HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-08/19/2020 Glenn Goldsmith,President ®F S®UjTown Hall Annex
Michael J.Domino,Vice-President ®� ®l 54375 Route 25
John M.Bredemeyer IIIP.O.Box 1179
Southold,New York 11971
A. Nicholas Krupski us ar
G Q Telephone (631) 765-1892
Greg Williams ® �® Fax(631) 765-6641
®�yc®UEEE
NTY,�
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RC1V ®
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ct I`3 n'AM
S E P 1 8 2020
Minutes ma
Wednesday, August 19, 2020 S®ut Old Town Clerk
5:30 PM
Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President
Michael J. Domino, Trustee
John M. Bredemeyer, Trustee
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Greg Williams, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist
Dianne DiSalvo, Clerk
Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 5:30 PM
WORK SESSIONS: Monday, September 14, 2020 at 5:00 PM, and on
Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 5:00 PM.
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of July 13, 2020 and July 15, 2020.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Good evening and welcome to our Wednesday,
August 19th, 2020 meeting. At this time I would like to call the meeting to
order and ask that you please stand for the pledge of allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance is recited).
I'll start off by announcing the people on the dais as they appear on the screen.
We have Trustee Domino, Trustee Bredemeyer, Trustee Williams, Trustee Krupski.
We have Assistant Town Attorney Damon Hagan. We have Senior Clerk Typist
Elizabeth Cantrell. We have Clerk Dianne DiSalvo, and we have with us tonight
Court Stenographer Wayne Galante.
Agendas for tonight's meeting are located on the Town's website. We do have a
number of postponements tonight.
On the agenda, postponements are on page 15, number 13,
Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of JOHN & DANIELLE VENETIS
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9525 for
Board of Trustees 2 August 19, 2020
the addition of a thru-flow cap on the bulkhead and to establish -
and perpetually maintain a 10' no fertilization non-turf buffer
with 8' stone blend 4" deep landward of the bulkhead; and to not
place 25' cubic yards of clean sand from an approved source to
raise the depth of the grade below water and allow the growth of
intertidal marsh, and plant 1,000 sq. ft. of new marsh 12" o.c.;
and retain clean sand with approximately 85 linear feet of
pinned-bio-logs or equal with a top elevation of 2.0'.
Located: 2600 Takaposha Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-6-4.
On page 16, 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, ±1,260 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 142" long stairs off top
retaining wall to area between two retaining walls; construct a
5'x4' cantilevered platform with 3' wide by 142" 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.
On page 22, numbers 17 and 18:
Number 17, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of
106 MULBERRY CORP. requests,a Wetland Permit to construct a two
story, single family dwelling (25'x42'4", ±1,058.25 sq. ft.)with
attached 7.3'x48.2' (351.86 sq. ft), deck on south side of
dwelling; install a 25'x6' (±150 sq. ft.) stone driveway, a
12'x20' parking area on west side of proposed dwelling, and an
11'x20' parking area on north side of proposed dwelling; install
a new innovative, alternative nitrogen reducing water treatment
system (AI/OWTS); install sanitary retaining wall at an overall
length of 99.5' and a width of 8.0" across the top of the wall;
and to replace the failing bulkhead on west side and north side
of the lot as well as to replace the wood jetty which extends
into West lake, consisting of 198.0 linear feet of bulkhead to
be replaced along the westerly and northerly portions of the
subject property with the following measurements: Timber top
cap: 2.25' wide extended along the entirety of the bulkhead to
be replaced, 9" diameter timber piles, 6"x6" timber whalers,
±6.0' long tie-rods, ±6" diameter dead-men, and the use of vinyl
sheathing (CLOC or similar); the bulkhead return located
perpendicular to the northerly portion of the bulkhead to be
replaced at an overall length of 11.0' with a 2.25'wide
top-cap, 9.0" diameter piles, 6"x6" timber walers, ±6.0' long
Board of Trustees 3 August 19, 2020
tie-rods, ±6" diameter dead-men, and vinyl sheathing (CLOC or
similar); the existing wood jetty to be replaced with new 15.0'
long jetty with 9.0" diameter piles placed 1.5' o/c alternating
between the east and west sides of the jetty, the use of vinyl
sheathing (CLOC or similar), 6"x6" timber walers on both sides
of the jetty, and 2.75' tie-rods; existing wood dock assembly to
be removed at the start of the bulkhead replacement,and
re-installed in-kind and in-place at the completion of the
bulkhead replacement consisting of a landward 5'x5' wood
platform to a 14.1'x3.5' wooden ramp with 3.5' tall railings; a
13.5'x7.0' wooden float secured by four(4) 9.0" diameter piles
with two on the landward side of the float and two on the
seaward side of the float.
Located: 750 West Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-2-1.
Number 18, Robert Wilson on behalf of STEPHEN AND AMY
LICATA requests a Wetland Permit for the existing (2,601 sq. ft.
footprint) two-story dwelling with attached garage; as-built two
5' wide gable dormers and one 9' wide gable dormer added to
existing roof; as-built rebuild of existing 11'x30' screened
porch and added a deck to its roof; as-built 30'x50' patio, and
68 linear feet of 2'wide stone wall, as well as a 7'x8' fire
pit and 8'x20' pergola; as-built 83"x81-1/4" (46.8 sq. ft.) outdoor
shower; and to install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf
buffer along the landward side of existing concrete seawall.
Located: 670 Old Salt Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-144-5-13.
Page 23, numbers 19 through 23: '
Number 19, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of RICHARD LIEBOWITZ &
CONSUELO PROL requests a Wetland Permit for the removal and
replacement of existing 4'x34' fixed catwalk with steps on both
ends and Thru-Flow decking in same location as existing, and
construction of a proposed seaward 6'x16' fixed dock situated in
a "T" configuration with un-treated decking; and to hand-cut
Common Reed (Phragmites australis) within a 75' wide section
surrounding the catwalk to 12" in height above the ground
surface two times a year.
Located: 1000 Beachwood Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-10-59.
Number 20, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of MARY
HOVEY requests a Wetland Permit to install ±120' of new low-sill
vinyl bulkheading with new 8" piles; a 23' return at west end,
and an 8' return at east end; existing piles, dock, ramp, and
float to remain; regrade bank to establish 1:2 slope; place
rip-rap on slope and plantings from behind bulkhead to proposed
toe of slope; use bank material as bulkhead backfill (approx. 30
cubic yards); excess material to be removed to an upland site as
needed; install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf
pervious buffer comprised of rock rip-rap landward of the
low-sill bulkhead; and all disturbed areas outside the low-sill
bulkhead and rip-rap areas to be seeded and mulched following
the completion of construction activities; place silt fence
behind bulkhead; all timber shall be pressure treated No. 2
southern pine, and all hardware to be hot-dip galvanized.
Board of Trustees 4 August 19, 2020
Located: 4500 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-32.
Number 21, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of GORDON LAU &
MAMIE CHIANG requests a Wetland Permit to replace previously
existing dock, ramp and float using existing 10" diameter and
one 8" diameter pilings consisting of a proposed 4'x20' fixed
catwalk with Thru-Flow decking; 3.5'x18' aluminum ramp; and a
6'x20' floating dock situated in an "I" configuration.
Located: 1450 Jockey Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-5-17.
Number 22, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of NICHOLAS PACE
requests a Wetland Permit for the existing one-story 1,872 sq. ft.
dwelling with 10'x22.2' roof over concrete patio, 23.6'x23'
garage and roof top patio, 3.4'x10.5' outdoor shower; 21'x7'
pergola, 20'x25' raised patio with BBQ grill and 7.5'x16.3'
swim/spa surrounded by 15'x26' stone walls; on-grade brick paver
driveway; existing stockade fence on north and south property
lines to the bulkhead; and to establish and perpetually maintain
the existing non-turf buffer.
Located: 1760 Reydon Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-80-3-13.
And number 23, SW 1 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 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.
And on page 24, numbers 24 through 27.
Number 24, 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.
Board of Trustees 5 August 19, 2020
Located: 5875 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-1-1.3.
Number 25, GREG SCHULZ requests a Wetland Permit for the
as-built cutting and discarding of rotten vegetation and dead
tree; and to revegetate with native plants within the
approximately 16'x24' disturbed area at the property of the
Donald P. Brickley Irrevocable Trust.
Located: 7230 Skunk Lane (At Corner of Oak Drive and Hickory Drive),
Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-6-10.1
Number 26, 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 27, 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.
Those have all been postponed.
Under Town Code Chapter 275-8(c), files were officially
closed seven days ago. Submission of any paperwork after that
date may result in the delay of processing of the application.
At this time I'll entertain a motion to have our next field
inspection Wednesday, September 9th, 2020, at 8:00 AM at the
Town annex. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll entertain a motion to hold our next
Trustee meeting Wednesday, September 16th, 2020, at 5:30 PM, via
Zoom.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
Board of Trustees 6 August 19, 2020
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I would like to make a motion hold our next
work session via Zoom on Monday, September 14th, 2020, at 5:00
PM, and at 5:00 PM on Wednesday, September 16th, 2020.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll entertain a motion to
approve the Minutes of July 13th, 2020, and July 15th, 2020.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
I.,MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral I, Monthly Reports, the
Trustees monthly report for June 2020. A check for$9,627.40
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.
IV. RESOLUTIONS -OTHER:
Under Roman numeral IV, Other, I make a motion to approve as a
group items one through seven. They are listed as follows:
Number one, RESOLVED, the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Southold, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review
Act, hereby declare itself Lead Agency in regards to the
application of LAUGHING WATER PROPERTY OWNER ASSOCIATION;
Located: 2360 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-60
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 RICHARD LIEBOWITZ & CONSUELO PROL;
Located: 1000 Beachwood Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-10-59
Board of Trustees 7 August 19, 2020
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 BRIENZA FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;
Located: 1240 Latham Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-9-1.5
Number four, 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 MICHAEL & SUSAN CAVOUNIS;
Located: 3475 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-9
Number 5, 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 MARIA ULMET;
Located: 4600 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-33
Number six, 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 ROBERT KRUDOP;
Located: 4650 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-34
Number seven, 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 MARY HOVEY;
Located: 4500 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-32
That's my motion?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
V. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral V, State Environmental Quality
Reviews,
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the
following applications more fully described in Section X Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, August 19, 2020 are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA:
They are listed as follows:
Mary Ann Howkins SCTM# 1000-86-2-7
Seabreeze Condominium Association, c/o James Neuburger SCTM# 1000-44-5-25
106 Mulberry Corp. SCTM# 1000-90-2-1
John P. & Kimberly G. Keiserman SCTM# 1000-26-2-23
Hana Shaw Revocable Living Trust SCTM# 1000-87-5-8
Theodora Marangas, Theresa Marangas, Eileen Rayeski, Catherine Wilinski &Alice
Board of Trustees 8 August 19, 2020
Donlan SCTM #1000-107-7-8
John & Elizabeth Schroeder SCTM# 1000-114-4-1.1
William Murphy & Kimberly Reece SCTM# 1000-118-1-4.1
Charles & Geraldine Riesterer SCTM# 1000-70-4-47
Steven & Jaci Osdoby SCTM# 1000-53-3-8
Patricia Goeller Kirkpatrick SCTM# 1000-111-1-34
Charles G. Pardee SCTM# 1000-126-11-3.1
61600 Main Road, LLC SCTM# 1000-56-6-3.4
Stephen &Amy Licata SCTM# 1000-144-5-13
Jonathan Rebell & Noah Levine SCTM# 1000-74-1-35.56
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the
Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications
more fully described in Section X Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, August 19, 2020, are classified
as Unlisted Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO NEW
YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT NYCCR PART 617:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VI Environmental Declaration of
Significance pursuant to New York State Environmental Quality Review Act NYCCR Part
617.
Number one
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Michael Kimack on behalf of LAUGHING WATER
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 76'
long by 18' wide at low water, and 3' in height at highest point, a Living Shoreline
consisting of approximately 40 cubic yards of rip-rap, 20 cubic yards of biodegradable
sandbags, 420 sq. ft. of Spartina patens at 9" o/c; and to construct approximately 60' of
Living Shoreline consisting of approximately 20 cubic yards of biodegradable sandbags
and 480 sq. ft. of Spartina patens at 9" o/c.
Located: 2360 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-60
S.E.Q.R.A: NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Board of Trustees 9 August 19, 2020
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with this project having
visited the site on March 11, 2020, and having considered the survey of property by
Peter A. Groben Land Surveyor dated September 5, 2019, and having considered the
plans for this proposed project submitted by Michael Kimack dated January 4, 2020 at
the Trustee's August 17, 2020 work session, and
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2020 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself
Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2020 the Southold Town Board of Trustees classified the
application as an unlisted action pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, in reviewing site plan submitted by Michael Kimack dated January 4, 2020 it
has been determined by the Board of Trustees that all potentially significant
environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein:
Living Shoreline project including the plantings of Spartina Paten will benefit the
wetland habitat, wildlife and other wetland functions and values.
Vegetative, non-structural measures are not capable of stabilizing the erosion
alone.
Protection of the Living Shoreline using hardened structures including rip rap is
necessary for the native vegetation to take hold and survive.
A site inspection by the Southold Town Board of Trustees recognized erosion on
this property and the need for an 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 BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number two,
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of RICHARD
LIEBOWITZ & CONSUELO PROL requests a Wetland Permit for the
removal and replacement of existing 4'x34'fixed catwalk with
steps on both ends and Thru-Flow decking in same location as
existing, and construction of a proposed seaward 6'x16' fixed
dock situated in a "T" configuration with un-treated decking;
and to hand-cut Common Reed (Phragmites australis) within a 75'
wide section surrounding the catwalk to 12" in height above the
ground surface two times a year.
Located: 1000 Beachwood Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-10-59
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 March 11, 2020, and having considered the survey of property by
John C. Ehlers Land Surveyor dated December 5, 2018, and having considered the
Board of Trustees 10 August 19, 2020
plans for this proposed project submitted by Jeffrey Patanjo dated January 7, 2020 at
the Trustee's August 17, 2020 work session; and,
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2020 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself
Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2020 the Southold Town Board of Trustees classified the
application as an unlisted action pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, in reviewing site plan submitted by Jeffrey Patanjo dated January 7, 2020 it
has been determined by the Board of Trustees that all potentially significant
environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein:
Navigation: The proposed dock meets standards and does not extend beyond 1/3
across the water body. Depths for the dock terminus are within Town Trustees,
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and United States
Army Corps. Of Engineers guidelines and there is no recognized Federal/New
York State/Town navigation channel in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
structure.
Scope: The proposed dock is comparable to docks on neighboring properties in
an area where docks historically are used for commercial and recreational
purposes
Scope in relation to the riparian rights of shell fishers: The plan allows a standard
fixed dock design that will not impede access for those seeking shellfish and
crustacea in season.
Scope in relation to view shed: The seaward end of the proposed dock will not
extend appreciably beyond existing docks. As such the perspective will not be
discernibly different from the existing view.
Environmental upkeep: The dock design projects a usual lifespan of 30 years
with limited pile replacement so as to minimize disturbance of the bottom.
THEREFORE, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees
Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to
SEQRA for the aforementioned project.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number three,
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Rising Tide Waterfront Solutions on behalf of
BRIENZA FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to construct 132 linear feet of composite retaining wall including a 12'
return at each end within the area adjacent to tidal waters landward of the mean high
water elevation; relocate and install armor stone for wave and scour protection along
seaward face of the proposed wall and along the existing vegetated slope for a total of
235 linear feet of stone armoring; and to replace the existing damaged timber stairs to
beach with new 5' wide timber stairs.
Located: 1240 Latham Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-9-1.5
Board of Trustees 11 August 19, 2020
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 March 11, 2020, and having considered the survey of property by Nathan Taft
Corwin III Land Surveyor last dated February 13, 2019, and having considered the plans
for this proposed project submitted by Rising Tide Waterfront Solutions dated November
4, 2019 at the Trustees August 17, 2020 work session; and, WHEREAS, on August 19,
2020 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself Lead Agency pursuant to
S.E.Q.R.A.; and, WHEREAS, on August 19, 2020 the Southold Town Board of Trustees
classified the application as an unlisted action pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, in reviewing site plan submitted by Rising Tide Waterfront Solutions dated
November 4, 2019 it has been determined by the Board of Trustees that all potentially
significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein:
Vegetative, non-structural measures are not capable of stabilizing the erosion of
the bank alone.
Protection of the bank using hardened structures including rock revetments
is necessary.
As time progresses, continued soil loss at the bank may lead to habitat
degradation and bank instability.
A site inspection by the Southold Town Board of Trustees recognized erosion on
this property and the need for a bank 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 KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number four,
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: En-Consultants on behalf of MICHAEL & SUSAN
CAVOUNIS requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 151 linear
feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of-existing timber bulkhead; remove and replace
in-place ±22' northerly timber bulkhead return with vinyl return; backfill
with approximately 25 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be trucked in from an
approved upland source; remove existing dock structure consisting of a 7'x8' deck,
7'x17' fixed walkway, 4'x16' ramp, and 8'x12' floating dock, and construct in the same
location a new dock (to be connected to water and electricity), consisting of a
4'x39' fixed timber catwalk constructed with open-grade decking and rope handrail;
3'x14' hinged ramp, and 6'x20' floating dock situated in an "I" configuration and
secured by two (2) 10" diameter pilings; construct a 10'x15' grade-level, untreated
wood deck landward of dock and bulkhead; and to establish and perpetually maintain
a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 3475 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-9
S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Board of Trustees 12 August 19, 2020
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with this project
having visited the site on March 11, 2020, and having considered the survey of
property by Nathan Taft Corwin III Land Surveyor last dated September 25, 2019,
and having considered the plans for this proposed project submitted by En-
Consultants dated January 30, 2020 at the Trustee's August 17, 2020, work session;
and, WHEREAS, on August 19, 2020 the Southold Town Board of Trustees
declared itself Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and, WHEREAS, on August 19,
2020, the Southold Town Board of Trustees classified the application as an unlisted
action pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, in reviewing site plan submitted by En-Consultants
dated January 30, 2020, it has been determined by the Board of
Trustees that all potentially significant environmental concerns
have been addressed as noted herein:
Navigation: The proposed dock meets standards and does not
extend beyond 1/3 across the water body. Depths for the
dock terminus are within Town Trustees, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation and United States
Army Corps. Of Engineers guidelines and there is no
recognized Federal/New York State/Town navigation channel
in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure.
Scope: The proposed dock is comparable to docks on
neighboring properties in an area where docks historically
are used for commercial and recreational purposes.
Scope in relation to the riparian rights of shell fishers:
The plan allows a standard ramp to float design that will
not impede access for those seeking shellfish and crustacea
in season.
Scope in relation to view shed: The seaward end of the
proposed dock will not extend appreciably beyond existing
docks. As such the perspective will not be discernibly
different from the existing view.
Environmental upkeep: The dock design projects a usual
lifespan of 30 years with limited pile replacement so as to
minimize disturbance of the bottom.
THEREFORE, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees
Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration
pursuant to SEQRA for the aforementioned project.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number five,
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Cole Environmental Consulting on behalf
of MARIA ULMET requests a Wetland Permit to install ±119' of new
1
Board of Trustees 13 August 19, 2020
vinyl low-sill bulkheading and 8" piles along mean high water as
indicated, and two (2) 8' returns at each end; existing piles to
remain; regrade bank to establish 1:2 slope and place rip-rap;
use bank material as bulkhead backfill (approx. 5 cubic yards);
excess material to be removed to an upland site as necessary;
install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf pervious
buffer composed of rock rip-rap along the landward edge of the
low-sill bulkhead; install silt fencing behind bulkhead; all
timber shall be pressure treated No. 2 southern pine and all
hardware shall be hot-dip galvanized; and all disturbed areas
outside low-sill bulkhead and rip-rap areas are to be reseeded
and mulched following completion of the construction activities.
Located: 4600 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-33
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 March 11, 2020, and having considered the survey of property by
Kenneth M. Woychuk Land Surveying PLLC dated December 1, 2018, and having
considered the plans for this proposed project submitted by Caruso Engineering dated
January 26, 2020 at the Trustee's August 17, 2020 work session; and,
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2020 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself
Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2020 the Southold Town Board of Trustees classified the
application as an unlisted action pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, in reviewing site plan submitted by Caruso Engineering dated January 26,
2020 it has been determined by the Board of Trustees that all potentially significant
environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein:
Vegetative, non-structural measures are not capable of stabilizing the erosion of
the bank alone.
Protection of the bank using hardened structures including low sill bulkheading
and rip rap is necessary.
As time progresses, continued soil loss at the bank may lead to habitat
degradation and bank instability.
A site inspection by the Southold Town Board of Trustees recognized erosion on
this property and the need for a bank 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 KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number six,
Board of Trustees 14 August 19, 2020
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Cole Environmental Consulting on behalf
of ROBERT KRUDOP requests a Wetland Permit to install ±131' of
new vinyl low-sill bulkheading and 8" piles along mean high
water as indicated, and an 8' return at south end; existing
piles, dock, ramp, and float to remain; regrade bank to
establish 1:2 slope and place rip-rap; use bank material as
backfill (approx. 50 cubic yards); excess material to be removed
to an upland site as necessary; install and perpetually maintain
a 10' wide non-turf pervious buffer composed of rock rip-rap
along the landward edge of the low-sill bulkhead; install silt
fencing behind bulkhead; all timber shall be pressure treated
No. 2 southern pine; all hardware to be hot-dip galvanized; and
all disturbed areas outside the low-sill bulkhead and rip-rap
areas are to be reseeded and mulched following completion of the
construction activities.
Located: 4650 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-34
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 March 11, 2020, and having considered the survey of property by
Kenneth M. Woychuk Land Surveying PLLC dated December 1, 2018, and having
considered the plans for this proposed project submitted by Caruso Engineering dated
January 26, 2020 at the Trustee's August 17, 2020 work session; and,
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2020 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself
Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2020 the Southold Town Board of Trustees classified the
application as an unlisted action pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, in reviewing site plan submitted by Caruso Engineering dated January 26,
2020 it has been determined by the Board of Trustees that all potentially significant
environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein:
Vegetative, non-structural measures are not capable of stabilizing the erosion of
the bank alone.
