it properly, to
maintain the elevation, each one of these walls, they're 12-foot
high, they are two feet into the bottom, and they are filled in
front. Two foot. So they are ten foot exposure. It's a lot of,
the looks of it, it's pretty barren, as this Board probably ,
looked at. And that can be softened with vegetation. And I did
consult with some of the people that have planted, put these
Board of Trustees 42 December 11, 2019
walls in before, and one of the things, one of the items that
would really work on it and that is done for a guy up in the
Stony Brook area, he did a similar wall, and they put Boston ivy
on it. Boston ivy does not penetrate the voids of the concrete,
but it adheres to the concrete and softens the look of the whole
section.
Right now, that wall's exposure is nine-and-a-half on one,
and almost ten on the other. Just shy of ten. Exposed. And we
are trying to avoid the liability. It started, if you look at
the photographs, you'll see where the upper retaining wall with
loose soil, it's all glacial fill and it will not adhere. To get
a backing system in there and compact the soil is almost
impossible.
The concrete is a self-retaining structure. And the other
thing is if one of the holes we elected to do, because of the
cost and timing, is this process was happening quickly, was
going to bring in all the equipment, all the materials, over the
bank. That stopped. It was too steep. It was, it got up to
almost a 60-degree angle. And we had to bring it by barge. Now
bringing a barge on that shoal, rocky area, was extremely
difficult and costly. And in order to keep the costs down, to -
some degree, and I did meet with the Board one time on changing
from steel to vinyl, and I would go to the vinyl, and went to
the heaviest available. It was Shore Guard 950. And we put an
extra backing system. We left concrete retaining wall behind it
so that the load didn't get too much with the raised wail. And I
met with the Board one time, at work session, to allow for some
of the rocks to be placed in front so that if a timber came
along there, it would reduce the area that would be exposed to
damage. So that is why we elected to go in that general
direction.
And this is an ongoing, if you ask me what we are doing
now, we would probably just be trying to vegetate and-reduce the
look of the concrete walls. And we would revegetate with Rosa
rugosa one of the things they had on this property before the
failure was phragmites. Phragmites is finding,-you are finding
out that phragmites right now, is one of the things that will
really reduce, it's elevated and you won't even see the wall
with the phragmites. The next, adjacent property, has phragmites
on the cliff. And that's a steel bulkhead that was put in by my
brother, probably 15 or 18 years ago. Phragmites is probably,
you won't see the hole with the phragmites. But it's a wonderful
tool, for erosion purposes. The rooting system will expand.
So the other thing is, besides the Rosa rugosa, beach
grass, and we do have a 12-foot splash curtain on the lowest
wall, vinyl wall, is 12-foot splash curtain there. And it's
gravel. And actually the last couple of storms we've had
recently, the gravel has stayed.
It's round --the trouble is when you are building the
walls or not, these double wall, concrete structures, can be
placed at the bottom in the water. They have been. And the
Board of Trustees 43 December 11, 2019
structural engineer, who is Nick Mazzaferro, has installed
them in the past. They are self-supporting. And I don't know,
I'm not so sure if they put retaining walls up this cliff, they
would probably have to be multiple ones. And they would not be
held there without tie backs. Any questions?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. What was the height of the concrete
walls?
MR. COSTELLO: The overall height of the structure is 12 feet.
They are supposed to be two feet into the bottom. Underneath.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: What was the permitted height that is allowed
MR. COSTELLO: Five. But I would have ended up putting four or
five five-footers. The next-door neighbor to the east has four
and one additional at the top. Five total retaining walls. And
his is failing. If you want, I don't even want to look at it.
The retaining walls are failing over because it's out of loose
material. And they will be, unfortunately.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This packet we only received today, and our
policy compels us, we have to have time to review this.
MR. COSTELLO: No, I think you actually want to. I'm just trying
to justify why I expedited this as quickly as I did.
Unfortunately, unfortunately, I didn't expedite it fast enough.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess there are liabilities at many
levels, and I'm concerned when I see walls of this height
without guard rails or structure to protect individuals from
taking a rather steep dive. And I'm not suggesting that is going
to be a key to an approval from my standpoint. I'm very
disappointed the way this has gone. And it's pretty extreme.