Protection of the bank using hardened structures including low sill bulkheading
and rip rap is necessary.
As time progresses, continued soil loss at the bank may lead to habitat
degradation and bank instability.
A site inspection by the Southold Town Board of Trustees recognized erosion on
this property and the need for a bank 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 DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
Board of Trustees 15 August 19, 2020
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number seven,
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Cole Environmental Services on behalf of
MARY HOVEY requests a Wetland Permit to install ±120' of new
low-sill vinyl bulkheading with new 8" piles; a 23' return at
west end, and an 8' return at east end; existing piles, dock,
ramp, and float to remain; regrade bank to establish 1:2 slope;
place rip-rap on slope and plantings from behind bulkhead to
proposed toe of slope; use bank material as bulkhead backfill
(approx. 30 cubic yards); excess material to be removed to an
upland site as needed; install and perpetually maintain a 10'
wide non-turf pervious buffer comprised of rock rip-rap landward
of the low-sill bulkhead; and all disturbed areas outside the
low-sill bulkhead and rip-rap areas to be seeded and mulched
following the completion of construction activities; place silt
fence behind bulkhead; all timber shall be pressure treated No.
2 southern pine, and all hardware to be hot-dip galvanized.
Located: 4500 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-32
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 March 11, 2020, and having considered the survey of property by
Kenneth M. Woychuk Land Surveying PLLC dated December 1, 2018, and having
considered the plans for this proposed project submitted by Caruso Engineering dated
January 26, 2020 at the Trustee's August 17, 2020 work session; and,
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2020 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself
Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2020 the Southold Town Board of Trustees classified the
application as an unlisted action pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, in reviewing site plan submitted by Caruso Engineering dated January 26,
2020 it has been determined by the Board of Trustees that all potentially significant
environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein:
Vegetative, non-structural measures are not capable of stabilizing the erosion of
the bank alone.
Protection of the bank using hardened structures including low sill bulkheading
and rip rap is necessary.
As time progresses, continued soil loss at the bank may lead to habitat
degradation and bank instability.
A site inspection by the Southold Town Board of Trustees recognized erosion on
this property and the need for a bank 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 BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye
Board of Trustees 16 August 19, 2020
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
VII RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VII, Resolutions,
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
numbers one through three and five through nine. They are listed
as follows:
Number one, 1160 SNUG HARBOR LLC requests an Administrative
Permit to install a 91"x100" hot tub on 10'x10'concrete slab
adjacent to northeast corner of patio; for the as-built 6'x30'
wood deck; and to incorporate the existing northwest drywell as
a means of hot tub drainage.
Located: 1160 Snug Harbor Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-5-39.1
Number two, 1955 BENTE &JOE LLC requests an Administrative
Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to hand-cut Common
Reed (Phragmites australis) to maintain walkway to beach 12" in
height by hand, as needed.
Located:1935 Old Wood Path, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-2-21
Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of ATHENA GUO &
XIAOYANG ZHU requests an Administrative Permit to remove and
replace in-place approximately 731f of timber bulkhead with
vinyl bulkhead; remove and replace in-place existing +/-27'
easterly timber return with vinyl return; remove and replace
in-place +/-18' timber section of existing +/-48' westerly
return with vinyl return (+/-30' vinyl section of existing
return to remain); backfill with approximately 15 cubic yards of
clean sand to be trucked in from an approved upland source;
reset existing +/-12' wide stone splash pad adjacent to bulkhead
and returns upon completion of construction, and maintain 20'
wide non-turf buffer adjacent to bulkhead.
Located: 540 Takaposha Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-6-9
Number five, Glynis Berry, AIA on behalf of GARY COMORAU
requests an Administrative Permit to abandon and fill in the
existing sanitary system and install a new
Innovative/Alternative Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (I/A
OWTS).
Located: 2050 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-7-17
Number six, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of
CHOCOMOUNT COVE PARTNERS, LLC c/o ELIZABETH C. CALLANDER
requests an Administrative Permit for a Ten (10) Year
Maintenance Permit to remove and dispose of invasive plants,
noxious shrubs, including Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), Oriental Bittersweet (Celastrus articulates), Poison
Ivy (Rhus radicans), Virginia Creeper(Parthenocissus
quinquefolia), and Black Cherry (Prunus serotina), vines and
dead trees; to seed the area with a meadow mix of grasses and
wildflowers; plant Tupelo (Gum) (Nyssa sylvatica), Bay Berry
Board of Trustees 17 August 19, 2020
(Myrica penslvanica), Beach Plum (Prunus maritime) and Staghorn
Sumac (Rhus typhina).
Located: 12244 East Main Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-3-2-6
Number seven, Michael A. Kimack on behalf of LESLIE GAZZOLA
REVOCABLE TRUST requests an Administrative Permit to construct a
455 sq. ft. on grade paver patio surrounding existing 112 sq. ft. porch.
Located: 495 Elizabeth Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-2
Number eight, William A. Scherer, R.A., on behalf of
DOMINIC & PATRICIA GRASSO requests an Administrative Permit to
repair/replace stone paving at top surface of existing raised
45'x13'7.5" masonry patio and 8'x7"x6' steps at rear, east side
of patio; 9'3"x6'5" steps at south side of patio with 4'9"x7'10"
landing; one set of steps 4'9"x5'6" and one set of steps
4'9"x4'1"; removal and replacement of non-code compliant
railings with code compliant railings.
Located: 1155 Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-66-3-6
Number nine, MICHAEL & ROBIN COLAPIETRO request an
Administrative Permit to place concrete pavers on top of
existing 67'x30' concrete driveway.
Located: 3800 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-17-6.1
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number four, CHRIS CYPRUS requests an
Administrative Permit to erect a split rail fence approximately
60' long and 3' high running from beach grass up to MHW along
the side property lines; install generator on raised 4'x5'
platform, alongside existing A/C units on side of house.
Located: 1100 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-1-4.2
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on this and there
were two sets of rack lines, so we just wanted to distinguish the length.
So I make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that the fence is no more than 219 feet from the
northwest corner of the house, which is 73 yards, as we
indicated in the field.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number ten, JAMES & CATHY SLECKMAN JAMES &
CATHY SLECKMAN request an Administrative Permit to upgrade their
existing septic system to an Innovative and Alternative Onsite
Wastewater Treatment System (I/A OWTS); for the existing 4'x5'6"
Board of Trustees 18 August 19, 2020
outdoor shower with drain joined to a 4" wide drain pipe which
empties into existing drywell.
Located: 150 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-2-5
At the work session, the original application had a
different project description, so I make a motion to approve
this application based on this new project description that
includes the outdoor shower and drain.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
VIII. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VIII, Applications for
Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments.
Again, in order to simplify the meeting I'll make a motion
to approve as a group numbers one through 12. They are listed as follows:
Number one, En-Consultants on behalf of CUTCHOGUE 6291, LLC
c/o STEPHANIE GUILPIN requests a One (1) Year Extension to
Wetland Permit#9293 and Coastal Erosion Permit#9293C as issued
on August 15, 2018.
Located: 6291 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-82-2-3.2
Number two, En-Consultants on behalf of CUTCHOGUE 6213, LLC
c/o STEPHANIE GUILPIN requests a One (1) Year Extension to
Wetland Permit#9292 and Coastal Erosion Permit#9292C as issued
on August 15, 2018.
Located: 6213 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-82-2-3.1
Number three, DAVID ECKERT requests the Last One (1) Year
Extension to Wetland Permit#9002 as issued on April 19, 2017.
Located: 1035 Waterview Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-7-14
Number four, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of GAVIN McCUTCHEN
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#9325 from Brendan & Mindy Dooley,
as issued on October 17, 2018.
Located: 145 Dickerson Street, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-67-3-11
Number five, David Jude Jannuzzi on behalf of DANYAO
DANIELLE CHANG requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#2200 from
Mathias Mone to Danyao Danielle Chang, as issued on April 14, 1986.
Located: 2830 Grandview Drive, Orient. SCTM# 1000-14-2-3.5
Number six, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of PETROS &
PENNY TSEKOURAS requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#5766 from
Joanna & Dennis Lane to Petros & Penny Tsekouras, as issued on
May 21, 2003.
Located: 1852 North Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-12-39.4
Number seven, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of PETROS
& PENNY TSEKOURAS requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#6817
from Joanna Lane to Petros & Penny Tsekouras, as issued on
February 27, 2008.
Board of Trustees 19 August 19, 2020
Located: 1852 North Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-12-39.4
Number eight, MARY McKAY requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#8575 from Shatswell Properties, Inc. to Mary McKay, as
issued on March 18, 2015 and for an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit#8575 for the reconfiguration of elevated timber
bluff stairway with railings, consisting of: 3 steps 3.5'x0.8'
to a 3.5'x8' deck; 20 steps 3.5'x0.8' to a 3.5'x4.2' deck and
3.5'x4.2' deck with seat; 19 steps 3.5'x0.8' to a 3.5'x4.2' deck
with seat and a 3.5'x4.2' deck; 19 steps 3.5'x0.8' to a
3.5'x4.2' deck with seat and a 3.5'x4.2' deck; 19 steps
3.5'x0.8' to a 3.5'x4.2' deck and 3.5'x4.2' deck with seat; 19
steps 3.5'x0.8' to a 3.5'x6.9' deck; 10 steps 3.5'x0.8' to a
3.5'x10.2' deck; 10'x2' retractable ladder.
Located: 450 Castle Hill Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-72-1-1.8
Number nine, STEVEN & DEBORAH WICK request an
Administrative Amendment to Administrative Permit#9541A to
include a Ten (10) year maintenance permit for the removal of
invasive Japanese Knotweed by manual cutting without the use of
machinery.
Located: 1541 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-1-19.7
Number ten, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of
CONSTANCE VICKERS requests an Administrative Amendment to
Administrative Permit#9509A to move waterside section of
fencing 24' landward so that it is installed on top of existing
wood retaining wall, thereby reducing the overall footage of the
fencing to 438 feet.
Located: 900 Holbrook Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-6-11
Number eleven, Michael A. Kimack on behalf of KEVIN S.
McLEOD & CHUN Y. CHEUNG requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit#9434 for the as-built 100' of 6' high stockade
fencing which commences at the top of the bluff and continues landward.
Located: 605 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-94-1-4
Number 12, JAMES H. RICH III, LESLIE E. RICH & CRAIG B.
RICH request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9498
to construct a 4'x10' section off of the seaward end of the
fixed dock, situated in a "T" configuration in lieu of the
previously approved 6'x10' section.
Located: 1470 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-2.1
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All those in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Point of information. I had notes that I
had taken on John and Danielle Venetis. I thought we might
revisit that one, or is this the new numbering?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, in the agenda number 13, Venetis, was
postponed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, we had new numbers. Okay.
Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
Board of Trustees 20 August 19, 2020
IX. MOORINGS/STAKE & PULLEY SYSTEMS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral IX, moorings, stake & pulley systems.
Again, to simplify it, I make a motion to approve as a group items one through six. They
are listed as follows:
Number one, JOSEPH P. LOMONACO requests a Mooring Permit for a mooring
in Richmond Creek for a 17' outboard motor boat, replacing Mooring #92.
Access: Public.
Number two, OVERTON DAY requests a Mooring Permit for a mooring in
Richmond Creek for a 26' outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #872. Access: Public
Number three, ADAM SHEBITZ requests an on-shore/off-shore Stake & Pulley
System Permit off of private property in Hashamomuck Pond for a 15' outboard
motorboat. Access: 630 Ruch Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-2-26
Number four, JAMES FINORA requests a Mooring Permit for a mooring in Little
Creek for a 19' outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #39. Access: Public
Number five, LEONARD BRAUN requests a Mooring Permit for a mooring in
Mattituck Creek for a 22' Sailboat, replacing Mooring #937. Access: Public
Number six, ROBERT EHRLICH requests a Stake and Pulley System Permit in
Narrow River for a 14' sailboat, replacing Stake#4. Access: Public
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE'GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Aye.
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral X, public hearings. At
this time I'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting
agenda and enter into the public hearings.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a public hearing in the matter of
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
brief and organized, five minutes or less, if possible.
If you need to or if you would like to comment on any
particular application, please use your hand and we'll turn you
on so you can be seen and heard.
Board of Trustees 21 August 19, 2020
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Amendments, number one, Patricia Moore, Esq., on
behalf of MARY ANN HOWKINS requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#9614 to
demolish the existing dwelling and construct in-place a new 2,161 sq. ft. one-story
dwelling with attached garage in lieu of renovating the existing one-story dwelling, with
all other permitted work to be performed.
Located: 3245 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-7.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent, with the installation of a
vegetated non-turf buffer and the installation of an IA system landward of the
single-family residence.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not do an inspection on this property,
therefore they did not make a recommendation.
The Trustees had a previous approval permit from December, 2019. The
amendment was for what was deemed a demo after they got their permit. So they are
coming in for an amendment.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. BELNIAK: We do have in the audience, there is a hand raised
--just to point out, though, we have Mary Ann Howkins in the
audience, as well as Patricia Moore. Mary Ann and Patricia,
seems you are listed on the item, if you would like to speak,
just raise your hand.
We have another hand raised that is not one of those hands
raised, Mr. Goldsmith.
So Patricia Moore just raised her hand. Patricia, I'm going
to send a command to open your mic. You should see that command.
If you want to un-mute your mic and you can comment on behalf of this.
MS. MOORE: Hello, how are you? How is everyone?
MS. CANTRELL: If I could interrupt. Mr. Fay is the architect for this project.
MS. MOORE: Yes. I did ask Mr. Fay to also participate so he
could describe exactly what the plan is, if the Trustees need a
description.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Great.
MR. BELNIAK: Glenn, you're muted, by the way.
MS. MOORE: Mr. Fay, are you there?
MR. BELNIAK: Mr. Fay is here. Glenn, your line is muted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Our question was, this new amendment, is the
house going back in the exact same footprint as previous?
MS. MOORE: Yes, it is, and I'll have Mr. Fay explain it, but,
very quickly, it is the exact same project, but when the
Building Department got our plans, their concern was that we
would not want to have the project somehow or other be
interrupted, if they felt that material, there was too much, the
50% rule resulted in more material being removed than what was
anticipated. But it's the identical plans. The drawings did
not change for this application.
Mr. Fay, do you want to provide extra --
MR. FAY: As well as the building inspector was a little worried
about not going over 50%, there is a clause in the Southold
Building Code that is, if the project is deemed over 50% of the
value of the existing structure, it then needs to be deemed a
Board of Trustees 22 August 19, 2020
demo and not an alteration. It's quite an extensive interior
alteration, which is causing the project to be, the cost of the
project to be over 50% of the value of the existing structure.
So it would have to be deemed a demolition, even though we are
keeping the foundation, we are keeping the roof, we are keeping
the walls, exterior walls. It's more of a, it's an extensive
renovation but needs to be deemed a demolition.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. So basically the only difference
between this amendment and the permit that has already been
received is the definition of"demolish."
MR. FAY: Exactly. Exactly.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Does anyone else wish to comment on this
application?
MR. BELNIAK: As of now there are no other hands raised.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing no further comments, I make a motion
to close this hearing
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS:i Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And I make a motion to approve this
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits, number one,
Rising Tide Waterfront Solutions on behalf of BRIENZA FAMILY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct
132 linear feet of composite retaining wall including a 12' return at each end within the
area adjacent to tidal waters landward of the mean high water elevation; relocate and
install armor stone for wave and scour protection along seaward face of the proposed
wall and along the existing vegetated slope for a total of 235 linear feet of stone
armoring; and to replace the existing damaged timber stairs to beach with new 5' wide
timber stairs.
Located: 1240 Latham Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-9-1.5.
The Trustees did a field inspection at the site on March 11th, 2020. All were
present. Field notes suggest rock revetment or a heavy armoring of the face, and
suggest a work session discussion. At the work session discussion it was
Board of Trustees 23 August 19, 2020
recommended that the rock revetment be configured to be similar to the neighboring
revetment to the east.
The LWRP coordinator found this application to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council did not do an inspection therefore made
no recommendations.
Is there anyone else, anyone present who would like to speak specifically to this
application?
MR. BELNIAK: There is a hand raised. Hopefully I'm saying your first name correctly.
Adon Austin. Adon, I sent a command to open your mic.
MR. AUSTIN: Adon Austin, Rising Tide Waterfront Solutions. As I understood the
comment there that it was preferred that the rock revetment be similar to the adjacent
property. That was looked at and the DEC, New York State DEC preferred
just a single or dual layer of heavier armoring, not the hardened structure as similar to
the adjacent structure. So that was in one of the alternates, we put together an alternate
analysis and that was not preferred by the New York State DEC.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank. Are there any additional comments from
the Trustees Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No
MR. BELNIAK: There are no other hands raised in the audience at
the moment.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no additional comments, I make a motion
to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
MR. HAGAN: The motion is passed.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: In consideration of the DEC approved plans, I
make a motion we approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And now, number two, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting on behalf of SEABREEZE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, c/o
JAMES NEUBURGER requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit to rehabilitate 199.0' of the existing 291.0' long
southwesterly rock revetment; rocks to be sourced on-site and
1-3 ton stones to be supplemented as needed; stair assembly to
be removed as well as all rocks within ten feet of the stairs to
provide access for construction equipment; backfill area
landward of the proposed revetment and seaward of the eroding
bluff using approximately 360 cubic yards of clean backfill from
an approved upland source to fill in the area between the bluff
Board of Trustees 24 August 19, 2020
and the revetment, at its widest portion 11.5' landward of the
proposed revetment and 2.5' at its most narrow; stair assembly
and rocks to be replaced upon completion of the rock revetment
(in-kind and in-place) consisting of landward timber and gravel
steps: 2.5' deep per step, 6.0' wide, and 47.0' long; wood
platform: 4.0'wide, 8.6' long at the top of the escarpment with
3.0' high by 8.6' long railings; stairs: 3.0' wide, 10.0' long,
9.1' high at its peak with 3.0' high by 10.0' long railings; and
to establish and perpetually maintain a 10'wide vegetated
non-turf buffer area landward of the proposed revetment to be
planted with beach grass (Ammophila breviligulata), 12" o/c at
plug size (2,000± plugs total) thereon.
Located: 60125 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44.1-1-(1-16),
also known as 1000-44-5-25
This project did not receive an inspection from the Conservation
Advisory Council due to the COVID-19 shutdown, therefore we will
not have a report from that agency.
The project has been deemed to be inconsistent with the
Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program in that the
program coordinator indicated that the proposal includes rocks
to be sourced onsite on the beach to build a revetment. It is
recommended that the Board prohibit the use of naturally
occurring rocks on the beach in this private construction
project. Removal of naturally occurring rocks on the beach will
disrupt the shoreline dynamics.
The Board performed a field inspection of this property on
March 11th. At that time we did note that the project
rehabilitation as proposed fit the site. There was significant
undercutting of the bank. Also at that time on field inspection,
the Board did see that the stones which, the existing proposal
of rocks be sourced on the beach were in fact in close proximity
to and previously part of the existing shoreline protection,
addressing concerns of the LWRP coordinator that the stone
material to be repurposed was in fact already part of the
existing structure. And I don't know if we have any comments or
hands raised for participation or discussion.
MR. BELNIAK: There was a hand raised a moment ago but it has
since disappeared. No, it's back.
Bruce, we sent a command to open your mic. Once you do so,
the floor is yours.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, Trustee Bredemeyer put his finger on it.
This actually started back when we met with Trustee Bredemeyer
at pre-submission on January 14th. And we proceeded with this
application based upon our collective review of the site, and
those rocks are indeed as he said. What we are talking about,
repurposing, are rocks that were initially part of the revetment
that had moved as a result of storm activity. So I'm
appreciative of Trustee Bredemeyer's description of this.
The only thing I want to add is that when you go there,
you'll see that the access to the site will be where the
existing stairs are so that what will happen here is, and it's
Board of Trustees 25 August 19, 2020
reflected in our plans, is that the stairs would be removed. I'm
going to say the drop in elevation is about eight feet or so.
And so the equipment will be accessed through where the stairs
are, and the stairs simply will be replaced in-kind/in-place.
That's really what the project is. And of course I'll answer any
questions you may have.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional questions or concerns of the
Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Accordingly, I make a motion to approve this
application as submitted in accordance with the set of stamped
plans in the Trustee office dated January 30th, 2020, the plans
of Suffolk Environmental Consulting noting that the use of the
rocks being sourced onsite were part and parcel to the
pre-existing, the revetment, and accordingly will bring this
project into consistency with the LWRP.
That's my motion
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, number three, Patricia Moore, Esq. On
behalf of AYDA CANDAN requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit for the existing 20.5'x42.2' two-story dwelling
with 9'x20.5' second floor (living space) over existing deck, a
10'x20.5' on-grade patio (in front of bulkhead), a 20.5'x9'
first floor deck with 3'x14' steps to grade on east side, and an
8'x30' concrete patio on grade in front yard; existing 25 linear
foot long and 20 linear foot long cement retaining walls on west
side; between front yard and rear yard an existing 20 linear
foot long cement retaining wall with 3'x8' steps from front
elevation to rear elevation; two (2) existing 20 linear foot
long cement retaining walls on both sides of driveway; 50 linear
feet of existing wood bulkhead running along mean high water
mark connecting to westerly neighbor's bulkhead with a 20'
return on east side; and for the existing steps on the east side
of dwelling; proposed work to existing to include: Replacing
supports (footings) of existing 29.5'x19' deck and deck columns;
replace 12 cubic yards of fill with clean sand and gravel under
Board of Trustees 26 August 19, 2020
existing concrete patio and deck footings landward of existing
bulkhead; add hurricane straps to existing above grade deck;
existing cement block walls protecting support piles under the
house (storm breaks) to be repaired or replaced with comparable
"break away" material; on west side of house, repair or replace
as needed, 3'x5' steps to bulkhead; repair or replace as needed,
3'x5' steps perpendicular to dwelling; repair or replace as
needed, 4'x8' steps from side yard retaining wall to grade; on
east side of dwelling, repair or replace 3'x10' deck stairs to
grade; replace 4'x10' wood steps to grade; repair existing 4'x3'
wood steps running from existing wood retaining wall to grade
(alongside of existing house).
Located: 55955 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44-1-18
The Trustees initially visited this property on the 8th of
January, met with Pat Moore on the site, questioned operations
conducted without a Coastal Erosion Permit. Specifically, the deck.
Then did an inhouse review on the 5th of February, and then most
recently we were waiting for plans was our latest review of
this.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent largely
for the reason of building without a permit or adding on without
a permit.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
this application.
Liz, is that the most recent-- I believe that is the most
recent set of plans. Can you go back to the other one that you
had up there, please. Thank you.
MS. CANTRELL: Dianne is actually doing the files today.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Dianne, thank you. So after discussion with the
applicant and her attorney Patricia Moore, it was determined we
would reduce the size of the rear deck, and I just, I think we
need some clarification from Ms. Moore as to the size, because
it seems, is it going to be 10x20 remaining or 9x20? And that's
where we are at after discussions at our work session and
discussions with the applicant.
So is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BELNIAK: We have a Mike Candan in the audience. Mike,
I'm going to send a command to un-mute your mic, and when you
do, the floor is yours. Also, Patricia Moore as well. So both you
guys have an option to open your mic.
Mike, I see your mic is open as well as you, Patricia, so
please continue.
MS. MOORE: I had the original, that the original existing deck
is showing as 19x20.2. So, if we were to reduce it to what is
legally under Coastal Erosion law allowing 10x20, we were
prepared to reduce it down to 10x20. It's really up to the
Board. I know that the Board allows that 200 -- Coastal Erosion
law allows 200-square feet, and that's why we had just cut the
deck in half. But the original deck is 19x20.2. 20.2 being the
width and 19 being the length to the bulkhead. So we actually
Board of Trustees 27 August 19, 2020
should have said cut off 10x9, if we are left with 10x20.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not fully my understanding of this property.
I'm not sure if Trustee Bredemeyer can speak to that or not. But
I believe we have pictures of this. I'll let Trustee Bredemeyer
comment on that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, the deck add-on was essentially that,
an additional nine or ten feet over what is now being offered
to, that would otherwise be allowed as less than 200-square feet
under Coastal Erosion.
My understanding also is that while the deck being proposed
now by Ms. Moore would be compliant just less than 200-square
feet, other construction on the house took place within the
Coastal Erosion Hazard Area that would require a permit,
required permissions, if you will, from Southold Town, but it
reflects construction in an area that is not ordinarily
permitted by the Board. So the matter with respect to the
Coastal Erosion Hazard Area ordinance would, necessity, could
not be approved by this Board, and if the applicant so chose
would have to go on appeal to the Town Board. So it's, I think
the Board in the discussions appreciates the fact that the
sections of the deck that were added to during the term of the
Coastal Erosion Act would be dialed back to less than 200-square
feet, we also recognize there were other house additions made
without the benefit of building permits and Trustee Wetland
permits and Coastal Erosion permits.
MS. MOORE: If I could speak. In fact the house, if you see the
cross-section there, the house is original. It has an overhang.
That is the, and the decking that is below it. So it's an
overhang and the decking. That's the original, pre-existing
house that predates Coastal Erosion.
As I recall, the neighbors objected because the deck was
extended out, and you see the extension, that is the old picture
that was provided by one of the neighbors. The extension is the,
again, it's a width of 20, that's the width of the house, by 20.
So that is -- or am I doing the numbers-- no, I'm sorry. 20
by, yes. 20. 1 believe it's 20x19 is the deck that you see
there in the pictures. That is what was built after Coastal
Erosion law came into effect. So when we agreed that-- it's
very important that my client be able to fix his house. That
house, there is no doubt that that predates Coastal Erosion.
You have surveys, you have pictures. And that is not in dispute.
All we have been discussing, whether to allow the extension of
the deck that was built after Coastal Erosion. The compromise we
suggested was, okay, imagine that deck does not exist, what
would be allowed today to build as a deck onto the house, to the
original house, which is the original decking under the canopy
second floor. We would be allowed to put a 200-square foot deck
on to this existing house. So that is what we asked the Board
to allow that.
So we have a lot going on here, there are repairs to the
under, to the existing house of the foundation, and that has
Board of Trustees 28 August 19, 2020
been an ongoing request now for several years. He has to repair
the house. The footings of the house were damaged during one of
the storms and we have been asking to repair that. But because
of this deck, it has been held up for a very long time.
So really the only request we are making, which is well
within the 200-square foot non-Town Board, it doesn't require an
appeal, that is what is permitted by this Board and it is
considered to be not a major structure - a minor structure under
Coastal Erosion. The deck could be reduced down and therefore
bring it within the scope of a permissible Coastal Erosion
permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So you are saying the second-floor addition
on the seaward side was part of the original construction over
the limited deck. Okay.
MS. MOORE: Absolutely. The entire house was a square. Our
surveyor shows it as an "X" or, because it's a roofed over. That
has been there for certainly before Coastal Erosion, and it
shows up on the photographs and the plans when the bulkhead was
first built. So as this picture shows you the, I think she --
it's stamped 2020, but I think it was 1980-something was when
that deck was built, which is why it brings it under Coastal
Erosion. But the house itself is the original house. You can
see the houses all along, the neighboring houses, they were all
built around the same time. The only thing they got was maybe
re-siding and things like that so it looks nice and clean, but
the structure itself is original.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, that was not my understanding of the
application. Um, Trustee Bredemeyer, does that seem, it seems to
make sense.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would make sense. I'm just trying to
recall, I'm looking for the photo. I'm actually ' oing through
the laserfiche files now. I believe the only other construction
was landward of the Coastal Erosion line in front of the house
that didn't have the building permits.
MS. MOORE: Yes, the front of the house, I think had a sanitary
or something, a porch.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was a porch enclosure. But that--
MS. MOORE: Exactly.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I believe part of the problem is that over half
the house falls within that line. So it's not just the deck. So
regardless, you are asking us to permit in the house that you'd
have to include that, I believe, going by Chapter 111.
MS. MOORE: Well, the house is pre-existing. It predates Coastal
Erosion. And there is nothing in the Coastal Erosion law that
prohibits repairing a pre-Coastal Erosion structure. It allows
you to maintain it and even the code says expand it. We have not
done that. He is trying to fix up the foundation under the
existing house. I know you have been there, I know you have seen
that. He got stopped after one of the storms that eroded out all
the sand under the existing house, and the posts need to be
re-enforced. That is when we started with the Building
Board of Trustees 29 August 19, 2020
Department. We asked the Building Department for a permit and
it got down to you. We also originally applied to the Building
Department for a pre-CO, and that is what, that was 15 years --
ten years ago. What prompted everything then was we asked for a
pre-CO and the Building Department started looking and saying
oh, you know, it looks like after'57, the front porch may have
altered. So that was the one issue of getting building permits
for the front porch. But it had nothing do -- it was an
enclosure. I think it was a screened-in porch, but it was all
roofed. It was windows and everything. And it got, you know,
appropriate windows. But that was in, some time in the 70s, I
think. Again, all pre-Trustees, pre-the Town's procedures. It,
just unfortunately still needed a building permit, because in
the 70s you needed a building permit. So the repair, you know,
I'm just trying to think of, it keeps getting bounced in and out
of Coastal Erosion, because the house is existing and I don't
need a Coastal Erosion permit for an existing structure. It was
only a new structure, an addition to the structure, that would
require a Coastal Erosion permit. And that is, again, you go
back to the deck and whether or not the deck as it is today, is
eligible for a Coastal Erosion permit without a full, without an
appeal and so on. And that's the problem. The client just wants
to move on. This has been a ten-year battle to try to get a
pre-CO.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. I'm going to ask for a little
clarification from the Assistant Town Attorney on this. Just in
regard to the CEHA line, where the house which was existing,
where it exists. For lack of a better word.
MR. HAGAN: Well, you mean the house is essentially completely in
the CEHA zone. It predominantly exists seaward of the Coastal
Erosion Hazard line. The totality of the structure certainly is
a nonconforming structure with regards to things today. You
know, as far as the Board's determination with regard to this
deck goes, that is really a decision for the Board to make. But
we have seen photos of what was pre-existing prior to the
Coastal Erosion Hazard Act and that side profile we have, those
photos up on page 13 out of the file. And the remainder of this
is a determination for the Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comments from anyone else
in the audience?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I have a question, Nick. I recollect from the
previous meetings or work sessions that there was some concerns
of the neighbors about the stairs, I believe on the eastern
side. And have all those questions, I'm addressing my question
to Pat, have all questions concerning those stairs been addressed?
MS. MOORE: Um, I believe so, because the stairs are just, I want
to say the only stair that was an issue was a small, it was one
that was slightly over the property line. But it's really
steps. And it was, if I remember correctly, they are more
railroad tie steps down. So that was a concern for the Yeuelly
family (sic) because they didn't want an encroachment. But
Board of Trustees 30 August 19, 2020
those stairs for the most part are part of the repair to the
property after the storm. So they would just be put properly
within the property lines. That is not a problem.
The only other staircase is the one on the east which, if
we modify the size of the deck, those stairs.
Mike, I'm trying to remember where they begin and end,
because the drawing by the surveyor is a little confusing.
MR. CANDAN: They are the original. Those are the original,
basically the original deck.
MS. MOORE: I see, there is a picture in your file, it might be
from after the storm, because I see sandbags on the side. So it
shows the staircase, it's the brown wood, the cedar wood that
goes, the staircase ends on the seaward side. There they are.
Okay. Exactly. That's the picture I'm looking at. So you can
see the staircase starts and.ends up at the very top that if we
cut the deck back, that is not a problem. That is, the staircase
is part of the overhang portion of the house. That's the
original overhang. So the staircase is not a problem at all. I
think the Yeuelly's were concerned about where the sandbags are is
where there were some, no,just on the opposite side, where the
bulkhead return runs, there are some steps down.
MR. CANDAN: It wasn't that. Actually it's further back.
MS. MOORE: Further back from where the sandbags are, then?
MR. CANDAN: Yes. So by the side of the house there is just some
wood, I think my dad put some wood, almost like retainers. No,
that's the left side.
MS. MOORE: No, that's the wrong -- no, that's the opposite side.
MR. CANDAN: They are looking at the house from the east and now
you want to look toward the south.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Can you bring up page eight.
MS. MOORE: Well that's, before you go, that's the picture of the
staircase. You see where it ends at the, on the original
overhang portion of the house.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: If you look here at page eight, I think one of
the things that was addressed at a prior meeting was right here
where these steps go over the property line. If you see, I drew
that in blue. And I believe --
MS. MOORE: ON I see. Those steps, Mike, are those steps even
there anymore?
MR. CANDAN: I can't see what we are talking about, I'm sorry.
Oh, yes. Here we go. I'm trying to think where we are. Yes,
that's the side of the house by the --yes, that's what they
were talking about. It's when you look between the houses, I
have not touched anything. I can't touch anything. So we are
more than happy to remove whatever we have to to get over the
line. We talked about this before, I think. I said of course,
we'll do whatever we have to to make it right. It's just that I
can't touch anything now. So we are not touching.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Nick, is that what you are asking about?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's what I was asking about.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I believe that's what Mike was asking about.
Board of Trustees 31 August 19, 2020
MS. MOORE: Okay, I didn't know which stairs. Sorry about that.
Then I was answering the wrong question.
MR. CANDAN: It's like six inches or something like that, at the
most.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: As long as they are going to be removed, I don't
have no problem with that.
MR. CANDAN: They are falling apart anyway. We'd be,lucky to --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, for the clarification
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak or
comment both from the public or the Board members?
MR. BELNIAK: No other hands are raised from the public at the
moment.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Hearing none, I make a motion to
close this hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland
application providing the deck is reduced to 10x20 on the
seaward side, and within the description it is changed, and I
will read the sentence. Proposed work to existing to include
replacing support footings of existing, strike 29.5'x19' deck
and put in 1 0x1 9 foot deck and deck columns, with the
stipulation that the stairs that are not on the applicant's
property are removed, which will thereby bring this application
into consistency with the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I make a motion to deny the Coastal
Erosion permit.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Point of discussion, if, I guess the deck as
proposed is 200-square feet, is supposed to be less than
200-square feet, is that at issue?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I mean, I still feel as we were discussing
earlier and as we discussed with the Assistant Town attorney, I
still feel the entire house is within the line regardless of
when it was built, and they are adding a deck to that. Under
chapter 111, 1 don't feel it's appropriate for this Board to
pass that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I understand your sentiments. I guess the
Board of Trustees 32 August 19, 2020
question I have for legal goes to some of my experience on the
Board. I guess that my understanding is that you are allowed to
maintain a pre-existing structure that predated Coastal, but I
guess the point would be whether or not the structure needed to
be permitted, to have a building permit prior. So I don't know
if it's a legal question. In other words, without a building
permit for some of the activities, the question is then, as you
say Trustee Krupski, that then it is a question that you may not
necessarily be able to continue to maintain the structure if it
didn't have a prior building permit. I don't know. That's why --
MR. HAGAN: So then my question then becomes is we just approved
a Wetland application with regard to the size of this deck where
you amended the application to include part of the deck, correct?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct.
MR. HAGAN: Okay. So then after approving your Wetlands
application you want to deny the application because you are
saying the size of the house that it falls in would fall under
Coastal Erosion to be included and the deck together would then
be too big. Is that your position?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is my position. Under 275 it would be an
allowable activity. Under Chapter 111, it would not, is my
understanding.
MR. HAGAN: But the structure itself predates the Coastal Erosion
Hazard Act, so the house would not be applicable to that. So the
question becomes deck size. If the deck is less than 200-square
feet, then Coastal Erosion would not apply to the deck. So the
amended size of the deck would fall below that threshold.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So is it your legal opinion if the house
predates, regardless of it being fully within the line, that we
are just discussing the deck, as Patricia Moore suggested?
MR. HAGAN: Yes. We are discussing the size of the deck. That
Is --the house predates Coastal Erosion. We know it predates
Coastal Erosion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the exact information I asked for
earlier and did not receive. Literally. That's literally the
exact information I was looking for. I withdraw my motion.
All right, my new motion is I make a motion to approve the
Coastal Erosion permit, Chapter 111, with the stipulation that
the deck is reduced to 10x20, and within the description of
proposed work to existing, to include replacing support footings
to existing 10x20 foot deck and deck columns, striking 29.5x19,
and the stipulation that the stairs are removed from the
neighboring property line. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
i
Board of Trustees 33 August 19, 2020
Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of JOHN P. & KIMBERLY
G. KEISERMAN requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit to install new vinyl sheathing on landward side of
approximately 131 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead;
partially remove and replace (in-kind/in-place), as needed
existing 12'x17' grade level wood deck; and revegetate disturbed
area behind bulkhead as needed with Cape American beach grass.
Located: 1170 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-2-23
On March 11th, 2020, the Trustees visited site and noted
the proposal to be straightforward.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not review the permit.
The LWRP found the proposed action to be both consistent
and inconsistent. The inconsistency being there is no record of
the deck receiving a permit in Town records.
Just a side note, the inconsistency has been addressed, there was a permit,
Permit#9627 issued January 15th, 2020, for the deck.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. BELNIAK: Yes, a member of the audience. Rob Herrmann.
MR. HERRMANN: Sounds good. Thank you. Can you hear me?
(Affirmative response).
Okay, guys, I'll be really short. I don't have anything to
add to that description. It's very basic landward re-sheath of
existing bulkhead, the property that you all had inspected and
issued prior to approvals for in January of this year.
So if you don't have any questions of me, I don't have
anything to add.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Thank you. Any questions from any of the other
Trustees?
(Negative response).
Anybody else here that wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I would like to make a motion to close the
public hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
I'll make a motion to approve both the Wetland and Coastal
Erosion permits as written.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland Permits, number one, Costello
Board of Trustees 34 August 19, 2020
Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of HANA SHAW REVOCABLE LIVING
TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing stairway to
water on face of bulkhead, remove 104' of existing bulkhead,
construct 104' of new vinyl bulkhead in-place; fill void areas
landward of new bulkhead with clean trucked in sand
(approximately 40 cubic yards), and reinstall existing 3' wide
CCA treated lumber stairway to water.
Located: 890 Koke Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-5-8
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent and consistent. The
inconsistency was according to Town records, the existing stair
is an unpermitted structure.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees conducted field inspections on February 5th,
and most recently on March 11th. On the original one, was
missing a ten-foot non-turf buffer on subsequent plans, and the
plans we do have a ten-foot non-turf buffer.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. BELNIAK: As of now there are no hands raised. We'll give it
a second in case someone is trying to find that button.
I don't see any.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing none, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted, thereby granting the permit for the stairs will
bring it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Wetland permits, number 2, En-Consultants
on behalf of MICHAEL &SUSAN CAVOUNIS requests a Wetland Permit
to construct approximately 151 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in
place of existing timber bulkhead; remove and replace in-place
±22' northerly timber bulkhead return with vinyl return;
backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards of clean sandy fill
to be trucked in from an approved upland source; remove existing
dock structure consisting of a 7'x8' deck, 7'x17' fixed walkway,
Board of Trustees 35 August 19, 2020
4'x16' ramp, and 8'x12' floating dock, and construct in the same
location a new dock (to be connected to water and electricity),
consisting of a 4'x39' fixed timber catwalk constructed with
open-grade decking and rope handrail; 3'x14' hinged ramp, and
6'x20' floating dock situated in an "I" configuration and
secured by two (2) 10" diameter pilings; construct a 10'x15'
grade-level, untreated wood deck landward of dock and bulkhead;
and to establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf
buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 3475 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-9
The Trustees did a field inspection on March 11th, at 11:45
in the morning. The notes read that there was adequate water for
the float and that the application is straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent and
exempt.
According to the LWRP coordinator, the bulkhead is exempt
from review. The inconsistency arises from his concern whether
the dock, the approval of a replacement dock will in fact
constitute further encroachment on the sensitive Richmond Creek
and resulting in degradation of water quality.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not inspect and
therefore there was no recommendation.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. BELNIAK: There is a hand raised. I'll bring that person up.
Rob Herrmann, again. You should have a command to open the mic
and the floor is yours.
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, Alan. In way of a brief summation of
this application, you may recall I met with the Board here
during field inspections on March 11th, which feels like a
lifetime ago at this point. There are two components to the
application. One is the replacement of the bulkhead on the
property which was a previously Trustee-permitted structure.
The only change is that in order to straighten out a small
inconsistency at the southern end of the property, we are
proposing to tie the new vinyl bulkhead straight across into the
neighboring return to the south, which is owned by Robert
Serling. And you should have the proposed dock replacement.
Again, this is the previously permitted Trustee dock. But the
way it is configured, it doesn't reach sufficient navigable
water depth. And the extension of the dock will allow to
achieve that water depth of 30 inches and remain consistent with
the seaward extent of the Serling dock to the south. And there
is the ten-foot non-turf buffer also included in the application.
So that is about the extent of what I have to add. If you
have any questions, I'll leave my mic on until you are done.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's worth noting that our notes didn't, on
March 11th, didn't say this would give you adequate water depth
for the float. And that the notes were acknowledged and signed
by Mr. Herrmann at the time, so.
Is there anyone else wish to speak to this application?Any
further questions or comments from the Board?
Board of Trustees 36 August 19, 2020
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing none, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted, noting that the slight extension to reach deeper
water will not have a deleterious effect upon the environment.
So I move to approve this as submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number three, Patricia
Moore, Esq. on behalf of THEODORA MARANGAS, THERESA MARANGAS,
EILEEN RAYESKI, CATHERINE WILINSKI &ALICE DONLAN requests a
Wetland Permit for the removal of the existing shared dock and
to construct a proposed 4'x82' fixed dock using Thru-Flow
decking installed 3' above grade with a 3'x15' ramp to a 6'x20'
floating dock situated in an "L" configuration; and to establish
and perpetually maintain a 12' wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 1685 Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-7-8
This application -- I should say the Trustees visited this
site on February 5th and March 11th, and also viewed the file
and aerials at work session on August 17th to determine that the
dock did not go further seaward than the existing pier line.
This project has been deemed to be consistent under the
Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program.
And the Conservation Advisory Council has voted to support
this project.
The Board, during the course of the two field inspections,,
was predominantly concerned with broken up old catwalk sections
which had degraded and breaking up pieces of Styrofoam next to
the bulkhead. Otherwise the Board felt it was straightforward
and, pending staking, we performed the review of Google maps and
aerial maps that the project plan will honor the pier line as
previously mentioned.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak to this application?
MR. BELNIAK: Yes. We have Patricia Moore again. So, Patricia,
you should have an open mic command sent to you.
MS. MOORE: Okay, this is, as you recall, this is a re-do. My
clients had gotten permission for this same dock three, well
Board of Trustees 37 August 19, 2020
three, four years ago. It started out where there was a shared
dock between the neighbor to the south and this property, but
the neighbor to the south wanted to remove the shared dock and
they built a new dock, that required my clients to then build
this or build the proposed dock.
The permits were issued, but it expired. They were not able
to build it in the time permitting. So we had to re-apply. And
this is a re-do of a previously-approved permit. You can see
this was all done in 2016 and it, the extensions ran out, and
they needed to come back and pay again and do this again.
That's all.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes
to speak to this application? Trustees, any questions?
Go ahead. Trustee Domino?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I was just hoping that we can clean this up as
quickly as possible because as the floats deteriorate, the
Styrofoam and so forth, is entering the creek. That was a
concern of mine at the time we did the field inspection. It's
been a while. I would like to see it cleaned up.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Any other questions or concerns?
(Negative response).