What about the DEC, has the DEC --
MR. COSTELLO: I got a stop-work order. That's why there is not a
handrail up there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What about the DEC, have they granted a
permit for this?
MR. COSTELLO: Not yet, no. I have to go to DEC court and in
order to get their permit amended.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Have you ever heard of the DEC having a
general policy against large precast concrete forms as being in
perpetuity, in other words creating a permanent structure that
is difficult to remove and can be considered to be there,
essentially forever, at least for lifetimes?
MR. COSTELLO: It would be, one of the big problems is your code,
you are supposed to design and build a structure that has a 30-year
life. Let me tell you, you have a couple of those
structures in that general vicinity, they'll be lucky if they
have a five-year life. This structure will, ultimately, be able
to survive for the 30 years
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'm little confused, because we granted a
permit for this in July 18th, 2018. So that supposedly had a
30-year life on it, right?
MR. COSTELLO: Supposedly. If I could have gotten the steel
quick enough. And we had subsequent storms immediately after
that.
Board of Trustees 44 December 11, 2019
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So that 30-year life lasted less than a
year, about a year?
MR. COSTELLO: We never got to the steel. Couldn't get it fast
enough. The only way to get steel to last 30 years, it has to
be sandblasted and epoxy coated. And there are several of those
steel bulkheads down there. They'll have some difficulty
getting 30 years out of them. The adjacent west neighbor was
built by my brother, he's no longer here, about 15 years ago.
And some of the retaining walls are sliding. But he has
phragmites in there and the vegetation is holding what's there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not even really sure where to begin on
this. For lack of a better word. I mean, it's definitely
extremely disappointing. We work with a lot of local guys and
there is a certain amount of trust and respect there. We
certainly just blew that out of the water, no pun intended. And
speak frankly with you, and, um, I mean, aside from
environmental factors and safety factors, I mean, this is not
something, when I'm black fishing I want to look at for 30
years. I don't want it to last 30 years. It's horrible. I spent
a lot of time working on the East River in New York City. And
that's what this is. It's a nightmare. And, you know, our code
speaks directly to esthetics. And this is not Southold. And it
might be Southold some day with sea level rise. And I
appreciate how difficult it is to work on the Sound and do
projects on the Sound. But this is certainly not Southold. I
don't know what else to say about it.
MR. COSTELLO: I can tell you, whatever structures that are
built, if they are going to adhere to anywhere near that 30
years, they are going to have to be significant, and they can't
be built on holed-in fill. That's a fact. So I mean, whatever
the Board, and I still have to go, and I'm going to the DEC and
try to get their approval to allow.
I have a couple of problems with the DEC. The, it's, the
second wall is out of jurisdiction of the DEC. It's elevation
ten. The rock revetment that we put in there on the temporary
basis for the Trustees, with the approval of an application
would be made, that is in the process, in this application,
right here, we are reviewing now, in this public hearing, and I
think that that is an important element.
To do it by barge, let me tell you, it is expensive. And
one of the things with the expense and the timing of it, well,
I'm helping to finance some degree of this in order to, because
I promised Mr. Purita that I would do the best I could to help
his family. And I am. That's all.
When you see the angle, one or two storms, disappear, it's a
little bit earthshaking with the amount of fill that was lost.
And if you look at all the photographs, the upper retaining
wall, gone. And we removed, believe it or not, we removed one
large degree of the debris that was resulting, you'll see some
of the photographs, will show you the amount of fill and the
retaining wall structures and the stairway, that is gone. Thank
Board of Trustees 45 December 11, 2019
God, I don't believe anybody got hurt with some of the stuff
floating around the Sound. But this happens all the time. And
that is, when you get a structure, to try to maintain it.
Because there certainly is a liability.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: John, I have a statement and a question.
We are compelled to consider the impact of a structure on the
neighboring properties. You can tell from that property, that
photograph, rather, that this cement structure is going to
reflect energy, and I believe it's going to have impact on the
lands east and west of this project. And that would compel me
to vote no on this structure as built.