Not hearing any, I make a motion to close the hearing in
this matter.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve this application
based on the plan view drawing of Robert Fox licensed surveyor,
submitted and stamped into the Trustee office on January 7th,
2020. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number four, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of
JOHN & ELIZABETH SCHROEDER requests a Wetland Permit for a
proposed 20'x40' in-ground swimming pool with a 46.7'x59.9'
surrounding on-grade patio (2,021sq.ft.); install retaining
walls 48" in height, in-ground on north side and above ground on
south side, as required to level existing grade for the proposed
pool and patio.
Located: 3325 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-114-4-1.1
The Trustees most recently visited the property and had
Board of Trustees 38 August 19, 2020
noted that would like to see some sort of a delineation marker
for the non-disturbance. Prior to that, the Trustees had visited
the property and noted that there was some issues with the
non-disturbance in terms of some clearing that had gone on
within there, which was the reason for that requested delineator.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency stems from that same buffer. At the time, the
plans did not include it. I since see that the plans do include
it. But it was also in 2001, it was noted that there was
supposed to be a re-vegetation within that buffer. And let me
just pull that up quickly.
The Board at the time required re-vegetation of a 50-foot
wide non-disturbance buffer with Northern Bayberry and
Switchgrass. The buffer did not appear to be in place. In
certain areas there is turf located.
So that I believe is our main issue at this time. There is
a drywell installed which I know, a drywell on the plans now,
which I know was a problem originally.
Okay, is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BELNIAK: Pat, once again, the floor is yours, if you would
open your mic.
MS. MOORE: Yes. Um, I believe that some of the non-disturbance
issues were prior owners. When my client became the owner and
we went in for an application for the pool, that is when we
learned of some of the non-disturbance issues that were, some of
the older issues. That's why the plan now includes the 50 foot
non-disturbance buffer. Delineating the buffer, maybe some
vegetation would work? I mean I think that the suggestion of
planting some Bayberry or Rosa rugosa or some form of vegetation
might be a nice, both an esthetic as well as delineating the
non-disturbance so that the lawnmowers and groundskeeping stays
away from that area and it regenerates to the extent it will
naturally.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: On the site visit, I saw what appeared to be
very fresh chain saw tailings from trees removed in that pool
area and the non-disturbance area, which are all within the
hundred-foot jurisdiction. And I just found that very
upsetting. Some sort of, what would please me, would be to see
something very difficult to hop over or go through or navigate
through with a lawnmower to delineate that non-disturbance area
from the rest of the yard.
MS. MOORE: Well, I don't think people, I mean to me fences are
somewhat, there will be a fence for the pool. But as far as
placing something more aggressive along the 50-foot line, you
have a waterfront piece of property. You don't want to block
the view. So that's why, to me, at least the natural vegetation
is more, it's a softer approach. I don't know if my client is
Zoomed in or not on this one. Anybody out there?
Board of Trustees 39 August 19, 2020
MR. BELNIAK: We have John Schroeder
MS. MOORE: Perfect. Good.
MR. BELNIAK: Is one of your clients named Jason?
MS. MOORE: Yes, Jason is also part of the team and John is the
property owner.
MR. BELNIAK: So, Jason and John, both your mics are now open.
Thanks, for joining us.
MR. PETERS: Jason Peters, owner of North Fork Pool Care.
I think Bayberries or something along those lines, I know
you guys want something more substantial than that. I would
propose something along the lines of untreated timber, whether
it's 8x8 or thereabouts, something to your point of cannot be
hopped with a lawnmower. Something that is lower lying but
definitive. A definitive line. And I think as we get over to
the tree line we might be able to run that timber line down
toward the water so someone can't get in the grass line. I think
in the tree area, as you can see via the picture right now,
there is nothing to be mowed. We could delineate a line of
non-cutting at that point by putting timber or something along
those lines within the tree roots, they will heave and move over
time. The grass that we provided, we'll replant that non-turf
buffer. Or the non-disturbance buffer, excuse me. We could
protect that area with some sort of timber, something that fits
the softness of the property but it's not too obtrusive.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you talking about something along the lines
of railroad ties, but obviously non-treated, just more lying,
sort of lying along the ground so a mower couldn't jump it?
MR. PETERS: Yes. Obviously we could affix that with something of
your choosing, whether they are wood stakes or otherwise to keep
them affixed so if the tide were to come up they would not be
able to float free and enter the canal way. I'm happy to do that
as well, so they cannot be moved freely, two men couldn't pick
them up and move it. But affix them into the ground.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the rest of the Board have any comments in
terms of the delineator? Is that something --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's pretty standard of what we have been
asking, I think. My own personal experience on a waterfront lot,
that you can pin them with rebar, and the rust encapsulates the
soils and it locks it in pretty good.
MR. PETERS: Pretty doable. Not a problem
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that something we want to put some sort of
height requirement on, whether it's eight inches or something
along those lines?
Would eight inches work for you? For starters?
MR. PETERS: Sorry, are you speaking with me or the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Eight inches, is that something you were
talking about, I believe, what you said earlier?
MR. PETERS: Yes. Depending on the timbers that we use, if we do
a single or double stack, whatever the height requirement would
be, I would source the wood in that height. Whether it be 4x6,
4x4, obviously you want to not remove, but have to cut down to
Board of Trustees 40 August 19, 2020
get to soil. We would not want any grass or something that could
be composed underneath it. We would have to cut that line,
remove it of any grasses, set that on soil, and to your point,
yes, we can absolutely open up a hole and rebar them down into
place. We can do four-foot sections of rebar directly down to
the dirt to give it a very strong footing, cap it, and we if we
need to fix more than one, we could use timber tacks, if you
guys prefer non-epoxy tips, we could do hot-tipped galvanized.
Whatever you prefer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And then in terms of the LWRP coordinator's
concerns with the re-vegetation of the area, do we want to see
some planting within that area of appropriate grasses?
MR. PETERS: That was indeed proposed as well. I believe it was
proposed -- I'm looking through my material now to see if I
could find it.
That was proposed. It was beach grass. One foot on center
and to be replaced with bank run. If we can leave the grass, we
would prefer to do that and plant within, but if we do need to
cut that grass out, we can also do that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we would rather see it just, I don't
want to speak for the whole Board, but I would rather see it
left and then planted, rather than disturb it.
MR. PETERS: We would prefer that as well
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the rest of the Board agree with that
sentiment?
(Affirmative response).
MR. PETERS: Now, would it be possible to have an access way,
whatever width by length, if they can get down to the bank in
some area in this non-disturbance that we could use sand or
something of your liking to make an access way for them to get
down to the bank?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I believe we can do a four-foot access through
the buffer.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Perhaps with something more substantial than
sand, which if the tide did come up, would wash away.
MR. PETERS: Gravel or rock, your choosing, whether bluestone or
otherwise. Would that be suitable?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: With something pervious, stepping stone
pathway, something of that nature?
MR. PETERS: Perfect. Okay.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I don't know about anybody else, but I would
like to see that delineated on the plan so we know where it's
going and it's not going to cut down any trees to put it in.
MR. PETERS: No, no. No trees are to be touched. Off the back of
the pool area, I am happy to amend that to show you guys where
that would be per your approval.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that something the rest of the Board would
like to see new plans on?
I believe at that point it would just be the walkway that
we would, because obviously the wall would be a delineation.
I'm sorry, the delineation would be a stipulation. Do you want
Board of Trustees 41 August 19, 2020
to see plans on the walkway beforehand?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I don't think it's material to delay him
further. We have been here since March.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For a walkway.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: For a four-foot path that they have a right
to anyway.
'MR. PETERS: I could amend it and give it to you review as an
amendment, if it doesn't hinder us proceeding in getting a
permit, upon your review.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's not an issue for me as,long as we are not
cutting any trees.
MR. PETERS: Could we stipulate that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would like to stipulate it, personally,
because it is a minor thing. And just to clean it up afterwards,
come back and showing a path. But I would like to stipulate it
and move forward with this application, just requiring it
doesn't knock down any additional vegetation. Unless anyone has
a major issue with that.
(Negative response).
Any other questions from the public and/or the Board?
(Negative response).
MR. BELNIAK: No other hands raised in the public, other than the
three who spoke already.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Hearing no further comments, I make a
motion could close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would make a motion to approve this
application with the stipulation that a non-treated wall at an
eight-inch minimum is installed as a delineation along the
50-foot non-turf buffer, and that the area is revegetated,one
foot on center with beach grass, without disturbing the
surrounding ground.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just one point, Nick. Non-disturbance buffer,
not non-turf.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, very much. I'll reread that.
Stipulate that a non-treated wall is installed as a delineator
along the 50-foot non-disturbance buffer at an eight-inch
minimum, and that the area is revegetated one-foot on center
with beach grass without disturbing the ground around it. And
that a four-foot wide path is allowable to access the creek
without destroying any vegetation and to bring in just new plans
depicting that path. That is my motion. Thereby bringing this
into consistency with the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 42 August 19, 2020
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
Number five, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of WILLIAM
MURPHY& KIMBERLY REECE requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing wood dock consisting of a 4'x16' fixed wood dock, a
3'x14' removable wood ramp; a 6'x20'floating dock and a 6'x9'
floating dock situated in an "L" configuration; and for the
existing wood pedestrian bridge consisting of a 4'x15'wood ramp
to a 4'x33' bridge to a 4'x8' ramp to cross Wunneweta Pond on
applicant's parcel.
Located: 1652 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-1-4.1
The Trustees visited this site on March 11th, 2020, with
noting the dock and bridge look straightforward. Need to
establish a non-turf and non-disturbance area for the plan. And
need to discuss at work session.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be both consistent and
inconsistent. The inconsistency is Town records indicate the
structures were constructed without Southold Board of Trustee
review for issuance of a wetland permit. The as-built wood
bridge impedes public access to public waters. And also noting
in the event that the action is approved, it is recommended the
Board require a vegetated non-turf buffer integrating existing
vegetation landward of the wetland to preserve water quality.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not have the
opportunity to review this application.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. BELNIAK: Yes. We've got Patricia Moore and we'll keep her
mic open because she has other issues coming up as well. So,
Patricia, your mic is open.
MS. MOORE: Thank you, very much. Yes, as you recall, this
property, as you pointed out, the dock and the bridge are
straightforward. These are structures that have been on the
property predating the Trustees, as many of the structures in
Nassau Point area have that history.
As you recall, the area surrounding the wetlands are
natural already. The property is not heavily manicured. There is
a lot of, it's a natural, vegetated buffer surrounds pretty much
every area here of the wetlands, or adjacent to the wetlands.
There had been an application for a significant pool addition in
the front yard and that incorporated a very extensive
landscaping plan. But that project was never,built out. So at
this point we are asking for the permits for the wetlands, for
the dock and the bridge. Since they predate the Trustees, they
didn't have.the benefit of an existing permit.
The property is for sale and certainly people who were
looking at this property are looking for permits for existing
Board of Trustees 43 August 19, 2020
structures. And that is why the application was submitted.
I would be happy to discuss anything you want to discuss,
but it's pretty straightforward. And as I said, the property is
very natural. Very green right now, the last time I was'there.
And I would imagine that if any project down the line comes in
by future owners, then you can address whatever needs there are
based on whatever new project, whatever additions, might be
proposed in the future.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It's my understanding that prior there was a
permit issued for some, you know, for several different pieces,
and some of the work did get completed, but not all of the work
got completed.
MS. MOORE: No, any work that was done to the house was done, was
the type of work that does not require a Trustees permit.
Siding, windows, or whatever. I know my client is on Zoom here
and he can address whatever was done. But certainly there was
nothing here that would have necessitated the Trustees review.
Of the project that I'm talking about, there is very, it was
going to be a large addition. That was not built. And a very, it
was a beautiful pool, and patio area with the extensive
landscaping that was proposed around it. That was the project
that the Board reviewed, and none of that was built out.
In 2013 was the permit for the addition and for the pool.
So you can see that there is the addition was never built. It
was a second-story addition.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean -- Greg, do you mind if I speak?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Please.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, this is a pretty sensitive area. Um,
whether or not the pool was built, I would expect the Trustees
at the time were trying to protect what is there moving forward.
So now that we find ourselves back here again, I'm not sure why
we wouldn't uphold what the prior Board wanted. Because
frankly, they were in the right in doing that.
MS. MOORE: Well, because the only permits that I need are for
the dock and the bridge. Which are pre-existing structures. The
house had the benefit of whatever permits were required at that
time. There is no activity around the house that would
necessitate any protection of, you know, wetland protection. So
that's why I don't think this is the last time you'll see this
property. If some time in the future somebody comes in and
says, well, I would like to put a pool in or I would like to
build X, Y and Z, you can address whatever protective measures
you feel are appropriate at that time. But what we are doing
here is really getting permits for structures that are not
impacting any of the vegetation. They are existing, well,
typical marine structures.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: With all due respect, a dock, you are
absolutely right, a dock certainly is a typical marine structure
and something we see all the time. But you are also asking us
to permit in a 33-plus foot bridge. Which I would not
necessarily call a typical marine structure.
Board of Trustees 44 August 19, 2020
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, that's existing. That was also built
around the same time prior to Trustees. So, I mean I would just
point out, you see that bridge, it actually connects the
waterfront. This property also owns the parcel across the
across the bridge that is the bay front piece. So this parcel
is a significant, oh, how many acres is this, if I'm reading it
correctly. I'm looking for the acreage. It consists of, on the
survey shows parcel one and parcel two. So you can see that the
connection, that bridge is the connecting piece to give access
'to the front between parcel one the house and parcel two. So,
logically, I think that was built so many years ago because it
is all one piece of property. It's a beautiful property, no
doubt.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: One question here. So with the dock and the
bridge, currently you are not proposing any sort of buffer; is
t that correct?
MS. MOORE: No additional buffer because it's already in place.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: On this map, is there a buffer that I'm not
seeing?
MS. MOORE: No, no. Not on the survey. I'm saying the existing
conditions already have a natural buffer.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think the issue with us is we want to kind
of capture that buffer. It's natural now but what happens in the
future if somebody decides to go cut that down. So if we can
condition it now and get that on the survey for any future
alterations to the property, it's already protected.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I agree with Glenn on that. I think we would
need to see some sort of-- I shouldn't say we. I would feel
comfortable seeing a buffer delineated on the plans. I
understand, again, there was a proposed action, and I don't know
that any of it or none of it was carried through at that time
back when that permit was applied for. There was never a final
done. But it is a very environmentally sensitive piece of
property that we have a responsibility to make sure we protect.
MS. MOORE: Well, if I may suggest something, if we impose a ten
foot buffer that surrounds all the delineated wetlands here. I
would like to move this project along because the property has
been waiting to go to contract because nobody wants to commit
unless we knew that the docks and the bridge were permitted.
So I don't want to delay it, if at all possible. I have
already-- I anticipated that if a buffer was necessary, that
that would be a reasonable buffer would be required. And I don't
think that is, necessarily is a problem here. I just would rather
not have to wait another month to draw it in, and I don't know
how quickly Nate Corwin could provide it on the survey, but I
think if the condition of the permit is maintaining a ten foot
buffer along the landward edge of any wetlands --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: What sort of a buffer are you proposing?
MS. MOORE: Pardon me?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: What type of a buffer are you proposing?
Non-disturbance?
Board of Trustees 45 August 19, 2020
MS. MOORE: I think right now, I don't know that it was a
non-disturbance. I think it was a vegetated buffer. It's now a
vegetated buffer. I don't want to preclude somebody from adding
vegetation, if that is something that they desire. It's always
nice to plant additional--
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Historically, the Board has allowed plantings
in non-disturbance areas.
MS. MOORE: I've gotten clients out of violations because it's
very difficult to plant in the middle of a weeded
non-disturbance area. So a vegetated buffer, or at least a
non-turf buffer, assures no grass is going to seep into the
wetlands area. But --
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Again, when I say that, I mean with permission
and a planting plan.
MS. MOORE: Exactly. Well, that's a permit. So you can't cut'
without a permit anyway. So existing conditions, if somebody
were to take out the trees and the vegetation, we would be at
the same spot. That's why I think if anybody wants to do
anything here, they have to come in for a permit anyway, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think my problem here, without seeing it on
the plan, and I'm not saying it's not possible, but I'm not sure
where exactly you would put that ten-foot line, looking at this
plan.
MS. MOORE: Well, the wetland surrounds Wunneweta Pond, and then
Nate doesn't provide too much of anything there. I have from the
2013, he gave a little bit of a better depiction. It's just
that 2013 plan was extensive and it also included a tremendous
amount of vegetation or planting. And none of that is being
proposed. So I'm trying to come up with something that would
work here but I don't want to hamper and delay the property over
these what are really non-controversial marine structures here.
I mean we could even do it as a covenant so that a new buyer
would know that in fact there is a non-turf buffer adjacent to
the wetlands. And anywhere there is wetlands, you, you know,
don't put the lawn. Don't add lawn.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think my only issue, and I'm trying to pull
up, it's on my phone so I could zoom in a little closer. But
there is the portion, I guess you can say the bay side of the
house.
MS. MOORE: Bay side of the house, okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It seems there is some sort of, I don't know if
it's a tree line there. I can't quite read right by where the
mouse is.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I think we can zoom in a little bit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Dianne can you just zoom in right where
you have the mouse, what does that say there?
MS. MOORE: I have a larger print. It says landward edge of
wetlands as flagged by En-Consultants on, well that is 1998 is
my print. Yes, ' 98.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Nick, can I interject something?
Board of Trustees 46 August 19, 2020
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Please.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We are trying to scan something from April
23rd, 2014, an approval, a resolution by the Trustees concerning
a buffer and some vegetation. As soon as we have that, it will
be, everybody will be able to review it. And it's pertinent to
this discussion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't know if we have a current survey but
the, I'm looking at the datum on the licensed survey and it
indicates that the added wetland line was flagged in 1998.
That's a July 15th, 2010 updated survey. I don't know if that
reflects the wetland or not or is that just updating other
features. So if it was a wetland line, it was flagged in 1998.
Unless we have verification it was updated recently, that's a
very old wetland line.
MS. MOORE: Was what the Board based their 2013 or 2012 approval
for the pool and the house?
That area of the pond is pretty stable. There has not been,
from your own inspections --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Admittedly so. But it's a lot different
looking at a generalized wetland line from a survey for the
construction of house appurtenances actually setting aside
permanent protection.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Gentleman, can you see the correspondence from
Mr. Herrmann?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Rather to Mr. Herrmann.
MS. MOORE: Do you have a plan that goes with that? Because part
of it is non-disturbance and the other part is non-turf.
MS. CANTRELL: If you give me a couple of minutes to print it up,
I can. If everybody is okay, I'm just going to step out here so I can do
all that.
MR. BELNIAK: If you would like to comment and you are dialing
in, again, *9 lets you raise your hand and that's how we will
call you in for commentary. Thank you.
MS. CANTRELL: Can everybody see the map?
(Affirmative response).
MS. CANTRELL: This is the map that coincides with that approval.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can we zoom in on that a little bit?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Maybe out one.
MS. MOORE: That's the plan I was talking about in 2013, but it
was associated with a significant expansion and development of
the property, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the hatched marks, the little bit
darker section?
MS. MOORE:,That's non-turf, right? That's the non-turf area, I
think.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And then the lines are non-disturbance?
MS. MOORE: I believe that's what I have. Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do we have any sort of scaling on the size of
that?
Board of Trustees 47 August 19, 2020
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It's a non-disturbance buffer.
MS. MOORE: It's by square footage. It seems really large,
excessive. Which I understand, given the house addition and the
pool, is a significant area of impervious surfaces that was being
proposed.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: My only question on this, if you look at the
old survey here, the wetland line goes kind of off the screen,
but the most recent one doesn't show that.
MS. MOORE: Yes. I'm surprised. I know what you are saying, where
the little peninsula appears to be. Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. I don't know if I'm necessarily
comfortable without having an updated survey that shows the
current wetland line and then we can discuss making the lawn
non-disturbance off of the established wetland line. But
without that on the current survey, I don't see how we can do it.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I agree with Glenn that I think we would need
to see an updated survey and a flagged wetland line field, and
see if you can get that done possibly by our next field
inspection, we could revisit the site.
MS. MOORE: Is there any way of proceeding with the two
structures and then coming back with amendment for the non -- a
more specific non-turf buffer area? That way I can at least
know I've got the permits for the two existing structures. That
has been holding up my ability to go to contract.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I don't see a way around that.
Damon, can you --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't see how we could do that.
MR. HAGAN: I'm sorry. My mute button was not un-muting.
So the plans should have the totality of the project on
there, including any conditions that were set forth for the
property previously. Because you have non-turf buffers,
non-disturbance buffers that are supposed to be listed therein.
And the Board in evaluating the latest application should be
seeing those buffers as well so they can compare and contrast to
make sure there is no material changes that have been made,
-especially in their field inspections.
MS. MOORE:'Can you tell if that survey had an updated wetlands
flagging? Because that might have been done, but I can't see
from my prints. It doesn't show here anywhere that this plan --
do you see any notes of when this wetland flagging was done?
Maybe that was an updated version.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: In the corner I see the latest update being
July 15, 2010, update survey.
MS. MOORE: Okay, there we go. Because we had 1998, and that's
surprising how that was wrong. Okay, so 2010.
MS. CANTRELL: Are you able to see that? That circle?
MS. MOORE: It's blurry, but I'm sure you can read it. Does it say
2010?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'm looking at the survey that you submitted.
MS. MOORE: Good. Well, you've got a better print than I have.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It does indicate specifically flagging
Board of Trustees 48 August 19, 2020
March. Is that March, 2010?
MS. MOORE: Mine is too blurry.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mine is too blurry to see.
MS. MOORE: It was all occurring in 2013, so it's possible it was
within that timeframe.
MS. CANTRELL: I'll see with a magnifying glass on the hard copy.
Hold on.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mine reads: Site plan based on survey dated
April 13th, 2011, by Nathan Taft Corwin.
MS. MOORE: 2011. Okay.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Moving forward, Pat, what would you like to
do?
MS. MOORE: You tell me. What are my options here? I would like
to move forward but I don't know, Mr. Murphy, are you out there
somewhere that I could rely on --
MR. BELNIAK: We do have a Bill Murphy with a hand raised.
Mr. Murphy, you should be able to open your mic.
There you go.
MR. MURPHY: Thank you, very much. Appreciate the consideration
of our application for the existing dock and bridge.
Pat, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe, so we did have,
when we were doing the work back in 2010, contemplated work, we
did have everything reflagged and re-surveyed at that point in
time. And we also then resubmitted an updated survey from Mr.
Corwin showing non-disturbance and non-turf buffer areas.
So I believe those were submitted as part of the file, and
there was a discussion back and forth in that regard. And we
actually, there was, you know, some clarification around which
were non-turf, non-disturbance, and we resubmitted a survey of
Mr. Corwin's with those indicated.
MS. MOORE: I had 2019. March 9th, 2019, buffer and additional
structure dimensions. That was provided and should have been
made part of your file. I know, you know, unfortunately with
COVID I can't tell you what you receive versus what you didn't
receive. But are you sure you don't have, Liz, in your file, a
2019 survey?
There is a survey that has several dates. The last one
being March 9th, 2019.
Are you out there?All right, my screen went black, so I didn't
know.
MR. MURPHY: This is Bill Murphy, again. With regard to that
most recent survey and depiction of the non-turf,
non-disturbance, if it's workable for the Board of Trustees, we
are fine with, certainly I only have responsibility for the
property as long as I own it, but am certainly happy to abide by
maintaining that non-turf and non-disturbance, and I think as,
any Trustee that visited the property saw, effectively, it's in
place today. And that's the way it's maintained anyway. It's
not heavily turfed, so.
MS. CANTRELL: Unfortunately, to date, this is the only survey
that we have.
Board of Trustees 49 August 19, 2020
MS. MOORE: No, you have a later survey. It was dated 2019.
That's why I'm surprised you're not seeing it in your file.
Did you find it? L
MS. CANTRELL: I'm looking in your file. If you want to just hold
on a minute.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So Damon, just as a question here, if he's
okay going off the buffers of that previous permit and survey,
would we be able to approve this based on using that old survey
for the buffers?
MR. HAGAN: My question then would be is it a matter that, are
all those structures that are being applied for herein listed in
the same shape and dimensions on the old survey you want to
review, as opposed to the survey that was supplied with this
initial application. If everything is matching, if everything is
exactly the same and there has been no changes with regard to
location, size and scope of those structures, then essentially
you want to approve the same application with the same project
description, but you are going to reference a different plan.
Is that what we are asking here?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That is what it appears to be to me.
MR. HAGAN: If it's a detailed survey, the Board of Trustees has
been in the field on the last field inspection and they can say
that survey matches what we believe the condition of the
property to be when we did our field inspection, it matches the
recollection of the Trustees in the field, then it's already in
the file, you have access to it. You certainly can use that as
your guideline for the approval. We just have to remember that
with regard to this application, you are going to stamping the
plans that have the buffer zones delineated on it as the plans
you are using in the application. But you have to hold them
up to one another to make sure the structures are in fact
matching.
MS. MOORE: If I could interject. I see in my e-mails on March
9th, I was communicating with you, Elizabeth, with the survey
that had the buffers showing on them. It was attached as, by
e-mail.
MS. CANTRELL: You mean the March 10th e-mail?
MS. MOORE: Mine says sent March 9th. Monday. I don't know when
you received it.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Pat, in the interest of doing this correctly,
I think it would be best to prepare a new survey, showing the
areas of non-disturbance and the areas of non-turf. Also, the
survey that we have, most recent survey, doesn't have very clear
dimensions on either the wooden bridge or the dock, and it would
just be very clean and tidy to have all of that together on one
piece of paper so we are not, you know, moving forward, future
Board members don't have to look at this and read that, and the next
thing. Let's just get it all in one place. Does anyone else
have an opinion on that?
MS. MOORE: Well, in a perfect world that had not had a four or
Five month or six month hiatus because of COVID and scheduling, I
Board of Trustees 50 August 19, 2020
would agree. But I have here in my file what shows to be a
survey that I sent and submitted to the Board, and the
dimensions of the structures. I did provide the detailed
dimensions of those structures. So I think you have everything
in your file.
MR. MURPHY: We actually went back and had Mr. Corwin update the
survey to reflect the dimensions.
MS. MOORE: Right. That's the March 9th, 2019, survey that is
showing as a modification to the survey. So somehow or other
it's got to be in your files. I just don't know why it's not
coming up.
MS. CANTRELL: I looked in the hard file. It is not in there.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Sorry, Liz, can you repeat that?
MS. CANTRELL: Unfortunately, the hard file does not contain any
of the surveys than the one that is shown on record in the
computer.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Did you get that, Pat?
MS. MOORE: Yes. I don't know how--we forwarded by e-mail to
you, hardcopies. Number three is that the old survey?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number three is the survey, ,and again, if
you look at--
MS. MOORE: No, it would have been something that was sent to
you, probably one of the last things sent to you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I've scrolled through all 66 pages in this
file and I don't see what I need to see.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Personally, I'm one of five here. I would be
comfortable, we have two surveys, right? The '97 one and the
2011 one.
MS. CANTRELL: The 2011 one is from another file.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: You see where I'm going with that, Pat?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which Damon did say we could reference,
correct? I mean -- I think, if you look at the two, you know, I
do think they are very comparable in terms of the structure,
minus the pool.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They appear to scale identically. I mean, I
don't have the ability to take lines off the computer, but I
concur. They are relationally to the bank of Wunneweta and
where the wetlands are flagged, they look very consistent.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: And they don't have the dimensions of the
bridge on there?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They do not. That is a shortcoming.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did verify those in the field. I would be
comfortable going forward referencing those buffers from that
survey, and then stipulating a new survey with the dimensions
and the buffers. But again, I'm just one. I'm speaking for one
of five.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: In the current situation, Mr. Hagan, can we
approve that with pending new surveys?
MR. HAGAN: If your project description is the accurate
reflection of the structures that are there and you want to try
Board of Trustees 51 August 19, 2020
to incorporate this plan that details out the buffers and make
reference to it in the approval, you can. You are essentially
going to have to stamp two plans with regard to the application;
one that has your buffers detailed -- can we stop moving it for
a minute --from the buffers and the structures. Thank you.
So you essentially have two plans. You have one that has
the dimensions of the structures that you are looking to approve
herein. And you have the other one that is reflective of the
buffers. I believe you should be able to approve the
application, should the Board be so inclined, provided that we
are essentially going to reference two plans herein; one being
the one that has the dimensions of the structures listed and
then the other one which has the buffers reflected thereon.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: The problem, Damon, is neither plan has the
dimension of the structures.
MR. HAGAN: I thought the other plan has the structures that are
on -- I thought the structures had the dimensions on the other
plans.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It shows the structures drawn in, but it
doesn't have the dimensions.
MR. HAGAN: Can we go back? I can only see one thing at a time.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Can we go back to page three of the file in
laserfiche?
MR. HAGAN: That's not a dimension?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It shows them on there but it doesn't have any
clear dimensions. That's the issue I see.
MR. HAGAN: That's just locations on those?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Correct.
MR. HAGAN: All of your other plans that you've reviewed and
accepted have the dimensions of the items that are being
permitted listed directly on the plans you are stamping
approved.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So what I'm hearing is unfortunately neither
plan is acceptable for the structures that we are reviewing.
MR. HAGAN: I would say it would be inconsistent to have a plan
that doesn't have dimensions of the structures you are looking
to approve.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Pat, do you hear this?
MS. MOORE: I do. I know I gave you a project description with
exact dimensions on them that you also verified in the field.
So would it be possible for me to give, I could have Nate take
the survey that I have here in front of me, March 9th, 2019,
that matches the buffers that you were referring to, and I can
ask Nate to add the dimensions of the structure, which I
actually have precise dimensions 416.2 fixed dock. I mean'I
was very specific with the dimensions.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Unfortunately, lacking that information right
now, I'm not comfortable moving forward with an approval.
Anybody else --
MS. MOORE: You've got multiple surveys now showing you that the
Structure, which is pre-existing --
Board of Trustees 52 August 19, 2020
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Neither structure shows, has dimensions of the
you know-- I would --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I don't believe you concluded your thought
there. What were you going to say?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Neither plan that we have has the
measurements for the structures: The foot bridge or the dock.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I understand that. But I think she was leading
to something, that she could have Nate do something. I'm not
sure what.
MS. MOORE: Sorry, I didn't know who you were asking. Yes, I
could have follow-up, and follow-up after this with the
resolution with a surrey that shows all the buffers you were just
addressing on the other plans and have the dimensions which will
match the dimensions I have already given you in my project
description. I'm asking a lot from Nate but I'm hoping that he
will provide that for us pretty quickly, because the March 9th
survey I have here in my hand is the one that shows all of the
buffers. I just need to have Nate add the dimensions of the
existing structure, which should not be a problem because I
actually asked him to verify the dimensions.
MR. MURPHY: This is Bill Murphy again. We did request that of
Nate and he did reply and provide that. I actually have a copy
of that surrey with the dimensions on it.
MS. MOORE: That comes in a project description that you have in
your files.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All right. So if you guys have it-- I guess
we are bantering around this too much --you supply it to us.
When we get the new survey then we can make a determination with
the buffers and dimensions and everything like that. Until we
get that, we can't move forward on this
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I would make a motion to table the motion
pending new written description and survey accurately showing
the non-turf buffers, the non-disturbance buffers, and with
dimensions of the foot bridge structure and the dock structure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number six, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of
CHARLES & GERALDINE RIESTERER requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 2,690 sq. ft. two story dwelling; existing 1,108 sq. ft.
seaward side paver patio with walkway; a proposed 14'x24'
in-ground swimming pool seaward of dwelling; as-built 4' wide
pavers behind retaining walls; as-built three (3) 60 linear foot
long retaining walls on south side, and three (3) retaining
walls on north side, a 23 linear foot long, a 23 linear foot
long and a 10 linear foot long retaining wall; and to install a
Board of Trustees 53 August 19, 2020
drywell for pool backwash.
Located: 1945 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-47
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not review it,
therefore they made no recommendation.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on March 11th,
noting that we need new plans for the pool and also with the
small fish pond.
We did get a new survey for this one on March 10th,
received March 14th, showing the pool and fish pond.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. MOORE: This one is pretty straightforward. You have been
there. We have the proposed location of the pool. I'll come back
later with an amendment for the fence. The surveyor didn't
provide me the location of the fence, and it's going to be on
the same side as the pool. But I'll come in with an amendment
for that. Otherwise, it is as shown.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BELNIAK: We do have one hand raised. Jason Peters, Jason, I
sent you a command to open your mic. And if you do so, the floor
should be yours.
MR. PETERS: Good evening, again. Regarding the fish pond, the
fish pond as amended there is proposed to be removed. Elevations
of the backyard kind of require us to do so. I don't believe we
are putting it back,just removing it.
As far as the fence line was concerned I had questions from the
homeowners and I will bounce them off you regarding the fence location.
What they were wanting to do is run a fence off the corner of the house
where the proposed equipment and drywell were. On top of that
retaining wall there is a 44 retaining wall that runs that side
of the property.
They wanted to go down to the lower bulkhead if possible,
but I didn't know your rulings on that, if we could go to the
lower bulkhead across and then carry back. The other side of the
house would be a retaining wall, or there shown as a retaining
wall, which would be the boat ramp, and then back to the house.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Generally speaking, any fencing that is
within 25 feet of water, is not permitted within 25 feet of the
wetland or water. It causes habitat fragmentation. So
ordinarily just the fencing on the side property lines going
down to the vicinity of the wetland, but going across the
property, we really need a specific set of plans and a field
inspection to look at what you are proposing before the Board
will entertain it. But we can't really discuss that at this
point without a set of plans or something to go on.
MR. PETERS: Not a problem. I can absolutely have the survey
adjusted. The two hashed, if you guys are looking at the same
survey as I am, the two X'd out areas, the two black lines that
are on the right side of the page are actually retained areas
Board of Trustees 54 August 19, 2020
that they use as a garden. So they didn't.want to segment it if
they didn't have to. But 25 feet back we can we can absolutely
delineate that line and bring the fence along that area and
carry it back. I didn't know the answer to that question, but
thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, for clarification, you want to move
forward on this and then come back with an amendment to the
fence?
MS. MOORE: Yes. They could get started on the pool. The fence
will be the last item. And I can bring in the amendment. I
suspect that the Board would rather have the fence at the
uppermost retaining --what is it, the landscape feature, which
is about 20 feet from the bulkhead back. If the pool is at 40,
looking at very small numbers --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 45 or 42.
MS. MOORE: Yes, it's about 20, maybe a little less than 20. But
where the uppermost retaining wall is, that's where I was
suggesting that the client put the fence and then the plan is to
run it back. We spoke to the neighbor to the north, Coogan, and
her concern was the fence that, because the property, the way
it's positioned, might be, a fence might disrupt her views. But
our fence is staying over on the southeast side of the property.
So again, it's a very simple amendment. We can deal with it at
a later date. I can have a survey show it, and it would probably
be an administrative amendment, since it's so minor. And that's
not a problem.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any further questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number seven, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
on behalf of STEVEN & JACI OSDOBY requests a Wetland Permit to
Board of Trustees 55 August 19, 2020
construct a 16'x36' swimming pool and install pool equipment and
a drywell for pool backwash; remove existing 12'x19' seaward
side deck with ramp and stairs totaling 319 sq. ft., and construct
a new 14'x27' deck with stairs and landing (33 sq. ft.) to grade,
a 3'x4' generator, and a 4'x8' outdoor shower.
Located: 605 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-3-8
The Trustees conducted a field inspection at this site on
February 5th, at 9:35 in the morning. All were present. And
suggested at that time a ten-foot non-turf buffer, and
questioned the status of the chain-link fence.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
And on February 5th, 2020, the Conservation Advisory
Council voted to support this application.
We have, subsequent to that, on August 15th, Trustee
Bredemeyer and Trustee Domino met with Bruce Anderson of Suffolk
Environmental Consulting regarding the fence and flagpole and
other placements. Whereupon there were e-mails exchanged. There
was an e-mail from Trustee Bredemeyer to Suffolk Environmental
Consulting, a copy of which is in the record in the folder, and
it stipulates some conditions. It's my understanding that these
conditions have been agreed to by Suffolk Environmental
Consulting, Mr. Anderson.
And other than that, this application is straightforward.
Is there anyone that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. BELNIAK: Yes. We have Bruce Anderson here. Bruce, I just
sent you a command to open up your mic.
MR. ANDERSON: Good evening, again. I have nothing further to
add. I think we went over this in work session on Monday, so I
think everyone is pretty much up to speed on this and the
conditions are acceptable to the client.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Perhaps for expediency, I'll just read the
conditions quickly. Number one would be to accept the ten-foot
non-turf buffer. Number two, stipulate no sand or fine materials
be employed in the buffer that might float, wash or otherwise
migrate into the wetlands from the buffer. The existing
topography, a lower profile berm noted sloping away from said
wetland is to be maintained to prevent lawn fertilizer, mulch,
et cetera from washing over the berm into the vegetated tidal
wetland. Number three, stipulate that no pesticides are to be
used in the buffer. Number four, stipulate that a low profile
delimiter barrier be placed at the landward boundary of the
non-turf buffer and the lawn. Number five, stipulate that the
derelict metal stakes and derelict rusty galvanized wire
fencing materials noted seaward of the chain-link fence be
removed, as they represent a possible human or wildlife
entanglement hazard. And lastly, number six, stipulate that any
replacement of the chain-link fence is to be open-constructed
fence, such as a split-rail fence, to conform with Chapter 275
Wetlands standard and accepted environmental practice, reducing
habitat fragmentation.
Having said that,and hearing no further comments, I make a
Board of Trustees 56 August 19, 2020
motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application with
the addition of the six stipulations agreed to by Mr. Anderson.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number eight, Suffolk
Environmental Consulting on behalf of PATRICIA GOELLER
KIRKPATRICK requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 34'x28'
two-story, single-family dwelling with attached 15'x30' seaward
side deck and 84'x11.5' driveway; install a new innovative,
alternative, nitrogen reducing AI/OWTS septic system with +161.0
linear feet of retaining wall surrounding the septic system on
the landward side of the proposed dwelling; and to establish and
perpetually maintain a 50' wide non-turf buffer area landward of
the tidal wetland boundary.
Located: 565 Fisherman's Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-1-34
This application, the Board of Trustees inspected this
property on March 11th. At that time I had requested
communication with the applicant concerning considering a
pressure mat feature for the leaching portion of the IA/OWTS in
order to reduce the height of the retaining wall. The Board
needed to see site elevations of the street height, and the
Board has a concern about limiting the clearing of the bayberry
on the bay side, and all the property seaward of the bay side of
the house as being into a non-disturbance and the rest of the
property non-turf, and to limit clearing to five feet from the
end of the deck.
The Conservation Advisory Council was not able to make
inspection of this project.
The LWRP coordinator had specific concerns that were
outlined dealing with protection of natural resources.
Specifically he was concerned that in the event the action is
approved, that the creation of a 100-foot vegetated natural
buffer inclusive of the existing vegetation was recommended
landward of the edge of the beach, and specifically queued the
Board with concerns with respect to the proposed location of the
home is within the FEMA AE elevation six flood zone where there
Board of Trustees 57 August 19, 2020
is potential loss of structures on site from storm surge,
particularly hurricanes and from flooding is moderate to high.
And the Board is recommended to verify the beach natural feature
on the parcel as defined in the definition of"beach" being that
zone of unconsolidated earth extending landward of mean low
water line to the seaward toe of a dune or bluff, whichever is
most seaward, where no dune or bluff exists landward area of the
beach is the landward limit of the beach is 100 feet from the
landward place where the mark change material and material
physiographic form or from the line of permanent vegetation,
whichever is seaward.
I do believe that in fact was in keeping with the comments
that the Board had during the field inspection on March 11th.
Subsequent to that field inspection, an additional site
plan was provided, including an additional engineering plan
submitted by Joseph Fischetti Engineering, which was dated on
March 17th and ended up getting dated in the Trustee office May
29th on the account of the COVID-19 delays.
Also in a regular mail submission to the Board, there is a
letter from Robert Anderson of Suffolk Environmental Consulting
outlining those plans and performing a summary capsule of the
plans submitted which detailed that the retaining walls for the
IA/OWTS system were moved or placed on the property so they are
five feet from the property lines and that the resulting height
of the proposed sanitary system retaining walls will vary from
1.6 to 2.2 feet above grade, and that the five-foot offset of
the property, it is proposed that that area can then be
vegetated to reduce the visual impact of the retaining walls.
Also was stamped in the Trustee office as part of the March
17th submission of Engineer Joseph Fischetti is a technical memo
that Mr. Fischetti submitted concerning a comparison between the
geo-textile filters and the leaching galleys. The leaching
galleys are what appear on the plans submitted to the Board,
that the Board had requested information concerning the leaching
galleys, and wherein his engineering analysis purports that the
geo-textile system would only lower the elevation by some six
inches, and additional differences between the systems that he
outlines are is that geo-textile system would take up more
surface area, it would be more costly, and the galleys are more
robust and will last longer before failure.
I believe that is a summary of the materials we have in the
file to date.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. BELNIAK: Yes, we have a number of the attendees in the
audience, Bruce Anderson --sorry, we have David, I'll send you
a command to open your mic. If you could also share your last
name with the reporter, that would be great. And we have two
other people as well.
MR. BADANES: My name is David Badanes. My in-laws Irene Brower
owns the house next door at 495 Fisherman's Beach Road, and I
have my wife who is the daughter'of Irene Brower, Lori Badanes
Board of Trustees 58 August 19, 2020
right next to me.
So we have a few questions. I'm not sure if there is a time
limit, but I'll try to keep them as brief as possible.
It's my understanding the person who owns this property at
one point cleared the property without proper permits. I just
want to put that on the record. In terms of what she is
suggesting, we are requesting trees on the property buffer. We
would like a privet hedge. And if I'm going too fast please let
me know. We would like a privet hedge, mature, eight feet to ten
feet, at least, to be put between that property and, again, 495
Fisherman's Beach Road. We also would like I guess a covenant to
make sure that those trees or hedges, I should say, are
maintained in the future.
We also are concerned about flooding on the road. I'm not too,
I mean we have been told that the deck may be too big.
Also what does it really mean to have a 50-foot
wide non-turf buffer?
In the application it uses the term "innovative." Typically, when
people use these types of terms it means they are trying something
new that may not be tested. I want to make sure that whatever they
are doing is something that is not going to fail in the future.
Also, if the property at 495 Fisherman's Beach, which again is a
direct neighbor, what if in the future they decide to build a second floor?
What if in the future they decide to build an addition? How is this going to
effect whatever they may do in the future, since these plans are
going to be very close, I believe within ten feet, correct me if
I'm wrong, I'm sorry, within the property line -- on the
driveway and the property line, I apologize.
So again, the main request is to have a mature privet
hedges, at least eight to ten feet on the property line, for
esthetics, and make sure they maintain those hedges in the
future, that they are always there. And we are concerned about
flooding on the road, the deck being too high. And what, if
anything, how does this affect the property of my in-laws if
they want to do additions of a second floor in the future?
Thank you, so much, for allowing me to speak tonight and I
wish everybody a pleasant evening. But if I get to speak again,
I certainly will.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, very much. Before we get to
additional comments, I'll speak to the clearing on the property
was put under review of the bay constable and I was the Trustee
available to perform an inspection with the bay,constable, and
we taped out the distance from the unconsolidated beach to the
clearing. That said, the Board did express during the field
inspection our concerns about leaving all that additional native
vegetation, and there is the comment from the LWRP seeking a
full 100 hundred feet of protection, essentially of beach
material.
With respect to the other items, they are certainly open to
the Board for discussion and discussion with the applicant. I
Board of Trustees 59 August 19, 2020
just want to put a clarification,'with respect to there was a
Town investigation.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. BELNIAK: Yes. We have someone from the audience as well.
Joseph Fischetti. Joseph, I sent you a command to open your
mic.