The question I have for you though, is you said you are
before the DEC. You were going to go to a court. *Did you
receive a DEC violation?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, I did. And I have an appointment--
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I wanted to clarify that.
MR. COSTELLO: I can answer the one concern, which is
justifiable, and when this, the first photographs were taken and
submitted, the west neighbor had no basic jeopardy. And if we
reacted quickly. By the time we reacted, he was in jeopardy. It
was washing underneath his stairs. And if it got behind it, I
can tell you it would have been monumental if it got behind that
steel bulkhead. You lose the fill. Now with what we did, and
right now you can see it, I don't know if you have been there in
the last week or so, but we went to the neighbor. And we called
him and he hired Tim Coffey (sic) to come over there and find
out what should be done. Because near the property line, it was
going underneath his stairs any getting behind it. It was
exposed. Some of the photographs show that. And that was going
to happen. And Tim Coffey, and Patricia Moore is his attorney,
they recommended that I terrace it and vegetate it and place
fill there so that it does not occur.
The problem on the east neighbor is a different problem.
He's lost a bulkhead. He built a new bulkhead. He built four or
five retaining walls going up the cliff. They are and have been
failing. And let me tell you, when the first one failed, the
first bulkhead failed, that is one of the reasons Purita's
failed. It helped reduce the fill in their bulkhead, and a
bulkhead without fill, the east neighbor took a little while
before he reconstructed and built a new bulkhead. Even that
bulkhead now might be considered new, I would suggest not going
to look at it. The tieback system on the retaining walls are
sheering off.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to comment on that. The property next door
was not built in compliance with the permit either, and at that
time I said those walls were not built properly and they are not
going to last. And I'm not surprised to hear they are not
lasting. So. But that is not a good comparison either.
MR. COSTELLO: I would like to strike that from the record,
because I'll tell you one thing. I don't want to forecast doom
on anybody, but I have been in the business long enough. I can
Board of Trustees 46 December 11, 2019
see that it is going to be a problem. And there is nothing to do
with Purita's causing it. But they certainly caused a degree of
Purita's problem.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: To my mind, Trustee President Mike Domino
was talking about the requirements under Coastal Erosion Hazard
Area ordinance that we write permits under to make sure that the
project does not undermine the lateral support of adjacent
lands. And I don't believe he was speaking, you spoke eloquently
to your purported or the needs you thought you needed to do as
quickly as possible to stabilize those lands. I believe, if I
understood the chairman correctly, he was speaking to the future
impacts and impacts we are seeing already from these excessively
high concrete structures jutting out into space and then
adjacent to vegetated, you know, or neighboring properties. That
was my take. And I just wanted to hear your comments. Because I
didn't want it to be lost in the record what the chairman was
getting at, because that is probably the most stringent
requirement that is on face value being violated here.
MR. COSTELLO: I think just the opposite. This is going to help
the west neighbor. It is not going to help the east neighbor.
Unfortunately. I only wish. But the west neighbor hired Tim
Coffey and Patricia Moore to look at it. Pat Moore sent a letter
to sign off on it, and Tim Coffey suggested planting a lot of
Rosa rugosa on there and the owner of the property said whatever
Tim wants, that's what I would like to have done. And I tell my
contractor, basically, will be footing the bill for that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
MR. COSTELLO: If the Board has any questions of the structural
engineer, and why, the difference between these concrete double
wall systems, are better than retaining walls, I believe Nick
Mazzaferro, he's installed them, he has the experience, he's
done them. You see them done on Staten Island and whatnot. But
they go up to 35 feet in height. This is ten.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And this is Southold. This is not Staten
Island.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We appreciate you putting that on the
record.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You stated before that you were in business
long enough to foresee a problem, but you couldn't foresee a
problem building two concrete retaining walls without a permit?
So in the best interest of everybody and to review the letter
that we just received today, I make a motion to table this
application for further review.
'TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
i
Board of Trustees 47 December 11, 2019
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
0
Michael J. Domino, President
Board of Trustees