MR. FISCHETTI: I think I'll leave it up to Bruce to start this
discussion.
MR. BELNIAK: All right, Bruce, you should be able to open your
mic.
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicant.
I want to make a couple of comments here. This is a house,
we provided you with a survey of this house by Peconic Surveyors
as part of your file. And in that file you can see that the
house lines up with adjacent houses on either side. We can
expand this analysis very easily and include all of the houses
on Fisherman's Beach Road.
This, we have made an application for a wetland permit. A
wetland permit application. But the Board should take note that
the proposed deck is outside, is 141 feet from the wetland
boundary, which is defined as the mean high water line. So this
is not--the only reason we are before the Trustees is because
in Trustee regulations entitled Wetlands and Shoreline, you have
jurisdiction within 100 feet of the beach. So the other
interesting thing about the code is that there is no setback
from the beach.
The next thing I want to point out is that the survey shows
all of the, shows the principal and it shows the accessory
building envelopes on this, and no variance would be required to
build this house.
The third thing I want to say is that this house is similarly sized
to both houses on either side, and is actually on the range of the
smaller houses located along this stretch of beach. This is a typical
beach house. And so it would-sit on the property just as the houses
on either side. And as to some of the houses on the beach, many
houses along this stretch of beach, are significantly larger.
Many houses, a majority of the houses contain two stories. And that's
worth noting. The vegetation that exists on this property is among the
most common vegetation whatsoever that we can think of. Yes there is
bayberry, but the bayberry is scattered and concentrated in the
center of the house -- center of the property where the house
would go. So once the house is built, there would be
significantly less vegetation. It would resemble what the other
houses along this stretch look like.
There is no, we are not seeking to build a lawn, we are not
seeking to do any of that. We are just simply asking to build a
beach house that is common along this stretch of beach. The
septic system that you see is an IA system, which is an innovative
alternative system that is favored in Eastern Long Island and is
Board of Trustees 60 August 19, 2020
now permitted by Suffolk County Department of Health Services,
which provides for a secondary level of treatment. And to my
knowledge would be the only such advanced septic system on the
entire stretch of beach.
In order to make the septic system work, it has to be
suitably elevated above ground water, and of course the
elevation, the first-floor elevation of nine feet is provided so
that the system is gravity fed. And that's the way to design a
septic system. It would be surrounded by a retaining wall, and
that retaining wall is needed to retain fill. It suitably
elevates the system. The plans prepared by Joseph Fischetti tell
us that this retaining wall will vary depending on the grade,
somewhere between 1.6 feet, that is above grade, to 2.2 feet
above grade. So it is a very low retaining wall. It's also set
off from the roadside and surrounded by three feet, which
provides a landscaping opportunity to landscape out this very
low wall.
As for the flooding, this property, unlike probably most
other properties, would be subject to the Town's storm water
regulations, and we intend to fully comply with those
regulations.
I think if you view this house and this property in context
of an area in which it lies, you would conclude that it is
completely appropriate for this area and shouldn't be treated
differently than other properties have been treated in this
stretch of beach.
So we have a house that is suitably setback from the
wetland. The clearing that occurred on the, up near the road, I
don't believe would have been regulated by the Trustees in any
event. But, it is what it is, and that's where the septic system
is going to go in any event. So we are not regulated from
Wetlands on the north side of the road because of the road. So
this is a project that complies in all respects with all
applicable rules and regulations of the Town, the DEC, the
health department and every other regulatory authority, and
should be viewed as a very straightforward project.
With that, perhaps Joe Fischetti can speak a little more to
the septic system, because it is an important feature to the
overall plan.
MR. FISCHETTI: Good evening. This is my first Zoom meeting.
This is very interesting.
Again, the neighbor who asked us about an innovative
system, that is just the terminology that the Health Department
uses because we have been using subsurface cesspools and septic
tanks for so long that these new systems that reduce nitrogen up
to 95% are innovative. But they have been approved and they have
been tested by the Health Department, and these are very
important systems. Again, you have my report on the difference
between leaching galleys and these shallow, well, not shallow,
field tiles.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: One point I would like to add, I failed to
J
Board of Trustees 61 August 19, 2020
do it in my introduction, was that as a result of our Monday
night work session, the Trustees were looking for an additional
elevation plan from the street so that we had an eye view, in
other words, a notion of the height of the retaining walls as far
as the total project. I think only a single sheet was received
in the office, and I don't know if it's available that we can
see it here. But it didn't seem to, I didn't see the retaining
wall on it. Also --
MR. FISCHETTI: What you had asked for, it was interesting that
it's never been asked before. What you really were asking for,
in elevation, was to give you a 3-D view, standing in the
street, looking at the grading and the house. Now, we were
capable of doing that and we could actually give you a 3-D
picture, a video of the house if you needed it, but not within
the timeframe that you had asked for. But again, we are talking
about, we have elevations from the street, the existing
elevation in the center of Fisherman's Beach is elevation four.
Now that's the middle of the road, if you look at any of the
surveys online, and you have 3.7. Again, from those areas we
only have 5.5. Again, this is, some of these areas are less than
two feet above the ground. So I think the request for a 3-D
picture is to get an idea of what a less than two foot retaining
wall would be in relation to a roadway. We can do it for you but
it's never been done before.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With all due respect, you may have not
submitted one, but that's a point for another discussion.
A question for you, with respect to your engineering
analysis where I think you said the highest point of the
retaining wall would be 2.2 feet above the grade at its highest,
is that also, with a one-foot cover over the leaching galleys.
Is it possible to have that retaining wall go lower and that the
soil sloped up to the one-foot minimum the County Health
Department requires over the galleys?
MR. FISCHETTI: We have the galleys, the grade above the galleys
is at 5.5. We do have a 5% pitch at ten feet. So you could
conceivably pitch that wall from our elevation of 5.5 to
actually --we could lower that wall other six inches.
MR. ANDERSON: If I may, the Board should take note that one of
the important design features and the instructions given to us
by the client, was that they wanted the houses to line up. If I
were to grade, if we were concerned about the one-and-one-half
to two-foot wall on the road, I could eliminate that, but the
way that would happen is you would then advance the house in
front of the two houses to either side, which I would think
would be less desirable from the standpoint of the neighbors.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would be clearly blocking their views.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. And I could advance, and I have room to do
it, the setback from the wetlands. The jurisdiction is 100 feet.
As I said, I'm 141 feet away. I could do that. But I don't know
that that would be a good thing for the neighborhood. I would
think it would be a bad thing for the neighborhood.
Board of Trustees 62 August 19, 2020
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's a point for the whole Board and it's
discretionary authority to discuss. But clearly the plan does
show that the house is no further seaward than the neighboring
homes, which is a requirement of our Wetlands ordinance.
Continuing with the thread, I just had with Mr. Fischetti,
though, he is indicating the possibilities of making the wall
even slightly shallower. Just let me finish for a second.
The concern of the Board comes also largely from another
house extremely close to this project, where it seems that the
retaining walls, if anything, were higher than the original
project plans. Understandably when you are constructing such a
wall, some contractors may want to make it significantly higher
for purposes of making sure they don't run into trouble with
ground water elevation when the Health Department inspects
and/or other features such as putting patios or driveways at the
same elevation. I'm not saying that's the case here but the
Board learns through its experience, and I've received many
complaints from several houses where there are retaining walls
that looked like they might have come in around two feet, came
in closer to five feet.
Go ahead, Mr. Fischetti. I know you wanted to speak.
MR. FISCHETTI: Yes. I was looking at an older plan that I have
here. So the grades of the leaching galleys are elevation six
and the 5.5 does take into consideration a 5% pitch away. So it
was lowered, when we talked about, this has been lowered. And to
have'to go from, well, I don't see how that would happen. I
leave it up to you. Again, this is a two-foot wall, we are
complying with Health Department regulations.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, with respect to the neighbor's
request for vegetation in the area between that, I presume it's the
driveway side of the property, or is this the neighbor to the I
guess would be the east. I guess the question is would you be
willing, would the applicant, owners, be willing to put in some
sort of vegetative screening along that side as proposed by the
neighbor during public comment?
MR. ANDERSON: I think we would be willing to consider that'and I
think maybe the answer is then to put together some sort of a
landscape plan. It's not something we can do in five seconds,
but it might be useful even to demonstrate to the Board that
the, this two-foot wall, we can plant in front of that as well.
We set these walls off the property line by three feet, so it
gives us that opportunity to fill that space in.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe I mis-spoke. For some reason
I was under the impression it was five feet off or was that the
revised plan it was three and the original five. But if'it's
three feet, it's three feet.
MR. ANDERSON: Three feet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Also, a submission of a planting plan
can also help address the serious concerns of the LWRP coordinator
to establish a natural resource protection for the beach. We did
notice one of the other neighbors, I believe that would be the
Board of Trustees 63 August 19, 2020
neighbor to the west, has been significantly clearing American
beach grass, which I think is a point that the Board was going
to take up in possibly future discussions with the owner. So
that might, such a plan might address concerns of people
speaking at the hearing and also might allay some of the
Trustee concerns. But I want to hear from anyone else who wants
to speak to this application and give Trustee input.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I have a question. In the portion of, I saw on
the retaining wall, in references to elevated grade. I'm not
quite sure what that grade is. Is that the existing grade? And
perhaps it would help me to understand the situation, if there
was some reference that I could work from, elevation of the
road, or so that when this is completed that I know the wall is
in compliance with what I thought was the intent of the plan.
In other words, we don't wind up with a wall that is
significantly higher and I don't have a reference to measure it
from if I want to complain about that.
MR. FISCHETTI: Mike, given the elevation of the top of the wall
is 5.5. 1 mean that's the relationship. As to the section on my
drawing, the right side is existing grade and the left side is
the sanitary grade. So the right side is existing grade.,And
it's just a section. So if you look at the plan you'll see
existing grades around this property go 3.5, 3.6, 3.3. The road
is, the center of the road is four. These are elevations above
mean high water. So we are talking about, again, roughly two
feet of existing grade. If you want to work with what's there.
But it's 5.5. And again, 5.5 is elevation above mean high
water.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: One of the difficulties, the new wrinkles with
the Zoom is I'm having a difficulty looking at that particular
plan.
MR. FISCHETTI: You don't have it in front of?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: No, I don't. And I guess what I'm asking, when
the area Trustee does the final inspection, how does he
reference these elevations.?
MR. FISCHETTI: If somebody can zoom in, you have the drawing up
right now. Zoom in on the site plan. Not all the details, but
the site. If someone can bring that up, that would be great.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think Dianne is on that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: They are attempting to do that right now.
MR. FISCHETTI: Great. Let's get to the site. Make it a little --
yes. The retaining wall and leaching galleys, all that. Make
that bigger so we can all talk about it. A little bigger. Okay.
Now center it, please.
Move to the right so we can see the roadway.
MR. BELNIAK: If you grab the white hand icon in the toolbar and
click it, you can drive it that way.
There you go.
MR. FISCHETTI: Okay, Mike, take a look at the lower end of the
corner, the number 73 there. Just to the left of that you see
elevation ELF, that's 3.9. That's 3.9 elevation is existing
Board of Trustees 64 August 19, 2020
grade elevation. Now if you look at the center of the picture,
Fisherman's Beach Road, you see elevation four. Now, if you go
north some more, to the other corner, there is an elevation,
it's right in the middle of the driveway, on the left side of
the driveway, it says elevation 3.3. Those elevations are grade
elevations, which is pretty much level property. And on the
road, our retaining walls are going to be roughly two feet above
that. So you if you see a retaining wall that is three feet
above that, it's more than 5.5. So it's fairly simple to go in
the field and, without a surveyor, to see if the elevation of
that retaining wall is correct or not.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I guess I'm trying to help the area Trustee,
including myself. If the area Trustee is satisfied with that, if
this, if the Board approves this application and the structure
is built, you'll have the means to verify whether it comports
with what we are seeing here on the plan.
MR. ANDERSON: I would just say--
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I was addressing my question to the Trustees.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I guess my two cents about this, I just want to
start off by clarifying. This would not by any means be the
first time we asked for side profile when it came to a retaining
wall. So that's becoming more of a practice that we are doing,
for pretty obvious reasons, and really just for clarifying what
is happening here. And you have to understand, too, that we get
a huge variety of plans. So it's not always as cut and dry as
this. And even that, there is always going to be some gray when
you get out in the field. So, I mean, my point, I guess would be
if I'm standing on Fisherman's Beach Road and I can walk on
level ground three feet off and then measure the retaining wall
at 24 inches or less, that certainly is straightforward. But
that is not always the case where you can walk from level
ground; are they going to put a berm in with trees in front. You
know, I think that's why Trustee Bredemeyer asked for the side
profile, which is, again where we are headed. We have been
doing it more and more often and that's something I would expect
in the future, to avoid problems.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: If I can chime in, the issue is in the plans,
what we want to be certain of, the plan calls for the wall to be
roughly 18 to 24 inches, and all of a sudden, the contractor is
there on site and for whatever reasons, the wall seems to come
out to be four foot. And that is our concern, is moving forward
we don't want to go back and say, oh, the water table rose,
whatever the construction issue was at that particular job, you
know, we go back and we end up with a very different end result
than what was presented to us at a hearing like this.
MR. FISCHETTI: Let me just talk about, this is a sanitary system
that is inspected by the Health Department. The wall is there to
retain grading for a sanitary system. I'm not going to have a
five-foot wall if the grade around the sanitary system is lower.
Because they won't accept that. They only accept what is the
system that is there. So I don't know how to argue this point,
Board of Trustees 65 August 19, 2020
but the wall is designed in accordance with Health Department
requirements, and it's there because we are retaining soil above
the sanitary system. So I'll do whatever you want me to do, but
even if I gave you an elevation -- because you are talking about
two different things here. If I gave you an elevation from the
street, a 3-D picture, which I can give you, that doesn't solve
the problem of you worrying about whether the contractor is
going to build the wall the way I designed it. That's a totally,
you are talking two different things here. I'm willing to give
you an elevation of a wall showing three feet above. Fine. How
is anyone going to guarantee the contractor will build it
properly? The Health Department will guarantee it. Because they
are out there and they have to cert it, and everyone is watching
what is going on.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Trustees can always request an
additional inspection, even if there is dual jurisdiction, it
doesn't preclude the Board from asking.
Typically, Mr. Fischetti, as currently constructed, is the
Health Department looking at the retaining walls before the
construction of the galleys? In other words, chicken or egg. In
order words, if a'simple inspection by the area Trustee would
confirm the elevation of the leaching galleys, that would mean
the retaining wall would come in and be compliant. Or, vice
versa, the retaining wall is built and it's no higher than the
two feet above --
MR. FISCHETTI: This particular job most likely the system would
be designed first and the retaining wall goes after. Because the
requirement is a 5% grade away from the leaching galley. And
that 5% would govern where the wall height is.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So presumably, if you have the inspection
of the leaching galleys and they are a minimum distance above
ground water, then the project would be self-tending with
respect to the height.
MR. FISCHETTI: Correct. The project requires an as-constructed
survey. So you could request an as-constructed survey.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, going to Trustee Williams' point, we
would hate to see an as-constructed survey that had a four-foot
high retaining wall. Let's call it as built. I just want to
add, there is a couple of us here know a little bit about septic
systems. I'll say I know at least three people, and one of the
clerks and two of the people whose faces might be popping up
here. So we don't need to belabor the point. This sounds like
this is becoming more clear-cut. But the Board, we understand
that it is difficult under the current conditions to get that
additional elevation we want, but I think the Board is pretty
firm in that because this has become more the rule, and as
offered by Mr. Anderson, we might be looking at a planting plan
and beach protection maybe we can get these additional
materials, to table the application, get the additional
materials, additional comments from people who want to comment,
and then move forward with this at the next meeting.
Board of Trustees 66 August 19, 2020
MR. BELNIAK: All right, there are a few other people. David, I
see your hand raised. You spoke just a moment ago. I just want
to give a chance for Pat Kirkpatrick to speak. I don't think Pat
has spoken yet, if I have that right. So Pat, then David. So,
Pat, you should have command to open your mic and when you do,
the floor is yours.
MS. KIRKPATRICK: Hi, this is Pat Kirkpatrick. I'm the owner who
is trying to build all this. I really would like to just mention
a couple of things of what you said. I'm more than willing to do
plantings. I want to hopefully keep as part of the driveway the
row of trees that are currently separating my house from 495,
my proposed house from 495. 1 hope very much to keep that
there. In addition, my hope is to keep the retaining walls
totally low as possible as retaining walls there because of the
septic. But I have no interest in dividing my property from the
street or from each of the neighbors at, in that sense. And
lastly, my idea is to keep it as native and natural as possible.
I have a clearing out to the beach that is just wide enough, and
hopefully there will be a four-foot path up through that, from
what I can see from that. I'm not planting any lawn. I'm going
to plant grasses back on top of the septic. Native grasses as
well as some rose bushes. But I'm not looking to, I would like
it to be a natural state. I don't want anything to maintain over
time that is not necessary. And I certainly don't want to add
anything with fertilizers or anything like that into the water
system.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes
to speak to the application?
MR. BELNIAK: Yes. We have David Badanes.
MR. BADANES: Thank you, again. A couple of things. You know,
this is not really my area. Is it possible to actually mail
these plans to us or do we have a get them from Town hall?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have to get them from Town hall.
MR. BADANES: Thank you. You know, the comment was made that this
is just a house that is already there. Basically this structure
that is being proposed, in my opinion, and with all due respect,
it's being shoe-horned in. I mean this is not just adding
another story. This is adding another house. They already have
a house which believe is two stories, and so this is not simply
adding another story to an existing structure. This is
shoe-horriing another house onto this property. And I believe
this road does flood. And I just have to mention, you know,
this is a summer community, for the most part, and I notice that
the original application was done in March. My mother-in-law is
not there in March. I'm not even sure how she found out about
this. You know, and I appreciate Ms. Kirkpatrick, if that's her
last name, that she is willing to put in plantings. But I guess
in my field everything should be in writing. And I believe the
person from Suffolk, Mr. Anderson, said he would consider
putting vegetation. Well, "consider" is a very nice word but
it's not very definite. So again, I make that application again.
Board of Trustees 67 August 19, 2020
Also, I don't think there was any, there was no mention of
fill on the permit. So I guess those are my objections on
behalf of the owners of 495 Fisherman's Beach. I don't know if
this is proper but I'll just throw it out so it's on the record,
I would respectively ask that the application be denied in full.
Thank you, again.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes
to speak to this application?
MR. BELNIAK: There are no other new people.
MR. HAGAN: Just to clarify one point, I believe,if you go on to
the Town laserfiche system, the entirety of the application is
available. And I believe we have a link at the start of the
agenda. So if there was some documentation the gentleman wanted
to look at with regard to this application, he could do so by
accessing it from the Town website.
If you go if the first page of tonight's agenda, it gives
you the steps on how to get to any application file so any sort
of plans can be reviewed there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing no additional concerns, at this time
I would move to table this application subject to the submission
of the requested elevation diagrams that the Board requested
after Monday's work session, and a detailed planting plan that
would incorporate to the maximum extent possible the concerns
expressed at this meeting by both the Local Waterfront
Revitalization coordinator and those of the neighbor, so as the
Board will have a definitive project plan upon which to give
further consideration this matter. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number nine, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
on behalf of CHARLES G. PARDEE requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 16'x18' at-grade wood deck on the southwest corner
of the subject parcel, setback 20.0'from the western property
line; and to establish and perpetually maintain an 8.0' wide
vegetated buffer area landward of the existing retaining wall
and along the southern portion of the eastern property line.
Located: 6760 Great Peconic'Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
SCTM# 1000-126-11-3.1
The Trustees most recently visited this property on the
11th of March and noted this application was straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator found this application to be
consistent.
I do not see a CAC inspection for this application at this
time.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this
Board of Trustees 68 August 19, 2020
application, or any comments from the Board?.
(Negative response).
I see Bruce with his hand raised there. We can go to Bruce.
MR. BELNIAK: Bruce, you should be able to access your mic.
MR. ANDERSON: Robert Anderson on behalf of the applicant. I just
want to say Trustee Krupski's description was very accurate.
It's a very straightforward plan. We plan on establishing and
maintaining a buffer landward of the retaining wall that you
see. We plan on matching the esthetics of the neighboring
property to the northeast as far as plant material goes, Rosa
rugosa, bayberry, what have you.
So that's all the comments I have to say.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to
speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no comment, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion-to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:,Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
Number ten, Robert Brown Architect on behalf of JOSEPH &
DANA TRIOLO requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
2,170 sq. ft. two-story, single-family dwelling with attached
garage; construct a 223.8 sq. ft. landward addition onto garage; a
199.7 sq. ft. landward addition (kitchen); a 318.3 sq. ft. seaward
addition (master bedroom); a 493.6 sq. ft. seaward addition
(living room); a 238 sq. ft. landward front porch addition; and
for the existing driveway to be replaced with a 1,177 sq. ft.
gravel driveway.
Located: 420 Beachwood Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-10-54
On February 5th, 2020, the Trustees performed a site visit
with all Trustees present, noting flagged edge of
non-disturbance line, suggest a five-foot non-turf buffer also
to be shown a survey. Suggest IA septic.
On March 11th, 2020, the Trustees performed an inhouse
review of the revised plans noting okay with the revised plans.
The LWRP reviewed the application and found the proposed
action to be consistent; noting installation of a non-turf
Board of Trustees 69 August 19, 2020
buffer and installation of an IA septic would further the
actions of the LWRP.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed the application
and resolved to support the application, recommending an IA
septic system be installed.
Is there anybody who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. BELNIAK: Yes. We have one hand raised, Robert Brown. Rob,
I'll send a command to open your mic.
MR. BROWN: Good evening, and thank you. I would just like to
point out a couple of typographical errors in the description of
the project in the agenda. Just for the record.
The description mentions an addition of the master bedroom
seaward of 318.3 square feet, and it is in fact 18.3 square
feet, as noted on the site plan. And the description mentions
the living room addition seaward 493.6 square feet, and it is in
fact 93.6 square feet. Other than that, if there are any
questions I can address, I would be happy to.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Just for clarification, the kitchen goes from
18.3 square feet -- I'm sorry, that's master bedroom.
MR. BROWN: Yes.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is 18.3 square foot and the living room 93.6
foot; is that correct?
MR. BROWN: That's correct.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Thank you. Anything else?
MR. BROWN: Any questions, I would be happy to answer.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any questions from the Trustees?
(Negative response).
MR. BELNIAK: There are no other hands raised in the audience either.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I would like to make a motion to close this
public hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
I'll make a motion to approve the application of the work
proposed for the sanitary system on plans received by Trustees
office on July 30th, 2020, prepared by Daniel Balusko (sic) on
6/25/20 and construction of the non-disturbance. I would also
like to accept plans of the construction, noting the corrections
in the written description, which I'll read at this point. To do
the following: A 199.7 square foot landward addition of the
kitchen. An 18.3 square foot seaward addition for master
bedroom. A 93.6 square foot seaward addition for living room.
And 238 square foot landward front porch addition, and for a
existing driveway to be replaced with 1,177 square foot of
gravel driveway. And construction of a non-disturbance buffer as
flagged by the Trustees. And a five-foot non-turf buffer as
depicted on plans received by Trustees office on February 18th,
Board of Trustees 70 August 19, 2020
2020, prepared by Robert Brown Architect, revised January 6th,
2020. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number eleven, Andrew V. Giambertone &
Associates on behalf of 61600 MAIN ROAD, LLC requests a Wetland
Permit for the existing 6,280 sq. ft. one story building which is
proposed to be raised where the bottom of the lowest horizontal
structural member will be two feet above the current FEMA flood
plane elevation; elevate all of the existing decks to match the
new height of the building including existing 1,578 sq. ft. deck,
and 150 sq. ft. deck on north side of the building; replace north
side stairs with new 4'6" wide stairs; replace ramp on west side
to meet ICC requirements due to raising of the building; install
60" wide stairs at the south side of the building; install new
railings as required to all decks, stairs and ramps; all square
footages are to remain the same.
Located: 61600 Main Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-6-3.4
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not do an inspection
and therefore did not make a recommendation.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on March 11th noting
the drainage may be an issue. Should be reviewed by Town engineer.
Also, no penetration through cement bulkhead should be allowed.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BELNIAK: Yes. I believe we have the applicant. Andrew
Giambertone, I've sent you a command to open your mic.
MR. GIAMBERTONE: First I would like to applaud the stamina and
focus of this Board, as I have been sitting here listening to
three hours of testimony. I'm sure it's been quite an evening.
The new owners of the Heron Suites hotel property, which
includes the Witski family, Albertson's Marine, as one of the
owners, are looking to upgrade the facilities here in general.
As part of that they would like to elevate the gathering portion
of the hotel building to a point where it would be in compliance
with the FEMA flood zone in that area, which would necessitate
elevating the building approximately five feet.
We are also simultaneously in the process of working
through a full approval with the Suffolk County Department of
Health for a modified septic system. We are working with the
Planning Department. We are planning on applying to the
Planning Department for site plan approval which would include
the engineering of the drainage. And there are extensive
drainage and septic system plans that are being developed now.
We are waiting for the opportunity to submit those.
Board of Trustees 71 August 19, 2020
1 would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Does anyone else have any other questions
from the audience?
(Negative response).
Any questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
Seeing as how they are going to be coming forward with a
drainage and septic upgrade plan in the future, that kind of
addresses our concerns.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sounds reasonable.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anybody else have any questions?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further questions, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
application on the condition that a drainage and septic plan is
to follow.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 12, Michael Kimack on behalf of
LAUGHING WATER PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 76' long by 18'wide at
low water, and 3' in height at highest point, a Living Shoreline
consisting of approximately 40 cubic yards of rip-rap, 20 cubic yards
of biodegradable sandbags, 420 sq. ft. of Spartina patens at 9" o/c;
and to construct approximately 60' of Living Shoreline consisting of
approximately 20 cubic yards of biodegradable sandbags and
480 sq. ft. of Spartina patens at 9" o/c. -
Located: 2360 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-60
The Trustees most recent field inspection of this property
is March 11th, 2020, and denotes all were present. The notes
were signed by the agent Michael Kimack. The notes say that
this is a straightforward, good project.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
arises from his concern that the use of vegetated non-structural
measures to manage flooding and increase protective capabilities
of natural features discouraged; should discourage clearing of
existing particularly indigenous vegetation during design
Board of Trustees 72 August 19, 2020
siting, construction, regrading phases of any project.
The applicant states that the purpose is to preserve the
beach and stop sand from accumulating within the dock slips. The
manipulation of the shoreline by adding rip-rap does not meet
this policy. It's unclear if the living shoreline would be
effective at stopping sand from entering the dock slips. It is
recommended that a less permanent treatment be applied.
There is no note in here from the Conservation Advisory
Council regarding this application.
Additionally, there is a letter in the record, an e-mail
from Tim Stump. I won't read it in its entirety Mr. Stump is the
neighboring property, I believe to the north. And he states that
he realizes that the nature-based living shoreline of 76.foot
length may act as a groin and prevent migration of sand along
the shoreline. And in that regard, might accrete sand on the
association property and accordingly negatively affect his
property. Additionally, he points out he's a member of Laughing
Water Property Owners Association and he expressed concerns.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. BELNIAK: Yes. We have a hand raised. Just before I do that,
as a reminder, we have one more call-in listener. *9 raises your
hand to speak. But the person who raises his hand now, Michael
Kimack. Michael, you should see a command to use your mic. The
floor is yours.
MR. KIMACK: Good evening, everyone. let me give a little
background to this. I know it's late and I'll try to move it
along as quickly as possible.
Before I got involved with the project with Laughing Waters
Association, they had had Cornell Extension come on to the site,
and Cornell Extension was the one that actually positioned
where the, where you call it the natural living shoreline, the
groin, and it actually is a groin, but they are trying to soften
it. That's what DEC is after. The location as you see it on the
drawing is exactly the way the Cornell Extension positioned it.
And you are right, the intent is to keep the movement of the
sand, the action of the sand from eroding the beach and coming
around to the back side. There is one piece, I have a Google
Earth map, I think it's number six. If we can go to that. That
really kind of encapsulates exactly what this is supposed to be
intended to do. Can we put that up?
Okay. What I did, basically, is I prepared this off the
Google Earth map, and that's an exact location based upon the
recommendation for the location by the Cornell Extension. Where
we came up with how we are were going to actually construct it
was DEC really would like to see what they call that living
shoreline, primarily, and they want to rely less upon all just
stone revetment and try to get a little more of a planting in
there by using sandbags and by doing Spartina. We recognize
that because of the action of the waves that we are really not
able to hold it in place with sandbags alone. And that's why I
designed that, triangular stone on both sides with the sandbags
Board of Trustees 73 August 19, 2020
in the middle, which will take the brunt of it.
You can see from this picture how the shoreline kind of erodes.
The shoreline kind of sticks out into the waters coming in from the
bay in a northerly direction into Corey Creek, and the wave action had
been pretty much going all the way to`the left and then coming back
and taking the sand and moving it around and depositing it into
the marina on the back side where the dock slips are. And it's
a pretty localized activity. And this is only meant and
intended to really arrest the movement of the sand, to basically
allow the beach to be stabilized. But it really is not, if you
can see, the action is really localized to really the beach
action, you can see where the sand is basically piling up and
then swirling around the back side of there. I think Mr. Stump's
property is not exactly on this. It's north of this, primarily,
up that little estuary. Probably north of where the boat ramp
is, I believe. That has not been affected at all by any of this.
And all this would basically do is not do anything to whether
he's losing sand or gaining sand. Because the movement of that
sand is taking it away from the beach. Every time they put the
soils down it comes around, and deposits it back on the back
side.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Mike, in your opinion, I'll just make a mark
here. The issue with the sand is filling in here, and where do
you think that sand is coming from?
MR. KIMACK: Here on the beach. Over here on the beach side. A
little further to the left. Coming from over here. (Indicating).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So by putting this wall there, it will stop
the sand from migrating here. (Indicating).
MR. KIMACK:'Putting it here stops it from eroding and coming on
to the back side.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mike, correct me if I'm wrong, where your
clients have replenished that beach with sand and it just keeps
getting washed away?
MR. KIMACK: Yes, and they basically are frustrated by the
whole thing. The back side of it, the first two bays are
completely filled in with sand. They just recently dug it out,
primarily. And they had a permit to do that, primarily. And they
piled that up and let it dry and they put a silt fence around it
to make sure it doesn't migrate anyplace. But it was extensive.
It came off the beach and came around the corner. So I can
understand Mr. Stump's concern. but really the wave action, I
mean, sand is moved by wave action, primarily. And where this
beach is located really is not into the peak of the wave action
coming in from the bay. Where Mr. Stump's property is farther up
that little canal over there is less likely to be touched by the
amount of wave action moving sand as much on the beach area
here.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mike, I think I'm correct in paraphrasing that
you believe the action is localized to the beach area.
MR. KIMACK: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Has that been communicated to you by other
Board of Trustees 74 August 19, 2020
people, perhaps Cornell or maybe DEC?
MR. KIMACK: Well, Cornell basically said that location of the
two arms, that looks like a bent"L," it looks like, basically,
would arrest the erosion of the beach. Primarily taking that
sand away from the beach. You can see that,line, that dark line
along there. This particular photo at one time, Mike, if you
remember, they filled that with this black material, and they
overburdened it with the sand, and so you can actually see the
eroding line on this picture, that simply takes that and moves it
right around to the back side. You can see it following around.
This would arrest that from losing the sand on the beach. It
won't necessarily stop it from accreting sand someplace else.
That is normally moved by the wave action. And the wave action
is coming in and also the wave action is coming back out again..
So that action is not going to be impeded.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So you are suggesting that this will arrest the
erosion and we won't have the migration into the boat slip.'
MR. KIMACK: Yes. And you can see what is happening, basically,
it's beginning to close that area off there, and as this
continues coming in, that eventually will be shut down and you
won't be able to get the boats into that one area.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
MR. BELNIAK: There are no other hands raised at the moment.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to
close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, with the understanding that this action will address
the inconsistency in that it does not seem to be a less
permanent treatment as that will accomplish what Cornell and DEC
have suggested. That's the only way I know how to phrase it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number 13, Michael
Kimack on behalf of JONATHAN REBELL & NOAH LEVINE requests a
Wetland Permit to construct bluff stairs at 65'10" in length
Board of Trustees 75 August 19, 2020
consisting of a 4'x12' (48 sq. ft.) top landing to a 4'x15.83'
(63.3 sq. ft.) staircase to a 4'x8' (32 sq. ft.) landing to
4'x15.83' (63.3 sq. ft.) staircase to a 4'x4' (16 sq. ft.) landing
to a 4'x2.6' (13.6 sq. ft.) staircase to a 4'x5' (20 sq. ft.)
landing to a 4'x11.8' (47.2 sq. ft.) staircase to a 5'x6'
(30 sq. ft.) landing to a bottom removable wood or aluminum
4'x4.2' (16.8 sq. ft.) staircase.
Located: 4790 Blue Horizon Bluffs, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-74-1-35.56.
This is with the modification as requested by the DEC for
the bottom landing of 4'x6' as opposed to 5'x6'.
This project was not reviewed by the Conservation Advisory
Council.
The Board of Trustees on their March 11th field inspection
had concerns about, with clearing in the area immediately
adjacent to the bluff, which was relayed to the applicant
through Mike Kimack, and at the time we recommended a 40-foot
buffer. Mike Kimack did, subsequently did submit plans to the
Trustees on March 12th. And then -- I'll check my dates again
here. Excuse me.
I have a new plan which shows a 40-foot non-turf buffer, excuse me,
Young &Young Surveyors, that was dated March 8th, which shows a
40-foot non-turf buffer. And I have a project plan submitted on
May 29th by Michael Kimack which addressed the DEC concerns.
The LWRP coordinator has deemed this project to be
inconsistent with the LWRP, particularly as it relates to
management measures to minimize loss of human life and
structures from flooding and erosion hazards, noting
specifically he performed a photographic analysis indicating
that the bluff is aerial analysis indicating that the slope and
the condition of the bluff is highly erosive in this location
and is not stable, and therefore the installation of a staircase
without a bluff stabilization plan is not supported.
I do believe that does cover the file entries that I that
I have and am looking at.
Is there anyone that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. BELNIAK: Mr. Kimack, again, you should be able to speak
MR. KIMACK: I knew that that one was going to come up because it
is an eroded slope, primarily, and it's been eroding over a
period of time. And as a matter of fact, that whole section
along that way today, basically, has the same steepness of slope
and same erosive capabilities. And when I first looked at it,
when we were talking about whether they wanted to spend the kind
of money necessary to restore this whole slope, and they said,
well, what we would like to do is put a staircase in as well as
we could and, you know, hope that basically it will hold.
The reason that, and I don't have the one, but about two or
three houses easterly of this, there is a staircase that had
been approved with the same kind of erosive slope that there
was, and with the same steepness top to bottom. And so it
really, in a sense, someone who wants a staircase down to the
beach, basically, is going to build the staircase. It would be
Board of Trustees 76 August 19, 2020
subject to, obviously, and it has to be built very strongly. And
that's the way I designed it, to be able to withstand the kind
of movement that may occur. But the cost of restoring this
particular slope land, basically, is extensive, and a lot of
money, and they would prefer to put their money into the
staircase done properly.
And the one that is two or three houses over is still in
place and its held. And the slope is every bit as steep and
every bit as pretty much eroded as this one. And that was
approved by the Trustees about three years ago, I believe.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Mike,just as a point of information for you,
that staircase that was put in two or three years ago has washed
out twice. Once they had to have an emergency permit, put in
some rock revetment around the base of it to stabilize just the
base, just the landing, so.
MR. KIMACK: The only thing I can suggest to you basically is
that from a structural point of view on design, going back to
basics, what I basically do is I use 6x6s down, tie the entire
staircase together top to bottom on both sides with heavy 3x1 Os
so the entire thing becomes one structure top to bottom,
essentially. So there isn't individual legs that won't be
giving out one way or the other. That is not to say there may be
some eroding capabilities that happen in the future, but you can
basically minimize that if you do construct it to a higher
standard than normally you see. Everybody uses 4x4s and goes
down about three or four feet, and they don't tie everything
together. I have learned from past experience, with the ones
that I've designed in situations like this, that if I,
basically, lateral all my supports on both sides, legs on both
sides, it really works as one solid piece top to bottom. And it
minimizes the extent of losing that particular staircase.
I wanted to give the gentlemen the opportunity to have a
staircase as strong as possible to withstand the kind of events
that may be coming, given the fact that you already have an
eroded slope and the chance of opportunity to erode further is
certainly greater, more greatly enhanced as a result of that.
That doesn't mean that it would not wash away, that doesn't mean
that you can put one on a low vegetated slope and it washes away
next year, something like that. I think it comes down to the
fact that to repair that entire slope with revetments and
hardened slope, basically, that is make sure that it is and then
build a staircase over it, we are talking a significant amount
of dollars that these gentlemen simply don't wish to proceed
with that. But they would like access to the beach. The
staircase, given the kind of structure that I put into it, will
give them the best opportunity to withstand as much erosion as
possible and still be there, as opposed to some the others.
I know that's a question of the veracity of who's telling
you this, but I've built a lot of structures over my life, and I
look at the situations and I look at where I'm putting it
primarily, the circumstances upon which it had had to be placed
Board of Trustees 77 August 19, 2020
_and I came up with a design that is as strong as any staircase
being put in in any place in terms of the kind of materials and
spacing it out and tying it together. It gives them the
opportunity not to lose it.
It is placed very close to the property line, because
unbeknownst to everyone else there is a five-foot right-of-way
for the property behind it to be able to come and also build a
staircase within that five foot. You can see the dashed line
over there. So what we did, basically, is rather than have two
staircases, we had it on the other side; we moved it to the
other side simply to eliminate having to put two staircases down
and just have one that allows the person behind by right-of-way
to be able to use the same staircase.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is this stairway going to be put on the
right-of-way or is it going to be put on the, you know-- I
understand the property owner,owns the whole parcel. But he's
giving that strip a right-of-way.
MR. KIMACK: Well, that right-of-way was there before they bought
it, Greg. It was part of the original purchase, and somehow they
missed it when they put the survey together. And they came back
and they realized that there was this right-of-way. Young &
Young then put it back on to the property, and that's when we
switched it from there back on to the other side, to make sure
that the person who lives on the south, you can see it's a long,
long walkway along there to use that right-of-way to come up
with the staircase. But if you read the deed, they do have the
right of construction of their own within that five-foot
right-of-way going all the way down to the beach.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I guess I go back to the question. The
long-term plan is the hope that the non-waterfront property owner
will have unrestricted access to the proposed stairway that the
waterfront property owner is putting in?
MR. KIMACK: Absolutely, yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Will it extinguish their right to apply for
another staircase?
MR. KIMACK: Mike, that's a good question. If I put it where I'm
putting it, it will eliminate the possibility of putting another
staircase in the same location.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can we get a clarification of that will from our
counsel?
MR. HAGAN: I'm sorry, could you repeat that, Mike?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: What Mr. Kimack is suggesting is the placement
of this staircase very close to that right-of-way will obviate
any request that the property from the back puts in to build an
additional staircase. Is that in fact, would that hold up?
MR. HAGAN: Well, all right, if you put a staircase on a
right-of-way--
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's immediately to the west.
MR. HAGAN: I know. So essentially, what you are saying, is that
we are going to put it right next to the right-of-way and then
we'll let anyone that wants to use the right-of-way, they can
Board of Trustees 78 August 19, 2020
use the staircase?
MR. KIMACK: Yes.
MR. HAGAN: And then we are going to apply that so that other
people can't go and apply for a staircase?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I guess that's my question; will this proposed
staircase block the non-waterfront property owner with the
right-of-way, will that block him from putt in his own staircase
should he desire in the future.
MR. HAGAN: I don't think it necessarily would hinder him from
being able to make application for himself in the future. I
could see how the Trustees might be disinclined to approve a
staircase if there was a staircase essentially in that location.
But this is not a joint application wherein there is any sort of
representation that the other property owner will be able to use .
this staircase in the future.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Understood.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How far off the property line is the staircase?
Off the right-of-way line, I guess I should say.
MR. HAGAN: From this drawing it almost looks like it's right on
top of that right-of-way line. Can we zoom in, maybe?
MR. KIMACK: There is another drawing there also, that we did.
That I did. Take a look at number eight.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's a little different.
MR. HAGAN: That looks like it's right on the right-of-way line.
MR. KIMACK: That's where I intended it to be.
MR. HAGAN: So the question then becomes if you are trying to
avoid the need for another staircase in the future, is this
property owner going to allow other people to use the staircase?
MR. KIMACK: It's only to the property behind them, primarily.
That's the only one that has the right-of-way within --
MR. HAGAN: And the right-of-way extends all the way essentially
to the bluff, or does it extend all the way down to access to
the beach?
MR. KIMACK: Well, the right-of-way on the beach primarily
extends all the way down to the high water mark.
MR. HAGAN: Which happens to hit a bluff.
MR. KIMACK: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Then you are asking us to approve a
staircase on somebody else's right-of-way.
MR. KIMACK: No, I'm asking you to approve a staircase on
property of the owner who happens to have given a right-of-way
of access to the beach to the property and he's providing the
staircase so the other person doesn't have to.
MR. HAGAN: Based on this survey--
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's somewhat problematic from the point of
view of the owners, the man who has the right-of-way down to the
beach.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: The one thing I want to point out, the
property that has the right-of-way is 46.46 acres. So if that
property were to be subdivided at some point in time, that
right-of-way could end up going to several different users.
Board of Trustees 79 August 19, 2020
MR. KIMACK: It may well.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So that, then all of a sudden if there comes a
disagreement, you know, hey, you can't use my stairs, these are
my stairs.
MR. KIMACK: Well, from a practical point of view, I understand
what you are wrestling with on that. But from a practical point
of view, we put the staircase in the right-of-way and they can
all use the right-of-way, then the staircase becomes an
extension of the right-of-way down to the water.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: If your stairway becomes a right-of-way but if
you get to the bottom of the staircase and it jogs out of the
right-of-way and goes on to the owner's property -- you know,
you are always looking for the stuff you don't expect, and now
all of a sudden the guy puts a chain cross there and says you
can use it to this point, but you can't come on my property. So
the stairway is not fully encased into the right-of-way. It
veers off the right-of-way.
MR. KIMACK: I can do a covenant basically that my owner will
sign that if we are in fact able to build this, that that
particular location is intended to be able to serve the rights
of the individuals, to be access to the beach by using that
particular one, by depicting the staircase that's designed.
That, I think would take care of your concerns.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: The other thing, Damon, feel free to help me
out on this, would it make sense to have the property owner that
has access to the right-of-way to give permission or to --
MR. HAGAN: No. So a right-of-way, this right-of-way exists
within the boundaries of the applicant's property. And a
right-of-way is just essentially a permanent grant of permission
to cross my land to access a final point, namely the water. So
it's not a matter of needing permission of those parties that
have the ability to cross the right-of-way in order to do
something. If there was some sort of blockage or barring or
prevention of access to a right-of-way, that would be a civil
matter for those parties.
As far as the Board of Trustees is concerned, this
application if, leading from the bottom of a right-of-way, you
know, being an extension of a right-of-way to access the body of
water, you are not going against the spirit of the right-of-way
by granting the staircase, provided that the staircase is
allowed to be used by those that have the right-of-way.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have just a couple of things to bring up
with respect to this.
The Board, in discussing the buffer area, 40-foot buffer in
the revised plans that were submitted, is requesting a
consideration of using a low profile barrier on the landward
side of it that would prevent a lawnmower or other cutting
equipment from going over and continuing to cut the vegetation.
So thinking something in the order of railroad ties or--
MR. KIMACK: No objection to that. I understand, because that is
consistent with all the other determinations you've made.
Board of Trustees 80 August 19, 2020
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. And then specifically to, with respect
to the failure of the stairs to the east, which I know both
Trustees Domino and Williams personally witnessed, the story was
recounted to all of us, was that largely from toe failure or is
it failure along the bluff; that leading to my next question is
there any consideration to incorporating terracing boards, you
know, between the uprights of the stairs and filter cloth?
MR. KIMACK: I can do that. I think one of the failures of that,
because I took a look at it, too, Jay, is basically they poured
concrete footings and set the boards on top, and the concrete
footings were really only down in the ground about two to three
feet deep. And they became exposed on the bottom section of the --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The neighboring failure --
MR. KIMACK: The neighboring failure. It was, to be, an
inappropriate design for the place.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A questionable design. I'm just curious
what Trustee Williams' and Trustee Domino's take was, or was
there nothing there to inspect by that time.
MR. KIMACK: By the time they got there it was a bluff and that
was it, right?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It very difficult to determine.
MR. KIMACK: I could add at every one of the 6x6s, I could add a
10x10 -- a 3x10, basically, across there as a bluff to make sure
the soil doesn't migrate.
As you well know, the DEC holds you to, if you are putting
this in, and of course it doesn't really apply to this case,
they like to hold you one foot on both sides of the four-foot
wide staircase, and not to clear any further than that,
primarily. Of course in this case, there is nothing left. So.
But just to let you know that this is one of their requirements.
You have six foot down and you follow that line and you don't,
if you've got'a vegetated slope, you don't want to extend beyond
that. So I mean I could put a 3x10 barrier across each one of
the legs to further protect the erosion, specifically, certainly
subject to the staircase itself.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm wondering, a plan that would incorporate
that, or possibly using some jute matting or whatever along the
edges or with those boards might address the LWRP coordinator's
concerns.
MR. KIMACK: I can do between the boards. So, I can do double jute
matting, basically, like that. And in between each one in the
soil and do the 3x1 Os and actually go down into the soil with
one 3x10 and come up with another 3x10 on top of it, and extend
it one foot on both sides so that I do cover the six foot.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So can we ask for a plan mod to show that
and also that low barrier on the landward side --
MR. KIMACK: I can modify the both plans to put the low barrier.
I'll talk to my clients whether they want to see the 8x8s staked
in as you had suggested prior, you know, by using re-rods,
probably a number five, which is a 5/8th re-rod at about two or
three feet, and then I'll modify the`staircase to include the
{
Board of Trustees 81 August 19, 2020
cutting across the 6x6s, bolting in the 3x1 Os and then jutting it
all the way down to hold the stone.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sounds good. Any additional questions or
concerns?
(No response).
Anyone wish to speak to this, additionally, the Trustee concerns.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I just want to state, I have no'desire to
restrict access for a waterfront property owner to access the
water, and I'm in favor of the proposed stair access. Just keep
in mind in the future, a couple years ago we had, the property
owner to the West, Storm Grace was the biggest issue as'to why
that came out, and moving forward, if you do need to do some
sort of stabilization at the base of the stairs like the
neighbor did, that could be addressed at that time.
MR. HAGAN: And, Mike, just so I'm clear, when I looked at the
two applications, I mean you have the one drawing that looks
like the staircase runs at the end of the right-of-way, and then
the drawing that I see up on the screen right now, page two of
the application, certainly makes it look like it's off the
right-of-way.
MR. KIMACK: I'll ask Young &Young to move it over. Because I
did have it that way before, and that's where they put it,
primarily.
MR. HAGAN: Just the way that one plan looks, is a little bit
deceptive. And if it's there for the benefit of the applicant
and people that have the right to use the right-of-way, you
should make that obvious in the description.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's reference the plans stamped received
February 6th, 2020.
MR. KIMACK: I'll get all three of the plans adjusted as we
discussed. As an observation, everybody on the Board, I want to
be quick, I know you must be exhausted. You are very familiar
with Soundview Avenue, basically, along that way. You are
dealing with that big bulkhead that was put in, everything was
eroded down, it was a high concrete wall, essentially like that,
by Costello, which was two over from the one that I did
recently, with the hardening and slopes and all the retaining
walls and seawall, et cetera, like that, which would be taken
out, et cetera, there is a staircase over there that I did about
four years ago, built exactly like this, and the erosion from
that property came within five feet of it and it didn't budge.
It stayed in place.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, very good.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: One'last comment. I would like to see this
non-disturbance be non-disturbance.
MR. KIMACK: As opposed to, quote, disturbance. I got your
message, Mike.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER:.Okay, hearing no further comments, li
move to table this application subject to submission of a new top down
project plan from, as purported that would be from Young &Young
that would show the location of this stairway, staircase the
i
1
1,
Board of Trustees 82 August 19, 2020
same as in the February stamped in the Trustee office February
6th, 2020, plan, and that additional amendments to the project
plan indicating terracing and jute as discussed, as well as the
addition of a low profile barrier landward limit of the 40-foot
non-disturbance buffer. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 14, 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 pressure treated; new/existing floating docks not
to rest upon bottom of creek; dock pole depth to be determined
by height of pole above grade; if height above grade is greater
than 10', dock pole depth below grade to be equal length to
height above grade; if height above grade is 10' or less, pole
depth to be 10' below grade min.
Located: 575 Hill Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-29
Can you pull up the field notes, Dianne, please. Thank you.
The initial was insufficient water depth and then to
warrant a float. And if you can go to the most recent. That was
the 9th of October. And then the most recent was the 11th of
March, at which point we reviewed the new plans we received, and
the notes were okay with the revised plans for fixed dock.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
And the LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent.
The inconsistency, I'll read as follows: In 1985 the Board
issued a Wetlands permit grandfathered for a dock. The current
dock configuration is not compliant with the permit.
As just a little background, as stated with the field
notes, the Trustees originally viewed this application, there
was an issue with it with regard to the water depth. It now is a
through-flow dock, with good distance across the channel to a
fixed platform at the end. With new plans received at the office
July 13th, 2020.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BELNIAK: At the moment there are no hands raised.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And are there any Trustee comments regarding
Board of Trustees 83 August 19, 2020
this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no comments, I make a motion to close this hearing.
MS. CANTRELL: Can I interrupt? Dennis Cole is online.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He might not want to talk to this application.
I mean, if he's not interested -- if he's interested, he could
raise his hand for it.
(No response).
Hearing no comments, I make a motion on close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith: Aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the new plans dated -- received in the office July 13th,
2020, and the new project description which reads as follows:
Existing dock to be rebuilt in place with modifications total
'length of dock to be plus or minus 52 linear feet. New 13.7'x4'
fixed ramp with through-flow decking to a 4'x6' above existing
grade leading to a plus or minus 6'x4' fixed pier with
through-flow leading to a plus or minus 32'x4' new fixed ramp
with through-flow to a new 4'x20' wood frame fixed dock with
through-flow decking, three-foot higher than spring than spring
high water, thereby bringing this application into consistency
with the LWRP coordinator. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
Number 15, Cole Environmental Consulting on behalf of MARIA
ULMET requests a Wetland Permit to install ±119' of new vinyl
low-sill bulkheading and 8" piles along mean high water as
indicated, and two (2) 8' returns at each end; existing piles to
remain; regrade bank to establish 1:2 slope and place rip-rap;
use bank material as bulkhead backfill (approx. 5 cubic yards);
excess material to be removed to an upland site as necessary;
install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf pervious
buffer composed of rock rip-rap along the landward edge of the
low-sill bulkhead; install silt fencing behind bulkhead; all
timber shall be pressure treated No. 2 southern pine and all
hardware shall be hot-dip galvanized; and all disturbed areas
outside low-sill bulkhead and rip-rap areas are to be reseeded
and mulched following completion of the construction activities.
Located: 4600 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-33
Board of Trustees 84 August 19, 2020
The Trustees performed a field inspection at this site
pre-March 11th, noting that the project seemed straightforward.
The LWRP found this proposed action to be inconsistent with
the LWRP, noting that new bulkheads in creeks and bays are
prohibited unless the operation involves construction of a low
sill bulkhead.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not review the
application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. BELNIAK: There are no hands raised at the moment.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: When reviewing the application in the field,
the plan that we had looked at, it did appear to be more
straightforward at the time.
There is also a letter in the file. I'll reference that
letter. Bear with me. August 17th, 2020, we did receive a
letter from Robert Whelan, a neighboring property. It's a
lengthy letter. It is in the file. But he had a couple of
questions. Basically questioning a low sill bulkhead. The plans
show 8" diameter piles projecting four feet above the low sill
bulkhead. And he had a concern with the project going under his
dock on his property. The letter is in the file if anybody else
wishes to review it.
At work session, after reviewing the letter and reviewing
the notes from the LWRP and taking a closer look at the plans,
it doesn't really appear to be a low sill bulkhead. And I'll
let some of the other Trustees add to what I'm saying.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Well, by definition, it's not low sill because
the side elevation shows it is not flooded at high tide.
Accordingly -- yes, that's the diagram. So according the code,
it's not a low sill bulkhead and is prohibited in this location.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And based on the project plan it's not
flooded at spring high water, so I guess it would be only a low
sill during extreme storms and maybe hurricanes.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I see have a hand raised, neighboring property
owner.
MR. KRUDOP: Good evening, gentleman. My name is Robert Krudop.
We originally proposed a low sill bulkhead, as everybody
suggested, and we got shot down by Suffolk County. It seems that
the land underneath the canal has been deeded over to the Parks
Department and where it should have went to you folks. And they
said we can't touch anything below the mean high water mark.
That's why we bought the, I consider more of a toe guard,
because it's no longer a low sill bulkhead, because the rock, I
guess the 14 years that we've had success with the rip-rap on my
property, the only, I guess the only except, the rock started to
sluff off at the very bottom into the canal. That's why we are
looking to just hold the base of that. And that's what this
structure is. But the cross-sectional drawing should have been
updated. Cole was supposed to submit new ones to Elizabeth, and
the sheathing isn't nearly eight feet. They were going to
Board of Trustees 85 August 19, 2020
eliminate the pilings, and if they were going to have a piling
in the front, that had to go through Engineering. They were not
going to be raised above that level. There was no need to, in
length. And the sheathing was only to be about four foot. Just
to hold the toe from falling' in, the toe of the rip rap from
falling into the creek from continued erosion.
Does that make sense to you folks?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I understand what you are saying.
MR. KRUDOP: Is there any more to the submittal that you have?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, I think with regard to the, we basically,
as it stands we would not be able to permit this in because it
is a bulkhead. So if you were to just lower in location and
slightly change the grade of the property going landward, I
think you can still accomplish a low sill, which would legally
allow to us approve something of that nature.
MR. KRUDOP: Can you go back? I got cut off.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you know where you got cut off? Do you want
me to repeat the whole thing?
MR. KRUDOP: If you don't mind.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. Legally, as it not being a low sill,
it's essentially, it would be, even though it is very low, we
would have to look at that as a regular bulkhead, and we would
not, we are legally obligated to deny that. But if you were able
to lower that to an appropriate low sill, and do a slight
regrading, you know, on the property going landward, that would
be something that we could, you know, approve going forward. But
as it stands, that is unfortunately not legal.
MR. KRUDOP: I have Dennis on the phone. He's on my phone right
now, and he can't get through on your website to explain it.
But he has the plans.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is it Dennis Cole?
MR. KRUDOP: Yes, it is Dennis Cole.
MR. BELNIAK: Dennis Cole is here. He just has not raised his
hand to speak.
Dennis -- I can permit Dennis to speak. It's not that he
can't get through. This is a webinar format. We permit people
to speak. I can open up Dennis' mic, if you prefer.
MR. KRUDOP: He would love to.
MR. BELNIAK: Dennis, I'll send a command for you to open up your
mic, and the floor is yours. You have to un-mute your mic first,
Dennis.
MR. COLE: Can you hear me?
MR. BELNIAK: Yes, we can.
MR. COLE: Thank goodness. I was hitting *9 hundreds of times.
MR. BELNIAK: *9 is if you are on a telephone, sir.
MR. COLE:,(Laughing). You didn't specify that.
MR. BELNIAK: Yes, we did, earlier. You just need to use the
"raise your hand"feature on the bottom of the Zoom.
MR. COLE: Okay. I didn't see that. Okay. So speaking for Mr.
Krudop, I have, we read the Waterfront's opinion. Subsequently
I contacted the engineer, I have revised plans showing the top
Board of Trustees 86 August 19, 2020
of the low sill bulkhead at mean high water, so between mean
high water and high water, the water will go over it and meet
your standards.
And I can, I just got them today, as a matter of fact, so I
can actually forward them to the Trustees for review. I have it
for Mr. Krudop and I have it for Mrs. Ulmet, and we can, I think
that should meet your standards at that point.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So at this point would you like to request
that we table this?
MR. COLE: Yes, please.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I want to just throw it out there so this
doesn't get pushed back another month. There was some discussion
and, you know, I'll sort of leave this up to you, Dennis, but it
doesn't necessarily seem like the entire area needs to be
rip-rapped. You know, it is a pretty quiet creek and possibly
it's something that if we do low sill on both of these
properties maybe the rest can just be filled in naturally with
planting. It would probably save the homeowners a little bit of
money and, you know, accomplish what we want to accomplish as
well.
MR. KRUDOP: Not unless you raise the toe of the bulkhead, it's
not going to work.
MR. COLE: So getting back to that, some of the areas are, you
know, quite eroding. Ms. Ulmet's property, I don't know if we
can talk about that at this point, but--
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: We are beyond Ulmet's application.
MR. COLE: Okay. So Ulmet's property is eroding quite
substantially. I checked the soils in the area. It's really
kind of like the soils maps the USG soils maps indicate that
it's an area that was either filled in the past, there is
obviously some sort of cut and fill going on, and the soils are
relatively poor. The experience, and we did say this in our
application, that the experience of the homeowners in past
plantings, they had great difficulty in getting things to grow
there,just because of the amount of wildlife that utilize the
creek area. And that was why they basically selected the rip-rap.
The rip-rap has been successful. That's why they basically
want to continue it. Not to say that, you know, over time,
things can grow up through rip-rap. It doesn't mean it
necessarily won't happen. I have seen it happen in the past as
well. So I would just like to offer that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess the question is would not, let's say
very small coir logs or jute matting with plantings, I don't
know if you are aware of this, where basically the toe
protection would stabilize the materials, and then the fineness
of the jute matting would tend to capture some of the leavings
of the critters inhabiting there and provide natural 'nitrogen
that would support Spartina.
I believe Trustee Krupski brought up the issue of the rip-rap
for this discussion. It just looks out of place and looks
like something for kids or adults to trip and bruise their knees
Board of Trustees- 87 August 19, 2020
on. At the same time, it's not providing any real, you know,
environmental benefits. Questionable esthetics. I'm not into
that, you know,just my thoughts.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Would it make sense at next field inspection
to meet onsite with Mr. Cole, Mr. Krudop and Mrs. Ulmet?
MR. COLE: I would be happy to do that.
Rob?
MR. KRUDOP: Yes. Absolutely.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: And then we can look at the revised plans as
well onsite and talk about what more possibilities there would
be other than rip-rap
MR. KRUDOP: Sure.
MR. COLE: Sure, that's fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If I can add to that, too. I'm concerned
about what the state of the art is with respect to low sill
bulkheads and the elevations over mean high water, over or below
mean high water that improve their functionality. Because it
would seem the slopes here don't have to be that extreme, that we
want to have a fully functional fringe as we could. It seems if
the bulkhead were at the mean high water mark and usual tides
are not going over it, we simply have blessed another bulkhead
in this location. It seems to me it should be lower than the mean
high water mark by a certain amount. At least that is what my own
experience in the past has been.
MR. COLE: Well, the initial application actually was factually
put the low sill bulkhead out at mean low water, and actually do
some plantings, and then on the upland portion put the rip-rap.
But the County of Suffolk owns the bottom and would not allow
any work to occur on their bottom.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Did you have that in writing?
MR. COLE: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Was that through Mr. Gibbons?
MR. COLE: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because the history of some of these creeks
was that it was, that it's been a small Trustee creek and then
for whatever reason people tried to claim ownership and then
variously failed to pay taxes on it. But it's unfortunate that
there seems to be a lack of knowledge on his part of low sill
bulkheads.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is it clear where the property line is with
these properties? The homeowners don't own out into the creek
at all?
MR. COLE: No. Basically the alignment,of the low sill is
basically one foot landward of the property line so it's not to
interfere with Suffolk County Parks owned bottom.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, because if they have been losing property
for some time now, I would have to imagine some of their
property is underwater.
MR. COLE: Some of it is defined by meets and bounds rather than
the tide line along mean high water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone else know what I'm saying?
r
Board of Trustees 88 August 19, 2020
(Affirmative response).
MR. KRUDOP: Am I still able to talk?
MR. BELNIAK: Yes.
MR. KRUDOP: Some of the properties, it varies depending what
lot is along the canal. Like in my instance, it has an unobstructed
use of the canal. On Ms. Ulmet, she owns to the center line
thereof, and I believe Mary owns to the center line thereof, as
well. It varies from lot to lot. But the surveyor dictated on
mine that my property actually goes with the, I guess the mean
high water mark, which would put my neighbor's dock over my
property. His ramp. As you see in the survey. Robert Whelan,
the man that wrote the paperwork in.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Right.
Okay, I think it makes sense to meet onsite to discuss both
of these applications in person and get a fresh sense of exactly
the conditions there.
MR. KRUDOP: When are we talking about that?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: That would be Wednesday, September 9th.
Typically we get to Mattituck somewhere after lunch, somewhere
in the neighborhood of 1:00 to 3:00.
MR. KRUDOP between one and three.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Yes. That's very vague, but, yes. We start at
8:00 AM and we work our way to Orient along the north shore, and
then we work back to Laurel along the south shore.
MR. KRUDOP: Would it be possible to text if you are like 45
minutes away, or something like that?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Sure, what you would want to do is communicate
with the office the morning of that or the day before that, to
make sure we have your phone number and we can definitely call
both of you. and Mr. Krudop, if you wish an hour, 45 minutes, half
hour before we get to the site.
MR. KRUDOP: Wonderful. Thank you. Very good.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Does anyone else have any further questions
(Negative response).
At this point you would like to have this tabled, Mr. Cole?
MR. COLE: Yes, please.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 16, Cole Environmental Consulting on
behalf of ROBERT KRUDOP requests a Wetland Permit to install
±131' of new vinyl low-sill bulkheading and 8" piles along mean
high water as indicated, and an 8' return at south end; existing
piles, dock, ramp, and float to remain; regrade bank to
establish 1:2 slope and place rip-rap; use bank material as
Board of Trustees 89 August 19, 2020
backfill (approx. 50 cubic yards); excess material to be removed
to an upland site as necessary; install and perpetually maintain
a 10' wide non-turf pervious buffer composed of rock rip-rap
along the landward edge of the low-sill bulkhead; install silt
fencing behind bulkhead; all timber shall be pressure treated
No. 2 southern pine; all hardware to be hot-dip galvanized; and
all disturbed areas outside the low-sill bulkhead and rip-rap
areas are to be reseeded and mulched following completion of the
construction activities.
Located: 4650 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-34
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. It does not comply
with Article Two, Permits, 275-11 Construction and Operation
Standards, bulkhead in creeks and bays are prohibited, unless
the operation involves the construction of low sill bulkhead.
And that structure does not meet the definition of low sill.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not do an inspection,
therefore they made no recommendation.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection March 11th, at
the time noting the project was straightforward. Changed upon
work session. And also have the same letter in the file from
Robert Whelan, objecting to it.
Based on the comments from our previous application, Mr.
Cole, do you want to table this application as well and meet out
in the field?
MR. COLE: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding
this application?
(Negative response).
I'll,make a motion to table this application at the applicant's
request.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
X. PUBLIC HEARING RESOLUTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Last but not least. Roman numeral X. Public hearings.
1. WHEREAS, there has been presented to the Town Board of Trustees of the Town of
Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 12th day of February, 2020, a desire to
close certain waters within several creeks in the Town of Southold now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED that the Town Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold will hold a public
hearing on the aforesaid resolution at Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold,
New York, on the 16th day of September, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. at which time all interested
persons will be given an opportunity to'be heard.
Board of Trustees 90 August 19, 2020
BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold as
follows:
I. Purpose
The purpose of this proposed closure is to preserve our natural recourses and shell
fisheries to allow for replenishment and growth.
II. Amendment
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees in an effort to preserve our a
natural recourses and shell fisheries hereby designates the following waters a restricted
area pursuant to Chapter 219-16 (Shellfish) of the Code of the Town of Southold where
shell fishing shall not be permitted for the years 2020 and 2021:
The waters of Richmond Creek in the Hamlet of Southold located within the following
boundary:
North of an imaginary line commencing from a point at a painted yellow 4"x4" stake
located at 410 2' 2.29" North 72' 26' 49.94"West running eastward to a point at a
painted yellow 4"x4" stake located at 410 2' 3.29" North 720 26' 39.11"West; and
The waters of Corey Creek in the Hamlet of Southold located within the following
boundary:
East of an imaginary line commencing at a painted yellow 4"x4" stake located at 41' 2'
13.18" North 720 25' 13.70" West running southward to a painted yellow 4"x4" stake at a
point located at 410 2' 1.52" North 720 264.40"West; and
The waters of Broadwaters Cove in the Hamlet of Cutchogue located within the following
boundary:
South of an imaginary line commencing at a painted yellow 4"x4" stake located at 41° 0'
43.36" North 720 27' 11.38"West running eastward to a painted yellow 4"x4" stake at a
point located at 41° 0' 48.36" North 720 26' 51.86"West.
III. SEVERABILITY
If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this resolution shall be adjudged
by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not affect the
validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be
unconstitutional or invalid.
IV. EFFECTIVE DATE
This shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Town Clerk as provided by law.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That's my motion.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll second that motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
Board of Trustees 91 August 19, 2020
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Trustee Goldsmith: Aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Trustee Williams, aye.
pectfull u fitted
'4
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees