The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-09/16/2020 Glenn Goldsmith,President Of so Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 Michael J.Domino �® �® P.O.Box 1179 John M.Bredemeyer III Southold,New York 11971 A.Nicholas Krupski Telephone (631) 765-1892 Greg Williams �°® �® Fax(631) 765-6641 COU BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECEIVED TOWN OF SOUTHOLD r! le OCT 2 0 2020 C. :l5�►� Minutes &- Wednesday, September 16, 2020 So hold 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 Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, October 14, 2020, at 5:30 PM via Zoom online platform, and on Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 5:30 PM via Zoom online platform WORKSESSION: Friday, October 9, 2020, at 5:00 PM via Zoom online platform, on Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 5:00 PM via Zoom online platform, on Monday, October 26, 2020, at 5:00 PM via Zoom online platform APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of August 19, 2020 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Good evening and welcome to our Wednesday, September 16th, 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). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll start off by announcing the people on the dais, or the screen. To my left is Trustee Domino. To his left is Trustee Bredemeyer. We have to the right Trustee Krupski, Trustee Williams. To my right is Assistant Town Attorney Damon Hagan. On the dais is Senior Clerk Typist Elizabeth Cantrell, and we also have with us Court Stenographer Wayne Galante. Agendas for tonight's meeting are posted on the Town's website. We have a number of postponements tonight. In the agenda on page nine, we have: Number three, 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 T wide by 147' long stairs off top retaining wall to area between two retaining walls; construct a 5'x4' cantilevered platform with 3'wide by 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 14, we have number 18: En-Consultants on behalf of BEACHWOOD ROAD 22, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing two-story dwelling and appurtenances; construct a new 1,650 sq. ft. two-story dwelling (inclusive of a 139 sq. ft. entry porch with second story above it), with a 350 sq. ft. attached waterside deck, partially covered with a 137 sq. ft. trellis and 3.5'wide, 89 sq. ft. steps to grade; construct 174 sq. ft. and 532 sq. ft. pervious on-grade patios and a 8.5'x8.4' outdoor shower screened with wood walls; install a 280 sq. ft. pervious gravel driveway, masonry steps/curbs, and stepping stone paths; remove existing septic system and install a new I/A OWTS/sanitary system; install a drainage system of leaching galley drywells; and truck in approximately 85 cubic yards of fill material to achieve proposed elevations. Located: 545 Beachwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-116-4-22 On page 15 we have numbers 19 through 22. They are listed as follows: Number 19, L.K. McLean Associates, P.C. on behalf of MATTITUCK PARK DISTRICT requests a Wetland Permit to demolish one building (148 sq. ft. yellow shed), and to construct a new 250 sq. ft. comfort station for those residents and tourists utilizing the park/beach which will include a conventional foundation, ADA accessible walkways, a new sanitary manhole with pump, electric/water service from pavilion, and restoration proposed to disturbed areas using native beach grass. Located: Veterans Memorial Park, 11280 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-126-6-18 Number 20, 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 Board of Trustees- 2 September 16, 2020 indicated, and two (2) 8' returns at each end; existing piles to remain; regrade bank to establish 1:2 slope and place riprap; 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 riprap 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 riprap areas are to be reseeded and mulched following completion of the construction activities. Located: 4600 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-33 Number 21, 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 riprap; 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 riprap 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 riprap areas are to be reseeded and mulched following completion of the construction activities. Located: 4650 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-34 Number 22, 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 riprap 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 riprap landward of the low-sill bulkhead; and all disturbed areas outside the low-sill bulkhead and riprap 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 On page 16 we have numbers 23 through 26, listed as follows: Number 23, Paul Pawlowski on behalf of TIMOTHY McMANUS requests a Wetland Permit to install a 15'x25' in-ground swimming pool; pool safety fencing; and a 100' long retaining wall. Located: 7725 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-4-5 Number 24, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of Board of Trustees 3 September 16,2020 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 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 25, Michael Kimack on behalf of JONATHAN REBELL & NOAH LEVINE requests a Wetland Permit to construct bluff stairs at 65'10" in length 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 Number 26, 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' Board of Trustees 4 September 16,2020 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 On page 17, we have numbers 27 through 31: Number 27, 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 rooftop 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 Number 28, SU11 architecture + design on behalf of JEFFREY &ANCA LEMLER requests a Wetland Permit.to install a new sand beach area on top of existing ground in a 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 Number 29, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of PETER & DIANA O'NEILL requests a Wetland Permit to clear underbrush, saplings and dead leaf matter along existing bluff area; install two (2) drywells in the driveway (6' diameter by 6' deep), to capture all driveway runoff.prior to overflowing bluff and connected to roof leaders to capture roof runoff. _ ' Located: 5875 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-1-1.3 Number 30, 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. Board of Trustees 5 September 16,2020 Located: 7230 Skunk Lane (At Corner of Oak Drive and Hickory Drive), Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-6-10.1 Number 31, 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. And on page 18, we have number 32, 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 Under Town Code 275-8(c), files were officially closed seven days ago. Submission of any paperwork after that date may result in a delay of the processing ofthe application. At this time I'll make a motion to have our next field inspection Wednesday, October 7th, at 8:00 AM. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold the next Trustee meeting Wednesday, October 14th, 2020, at 5:30 PM, via Zoom . online platform, and on Wednesday, October 28th, 2020, at 5:30 PM, via Zoom online platform. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next work sessions Friday October 9th, 2020, at, 5:00 PM via Zoom online platform and on Wednesday October 14th, 2020, at 5:00 PM via Zoom online platform. On Monday, October 26th, 2020, at 5:00 PM, via Zoom online platform, and again on Wednesday, October,28, 2020, at 5:00 PM, via Zoom online platform. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All those all those in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of August 19th, 2020 meeting. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. Board of Trustees 6 September 16, 2020 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for August 2020. A check for$2,638.35 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: 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 JULIA ERLICH & DENIS MAKSYMOWICZ; Located: 1435 Demarest Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-13-2-7.9 TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Number two, RESOLVED, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, hereby declare itself Lead Agency in regards to the application of SAMUEL J. DiMEGLIO, JR. Located: 2280 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-4-6 TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral V, State Environment Quality Reviews: Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds the following applications more fully described in Section IX Public Hearing section Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, September 16, 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: Kendall Todd SCTM# 1000-37-5-3 Jeffrey & Carol P. Oak SCTM# 1000-80-3-14 Isle of Cedars, LLC SCTM# 1000-32-1-8 The James Putnam Latham Qualified Personal Residence Trust, c/o James P. Latham, Trustee SCTM# 1000-32-1-12.2 Philip Lim SCTM# 1000-50-1-1 Megaloop Equities, LLC SCTM# 1000-90-2-17 Beachwood Road 22, LLC SCTM# 1000-116-4-22 13350 New Suffolk Avenue, LLC SCTM# 1000-116-6-20.2 Annie O'Brien & Jennifer Marino SCTM# 1000-116-6-24.1 Board of Trustees 7 September 16, 2020 Yana & Rahul Kakar SCTM# 1000-112-1-14 David Schwartz SCTM# 1000-90-4-5.1 Kathy Katona SCTM# 1000-43-5-3 Brion Lewis & Leslie Simitch SCTM# 1000-40-1-8 Barry Root SCTM# 1000-86-6-20 Mattituck Park District SCTM# 1000-126-6-18 Panayiotis & Panagiota Basios SCTM# 1000-94-1-12.2 Gordon Lau & Mamie Chiang SCTM# 1000-70-5-17 Stephen and Amy Licata SCTM# 1000-144-5-13 Christa Brown SCTM# 1000-45-6-6 Richard Liebowitz & Consuelo Prol SCTM# 1000-70-10-59 Timothy McManus SCTM# 1000-118-4-5 Arthur& Gwen Pier SCTM# 1000-99-3-18 Erika C. & Christopher P. Wershoven SCTM# 1000-122-4-19 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Sedion IX Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, September 16, 2020, are classified as Unlisted Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations: Julia Erlich & Denis Maksymowicz SCTM# 1000-13-2-7.9 Samuel J. DiMeglio, Jr. SCTM# 1000-123-4-6 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That's my motion TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VI ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO NEW YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT NYCCR PART 617: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VI, number one, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of JULIA ERLICH & DENIS MAKSYMOWICZ requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct 117' of 1.5 to 3-ton rock and coir log revetment; reconstruct existing lower platform and stairway to beach, in-place; re-contour 100' of top edge of bluff and construct new berm; install jute matting and terracing boards in eroded areas down bluff; place fill from i re-contoured_areas as backfill behind 'terracing boards; revegetate slope with native plantings. Located: 1435 Demarest Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-13-2-7.9 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE: WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with .this project having visited the site on August 11, 2020, and having considered the survey of property by Fox Land Surveying Board of Trustees 8 September 16, 2020 last dated June 28, 2019, and having considered the plans for this proposed project submitted by Costello Marine Contracting Corp. Last dated February 5, 2020 at the Trustee's September 14, 2020 work session, and WHEREAS on September 16, 2020 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2020 the Southold Town Board of Trustees classified the application as an unlisted action under S.E.Q.R.A., and WHEREAS, in reviewing project plans submitted by Costello Marine -Contracting Corp. Last dated February,5, 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 bluff alone. Protection of the toe of bluff using hardened structures including rock revetments is necessary. No existing rocks or boulders are to be utilized, moved, or relocated on the beach. As time progresses, continued soil loss at the toe of the bluff may lead to habitat degradation and bluff instability. A site inspection by the Southold Town Board of Trustees recognized erosion on this property and the need for a bluff stabilization/erosion control plan. THEREFORE, 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. And Dennis makes'mow wits. As written in the agenda. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number two, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of SAMUEL J. DiMEGLIO, JR. requests a Wetland Permit to install a 4'x50' wood chip path on grade through the buffer area leading to a 4'x8' stairs; 4'x120' fixed catwalk utilizing Thru-Flow decking which will be constructed at 5' above the grade of marsh; 2.5'x10' ramp; a 6'x20' floating dock secured by four(4) 10' diameter piles; and install four(4) 10" diameter tie-off piles. Located: 2280 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-4-6 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE: WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with this project having visited the site on August 11, 2020, and having considered the survey of Michael K. Wicks Land Surveying Board of Trustees 9 September 16, 2020 last dated September 17, 2019 and having considered the plans for this proposed project submitted by AM Weber Associates, LLC dated March 7, 2019 with hydrological data at the Trustee's September 14, 2020 work session; and, WHEREAS, on September 16, 2020 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and, WHEREAS, on September 16, 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 project plans submitted by AM Weber Associates, LLC dated March 7, 2019 with hydrological data it has been determined by the Board of Trustees that all potentially significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein: Navigation: The proposed dock meets standards and does not extend beyond 1/3 across the water body. Depths for the dock terminus are 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 catwalk 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 KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). 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 three, four, six and seven. They are listed as follows: Number three, DAVID & BARBARA HAZARD request an Administrative Permit to abandon and fill in the existing Board of Trustees 10 September 16,2020 sanitary system and install a new Innovative/Alternative Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (I/A OWTS). Located: 1465 Harbor Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# : 1000-103-2-1.1 Number four, Vincent Benic Architect LLC on behalf of THOMAS & MAE MAURI requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 167"long x 47'wide concrete stair from basement which runs from grade to approximately 7' deep with guard rail installed. Located: 1135 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-63-7-33 Number six, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of THOMAS B. SHEARMAN, III requests an Administrative Permit to construct a deck facing Block Island Sound which is 12'x40' and on the opposite side of the house 4.6'x16' with a 4'x4.6' set of stairs. Located: 1721 Wilderness Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-12-2-14.1 Number seven, AMP Architecture on behalf of JAMES HOWELL & ANTHONY TARTAGLIA requests an Administrative Permit for the removal of existing 99.2 sq. ft screened-in porch at bungalow. Located: 55255 North Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44-1-9 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under item number one, Samuels & Steelman, Architects on behalf of JONATHAN BABKOW& MARIA RUBIN requests an Administrative Permit to remove eight (8) trees and miscellaneous shrubs; plant new trees and shrubs. Located: 360 Private Road #8, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-23-1-18.1 This project has been deemed to be inconsistent by the Town's LWRP, in that the prior permit the Board of Town Trustees issued for the construction of a new home on this site did require both a non-disturbance zone and a non-turf area. There is, the inconsistency draws from the fact that there is one tree that is slated to be removed, which is an invasive, non-indigenous tree that falls within the non-disturbance zone. The project plan, it was requested of the Trustees during the first inspection to submit a formal planting plan. The formal planting plan does indicate-all other trees were ribboned when I performed the inspection on September 2nd, and whereas the one tree to be removed would be a one-time removal of an invasive tree; I would move to approve this application pursuant to the planting plan submitted by Samuels & Steelman Architects dated July 13th, 2020, whereby removal of the one invasive plant and meeting the terms and conditions of the planting plan will bring this project into consistency. That's my motion to approve. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number two, STANLEY&ALEXIS GRODSKI Request an Administrative Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit Board of Trustees 11 September 16, 2020 to hand-cut Common Reed (Phragmites australis) to no less than 12" in height by hand, as needed; and to remove Poison Ivy. Located: 2600 Grathwohl Road, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-1-2 The LWRP found this to be consistent. would like to make a motion to approve this application with the condition of a one-year inspection and contingent on that one-year inspection, if everything is in order, then they can have the full ten-year`permit. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. CANTRELL: Can I interrupt. Alan is letting me know they are having trouble hearing us. It happens to the Town Board all the time. It appears these microphones are not properly working, so you'll need to speak louder because there is another microphone in the room that is picking you up, and because it's at a further distance than these microphones,just remember to talk a little louder and slower so the audience can hear you. Because Alan is saying you are a little tough to hear at times. MR. BELNIAC: The one I like to use is just pretend you are talking to your grandmother. Just use that kind of a voice. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of STEPHEN MERKLE & ERIKA SHALETTE requests an Administrative Permit to remove existing 6'x8' shed and install new 8'x12' shed 10' farther landward; reconfigure existing stone retaining wall to allow for placement of new shed by removing approximately 14 If and constructing approximately 32 If of new stone retaining wall around three sides of shed; install 11'x14' grade-level masonry/stone-paver patio landward of bulkhead; install 3' wide stone-paver walkway between new shed and patio; maintain existing 10' wide non-turf buffer adjacent to bulkhead. Located: 1800 Little Peconic Bay Road a/k/a 3700 Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-111-14-20 This property was most recently visited yesterday and it was determined that everything was mostly straightforward, but it would be more appropriate to have everything seaward of the stone wall, which is about doubling the size of the non-turf buffer. So my motion is to approve this application with the stipulation of new plans depicting a non-turf buffer seaward of the stone masonry wall. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). VII. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VIII, Applications for Extensions, Transfers, Administrative Amendments. Again, in order to simplify our meeting, I'll make a motion to approve as a group items one through 12. They are listed as Board of Trustees 12 September'16, 2020 follows: Number one, Docko, Inc, on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND FERRY DISTRICT c/o GEB COOK GENERAL MGR, requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#9339 and Coastal Erosion Permit#9339C, as issued on November 14, 2018. Located: Ferry Channel from Fishers Island Sound into Silver Eel Cove, Fishers Island. SCTM#1000-12-1-10 Number two, Docko, Inc., on behalf of R.B. BURNHAM III requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#9400, as issued on March 20, 2019. Located: Right of Way off Peninsula Road, Fishers Island. SCTM#1000-10-4-10 Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of JEFFREY & CAROL P. OAK requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#5215 from Gilbert E. Pinkham to Jeffrey & Carol P. Oak, as issued on September 22, 2000. Located: 155 Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-80-3-14 Number four, HOWARD & LISA KOFF request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#9440 from Linda D. Bertani to Howard & Lisa Koff, as issued on April 17, 2019. Located: 1380 Oakwood Drive, Southold. SCTM#1000-70-12-32 Number five, HENRY & MARY PAT MULHOLLAND request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#8367 from John & Sarah Henry to Henry & Mary Pat Mulholland, as issued on February 19, 2014. Located: 2440 Village Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-1-17.1 Number six, WBL and Associates, LLC on behalf of VIRGINIA A. BONTJE requests a Last One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit#8943, as issued on January 18, 2017 and for an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8943 for the reduction in size of the seaward side patio to 249 sq. ft. in lieu of the previously approved 353 sq. ft.; the relocation of stairs from the deck to patio eastward to be adjacent to the house in lieu of the previously approved location; the installation of two (2) 6'dia.x2'deep drainage rings in lieu of previously approved French drains; the construction of a 42 sq. ft. pad for an aboveground propane tank to be located east of the shed; the construction of a 37 sq. ft. pad for the generator/ac unit to be located at the northeastern corner of the house. Located: 805 Island View Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-57-2-23 Number seven, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of JOHN & DANIELLE VENETIS requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9525 for 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 Number eight, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of ROBERT & KIM CAGNAZZI requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9560 to include a closed loop geothermal system; 4'x8' Board of Trustees 13 September 16, 2020 concrete pool equipment apron to be screened with hedge; installation of two (2) additional drywells and relocation of three (3) drywells pursuant to Town Code Chapter 236. Located: 12700 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-116-6-14 Number nine, CHRIS CYPRUS requests an Administrative Amendment to Administrative Permit#9660A to increase the raised generator platform to 6'x7' in lieu of the previously approved 4'x5' platform, alongside existing A/C units on side of house. Located: 1100 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck. SCTM#1000-99-1-4.2 Number ten, SAMUEL J. DiMEGLIO, JR., requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9454 for the construction/installation of a 4'x20' concrete slab for the generator/air-conditioner. Located: 2280 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-4-6 Number eleven, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of CHOCOMOUNT COVE PARTNERS, LLC c/o ELIZABETH C. CALLANDER requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #9524 for the installation of a 6'x8' outdoor shower. Located: 12244 East Main Road, Fishers Island. SCTM#'-1000-3-2-6 Number 12, Young &Young on behalf of ROBINSON ELIODROMYTIS requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9307 and Coastal Erosion Permit#9307C for the as-built 4'x4' outdoor shower and split rail fence approximately 96' long x 32 inches in height which runs along the eastern boundary line of the property. Located: 600 Leeton Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-1-7 TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral IX Public Hearings, 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? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a public hearing in the matter of the following applications for permits under the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold. I have an affidavit of publication from the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may be read prior to asking for comments from the public. Please keep your comments organized and brief, five minutes or less if possible. AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, under Amendments, En-Consultants on behalf of JEFFREY & CAROL P. OAK requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#5215 for the existing 3'x9' ramp and 6'x16' floating dock secured by two (2) 8"-10" diameter pilings. Located: 155 Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-80-3-14 Board of Trustees 14 September 16, 2020 This most recent inspection by the Trustees was inhouse, done on September 9th, and the notes indicate the application is straightforward. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application unanimously on meeting September 9th. The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency arises from the fact that the structure was not built to permitted specifications. Additionally) visited the site today for a separate final inspection and noticed that the dock in question,-the float in question, is actually smaller than what we usually allow, that is 6'x20'. Therefore this application is straightforward. I would make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any comment from the public? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I withdraw that second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any comments or questions from the Board? MS. CANTRELL: Rob, I'll put you on to allow you to talk. MR. HERRMANN: I don't have anything to add to what Mike just noted. I just wanted to let you know I was here on behalf of the applicants, and again, the intention of the modification is to allow the existing dock specifications to match the original permit. They are just a little bit different from one another. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted, noting that it will address the inconsistency. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number two under amendments, Michael Chuisano on behalf of KENDALL TODD requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#9503 for the demolition of existing 1,479.5 sq. ft. 2-1/2 story dwelling and remove damaged foundation, and to construct a new two-story, single family dwelling keeping the exact same footprint; first floor to have 1,479.5 sq. ft of living space with 235 sq. ft. deck; second floor to have 786.2 sq. ft of living space with 45 sq. ft. deck. Located: 670 Bayview Drive, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-37-5-3 This project previously had been granted a Wetland Permit for a second-story addition at which time the Trustees had requested that non-turf areas seaward of the bulkheads on the property be included in the permit, which they were. In performing the field inspection on September 14th, I noted that one of the non-turf areas had needed to be expanded and added to the plans. Board of Trustees 15 September 16, 2020 In addition, the project has been deemed to be exempt under the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council had supported the application with the installation of gutters, leaders and drywells and an innovative alternative wastewater treatment system, and that the sanitary system be depicted on the survey. In conformity with that was also a recommendation of an IA system by the LWRP coordinator, and also as a result of the Trustee work session Monday evening, where we had indicated we wanted to have an IA system received in the Trustee office is a conforming plan that includes all the buffers the Board had asked for previously in the prior permit. And the plans stamped September 16th, 2020, indicates the area of an IA system for which they have a current application pending with the Health Department for which they have on the Building Department plans currently waiting in the Building Department. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MS. CANTRELL: I do have both the property owner and the permit expediter I see listening in. In case they don't know how to -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The application and the request of the Board have all been met. All the requests of the LWRP coordinator and the Conservation Advisory Council have been met in that we do have the drainage drywells on the plan and the septic. So it's in conformity with all prior Board actions and requests. So if they are having trouble getting in -- MS. CANTRELL: I'll allow Mr. Chuisano to talk, if he would like to. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Absolutely. Mr. Chuisano or Kendall Todd, absolutely. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did we go over, for anyone who might be new to Zoom, how to raise your hand or anything like that? MR. BELNIAC: I could help with that, if you'd like. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you would not mind giving the attendees a run through on that. MR. BELNIAC: Sure thing. As if on queue, here we go. For those of you new to Zoom, there is a row buttons down below. There should be one that looks like someone is giving you a high five. That's to raise your hand. That sends a signal to us that you would like to speak. So what that means is when the time is right, perhaps in this hearing right here, we can send a command to un- mute your microphone, and when you do so, your microphone is open just like ours and you'll have an opportunity to speak. For those of you dialing in by telephone you can also send in a raise hand command as well. That's *9. We'll see that as well. And we can take you off mute when the time is right. And also, I'm not sure, are we accepting comments on the Q&A as well? I can't remember. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Anybody that wishes to speak. MR. BELNIAC: Okay, so if you wish to speak, start by raising your hand and Elizabeth will, I'll partner with her to manage bringing you on and off-mute. Board of Trustees 16 September 16, 2020 MS. CANTRELL: Michael, I think you are already off mute, if you want to say something. , MR. CHUISANO: Good evening. This is Michael Chuisano. Today I did in fact drop off the documents that were required, about 12:45. And they were physically in file. So I guess everything is up to par at this point. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Absolutely. We are in possession of all materials that the Board has requested. Thank you, very much. MR. CHUISANO: My pleasure. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? (Negative response). Hearing no further comments or concerns, I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Accordingly, I make a motion to approve this application as submitted, in accordance with a set of stamped engineering plans.dated in the Trustees office September 16th, 2020. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under Wetland &Coastal Erosion Permits, number one, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of JULIA ERLICH & DENIS MAKSYMOWICZ requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct 117' of 1.5 to 3-ton rock and coir log revetment; reconstruct existing lower platform and stairway to beach, in-place; re-contour 100' of top edge of bluff and construct new berm; install jute matting and terracing boards in eroded areas down bluff; place fill from re-contoured areas as backfill behind terracing boards; revegetate slope with native plantings. Located: 1435 Demarest Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-13-2-7.9 The Trustees most recently visited the property on the 9th of September. They noted that it was a continuation and straightforward of an existing neighboring revetment. 'The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application, but noted it recommends a ten to 15-foot non-turf buffer. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this- application? MR. BELNIAC:'Looks like we've got one hand raised. MS. CANTRELL: Can you hear us? MR. BELNIAC: Costello Marine Contracting, you have been taken off mute. The floor is,yours. So Costello Marine Contracting, we can see you un-muted Board of Trustees 17 September 16, 2020 yourself, which is great. We just can't hear you at the moment. Okay, I'm not sure if you can perhaps try a different audio device or maybe enter your comment in the Q&A, but we can't hear you at the moment. MS. CANTRELL: They'll call in. They don't know why it's not working. MR. BELNIAC: Thank you, for letting us know that. Members of the Board, this may take upwards of a minute or so. I don't know if there is anything else you need to discuss or if we have to pause until this person dials in. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just one thing that when we reviewed the plans, and that's why I would like to talk to Costello Marine, but it appears there is only a five-foot non-turf buffer along the top there. So I mean, it's a reasonable amount of property there. I think we should make that ten. That seems to really be the only -- TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Other than that it's similar frontage as further east, but there is a lot of erosion at the top of the bluff. So the more protection we give it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, I think that is more of an appropriate amount. MS. CANTRELL: We're still waiting. Okay, phone number ending 2700, I'll ask you to un-mute. Alan, if you can help me, I don't know how to -- MR. BELNIAC: No problem. You should not give an audio command to un-mute. If you didn't, that command is *6 on your phone. There you go. We can hear you. You're live. MR. COSTELLO: Hello. This is John A. Costello. I was the one that helped design this project for Julia Erlich and her husband, and the intention was just to, the same thing that is happening, occurring along that whole shoreline. There were several rock revetments put in along there, one adjoining her to the east, and it is causing a little more erosion into her cliff. And what we are going to try to do is we'll try to stay back from the water as much as possible so that it does not occur except in very severe storms, and the rocks are going to be minimum in size, similar to other jobs that we are doing in that general area. A combination of Susan Worth and Mark Levine. Mark Levine's is quite considerably heavier. The cliff is awfully steep. There has to be major degree of terracing, even though we are projecting that I will probably not be involved in terracing because of costs, but we designed it so that what we feel that will vegetate over a period of time. And the non-turf buffer at the top, we are going to, I know I heard the mention of ten to 15 feet. And we would certainly prefer, without trying to walk into a violation, something like in the middle of 12-foot would be logical, because we are going to end up developing a berm up on top. I want to make sure that when we hit the top of the cliff, that we do not promote water running over the top. So that berm up there will constitute probably half of the unvegetated non-turf buffer. Board of Trustees 18 September 16, 2020 So I agree with everything else, but if the Board has any questions, certainly ask them and I'll attempt to answer them. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: John, are you proposing a ten or 15-foot non-turf buffer? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He said 12. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Sorry, I missed that. MR. COSTELLO: I'm sorry, I did not hear that. MS. CANTRELL: People are having trouble hearing that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were just confirming the buffer that we were discussing, which is around 12 feet, I believe. MR. COSTELLO: Yes. I think a 12-foot buffer is extremely logical and will probably grow into 15, I'm sure. But I don't want to walk into a possible controversy or violation, because that berm is going to constitute probably 50% of it. Because we want a nice, gentle slope on that, and that berm will flatten off enough so that the 12 foot will naturally, logically, occur anyway. If that's suitable. But I heard two numbers mentioned. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. I think that makes sense to the rest of the Board. Are there any other questions or comments from the Board members? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion on to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application with the submission of new plans depicting a 12-foot non-turf buffer for both the Wetland and Coastal Erosion permit. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. CANTRELL: Excuse me, non-turf buffer? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number two under Wetlands & Coastal Erosion Permits, Michael Kimack on behalf of PHILLIP LIM requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Hazard Permit for the as-built 670 sq. ft. swimming pool with surrounding 834 sq. ft. deck, and as-built 56 sq. ft. hot tub. Located: 2070 Hyatt Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-50-1-1 The Trustees visited this site on September 9th noting the entirety of the pool is seaward of the CEHA line. This is a pre-existing, nonconforming structure, and all Trustees were present. The LWRP found this to be inconsistent, noting that the structure was built without a permit. The Conservation Advisory Council did review the application and they do not support the application because of inadequate setback from the bank. After further inhouse review, it was noted that the Board of Trustees 19 September 16, 2020 structure was built prior to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act, and it did have building permits when it was built. Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application? MS. CANTRELL: Mike -- I believe this is Mike Kimack. I'll un-mute you and can you hear us? MR. KIMACK: I can. Can you hear me? (Affirmative response). MR. KIMACK: I think you basically gave the information that I was probably going to go over. You are correct, I think the original application for the building permit was put in in 1986. Then it had been a certificate of occupancy issued May 30th of 1990 for the inground pool and the fences and things like that, which included the hot tub. You are right also about the fact that the CEHL map actually was 1988, but it was not approved. Chapter 111 was not adopted by the Town until 10/8 of'91. So this basically preceded the EHL map itself and probably has been in place for greater than 30 years. It is against the bank and not a bluff, which probably has helped it out over the years, but I think you probably, when you had a chance to visit the site, found that the slope in front of that was well vegetated and had not experienced any erosion. And certainly over the last 30 years it would have been subject to some horrific storms and had there been a vulnerability to that slope it certainly would have shown up. And it has not. That's basically what I can add to it at the present time. I do know they had gone back in and probably unbeknownst to them they thought they had the right to reconstruct in place, and obviously did not. So I'm here basically requesting a permit for an as-built deck and hot tub surround around the pool. The pool actually was not changed. It was just the deck itself, I believe the supporting structures underneath changed, not surprisingly, given the fact that everything there was 30 to 35-years old. Any questions of me? TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I have none. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak to this application? (Negative response). I make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll make a motion to approve this application. By approving the application and issuing a permit, will bring it into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of ISLE OF CEDARS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove and replace in-place existing t73' timber groin with low-profile vinyl groin. Board of Trustees 20 September 16, 2020 Located: 2450 Peters Neck Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-32-1-8 The LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. The Trustees most recently conducted an inhouse on September 9th, noting, provided the ledger post at the same height as the existing land terminus, with the new groin to be no higher, and potentially wait for the DEC approval. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MS. CANTRELL: Rob, you can un-mute. MR. HERRMANN: Hey, guys. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants here on behalf of the applicant. That is not a problem. In terms of setting the height, there is no intention to go higher at the landward end, and then the seaward end would be set 18 inches above mean low water pursuant to Trustees and DEC policy. And we did obtain a DEC permit that was issued June 25th. I can't remember if we sent a copy of that off to Liz or not. If not, we can certainly do that. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). So if the owner does already have the DEC approval, do we need to wait? MS. CANTRELL: It's here, if you want me to pull it up. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'm comfortable with that. So hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of THE JAMES PUTNAM LATHAM QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST, c/o JAMES P. LATHAM, TRUSTEE requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove and replace in-place ±59' and ±60' sections of existing timber bulkhead and t18' timber return with vinyl bulkhead and return (t66' section of existing, currently buried bulkhead to remain); backfill bulkhead with approximately 25 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source; and remove and replace in-place existing t54' timber groin with low-profile vinyl groin. Located: 2790 Peters Neck Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-32-1-12.2 The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. Board of Trustees 21 September 16, 2020 The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The Trustees have been to this site on two occasions, most recently did an inhouse inspection on September 9th. All inspections note that the application is straightforward. The most recently said recommends waiting for DEC. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, again. In fact I need to make one clarification to the prior hearing. Just let me respond regarding the DEC permit for this application was issued on June 25th. Just for the record, it's permit number 1-4738-04742. The prior hearing, Damon, I ask you make a note of it, the date of that DEC permit is actually April 3rd. And I can just state for the record that these are adjacent properties. That permit number was 1-4738-04089. MR. HAGAN: Sorry, which one is the June permit and which one is the April permit? MR. HERRMANN: The June permit is for the current hearing that is in front of you, the James Putnam Latham. MR. HAGAN: And April is Isle Cedars. MR. HERRMANN:,Correct. MR. HAGAN: Okay, thank you. MR. HERRMANN: And I can forward both of those to the office by e-mail. So for this one, yes, I don't have much more to add. It is a straightforward application. Same idea. In this case there is in-place replacement of an existing section of bulkhead and an existing groin. The groin will be no higher up the bulkhead than it is now, so that would be an easy spot to mark, and it will taper down to that 18-inch above mean low water height, again, here. So without any further questions, that's all I have. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments or questions from the Board? (Negative response). Anyone else wish to speak to this application? (Negative response). Hearing none and seeing no hands raised, I make a motionclose this hearing. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as , submitted, noting that there is a DEC permit that was issued June 25th. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, under Wetland Permits, number one, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of SAMUEL J. Board of Trustees 22 September 16,2020 l DIMEGLIO, JR., requests a Wetland Permit,to install a 4'x50' wood chip path on grade through the buffer area leading to a 4'x8' stairs; 4'x120'fixed catwalk utilizing Thru-Flow decking which will be constructed at 5' above the grade of marsh; 2.5'x10' ramp; a 6'x20' floating dock secured by four (4) 10' diameter piles; and install four(4) 10" diameter tie-off piles. Located: 2280 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-4-6 This project has been deemed to be inconsistent under the Town's LWRP in that the review by that office indicated the dock extended past an existing dock line to the north, and the dock will impede public access and intersects water held in public trust. And the size and draft of the vessel has not provided. The water depth at the end of the dock at 7.25, it's recommended the Board clarify the need for the dock length. The Conservation Advisory Council has indicated they did not support the application due to the concern that the proposed elevations of the structure, and the Conservation Advisory Council was also concerned as to the distance into the channel with respect to concerns that it might impede navigation. The Board of Trustees inspected this project first on August 11th, and then reviewed the file again on September 9th, field inspection day. The Board in performing the site inspection noted that the dock as proposed is inline with other docks in the creek and does not exceed the one-third limit across the creek. The adjacent dock mentioned in the LWRP report is in fact an incomplete or alternate dock structure of simply a catwalk and does not include a ramp and float assembly as is custom throughout this creek. The concerns about the access, impeding access to public trust lands of the creek, is noted with docks throughout similar size, and this structure is providing additional access for riparian owners. The concern of the Conservation Advisory Council of the height of the dock is addressed by field inspection. There is a vibrant, both high marsh area and intertidal marsh, which has significant height due to tidal variation in this creek, so the concerns about the five feet are actually protecting the wetlands and are in keeping with the recently promulgated standards by review of Army Corps and DEC. So I believe that these issues have been addressed through the inspectional process. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application? (Negative response). MS. CANTRELL: Glenn Just was on in the beginning of the meeting. Unless his is one of the phone numbers, now. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, anyone here wishing to speak to the application? (Negative response). The Board has noted on both field inspections the project is straightforward. MS. CANTRELL: If there is someone on the phone who would like to Board of Trustees 23 September 16, 2020 speak, please press *9. (No response). I'll have to assume there is nobody. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, hearing no phone in and no one on the Zoom platform, are there any comments or questions from the Board? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It does seem to be a fair amount of marsh in front of the property. Is there any concerns about fragmentation? It looks like one of the larger areas of wetland habitat on the creek. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I can only go by our field notes. We did not have an indicated problem with it. In looking at it I noted concerns on field inspection where it was going in the best possible location. The plan more or less has the dock structure in what was some of the narrower wetland. So we didn't have a problem on field inspection. So I think the height though is something that had become problematic with the five-foot height, we all understand is way up there, but these projects were being held up by other administrative agencies to acquire that height, so I believe that's why it showed up in this application. TRUSTEE DOMINO: And it is through-flow. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And additionally, it is through-flow. So with that height and with through-flow construction there should be very healthy marsh growth above the high marsh and the intertidal marsh. So any additional concerns? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The only question would be if there are concerns. We don't have JMO. Would it be wise to table it for the need to answer any questions? TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I don't have any questions. When we were on the property he put the dock more toward the western end of the property and the wetland there is shallower. He did that to be environmentally conscious, closer to the neighboring dock. I don't have any issues. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, that's what the plans indicate. We had been out on this for field inspection on August 11th and then followed up with the inhouse review, and it is what the applicant has requested, so I'm not sure we need to hold it over for any modification. So hearing no further comment-- MS. CANTRELL: Mr. DiMeglio just came on. So, Mr. DiMeglio, can you hear me? MR. DIMEGLIO: Hi. I have Glenn Just of JMO. He's trying to figure out how to get on. MR. BELNIAC: Is he an attendee? MR. DIMEGLIO: Yes. MR. BELNIAC: Okay, I missed the name of the person you said. But if they can raise their hand. MR. DIMEGLIO: Glenn Just, JMO. MR. BELNIAC: We'll scan the list. I don't see Glenn Just. I'm looking for JMO. MS. CANTRELL: He was on there, then he must have turned off somehow. Board of Trustees 24' September 16, 2020 MR. BELNIAC: Glenn, if you can hear us and you dialed in, you can use the *9 command to raise your hand. But otherwise we are scanning the list. It's alphabetical. So we are looking under G for Glenn, and we are not seeing it. MR. DIMEGLIO: Let me see if I can get him on the phone. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: If you put him on the phone and put him on speaker, we should be able to hear him. (No response). MR. DIMEGLIO: He's not picking up. Maybe I can answer whatever questions the Board may have. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe the Board, unfortunately, with all the muffled up, with face gear on, it's difficult to hear us. I believe our discussion that reviewing the plans and repeated site inspections, we had addressed concerns and questions of the Board, and unless you are wishing to modify your plan at this time or change anything, the Board was prepared to close the public hearing based on the information we have and what we discussed. MR. DIMEGLIO: Well, I mean, if we have to move anything on the plan, I just noticed the plans were approved by the Army Corps and DEC so, does the Board need me to modify any of the plans submitted? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this point there is no discussion to modify your plan and we are prepared to close the public hearing at this time and move into possible approval. MR. DIMEGLIO: Okay. I just had Glenn to the phone. Do you need to speak to him? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You can say hi to him. MR. DIMEGLIO: All right. Let me try to see if I can get him back on. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we are good. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Sam, we found the plan to be very straightforward. We didn't have any questions or concerns. MR. DIMEGLIO: Okay, if you don't need me. Glenn, if you can hear me, raised hand on the screen, you'll be able to get in. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are all set. MR. DIMEGLIO: Thank you, I appreciate it. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this application in accordance with the plans stamped in the Trustee March 4th, 2020, wherein the review of the Trustees and subsequent inspection made on August 11th and review by the Trustees on September 9th, and at our work session on September 14th, the Board finds that the dock is in keeping with other - structures in the creek, and whereas the dock, neighboring dock is short and an incomplete structure, does not reflect a violation of the pier line and Trustee policies thereby bringing Board of Trustees 25 September 16, 2020 i this into consistency under the LWRP and suitable for approval by the Board. So, accordingly, I move to approve. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number two, Robert Wilson on behalf of STEPHEN and AMY LICATA requests a Wetland Permit for the existing (2,601sq.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 The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent and exempt. The inconsistency is that the.Town records indicate that the patio wall, fire pit and pergola were constructed without Southold Town Board of Trustees review or permit. In the event the action is approved it is recommended that a vegetated non-turf buffer is required landward of the concrete wall to further Policy 6. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make a recommendation for this at this time. The Trustees most recently did an inhouse review of this, and noted there are new plans in the file. Prior to that, it was noted that the steps would need to be added to the project. The existing steps to the beach. I do have new plans for the steps and the buffer in the file, but I do not have a date on it. MR. HAGAN: There's not a date on that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you pass that to legal. MR. HAGAN: There's not another page that was with this that we stamped in with the receipt? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm looking for that. MR. HAGAN: (Perusing). Wait, 9/7/20. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have it? MR. HAGAN: Yes. (Indicating). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Okay, is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. BELNIAC: I'm guessing it's Robert Wilson, and William Gorman, and I think Sam is carrying over from the prior hearing; is that right? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, you can put his hand down. MS. CANTRELL: I did, and he put his hand back up. MR. BELNIAC: It's all right. We can take care of the hands also here. Okay, William Gorman, your line is open and the floor is yours. MR. GORMAN: I'm just here to answer any questions you may have. I'm the contractor and I did the work for them. Board of Trustees 26 September 16,2020 MR. BELNIAC: Great. MS. CANTRELL: Mr. Wilson, can you hear us? MR. WILSON: Yes, I can. Can you hear me? (Affirmative response). Once again I'm just here to answer any questions that the Board might have for us. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any Board questions at this time? (Negative response). Very good. Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this application? (No response). All right. Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application with the submission of new plans dated 9/27/20, thereby bringing this application into consistency with the LWRP coordinator. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). ` TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number three, Wetland Permits, Brook Epperson on behalf of ANNIE O'BRIEN &JENNIFER MARINO requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing locust posts supporting existing dwelling with new concrete piers and footings; all proposed work to be done will be within the existing footprint; 16"x16" concrete pier, 28 total; and 24"x24"x12" deep footing, 28 total. Located: 11 Kimogenor Point, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-116-6-24.1 The Trustees visited this site last on September 9th, noting that the plan was very straightforward and all Trustees were present. The action was exempt from LWRP review. The Conservation Advisory Council did review the proposed action and does not support the application based on the history of the area and damage from major storm events. The Conservation Advisory Council requests a review of the LWRP report and a determination from FEMA as to whether they will require a raised elevation. To respond to the Conservation Advisory Council, they are simply taking out some rotted vintage locust support posts and replacing them with cement support posts. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application? MS. CANTRELL: Brook Epperson, the architect with regard to the project, is on. So Brook, can you hear us? MS. EPPERSON: Yes. Can you hear me? (Affirmative response). I'm Brook Epperson, I'm the applicant and architect for this project and I'm here to answer any questions the Board members may have. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Anybody have any questions? Board of Trustees 27 September 16, 2020 (Negative response). We have no questions and found the project to be straightforward, Brook. MS. EPPERSON: Great. Let's vote then. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? (Negative response). At this point I make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number four, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of DAVID SCHWARTZ requests a Wetland Permit to install a 12'x22' in-ground gunite swimming pool with drywells, 720 sq. ft. patio and associated fence. ' Located: 1015 Lakeside Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-4-5.1 The LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. The Trustees conducted field inspections on this one, most recently on 9/9, September 9th, requesting updated plans that move the fence out of the wetland or out of the vegetation. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Seeing none, I just want to note for the record that we did receive new plans stamped received September 10th, 2020, from , Creative Environmental Design that did move the fence out of the vegetation, and has a drywell on it as well. So if there are no further questions or comments. (No response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And I make a motion to approve this application as submitted, with the new plans dated stamped received September 10th, 2020. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: YANA & RAHUL KAKAR request a Wetland Permit to construct beach stairs that will consist of a 7'6"x37' Landing at the top of the bluff connected to a 10'9"x37' set of stairs down to a 9'10"x11'0" landing; from there a set of 37'x5'4" stairs will descend to a 9'0"x37' platform;,from that platform Board of Trustees 28 September 16, 2020 there will be five (5) sets of stairs of 13'5"x37' stairs and five (5) 7'2"x3' platforms descending to a 9'9"x37' stair to a 9'0"x4'0" landing, leading to a removable set of approximately, 37"x5'4" stairs to beach; and all stairs and platforms to have railings. Located: 4625 Aldrich Lane Extension, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-112-1-14 The LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisoy Council resolved to not support the application but does not give a reason to support that position. The Conservation Advisory Council however requests formalized construction plans. So obviously they did not have access to the folder. The Trustees have made several inspections to this site in August, August 11th, and noted the application was straightforward, and that previously this application has been approved, but the permit expired. The plans, detailed plans, received showing stairs are dated February 10th, 2020. Is there anyone here to speak to his application? MS. CANTRELL: Yana Kakar. Yana, can you hear us? MS. KAKAR: Yes. Hi, good evening. Am I clear? (Affirmative response). Thank you, so much. I'm here to answer any questions that you might have on the application. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I don't believe we have any questions for you at this point. It's straightforward. MS. KAKAR: Thank you, sir. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Does anyone else wish to speak to this application? (Negative response). Are there any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing none, I make a motion to close this_ hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application under Wetland Permits, number six, Monika Majewski on behalf of KATHY KATONA requests a Wetland Permit for proposed one and two-story additions to existing dwelling; proposed 14'x38.5'for addition of 539 sq. ft. to first floor; proposed 72 sq. ft. to second floor for a covered porch; and for a proposed 125 sq. ft. extension of rear deck. Located: 330 Inlet Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-43-5-3. This project has been determined to be consistent under the Town's LWRP. Board of Trustees 29 September 16, 2020 The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the installation of gutters, leaders and drywells to be included in the site plan. The Board of Town Trustees performed inspections on August 11th and again on September 9th, wherein we noted the project is straightforward, and we need gutters and leaders to drywells on the plan. Submitted and received in the Trustee office on September 14th, 2020, is an engineering plan indicating the drywells for the structure to bring it into conformity with the Conservation Advisory Council requests. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application? MS. CANTRELL: There are a number of people who would like to speak. Alavis (sic) is one, and Monika. MR. LAVIS: Hello. Art Lavis, neighbor, 395 Inlet Lane. Can you hear me? (Affirmative response). I just have three really quick questions. It's my understanding the previous owner used fill to fill in part of the wetlands, and I want to make sure the Trustees were aware of the original wetlands boundary. The second question is due to the expansion of the footprint of the building, is there a concern about flooding? There has been a lot of flooding in the street and also with that water to neighboring houses. And then the third quick one is if you do approve the expansion of the footprint of the house and living area, will there be a recommendation from the Trustees to put in a waste water treatment center to keep the nitrogen levels down to keep the bay clean. Those are my three questions. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, with respect to additions to homes that are not, it's my understanding with respect to additions to homes that are not teardowns, the Board does not have a policy of compelling innovative alternative sanitary systems for additions of this type. With respect to flooding, the application does not indicate additions of fill for this construction. With respect to your question concerning prior fill activities, the Board did not see any evidence during the course of the inspection of any additional fill that might have been placed in the wetlands. That might be a separate matter to bring to the attention of the Trustee office and bay constable if you think there is an active violation. The project plans of the engineer that were submitted do indicate the tidal wetlands boundary that was the basis for a prior review by the Board, so we do have the wetland boundary in the Town files that could be followed up on if you have concerns specifically detailing a potential problem with activities that were not apparent to the Board during our field inspection. I hope that addresses your questions. MR. LAVIS: Thank you. Board of Trustees 30 September 16, 2020 MS. SULLIVAN: This is Betty Sullivan. Good evening. What would like to do, first of all, I'm the adjacent property owner to the north of the applicant. What I would like to confirm tonight is that there will be no further extension of the structure or the deck toward the designated wetlands than as the current structure and depth exists. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe that would be a matter for the Board to discuss now during the open hearing section. MS. SULLIVAN: I'm not able to hear you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm sorry. That's a matter the Board can enter into discussion with. Do you have any other concerns concerning the proposal? MS. SULLIVAN: I'm sorry, you're cutting out. MS. CANTRELL: The connection is apparently unstable, so. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm informed by the secretary we have an unstable internet connection. Can you hear me now? MS. SULLIVAN: I'm able to hear you at this moment, yes. MR. BELNIAC: I need you to restate the beginning of what you were saying. MS. SULLIVAN: Okay. What I would like to confirm is that there will be no further extension of the structure or the deck toward the designated wetland than as the current structure and deck exists. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board of Trustees can discuss that. MS. SULLIVAN: Are you able to hear me? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, I can hear you. Can you hear me? MS. SULLIVAN: I'm able to hear you, yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board of Trustees in reviewing applications for Wetland Permits and conducting site inspections typically looks to maintain the requirements of Chapter 275 of the Town Code, and the code does limit, to an extent, that structures cannot go further seaward than adjoining neighbors. But with respect to specific provisions to limit the house going no further seaward, that's a matter for the Board to discuss now during the course of the hearing. Did you get that? MS. SULLIVAN: Okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you have any other concerns? MS. SULLIVAN: Yes. That is my main concern. MS. CANTRELL: Do you want me to bring the plan up on the internet? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sure. MS. CANTRELL: Okay, one moment, please. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll put the plan up on the screen for you to view. MS. MAJEWSKI: Good evening. Can everyone hear me? (Affirmative response). MS. MAJEWSKI: I'm here on behalf of the applicant. I know there is some concerns of the neighbors. MR. BELNIAC: We are just pulling up a plan on the screen, I believe. MS. MAJEWSKI: I'm here if you have any questions. Board of Trustees 31 September 16, 2020 MR. BELNIAC: Wonderful. Thank you. MS. MAJEWSKI: Thank you. MR. BELNIAC: Are you able to share the content? MS. CANTRELL: This is page three. MR. BELNIAC: Can't see yet. I think it may be on the screen in the media room but you have not shared the content yet out to Zoom. MS. CANTRELL: It's saying I'm sharing MR. BELNIAC: I have the wrong window showing. My apologies. There you go. MS. CANTRELL: Monika, Betty, can you see the plan that is on the screen? MS. MAJEWSKI: Yes, I can. MS. SULLIVAN: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know that really helps us with regard to the pier line. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't believe there was a problem with the pier line going forward on this particular project. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It was staked on initial inspection. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board of Trustees would look at any application in the future under the terms of our Wetland code that typically prevent structures from going seaward toward the wetland than existing structures. That code provision has been in place for a goodly number of years. I don't envision we'll envision that would change because the Board is very keen to observe that that particular code requirement is not violated when we conduct our field inspections. But we couldn't, typically we could not make an absolute prohibition against someone bringing application in the future that might be consistent with the policies and the laws in existence at that time in the future. I don't believe our legal Assistant Town Attorney would amplify on that. But my understanding is we would have to review any new application coming in in the future under the terms of the code at that time. I hope that addresses your questions. Can you hear me still? MS. SULLIVAN: No, it doesn't. It just confuses the issue. Is this structure going to be permitted to advance into the designated wetlands? MS. MAJEWSKI: Okay, Betty, can I just say something?This is Monika. So the deck is extending toward the right. It doesn't go toward the sea. So it's not extending toward the water. MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. So it won't be extended any further than it exists right,now toward the water. MS. MAJEWSKI: Just the right side -- MS. SULLIVAN: Just the right side will be going toward my property. MS. MAJEWSKI: Yes. MR. HAGAN: If we can just ask that people that are addressing the Board direct their comments to the Board, their questions to the Board. Do not cross conversate with each other or we'll be forced to mute people waiting to talk. Board of Trustees 32 September 16,2020 MR. SULLIVAN: The question is still the same. Is it going to be going any further toward the wetlands. It is my understanding from I just heard from Monika and I would like the Board to confirm that the deck and the structure won't be going into the wetlands any further than the current structure and deck are at this present time. Is that correct, gentlemen? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: If you look at the screen, if you can see the screen, you can see the proposed deck addition goes to the side of the existing deck. So if you are looking at the screen, the bottom right. So it's not going toward the wetlands. It's going toward the side. So nothing is extending seaward. MS. SULLIVAN: Fine, gentlemen. Thank you, so much. You definitely answered my question. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak to this application? (Negative response). Hearing none. Are there any concern or questions from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this application as submitted in accordance with the revised plans submitted September 14th, 2020, showing the drywells that were requested by the Board of Trustees and the Conservation Advisory Council. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number seven, BRION LEWIS & LESLIE SIMITCH request a Wetland Permit to reduce the wood deck at top of bluff within CEHA; 525 sq. ft. of existing, 199 sq. ft. proposed to remain. Located: 62615 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-40-1-8. The Trustees have been to the property several times. It should be noted that the current deck that has been there for a while was constructed without a permit, and because it is within the CEHA zone, does not allow it to remain at that size. The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent due to the area in which the deck is located within the Chapter 111 coastal erosion hazard zone. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. Okay, is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MS. CANTRELL: We have Brion Lewis who wishes to speak. MR. LEWIS: Good evening. I'm just checking in to let you know if there are any questions that the board has, I'm willing to do my best to answer anything. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the only thing that we discussed at Board of Trustees 33 September 16, 2020 work session the other evening was rather than removing the supports for the existing deck, when the existing deck is taken down, that you just cut the supports that will not be used going forward flush rather than exposing bear ground. MR. LEWIS: Absolutely. That was the intention. I mean there are independent environmental control people out there and their recommendations, the recommendations were to leave it alone. Or at the very least the minimum amount of disturbance as possible to the bluff. So, yes, as you say, any of the structural stuff that is going to be now superfluous will be not extracted but will simply be lowered to a point that natural habitat can cover over it. That's our plan. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak regarding this application, or any comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application with the stipulation that the supports that will not be used on the remaining portion of the deck going forward be cut flush without disturbing the bluff, thereby bringing this into consistency with the LWRP coordinator. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number eight, BARRY ROOT requests a Wetland Permit to enclose area under existing carport to do the following: Create a new entry and expand existing 6'x9'4%" mudroom to 6'x12'10" and create new 12' 5'h" x 20' 9%" home office all under the footprint of the existing carport; and to add an 18'4"x5'5" deck for the new entry. Located: 6315 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-6-20 The Trustees last visited the site September 9th, 2020. All Trustees were present. Field notes state that the project seemed straightforward. The LWRP found this action to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council did review the application and resolved to support the application with a drainage plan for the roof runoff. In reviewing the plans, it clearly has roof runoff calculations. There's gutters to leaders to drywells on the plans that are dated March 6th, 2020. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? Board of Trustees 34 September 16,2020 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve the application as submitted, with plans dated received in the Trustee office March 6th, 2020. That's my motion. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number nine, Chris Rivera on behalf of PANAYIOTIS & PANAGIOTA BASIOS requests a Wetland Permit to construct an approximately 30'x50' in-ground swimming pool; pool patio pavers around pool approximately 60'x50'; and pool enclosure fencing to be added to existing fencing with a gate. Located: 2505 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-94-1-12.2 The LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. The Trustees conducted a field inspection August 11th, as well as inhouse on September 9th, noting that the top of the bluff is heavily vegetated, with concerns the fence will damage the vegetation, and to move the fence approximately 12 feet landward of proposed. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MS. CANTRELL: Somebody on the phone would like to talk. Alan, I'm sorry, I forgot how to ask the person on the phone -- MS. RIVERA: Chris Rivera here. MS. CANTRELL: Can you hear us, Chris? MS.-RIVERA: Yes, I can. Good evening, I just want to make the point that I believe, a couple of the Trustees were out at the site recently and met with the landscape architect that was there. And just at as a point of reference, we did shrink the pool and made it a rectangle as opposed to a kidney, in order for them to accommodate the electric cover, because they'll have additional width, they want to have an electric cover. So they did reduce the size of the pool to 18x44, I believe, as opposed to 30x60. And it's still back the 76 feet that the ZBA requires us to be. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: For the record, we do not have that in the file. The latest ones we have here are dated received June 2nd, 2020. That still shows the kidney shaped pool. So we will need the new plans to show the new proposed location and dimensions of the pool. And while you are coming up with the new plans, we also would like to see that fence that was proposed for the top of the bluff moved landward to get it out of that vegetation. MS. RIVERA: Sure. How many feet would you like it to be moved? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I believe we put 12 feet when we were out there on field inspection. So just 12 feet, just as long as it is out of that vegetation because it was a very heavily vegetated top of bluff. So we just don't want to see that get Board of Trustees 35 September 16, 2020 disturbed. MS. RIVERA: Okay, that's fine. Is there anything else that you would like? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No. Would you like to request to table this for new plans? MS. RIVERA: I'm sorry, request what? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: To table this application so you can submit new plans with the new proposed pool and the new proposed fence? MS. RIVERA: Sure, not a problem. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. So I make a motion to table this application at the applicant's request. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number ten, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of GORDON LAU & MAMIE CHIANG requests a Wetland Permit to replace previously existing dock, ramp and float with proposed 4'x43' fixed catwalk using Thru-Flow decking; a 3.5'x18' ramp to a 6'x20' floating dock while re-using existing 10" diameter piles (the tall ones) and 8" diameter piles (the shorter ones). Located: 1450 Jockey Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-5-17 The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency arises from the fact that the applicant constructed the dock without a permit, a Wetland permit, and therefore the applicant did not demonstrate that the dock standards pursuant to 275-11 were met. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make a determination or recommendation on March 11th, 2020, when they met, due to the COVID crisis. The Trustees have been to this site several times, most recently, on September 9th. The field notes say that it is okay to use two of the existing ten-inch diameter piles. Prior to that, on March 11th, the Trustees met, field notes say the dock that presently exists is not considered functional, and as stated in the previous pre-submission, recommending extending the dock to achieve two-and-a-half foot minimum water, but not exceed the one-third way across the water body. The lifts to be removed as per previous pre-submission. Existing piles could be repurposed, two of them to secure the float. All were present at j that time. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MS. CANTRELL:,Pat? We have Mitch Stein who is requesting to talk. Can you hear us? MR. STEIN: That would be me. Yes, hi, everyone. Perhaps I misheard at the beginning and I thought I would clarify. I live here. Something about there was no existing dock and one was being installed. There was an existing dock for many, many years. I think part of it washed away, part of it was tied off elsewhere when it washed away, but the pilings and a good Board of Trustees 36 September 16,2020 portion of the dock were already here. I don't know if that's important or not, but I want to let you all know I'm here if there are any questions about history that might relate to the Board's consideration. If that's not a relevant factor, I'm not sure it would be, then it,doesn't matter much. But I wanted to " mention that in case anyone were considering that. Now, it's correct that we thought initially that repairing the existing dock'didn't require a permit, and obviously we were mistaken and we followed through on the process. So we hope that would not prejudice the Board's consideration. It was an honest error, and we proceeded in accordance with the rules since. If there are any questions about this, I'm here to answer them and to do anything that might assist the Board in presenting the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: The only relevancy is in the notes, the Trustees felt that the dock, the structure that was there was not functional. But it's really not pertinent to this application. going forward. The question for us -- MR. STEIN: Good. TRUSTEE DOMINO: (Continuing) we want-to be sure that we are limiting the reuse of piles to two that are shown on the plans dated August 18th, 2020. Could you speak to that point? MR. STEIN: Sorry, is that back to me? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Again, we want to make sure that-- MR. STEIN: All right. I'm so sorry. Can you repeat the question again? I didn't hear it initially. You were asking something about the plan, so please, say it again, quickly. My apologies. It's late. TRUSTEE DOMINO: The notes indicate that the Trustees are concerned to make sure that only two pilings, two of the existing pilings, will be repurposed as shown on the plan dated received August 18th, 2020. MR. STEIN: Yes, that's correct. Two of the existing pylons. I can confirm that. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, very much. MR. STEIN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? MS. CANTRELL: Patricia Moore has been trying to wave. She also questioned me that she wants to speak. So I'll put her on. Let me get to her name. Because every time she tries to wave, it gets turned back off. TRUSTEE DOMINO: While we are waiting for her, do any Trustees have'any comments or questions? (Negative response). MS. CANTRELL: Here she is. MS. MOORE: Hi. Thank you. Sorry, Mr. Stein. Thank you for his confidence. But I had answered for you at the field inspection, we were asked how we were going to keep the Board of Trustees - 37 September 16, 2020 float in place. We were confirming that this is, just as the plans show, the existing piles are being used, and actually we are using two-inch galvanized pipe to hold the float. So that was a question I was asked. I think Greg made that at the field inspection, so I have the answer for you. And yes, the boat lifts were removed and they are not going back in. And that's it. If you have questions, I'm happy to respond. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, I have to confess, myself, I was not clear at that time when the question was asked of you that in fact two-inch steel pipe was going to be used to secure the float. And does anyone else wish to speak to that point? Looking at the plans, it doesn't show that. MS. MOORE: What I was advised is that the Jockey Creek, the equipment to drill posts is very limited. So that is why they are reusing what they have. But they can't really put in any additional piles. That's why they are using the pipe that is, it's a very minor, very minor intrusion into the ground. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So on the plans you have here with the two proposed piles that are on the, what is that, the north side, are those - MS. MOORE: Yes. They are existing. Right. My understanding is those would stay. They're existing. And then we would have the two-inch galvanized pipe to hold the other end. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Forgive me, my fellow Trustees, correct me if I'm wrong, but these as shown on the plans are not existing. The two that are listed would be to the east of this. Do you follow what I'm saying? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They would have to move the piles to use them. That would put the dock in its current configuration. MS. MOORE: Correct. TRUSTEE DOMINO: With those. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So you are going to remove the existing four that are over there, reuse two for the float. MS. MOORE: Correct. That's right. TRUSTEE DOMINO: And they are not going to be steel. They are going to be the ten-inch diameter piles? . MS. MOORE: Well, those are the ones that are existing. I was told that we needed, the two-inch galvanized pipe would be the, if anything, additional is needed. He doesn't think he's got enough piles there to position, for the float. Because we have to finish the catwalk. So we are reusing the material that we can use. Does that make sense to you? . TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's as clear as the sediment that is in that creek to me. MS. MOORE: That is the best descriptions I got from Joseph Frohnhoefer, so. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you proposing to use the ten-inch piles for the catwalk also? Is that-- MS. MOORE: What we have there already is the ten-inch, they are actually sistered. There are ten-inch and eight-inch, and they are sistered together. That's how it is, that's how it was Board of Trustees 38 September 16, 2020 described to me how they are existing right now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't believe that is the case. Do we have a picture in the file? MS. MOORE: It's, that information, is information that I got, so. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have an actual photo in the file? MS. MOORE: Yes, there are photos. TRUSTEE DOMINO: There are several photos dated March 11th. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. If you look--these are not sistered. TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is showing three. MS. MOORE: That's what I was told today. I don't know what to tell you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Correct, that's what I'm saying. She is saying reuse them, they were there. These two were not here. These plans don't show steel. And the two that show the same diameter as those which we know are eight to ten inches, and so there is that. And we also have the description here. The description says reuse existing. Don't forget about them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. I mean, they are using the existing piles. 'So the two piles they are going to take, that are existing, and that's all you need for-- TRUSTEE DOMINO: So take them from here is all we are saying. That's what we are clarifying. Okay, any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else who wish to speak to this application? MS. CANTRELL: Joe Frohnhoefer is asking to speak. MR. FROHNHOEFER. Joseph Frohnhoefer. Hello. Okay, I'm sorry, I was on a phone call with the owner about the hurricane that just hit down in Florida, so I missed a little bit of this, although I heard my name in the background briefly. I don't know if Pat needs me to clarify anything on what the plan was. MS. MOORE: Yes, please. MR. FROHNHOEFER: So I don't know what Pat was saying, but in speaking with Angelo from Greenport Dock who will be doing the work, he felt the best thing to do is to remove all eight of the pilings so that the four sets of pilings, the eight-inch and ten-inch pilings that are sistered up, take those out, remove f them completely, put the dock, the float in as proposed at a 90-degree angle to the ramp, and secure that float with two galvanized pipes. Clean, simple and done, and cleans up any past issues that the Trustees may not be happy with concerning the boat lift. TRUSTEE DOMINO: The issue is that that is what you intend. That does not match the plan that was last amended August 3rd, 2020, and does not match the project description, which still reads to reuse existing ten-inch diameter piles. So -- MR. FROHNHOEFER: Well -- by all means, to approve it, by all means, we certainly could. TRUSTEE DOMINO: This Board wants to approve the plans that are Board of Trustees 39 September 16, 2020 l clear and make sure that what we are approving is what everyone intends the product to be. So I believe we are going to have to table this to clarify the plans. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just for new plans, right? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes. New plans. If you want to use steel pipes, it has to state that in the project description and on the plans. MS. MOORE: May I suggest rather than keep bouncing this back and forth, because it has been waiting a long time, why don't we stick to the plan that is proposed. If it needs to be amended, we can submit an amendment. But I think everybody is trying it too hard to make everyone happy, and I think if you just stick to the plan that is here, the client will finally get a dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The description doesn't match the plans, right, as written? MS. MOORE: The description does match. The description is based on the, I have here, but if you recall the plan was modified by this Board and it required to be extended. So I had to have the survey redrawn so that the water depth went out to, more than two-and-a-half feet. So it was originally submitted one way, shorter, and then the Board wanted it to come out further, so that's when I had to go to the surveyor and ask him to revise it and bring the float out to beyond two-and-a-half feet of water. So that is, these plans have changed over time due to the request by the Trustees, so. My written description does not match the drawing because that was changed at the Board's request. TRUSTEE DOMINO: There is a good deal of confusion here. The written description here matches the plan. And the confusion is was that the injection of the of steel posts into the conversation. So at any rate, are there any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but if they want to build the dock they applied for, it seems rather straightforward. If they want to use steel poles, we would have to table it for new plans and an edited description. So it's really up to Pat or her client, right? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I believe that's what I said. If that was misunderstood; I apologize. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think I'm just reiterating. I mean should we have her clarify what they want? MR. STEIN: Am I being heard. This is Mr. Stein. I live here. I apologize if there was an error and confusion on our side. We don't need the steel piping, let us just proceed with the plan as submitted. It is consistent, it is appropriate and cancels out-- it's doable. If it's all right with the Board, we'll just follow the plan and leave the other considerations to the side. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right, are there any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? Board of Trustees 40 September 16, 2020 (A'LL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted, referencing the plans last amended March 3rd, 2020, received, stamped received by the Board August 18th, 2020. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Glenn, is it possible to take a small break? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sure, motion for a five-minute break. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). (After a recess, these hearings continue as follows). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, we are back from break. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number eleven, 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 This application has been deemed to be,inconsistent under the Town's LWRP because the permit for the original dock, which was issued in 1983, shows on the property a replacement dock that did not conform to those specifications. So that the project needs to comply with the statutory regulatory requirements of the Trustees. The Conservation Advisory Council, due to COVID-19, was not able to perform an inspection of this site. The Trustees inspected this property on March 11th and subsequently also reviewed the project on September 9th of this year, wherein our concerns were noted and also discussed at the work session on the 14th. The concerns being that the wetlands as delineated did not accurately reflect the wetland boundary found in the field on field inspection. And as requested by the Board at our work session on the 14th, a new map indicating the area of wetland of concern that was located by the Trustees has been submitted by Mr. Patanjo in a revised map dated September 14th and received in the Trustee office on September 16th. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application? MS. CANTRELL: We have Jeff Patanjo waiting to talk. I'm going to allow him to talk. MR. PATANJO: Hello. Jeff Patanjo, for the applicant. I submitted new application drawings based on the revisions you requested. I outlined the new wetland line further to the house, and as you, see in the drawings, we have the revision that includes the new Board of Trustees 41 September 16,2020 wetland line closer to the house. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Affirmative. As noted. I don't know if you can.hear me, Mr. Patanjo, but I did relay the record of the Board concerning that. MR. PATANJO: Yes, sir, I hear you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, very good. Are there any additional questions or concerns? MR. PATANJO: No, sir. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, very much. Is there another hand I see up? MS. CANTRELL: Yes. There is also a Mr. McDonald. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mr. McDonald, can you hear us? MS. CANTRELL: You have to un-mute. If you can please un-mute your mic if you can hear us. MR. MCDONALD: Sory I was not trying to speak. MS. CANTRELL: So you just want to listen? MR. MCDONALD: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Very well. Do we have any other questions or concerns?Any 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? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this application as revised and received in the Trustee office September 16th, 2020, noting the amended wetland line. That's my motion- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 12, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ARTHUR &GWEN PIER requests a Wetland Permit for the removal of the existing 4.5'x4' timber platform and replacement with a 4.5'x14' platform with un-treated timber decking in same and extended landward location as existing; in addition, 25 lineal feet of coir log bank stabilization to be installed at the entry to the existing fixed dock and new platform; coir log stabilization to consist of three (3) rows of logs staked with oak stakes and planted with beach grass upon completion of installation. Located: 25 East Side Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-3-18 We most recently did, as the Trustees, did an inhouse review and noted that it would require non-toxic decking. Coir logs appear to be straightforward and see notes from the following month, the previous month, about the raising the fixed section. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding the application? MR. PATANJO: Hello. What's up. So I'm here to represent the Board of Trustees 42 September 16, 2020 applicant. This is a simple application. We'll install a shoreline stabilization with some coir logs. We'll extend the fixed dock, with though changes to the existing pier are further added or anything like that. We'll do a little bit of a catwalk. As you see in the field, it is definitely in need of it. Other than that, any questions, I'm here to answer them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Jeff, the only thing that we had an issue with is in their plans it calls for four-foot wide catwalk, which is acceptable, but in the description is a 4.5 foot catwalk, right? MR. PATANJO: All right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we are just going to change that, if you are open to it, we'll change that to a four-foot in the description. MR. PATANJO: Approved. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Great. Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this application, or any other comments from the Board? (Negative response). MR. PATANJO: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application with the following change to the description: Arthur and Gwen Pier request a Wetland permit for the removal of the existing 4.5x4 timber platform, to be 4'x4'. No, sorry. I'll start that over. With a following description changes: Arthur and Gwen Pier request a Wetland permit for removal of the existing 4.5x4' timber platform, and replacement with a 4'x14' timber platform with untreated timber. That is my motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Five number 13, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ERIKA C. & CHRISTOPHER P. WERSHOVEN requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing deteriorated timber bulkhead and the landward installation of 135 lineal feet of new vinyl bulkhead with a raised height of 18" above existing; a proposed 4'wide gravel pathway to the new bulkhead; and a 30" wide by 14' long aluminum ramp leading to a 6' wide by 20' long floating dock with untreated timber decking is proposed in the newly created bulkhead cut-in area; and approximately 50 cubic yards of fill to be removed from between the existing and proposed bulkhead which will be utilized as fill landward of the proposed bulkhead. Located: 3150 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-19 The Trustees visited the site on August 11th, noting the plans seemed straightforward, and did an inhouse review again on September 9th. The LWRP found this action to be inconsistent, noting the CCA treated wood is proposed to be used with piles, walers and Board of Trustees 43 September 16, 2020 lay logs, and recommended that an alternative wood be used and the use of CCA be reduced. Turbidity controls are also not proposed. The Conservation Advisory Council did review this and they voted to support the application. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, here again. Any questions? I'll answer them for you. The project involves will then give you more wetlands back, we are going to actually reduce the frontage of the proposed bulkhead. We are moving it back from its existing location. We are going to return four or five to six feet actually of land back to the Trustees, back to the bay bottom. We are going to actually increase it from 8'x33' of actual land. So I don't know how to do math, but that's a big area that will go back to the land bottom. And we are also giving the non-turf buffer and a floating dock for the occupants of the house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: The only thing to address is the LWRP has noted the CCA treated piles as proposed, it's my understanding it's best practice, due to the length of time, the lumber, is that correct? Do the other Trustees have something to add? I know CCA is a generic term. I think it's now C-Quat. Do we want to strike the word "CCA" and just use treated, or C-Quat, too? 1 MR. PATANJO: We can do ACQ, which is a typical term for the industry. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: ACQ works. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Sounds good. Any other questions? MR. PATANJO: No, I'm done. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the plans received dated June 8th, 2020, noting that the ACQ-treated lumber will be used on the pilings and walers, thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 14, En-Consultants on behalf of MEGALOOP EQUITIES, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to install a 5.5'x7' spa inside footprint of existing 456 sq. ft. swimming pool; marble dust existing pool surface, and square-off round pool corner, resulting in a 460 sq. ft. swimming pool; install pervious gravel fire pit with stone border and 60 sq. ft. paver seating area (with pervious joints); install stepping stone path to existing embankment stairway; remove existing 584 sq. ft. pool patio and install 457 sq. ft. and 64 sq. ft. areas of new grade-level masonry pool patio (521 sq. ft. total); install 130 Board of Trustees 44 September 16, 2020 sq. ft. grade-level masonry patio off corner of porch; install 27 sq. ft. grade-level masonry patio on waterside of garage; install 350 sq. ft. grade-level masonry patio on landward side of house; resurface existing 117 sq. ft. masonry landing between house and garage, install 8 sq. ft. masonry steps on waterside of landing, and install 24 sq. ft. masonry steps in place of existing ramp to landing; install +/-6'x8' outdoor shower with stepping stones set in previous gravel; and install associated drywell; remove existing LP tanks and relocate existing pool equipment within proposed 310 sq. ft. pervious gravel utility area surrounded by new 4' high wood fencing; install new 4' high wood fence on west side of property and between house and garage; remove existing concrete apron on landward side of garage; remove portion of existing driveway and add new edging; remove and replace and/or expand existing areas of landscape vegetation; and to,establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the top of bank. Located: 650 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-2-17 The LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with the condition a drywell is install for the outdoor shower. The Trustees reviewed this application most recently on September 9th, noting while it is a fairly lengthy description, the project itself is straightforward. And I also want to note that according to the plans dated March 9th, 2020, to address the Conservation Advisory Council concerns, the outdoor shower is connected to a drywell. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MS. CANTRELL: We have Rob Herrmann from En-Consultants. MR. HERRMANN: If the Board doesn't have any questions, I don't have anything to add, necessarily. It is a lengthy description but it's basically landscape features and existing swimming pool, inclusion of a lot of pervious surfaces and a ten-foot non-turf buffer adjacent to the top of the bank. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing or seeing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 15, En-Consultants on behalf of 13350 NEW Board of Trustees 45 September 16, 2020 SUFFOLK AVENUE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing two-story, 3,420 sq. ft. dwelling (located 65' from wetlands to north and 73'from wetlands to south), and 1,885 sq. ft. attached deck (located 54' from wetlands to south), ,and construct a new two-story, 3,287 sq. ft. single-family dwelling (located 75' from wetlands to north and south) with a 2,355 sq. ft. raised masonry patio/steps (located 61' from wetlands to south), and 639 sq. ft. of swimming pool (located 79' from wetlands to south); install a 144 sq. ft. raised entry patio beneath second-story overhang with 14'x14' steps to 580 sq. ft. of on-grade paver courtyard; install concrete pad for pool equipment and pool enclosure fencing; install a stormwater drainage system of leaching chambers and a pool drywell; install new pervious gravel driveway and parking area; remove existing, nonconforming septic system located 80' from wetlands to south, and install new I/A OWTS sanitary system located at least 100' from wetlands to north and south; disturb/clear±6,191 sq. ft. area for purpose of demolishing existing dwelling and constructing proposed structures; re-grade using approximately 116 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source; temporarily disturb/clear±6,626 sq. ft. portion of naturally vegetated area to west of dwelling to enable installation of sanitary system, and ±618 sq. ft. portion of naturally vegetated area to east of dwelling to enable installation of drainage system, and restore both areas with native plantings. Located 13350 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-116-6-20.2 The LWRP found this to be inconsistent on September 9th, 2020. The inconsistency arises from the fact that the structure is in a flood zone, FEMA flood zone at AE elevation six, and concern that the enlargement of the structure increases the risk, which is contrary to policy. Additionally, the removal of 6,626 square feet of beneficial plant species to accommodate the IA septic system is unsupported. Additionally, survival parameters are not proposed. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support the application. And their notes indicate that they request a definitive plan for the new structure. The Trustees visited this site on more than one occasion, most recently on September 9th, denotes all were present. The notes read that Board to discuss, would like to see an overlay of the new site, the new structure, I'm sorry, would like to see an overlay, new site plan to show incorporating the old house versus the new house. And for the record I would note that that plan was received by our office, stamped received on September 11th, 2020. The plan was drawn on September 9th. And finally, from our notes, on August 11th field inspection, the notes read there were concerns about the amount of disturbance and water use versus recharge, and would like to see the structure staked again. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? Board of Trustees 46 September 16, 2020 MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann, En-Consultants. Am I live? (Affirmative response). Okay, great. Thank you. I was getting so efficient with this I didn't even have to un-mute. So I'm here to represent the application, also I believe with us is Jeff Butler who is the designer here. I want to cover a couple of housekeeping issues. First, the original application that referenced the site plan prepared by Jeffrey Butler PE last dated June 5th, 2020, but as Mike just mentioned, last Friday we submitted an updated site plan last dated 9/11/20. It did not change anything having to do with the proposed construction, siting and construction, anything like that. It just reflected a couple of changes to the proposed septic design that had been required by the Health Department relating to the exact configuration of the proposed IA absorption field, and also to indicate that the future expansion portion of the system would be installed at the time of the initial installation so that there would only be a one-time disturbance possible in connection with the proposed sanitary system. And Jeff can speak a little bit more to that after I'm done with my presentation. We had also shared during field inspections 'a rendering that was juxtaposing images of the proposed and existing dwellings on which you'll note there was an upper level deck depicted atop the second-floor roof that overhangs the first floor patio, and while the footprint of that second-floor overhang is called out on the site plan, the deck is not. Since it's a vertical element that is proposed within the footprint of the roof, I'm not sure for purposes of Wetland review it actually needed to be shown on the site plan, but I want to make note of it for the record and if we had to call it out, we would certainly do that. Also last Friday, we submitted, as Mike just alluded to, a supplemental site plan view depicting the footprint of the existing dwelling structure and clearing versus that of the proposed dwelling and clearing, as well as the existing and proposed wetland setbacks associated with both existing and proposed structures. So I just want to review, for purposes of the record and the Board's review of this application, with respect to its environmental and wetland parameters, just a bit of an overview of that data set. I don't know if you are able to pull that up, to share your screen to show that overlay. It might be helpful. It's the one that has the different colored lines on it. But I can go ahead and I can reference it. I assume it's in front of you all. And if you can get it up, that would be great. I'll give you a second, Liz. MS. CANTRELL: Just one minute. Our WiFi is slow here. Bear with me, Rob. MR. HERRMANN: That's okay. I can go ahead. It looks like it's loading up. Board of Trustees 47 September 16, 2020 That's it. Great. Thanks, Liz. So again,just to go over some of these project parameters, first of all, the footprint of the habitable dwelling space is actually about 133-square feet smaller than the existing house, with the proposed footprint of 3,287-square feet compared to the existing footprint of 3,420-square feet. The overall lot coverage increases by a little more than a thousand square feet from 5,365 to 6,425. And that is due to the addition of the swimming pool and the raised patio area on the bay side of the house, which is 470 square feet larger than the existing deck. But at 10.6% lot coverage, the project is little more than half of the lot coverage that is allowed by Town Code under Chapter 280. And with a 79-foot wetland setback, the proposed pool actually exceeds the required pool setback under Chapter 275 by 29 feet. So we were careful with those setbacks when proposing the pool. As you know, the site is constrained by wetlands on both the north and south side of the property, with the bay to the south and vegetated tidal wetlands on the north side of the adjoining right-of-way, which ultimately is associated the with West Creek farther to the north and east. And the new dwelling structure would be located farther from both wetland boundaries than the existing. On the south --and before I go through the numbers, you can see now with the overlay here, which was not as evident on the original site plan, that the entire south side of the dwelling is actually being angled to be more parallel with the bay and thus increase wetland setbacks versus the existing. So you see that whole blue colored area down that is south of the orange is all existing structural area that will be removed. So a result of that reconfiguration, whereas the existing deck is 64 feet from mean high water associated with the bay, the proposed patio is 67 feet. 61 feet to the stairs. And the existing house footprint is 73 feet. And if you draw the - setback to the existing enclosed porch, it's actually 69. And the proposed house footprint is a minimum of 75 feet. On the north side, which is the vegetated tidal wetland side of the property, we are increasing the wetland setback by ten feet. The existing house is 65 feet and the proposed house is 75. And that is accomplished primarily partly through the landward shift of the house but also through the elimination of that wing of the existing house that sort of protrudes towards those vegetated wetland to the north. The existing sanitary system, which is basically an outdated traditional system, is located currently only about 80 feet from the bay, and the proposed system is going to be located a minimum of 100 feet from both the bay side wetland and also the vegetated wetland to the north. The new system is an innovative alternative, low nitrogen system, which Jeff can perhaps speak a little more on after I'm done. But I do want to just relate back, you had read the LWRP Board of Trustees 48 September 16,2020 comment about the clearing of the 6,600 square feet for the septic. The plan does show that that area, which you saw cordoned off with yellow and red tape out on the site, is to be completely restored upon completion of the installation of the septic system. It will, basically the successful functioning of the this type of low nitrogen system is dependent on that exact environment of shallow graded native grasses, so it's actually an ideal location for this type of system. Obviously the area has to be restored for it to be installed, but once it's installed it gets completely restored and then that vegetative environment actually helps the successful functioning of that system to reduce nitrogen loads into the adjacent wetlands, and particularly the bay. And again, Jeff can speak more on the detail on that if you wish. Also, on the top of the other LWRP comments you just mentioned, I'm sure the majority of your projects are located within flood zones, so that struck me as an unusual LWRP comment. But notwithstanding that, the project is designed to be in compliance with FEMA construction standards and in fact has a proposed first-floor elevation that is one foot higher than the first-floor elevation of the existing house, and actually exceeds the required, FEMA required base foot elevation by four feet as the house is situated in an AE-6 zone, which requires a base foot elevation of eight, and the proposed first floor elevation is 12, again, versus eleven feet for the existing. And it's actually worth noting, since the LWRP coordinator did raise it, that immediately adjacent to the AE-6 zone is AE-8 zone, and since stormwaters don't always discriminate based on how we map things out, the house was designed more conservatively really to exceed even the more restrictive flood zone that is located just to the south of the house and the boundary line that divides the AE-6 and AE-8 zones. There is of course a proposed stormwater drainage system that has been included on the plan, which would be more advanced than anything obviously that exists there now, if there even is a drainage system on the site now. Oh, and just actually as a final note, that revised site plan that we submitted Friday was also updated to add a note in connection with the temporary clearing that is proposed around the area of the drainage system on the east side of the house. Specifically, we added a note that that area that will be cleared for the drainage system will be temporarily cleared and then restored with native vegetation, and we would have an in-kind replacement in terms of caliper size of those existing cedar trees, if any of those have to be removed. With a prior caller there was a question of field inspections, whether the clearing associated with the drainage system that side of the property would require removal of those trees. So we have added to the site plan if, that if it did, they would be replaced with like-caliper size trees. Board of Trustees 49 September 16, 2020 So just in summary, it's, you know, I know the Board had seen a prior version of the plan a couple of years ago and had some concern about the size of the footprint and the location, and we became involved with the project and got Jeff involved With the project, and I think the entire design team in terms of the environmental parameters the Board is looking at under Chapter 275 and the LWRP put together a plan that keeps the footprint of the house consistent with what is there, improves wetland setbacks, improves drainage, improves the septic treatment. And that's really all I have. I'm happy to respond to any additional questions the Board has. I'm not sure if the architect is on this call. I-hope they are. If there are any questions of them. And again, I don't know if, Alan, do you want to see if Jeff wants to add anything to my comments regarding the septic' system? MR. BELNIAC: Jeff Butler is here. Jeff, you are in the audience. Jeff just raised his hand. Jeff, you should get a command to open your mic. When you do, the floor is yours. MR. BUTLER: Jeff Butler on behalf of the applicant, here with Rob Herrmann. So, Rob went over all the points that we took great care and designed with regards to the sanitary system and this low nitrogen system, and the reason why we located where we did, with the infiltration fences which has the nitrogen update component to them, with the vegetation being planted on top. But I'm available here if you have any questions that the Board may have that they didn't handle in the field, perhaps, or if you may have others. So, I'm available. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Jeff, let me first comment on the excellent plans. They are amongst the best I have ever seen. They are quite clear. But can you, for those of us that are not familiar with the advantages of the type of IA system you are proposing here, can you just briefly give us bullet points on the ,advantages over the other types. MR. BUTLER: Sure. So let's start with what this house exists with now, which is just a leaching pool where the effluent dumps into with no pre-treatment whatsoever, which predates Article Six of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. And in the early 80s Suffolk County came out with a code where you had to pre-treat your effluent by dumping it into a septic tank for pre-treatment and then out to your leaching pools. And those systems typically have about 65 milligrams per liter of nitrogen that end up in the groundwater, and in this case that system is located under the bayside deck of the existing house. And those are the, you know, that nitrogen level is very high and is not very healthy for the bay. These systems which have been in use in other parts of the country for many years, have recently been adopted in Suffolk County as an alternative to those systems. They took a couple Board of Trustees 50 September 16, 2020 years to do field tests and apply their standards to them, and a -couple years ago they issued, they were able to issue permits to start the use of these. And they are finding that the nitrogen levels are being reduced down below 20 milligrams per liter, which is an incredible reduction. But then in conjunction with that, rather than taking the effluent out of the treatment chambers and putting them into drywells, at, you know, 19 milligrams per liter, we are now able to use these trench systems, and there are a couple of different models on the market, and what these'trench systems do is they pipe the water out, which is very low in nitrogen to begin with, but then is used to go underneath the root beds of the vegetation that goes on top of them, and the nitrogen is used up through the roots and into the atmosphere rather than down into the groundwater, for the most part. We don't have any data what resultant nitrogen to ground water is, but we know it's incredibly reduced. I have designed hundreds of these at this point and, you know, the two or three-year period now they have been operating, they have been operating very well. One of the things that we always do recommend, as Rob had mentioned, in an area like this, is to put the expansion areas in with the initial installation. So that's done. And there is no disturbance needs to occur. But the systems have been operating really well, and it's a tremendous benefit above the systems that have been previously allowed to be used in Suffolk County. And this is like a textbook example of where these systems should be used. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, very much. Any questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I have a question. The proposed structure, do we know what the total square footage of living space is? MR. HERRMANN: Greg, I'm sorry. I don't know if my mic is still live. MR. BELNIAC: It's live. MR. HERRMANN: Good thing I asked. So I'm not fumbling for that at my fingertips, Alan, can you see if, is Steve Mehekha or Chris Coy on the line? They might be able to -- MR. BELNIAC: Steve is here. If you want to raise your hand and speak. And Chris Coy is also here. I'm sorry, I also see Steve Mehekha. That would be -- so Steve Mehekha did not raise his hand, but Steve with no last name did. So I'm not sure. We can start with Chris Coy. Chris, I sent a'command to your line to open your mic and when you do, the floor is yours. MR. COY: Okay, good evening, everyone. Can you hear me okay? (Affirmative response). I'm Chris Coy, the architect of the house. Yes, the total square footage of the air-conditioned interior space is about 6,400. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: How many bathrooms are going to be there? MR. COY: Well, bathrooms,'I mean, the county doesn't, they don't Board of Trustees 51 September 16, 2020 really care about bathrooms; they care about bedrooms, because it's a question of how many people are using the facilities. But to answer your question, I think we have six bathrooms. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions from the Board? MR. HAGAN: There is another person to comment. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: The only thing I'd like to point out, is currently there is 4,200 feet. And they talk about a smaller house, I've heard that several times. But we are going from 4,200 square feet to 6,200 square feet and from three-and-a-half baths to six baths. MR. COY: If I may comment, I think what the operative figure here is the footprint. So the footprint is 140-something square feet smaller than the existing footprint. So I think that's what, we are trying to tread lightly on the ground here. So we kept the footprint small, and I think, you know, of course if you have a small footprint, it only makes sense economically to scoop that up into a second floor as much as you can. So, yes, the total square footage is more than the existing, but the existing has wasted their upper floor on pitched roof, so that's just a different architectural style. I think this architecture is more efficient. But I think that the point is, which Rob made very well before, is the footprint is quite a bit smaller than the existing. MR. HERRMANN: And again, if I'm still live, that was my point, Greg. We are always with this Board, always with a Wetland application, you know, the prominent feature that we are often focused on is location, configuration, footprint, wetland setbacks. So we are in a situation here where, you know, we are modifying the configuration of the house and increasing the wetland setbacks, which from a wetland perspective is, or at least should be, less pertinent that the GFA that gets included whether your inground basement or aboveground second story. Again, there is no intention to mislead on that number. The overall square footage, as I mentioned, of the entire dwelling structure, you know, lot coverage, I should say, includes the patio and the pool, increases about a thousand square feet to 10.6% lot coverage. It was just worth noting that the habitable footprint of the house is actually getting squeezed a little bit smaller, and I had pointed out that the configuration of the house was changing so that it gets a little bit longer and narrower from west to east because we were trying to pull away, not just from the bay side, but from the vegetated tidal wetlands to the north. ' This property is not located in a critical environmental area, but West Creek is a designated critical environmental area, and ultimately the vegetated tidal wetlands on that side are associated with the hydrologic system. So it is important for us to note that we are increasing the wetland setback from that wetland area to the north by ten feet. From 65 feet to 75 feet. Which, by the way, as you know, is the minimum setback Board of Trustees 52 September 16,2020 requirement under the New York State Tidal Wetlands Act, and I, which reminds me, I probably should have mentioned that the project that is in front of the Board now, did receive a tidal wetland permit from the New York State DEC, which was issued in July. And just for the record, that ID number is 1-4738-00913/00012. So I hope that clarifies the intent of my mentioning those metrics in the way I did. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: For the record, I would like to state New Suffolk Avenue has been voted several times by Southold Town as the most scenic byway in Southold Town. So we are taking a house with a peeked roof and basically putting up a wall along a scenic byway. We are also asking a less than an acre of buildable land that is enveloped by fragile wetland to accommodate a 6,400-square foot house with six bathrooms. That's very concerning to me, personally. MR. HERRMANN: Well, I mean, the architecture of the house is really not under Chapter 275, but certainly I respect your perspective on it. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Rob, if you can clarify one further thing for me. In reading the LWRP coordinator's inconsistency, I believe you satisfied for me, personally, the question about the, enlargement of the structure, which is, seemed to be his primary complaint, and the vegetation, because the plans clearly state that, reading from the plans, temporarily clear and restore with native vegetation and replacement of the existing cedar trees, same caliper within noted area. And another spot it reads temporarily cleared and restored with native vegetation. That was be over the septic system. But you did not address the last concern he had which was about survivability parameters. So would you be open to a requirement that you provide survivability parameters for a minimum of two years? MR. HERRMANN: Absolutely. And I'm sorry, Mike, I actually, I missed that. But in response to it, that type of survivability requirement is actually pretty common in New York State DEC permits, and they typically require some monitoring over the life of the permit, and typically require 85% survivability. I mean that, if that's kind of what you had in mind, I don't think we would have any issue with that. And,Jeff could speak further to it, but in the context of his comments, I think it would be to everyone's benefit, you know, to actually'in fact monitor and see how that is all working out, particularly in connection with a system like this because, as Jeff noted, this is the direction that these sanitary systems are going to be going in in environments like this. So, yes, I think I can say that we would have, we would be in total agreement with something like that, and Jeff could write that into the site plan. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a question. This is, I think the first plant-linked IA that I have seen here with IAs coming in. Perhaps you or Jeff Butler,could indicate typically what type of Board of Trustees 53 September 16, 2020 plant species and coverage is the county or the design specifications calling for, as far as appropriate species for the nitrogen uptake. Because this is new one on me, and I certainly appreciate the direction this is going. Maybe we can get a little more information. MR. HERRMANN: Sure. And I'm just looking now at the full engineering plan, because I did think that we had that described in here. Jeff, are you -- MR. BUTLER: Rob, I don't know that we did. But I can tell you is that in these systems that we have done this, particularly Fire Island, that the native grasses have done extremely well on top of these systems and really flourished nicely. So I would embrace the survivability clause for this because it just makes the system work better as long as it is there. But if the grasses are there around the house is being used, those'grasses are going to flourish. They are going to do very well. MR. HERRMANN: And, Jeff, we can add, the same as we do like on a bluff restoration plan, we could add a proposed planting schedule with species and spacing and all that. MR.,BUTLER: Absolutely, yes. MR. HERRMANN: The general answer to Mike's question is that what you see out there is what would be replanted. I mean, there is some bayberry out there, but I think probably at least 906/6 of the groundcover that is encompassed within that temporary clearing area is predominantly beach grass, probably switch grass, other grasses. But we could certainly have a planting schedule drawn up to reflect that and memorialize it in connection with the plan, along with the survivability. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. One follow-up question, too. My understanding from your presentation is this type of system then is superior to the infiltrator or the infiltration galleys insofar as the plant-life system is going to provide additional nitrogen removal above and beyond the basic initial treatment in the IA. In otherwords -- MR. BUTLER: That's actually correct. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, very much. MS. CANTRELL: William Nolan has been waiting. So if the Board is done, I'll mute Rob, at the moment, I'll mute Rob and Chris and Jeff. And Mr. Nolan, you -- MR. BELNIAC: So the issue with Mr. Nolan is he has his hand raised but there is microphone icon next to his name, which means there does not seem to be an audio device attached to his computer. So we won't be able to hear him. So Mr. Nolan, if you can hear us, hopefully you can, you have two choices if you want to share a comment with us. You can either use the telephone number and dial in, and we can recognize you pretty quickly, or you can use the Q&A box and type your comments in and we can read those into the record and we can address your questions that way. So unfortunately we can't hear from Mr. Nolan. So we don't know which choice, if any, he is pursuing. So we'll have to just sit tight and wait a moment until we see either the Q&A light up Board of Trustees 54 September 16, 2020 or until we see a new attendee join with a telephone number. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you just confirm how they would access the Q&A again? MR. BELNIAC: There is a button down below near"hand raised." It literally reads "Q&A", for question and answer. And after they enable that they are able to type a question into the box and then the moderators, Liz and I, will see that and will be able to read it into the record. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MS. CANTRELL: Mr. Nolan is trying to call. MR. BELNIAC: So just confirming for everyone in the room -- okay, great. We'll give that a second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Rob, and Jeff, it would be possible, I would think, given the plant conditions in the area and the rich overlay of American beach grass in the vicinity of the new proposed IA, that plant materials, if they were judiciously removed, could be the source of new plants to immediately go back in over the system if they were heeled in or maintained by a nursery. MR. HERRMANN: Jay, am I hearing you correctly that you are suggesting that part of the revegetation treatment should involve actually maintaining some of the same specimens that would be removed? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, since much of the American beach grass is rhizome-dominated, and provided it was kept wet and put in a nursery or reeled in either onsite or at an appropriate site, would seem to me, culturally, you could use materials that come from the site and they might get,a bounce and have a very high survivability, at least in keeping with my notion of those plants. MR. HERRMANN: Yes, we can certainly take a shot at it. I mean we would have no objection of trying. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, we have a caller. MR. BELNIAC: I believe Mr. Nolan is here on the phone. Mr. Nolan, if your phone number ends in 407, we'll send you a command to open your mic, and with that you should be with us in the meeting telephonically. As a reminder, *6 --there you go. MR. NOLAN: Hi. This is William Nolan. Thank you, so much, for holding this meeting. My father-in-law's property is adjacent to this proposed building. And I don't know why I was so frazzled in trying to get onto this meeting, but in a previous application someone was told that they had to leave posts in the ground. And what we are discussing here is removing a foundation and pouring a new foundation. And one of the Trustees made an obvious point that, say that you are trying to make a smaller footprint from a 2,500-square foot house, let's call it, to a 6,400 square foot house is absolutely absurd on its face. The next point is that when they are saying that they want to put the septic system in, one of the first things that was said is that this way they will be prepared for future Board of Trustees 55 September 16, 2020 expansion. Okay, so it's not only talking about a 6,400-square foot house, that frankly does not ht in the neighborhood, it is talking about a future expansion of such property. The third thing that I would like to say is right where they want to put the leaching fields, comes right up against my neighbor's property, which he wrote an e-mail saying that he is concerned about how close this leaching field is going to be to his house. Now, when the application was done, they had test holes done. And the water level rises up to just under a foot. So even though they are spreading out all of the nitrogen, which is' lowered by chemicals, and this, that and the other thing, it is definitely being brought to the surface. And in the area where they are suggesting the leaching fields go, they said it's further from the bay, and further from the wetland, that's the marshy wetlands across the way. But the marshy wetlands across the way are lower in elevation, so therefore when it rains, the water, the water that is necessary for the diamond back terrapin, which are coming back, I seen four of them this year, the water goes down into that estuary, into the marshy wetlands. So you are moving the cesspool. I understand that these might be better for certain applications, but what we are talking about is increasing the size of this house on a tiny lot, when you take out the 32% of their property that is wetlands, this is absurd on its face. It's too big of a house. They are talking about future expansions. The leaching field comes very close to my neighbor, who sent in an e-mail. It's on the Town website, on this particular application. But he's concerned about how close this is to his house. And then the other people who live on the other side of the house to the east, they live in a beach bungalow. It's a small, tiny, little house. And then you are going to put this tremendous house on a piece of property that really doesn't warrant it. This is a very unique piece of property where it had tidal wetland on either side, and if you look at the map, somebody said that this is not in a critical place, um, in the critical place. According to the Peconic estuary people, this is in an area that is rated 922, which is the highest need for environmental conservation. So just removing the home,just doing the demolition alone, is at a critical place. And furthermore, I have spoken to many of my neighbors, who are terrified. They are terrified about another home that does not fit in the neighborhood, going up. The architect said that, . you know, using roof lines and this and that is wasted space, and utilizing the space better. That may be true out in California and somewhere else;but not here. This is, there is so many layers of where I feel --just on its face, one of the Trustees members had to say how is a 6,400-square foot house better for this piece of property than the 2,500-square foot house that is there now. That on its face does not pass the sniff test. Board of Trustees 56 September 16, 2020 I have further things to say, I want to stay on with this meeting but, I know there is, you know, you raised this house up a foot higher. I don't care what kind of drainage system you have when you put it in here, I lived in this house next door to it for many, many years. I don't know who the owner is. The owner is an LLC, he's located in Oregon. The person that is representing it is an attorney, is not a person. So we don't know who it is. Is this a spec house? Why is the future expansion already being considered? On its face this is insane. So, that's how, and, you know, it doesn't make sense. Who even owns the home? I would love to speak to the person who is owning the home. We don't have that opportunity. And the property manager, when we asked him who owns the home, he just told us a first name Eileen. So what is their last name? He said, I don't know. So there is a lot of deceit. Deceit is happening. It happened in this meeting, to where a Board member had to say what is the ultimate square footage of this house. The ultimate square footage of this house is 6,400 square feet. It's a massive, massive increase. And furthermore, the people that own the house next door, just to the east, they have no idea. Because they left. This is a seasonal home. They left. They don't even know that this is happening. I spoke to Ernie Case, one of the owners of that house. He is up in arms. He had no idea that this is even happening. He had no notification. So I'm still on the line, and thank you for hearing me. I would like to thank the Board for all of the work that you have done tonight. It's absolutely amazing what you guys put yourselves through. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Does anyone else wish to speak to this application? MR. COY: Can you hear me?This is Chris Coy. (Affirmative response). Okay. Chris Coy, architect, I would just like to respond to a few of the numbers here. I'm not going to get into the architectural debate, because that's not the issue here. But the existing house has, it does not have a footprint of 2,500-square feet. It has a footprint of 3,420-square feet. And what we have designed has a footprint of 3,297 square feet. So in fact it is possible it to have a smaller footprint but have a larger interior square footage. And nobody is being deceitful. We are very open about that. But the point is where does the house touch the ground. So we have reduced that to the smallest possible footprint within the code. Now we have also mitigated the setbacks. We have reduced the' setbacks on every side from the existing house. So, you know, look we do a lot of these. Just because a house is existing doesn't mean it's better for the environment. In fact this house, because of its outdated septic system and outdated construction system, I would suggest is worse for the Board of Trustees 57 September 16, 2020 environment than what we are going to leave behind when we build a house that is made out of materials that are more sustainable and less likely to deteriorate and rot over time, and use an innovative septic system that will in fact help the native beach grasses grow. So, you know, I would also submit that if anybody who is upset about the size of the house, it's not actually that large a house, that it won't be seen from the -- and again, the architecture can't be an issue here, but I know some people are concerned about when you drive down New Suffolk Avenue, the house really won't be seen. You are coming along on a curve, you are, if you turn your head to the right as you are heading east, there are huge evergreens there. The house won't be seen. That was part of our consideration of how we shaped the house and how we site the house. So I just want to raise those couple of points. And I want to address this point about the future expansion. MR. HERRMANN: Chris, it's Rob Herrmann. Can we let Jeff speak to that? MR. COY: I want to let Jeff speak to that, yes. But I.want to say there is no future expansion of the house. I think Mr. Nolan was suggesting there is future expansion anticipated for the house. There is not. And the owner is a person, and they live in Montana, not Oregon. But anyway, it's a person I'm in contact with. I don't work for LI-Cs, I work for people. But some people want to be private, and I have to respect their wish to be private. MR. HERRMANN: That is Rob Herrmann again. I want to very super quickly respond just to a couple of points that were raised by Mr. Nolan, then I just want to quickly hand it over to Jeff. Just on one issue, all of the adjoining and surrounding neighbors who were required by Town Code to be notified were in fact properly notified. Number one. Number two, with respect to the scope of the house -- MR. HAGAN: Rob, with regard to the notice issue, the Town Attorney's office did do some research into this and applicants are required to use the Town Assessor's final assessment role to ascertain who are the owners of a property and notify those parties, and it's my understanding after being looked into by the Town Attorney himself that the proper parties were notified pursuant to what is listed on the Town Assessor's assessment rolls.- TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, for that. MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, Damon. Just speaking to the scope of the house as to what was described as this tiny lot, the total lot area here is 89,795-square feet. The total wetland area is 29,120-square feet, which leaves an upland area of 60,675-square feet. That is the area that is considered to be buildable land under Town Code Chapter 280, and it is from that number that the proposed lot coverage is calculated. As the Board knows, 20% lot coverage is the maximum under Chapter 280, and here 10.6% lot coverage is proposed. So it's roughly 50%, a little more than 50% of what is allowed by code. Board of Trustees 58 September 16, 2020 Just for the record. And there is also just a question about concern that the proximity of the house to an adjoining lot, I'm not sure which one, but just for the record, the proposed side yard setback of the,house to the east property line as shown on the Jeff Butler site plan is 58.9 feet. And from the west property line is 73 feet, which is about roughly the same as what the existing house is. The full extent of the house does start to extend a little bit to the east compared to the existing, but that is over the areas that are currently developed, the driveways and all the land is cleared. And just as final note, I want to pass it to Jeff just so people who don't deal with this kind of stuff for a living understand it. Jeff, can you explain what I meant when I talked about the installation of the future expansion components of the septic system in terms of how, the fact that they are required by the Health Department and the fact that they are not normally installed initially but room has to be left for them, versus what we are doing here? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe un-mute Mr. Butler. MR. HAGAN: While we are waiting, the Board has to evaluate the application as before. That is the question before you. MR. BUTLER: Hello? MS. CANTRELL: We hear you. MR. BUTLER: Okay. Thank you. Article Six of the Suffolk County Sanitary code requires that for a design of a sanitary system, we have to demonstrate that the area exists for expanding the leaching fields above the sanitary system in the event of a failure of part of the leaching components of the sanitary field. The sanitary system is made up of two components. One is the pre-treatment, which in this case is the IA system, which traditionally been a septic tank in Suffolk County. Those systems are sized based on the flow calculated for the bedroom count in the house. They are not sized for expansion because they do not fail. The leaching'components have a tendency to fail over time depending on what sort of effluent is running through the system over time. And if they do fail, we have to demonstrate that there is enough room to mitigate that failure by adding leaching and substitute that for the failed components of the system. The expansion areas shown on the plan are in accordance with Suffolk County Article Six and have absolutely nothing to do with any expansion of the house: In fact, if any expansion of the house were to occur, the Building Department would send this back to the Suffolk County Department Health because the pre-treatment components are undersized for any sort of expansion. So I hope that makes that clear. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I just want to add that, as acknowledged in previous conversations, the Trustees carefully review every application that comes before us. The Trustees determinations Board of Trustees 59 September 16,2020 flow from the code. And the code is quite specific on almost every area. Specific about setbacks, lot coverage, the height of a dwelling, et cetera. And we just sift through the facts and try to make sure that what we approve matches and fits within that code. And the impact of the house is determined by the footprint. To point out again, the footprint on this application is proposing a smaller home. And as a final note, I've had 30 years of experience with this type of septic system in a home that I have owned for 40 years'in another state. And I can say unequivocally this will be an improvement over the system that exists at this site right now. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I would just like to add something. You know, we, fortunately or unfortunately, are not the style police. So we can't control the architecture of a design. But as Trustee Domino said, our concern is with the wetlands. So the proposed structure, as I see it, we have a smaller footprint, so in theory, a smaller impact on the environment. It's farther away from the wetland, which we are trying to protect, on all sides. The proposed sanitary system to me is the model of what we want to go forward with in the Town, utilizing native vegetation to further reduce the nitrogen from going into those wetlands. So, you know, I empathize with the neighbors, but from an environmental standpoint, which is the Board's purview, I don't see any objections on my part. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would just echo those comments. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is the pool going to be salt water? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that's a very appropriate suggestion. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I would be more comfortable with the stipulation the pool be salt water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would agree with that as a stipulation. MR. HERRMANN: If Chris is still on the line, he can confirm, but I don't think we have any objection to that. That may already be on the plan. MR. COY: Yes. Again, this is Chris Coy. So in fact we always do a salt water pool, and that was the plan here. So it's a saltwater pool. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as per the plans, Jeff Butler plans drawn September 9th; 2020, received, stamped received September 11th, 2020, with the condition that a survivability parameter of at least two years, all vegetation replanted in areas denoted -- MR. BELNIAC: It appears your line got muted. Here we go. TRUSTEE DOMINO: (Continuing)for all vegetation replanted in the Board of Trustees -60 September 16, 2020 areas denoted as per Jeff Butler plans, again, last revised September 9th, 2020, and stamped received,9/11/2020, which will address, such action and-will address the inconsistency denoted by the LWRP coordinator. And a saltwater pool. MR. HAGAN: There were multiple plans submitted. Can we clarify? Because'some were overlay plans. But then there should be a plan that was -- MS. CANTRELL: Received on the same day.- MR. ay.MR. HAGAN: There were two sets of plans that came in. One with color coding to make it easier for you. So we are not referencing that one. We are referencing -- TRUSTEE DOMINO: We are referencing that one and the one in addition. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They match up_. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Stamped. MR. HAGAN: It's-the same plan? TRUSTEE' KRUPSKI: Yes,,they match up. MR. HAGAN: Okay. I want to make sure they are not different plans. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next item, number 16;Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of CHRISTA BROWN requests a Wetland Permit to abandon and remove the existing septic system and replace the system with a new IA/OWTS septic system (setback 108.0' from the landward limit of freshwater wetland boundary). Located: 74450 Route 25, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-45-6-6 This project has been deemed to be consistent with the Town's LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council has voted to support this project. The Trustees have inspected this project on August 11th, and reviewed further on September 9th and at our work session on September 14th. And there is in the file a letter of support for the Brown property septic system from the Bostwick Bay Company, adjacent property.owners. .The tenant of that property is William J. Mills Canvass Company, in support of the project. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MS. CANTRELL: Bruce Anderson is present. So I'm going to bring you up, Bruce. MR. ANDERSON: Can you hear me? (Affirmative response).' TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. Good evening, Mr. Anderson. How are you? MR. ANDERSON: Good evening. As a housekeeping issue.here, there was a scaling error made in the plans, and I'm going to ask that this be tabled so we can get that straightened out for the next Board of Trustees 61 September 16, 2020 hearing. The septic system that'is'proposed is well beyond the jurisdiction of the,Trustees, however we probably want to obtain a permit for it because what-concerns us about this property and frankly the surrounding properties, is the abundance of clay. So if you were to look at the test hole data that has been provided to you on the survey and the plan prepared bring Joseph Fischetti, you'll see that we have clay that extends to 39 feet below the surface. The ground surface. So what will happen here is this septic system, all of this occurs under a paved parking lot where Sunrise Buses stores all of their buses. So what will happen is the asphalt in the vicinity of the existing septic system will have to,be peeled back, and that system is significantly closer to wetlands than what we are proposing. And then what will happen is that a crane will come in, probably with cutting rings because you'll notice we encounter water six feet below surface, the ground surface. So we have this sort of fluidized clay that extends from six feet below to 39 feet. In other words there is 27 feet of the fluidized clay that will have to come out for the septic system to properly function. So the new septic system is well outside of your jurisdiction. The old septic system or cesspools, is significantly closer, but the area of disturbance might be quite greater because of the crane, the cutting rings, staging area for this sort of fluidized clay that will have to come out. So I ask that it be tabled so we can sort of get some of the descriptions a little bit more refined. Now, having said all that, there is a distinct possibility that we will never actually install a septic system here as there is an effort underway, undertaken by Colin Laskey and the Village-of Greenport, to bring sewer line across into this vicinity of the Main Road. And if that were to happen, I'm sure there will be great interest in ail of these properties in this area to hook up to the sewer system. Because all these, properties have the same problem. And the problem they have, in essence, is the very unsuitable clay strata beneath the site, east and west of this property and across the street. So I respectful ask we table it so we can sort of refine our description. But also understand that even as we move forward, we are going to collect the permit, but our hope is that the project will basically culminate in the removal of two cesspools and the installation of a sewer line, which will be out of your jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. So, paraphrasing what you said, you are requesting tabling'of this application for submitting a plan certain that might detail additional operations that would include extensive issues with fluidized clay and removal of cesspools and peeling back asphalt, potentially leading-to a major modification to-the permit application. MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. Board of Trustees 62 September 16, 2020 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. Accordingly, I move to table this application, unless anyone else raises their hand to speak to this matter. MR. ANDERSON: Well, one thing, if the public wishes to speak, I would certainly be interested in any comment the public might have or any comment any Board members have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anymore comments from the public or the Board before I move to table? (Negative response). . Seeing none, I make a motion to table the application in this matter. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 17, 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 As stated in a prior meeting, the LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. Some of the notes were proposed location of the single-family residence is in the FEMA EI-6 flood zone with potential loss of structures on site during storm surge, hurricanes, flooding, is moderate to high. In the event the action is approved, the creation of a 100-foot vegetated natural buffer inclusive of existing vegetation is recommended on the landward edge-of the beach. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make a recommendation due to COVID. The Trustees most recently visited this site on the 9th of September. There were concerns about the height of the retaining wall. Need a final firm height. Need more detailed plans. Wait for conceptual design from Suffolk County Health Department is recommended based on the onsite test holes. I believe the general consensus of that is so that we didn't start installing a septic system to find out we need a higher retaining wall, which has happened many times in the past. Then going back to our original site visit on the 11th of March, consider pressure mat to reduce the height of the retaining wall. Need to see the side elevations, which were provided, based off the street height. They are a very easy to read set of plans. And limit clearing of bayberry on bay side. And all property on bay side of residence to be non-disturbance. Is.there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? And just to sum up, and clarify, we did receive the side elevation plans which were reviewed by the Trustees. MS. CANTRELL: Bruce, can you un-mute yourself? Board of Trustees 63 September 16, 2020 MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental. Okay, so this was the subject of a quite a bit of discussion at the last meeting last month. And let me just quickly go over what was discussed. And first of all, what was discussed relating to the wall, is here we a wall that is designed by Joseph Fischetti, professional engineer, that will extend between 1.6 and 2.2 feet above grade. The Board had requested that we provide you with perspectives and a landscape plan, which was done. Both plans were submitted to you on September 9th. They were E-mailed I believe shortly prior to that. And what you would note is that the well is quite below, and that it is being appropriately screened from the street. This is a house that is in a flood plain, as most waterfront houses are, and it is designed to comply with FEMA regulations. So I think the concern about somehow you can't build in a flood plain by the LWRP is just unfounded. That would mean essentially we would have no waterfront houses throughout much of the town. So this house complies in all respects to FEMA, in all respects to zoning, in all respects to wetlands setbacks, and we have provided you with that landscape plan. I don't know that therels much more to discuss about this. I will say that if we were to go -- and it was pointed out by , Mr. Fischetti last meeting -- if we were to go to more of a mat-type of leaching system, which I heard great discussion on a couple of matters earlier, it would have the effect of taking up more room, thereby advancing the house closer to the bay. And right now if you look at the surveys that were submitted with the application, what we are'trying to do is propose a small, moderately sized beach house that lines up with the houses on either side of it. So we think the plans that we submitted are very sensitive to the neighborhood, are in keeping with the neighborhood, and address the areas of concern adequately, and I'm certainly here to answer any further questions you may have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the Board of Trustees essentially still has the same concerns in terms of the height of the retaining walls. You know, you are raising a piece of property next to two lower properties, essentially. Now, the Board -- I should speak for myself. I fully understand that it is a flood zone. I understand the need to raise the level of the house which you are doing through pilings, which I think is very appropriate, but I think the concern is with that large front yard area, you know bringing in fill, which has also not been specified within the plans. You know, there is some concern with drainage, there is some serious concern with runoff. There is more concern with flooding. And it just seems like, given some of the other applications we have seen before this, with the pressure mat, it just seems like there is a better option that would work for everyone. MR. ANDERSON: The engineer is telling us that if we were to go 'Board of Trustees 64 September 16, 2020 with the pressure mat, we would have to advance the house toward the bay. Because there is insufficient area to support the pressure mats. The wall is,of minimal height and it is absolutely required in order to suitably elevate the leaching galleys above ground water. The wall that we are proposing is quite low. 1.6 to 2.2. But even if it were higher, the argument will be the same. We cannot apply for and we cannot accept a septic system that cannot be built in the manner that you are suggesting. It simply can't be accommodated on this site because of the limited area that we have to work on. So if you look at the plans prepared by the engineer, you will see that we pull the wall three feet off the property line in the'front; we show leaching galleys and expansion pools that are ten feet from the wall. That is the minimum setback it can be to a wall. It can't be any closer to that. And that is true in all dimensions. And we provided this IA/OWTS system. I would be more than happy to accommodate you if it physically could happen, but in this case, unfortunately, it cannot happen. And that's what the engineer is telling us. Unless We want to take the house and advance it in front of the adjacent houses on either side, which I think would be more detrimental to the neighborhood than a wall that is 1.6 to 2.2 feet high. And so I don't know what else to tell you, but it just can't be any other way. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mr. Anderson, here is a question for you. , The front yard installation of the infiltrators with retaining -wall is confined to,an area that is limited by,a driveway area. Because you don't have a driveway over the sanitary. So a question might be with the pressure mat and the house moved closer to the street, you would have available space dedicated to the physical retaining walls themselves and a driveway, conceivably a pressure mat with a vegetated top maybe could be incorporated in the site substantially landward of the wetlands, since there is currently a distance between the proposed house and the bay. It might be another alternative that,would provide additional space�for IA that might eliminate the need for retaining walls. And I believe that Fishermans Beach is served by public water, so that construction of IA with a pressure mat and vegetation over it, the location of it would not necessarily 'involve relocation of neighboring wells. MR. ANDERSON: There is no question that the area is served by public water, and we intend to hook up to public water in this application. The plan features proposed water service, which you'll see runs along the northern side lot line and into the house on that side. I don't understand your logic on the pressure mat because you,can't put it underneath the driveway. Are you suggesting there be no driveway to access the property? - TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, I'm,suggesting the house be moved closer to the street and therefore you can have a driveway in front of the house with no sanitary in front of the house, but on the bay side. On the bay side of the house would be the potential location for an engineered mat system, because you have Board of Trustees 65 September 16, 2020 additional square footage that would be designated to the driveway as in the current plan. MR. ANDERSON: Well, the Health Department, in my experience, which is pretty extensive, I have never seen, and I don't believe the Health Department would ever permit the septic system to be on the bay side of the house, because they want access to that system from the road directly. In other words they don't want to have to drive around --they don't want to cause someone to have to drive around the house to service the septic system. So in my experience, we always place them between the house and the road. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Understandably that might be a consideration of the County Health Department, but they typically also defer to this Board when this Board writes permits, the condition being that the Town Trustees have to issue permits prior to. So possibly a conceptual review by the Health Department for an alternative plan that might include a system built, it might even include the potential future expansion, so it would be a one-time construction with pressure mat as we recently heard. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I just want to note, there is another project that got tabled tonight that is actually on a smaller lot than what you proposed, and they were putting in a septic system, an IA system, that did not require a retaining wall. So it seems like it is doable. It's not a restriction just based on your lot size. It's a proposed bigger house on a smaller lot, and they were able to design a septic system that did not require a retaining wall. TRUSTEE DOMINO: And I would like to say that in applications of this type, the issue for me, personally, has been and still is, the potential for proliferation of the retaining walls. Once you approve one, it's almost incumbent upon the neighbors to construct something going down the line. So it's just not as simple as looking at one application. We have considerable experience in this area, some of it quite negative. Second point is that, as you discussed, Mr. Anderson, before, we discussed this quite thoroughly in a previous public hearing wherein the engineer, your engineer, stated that there was insufficient room. However, I did come back to the envelope calculations here myself, and the previous application tonight, in an eight-bedroom home, that the area for this pressurized system there was about 626-square feet per bedroom, which means that in this home that you are, the plans that you are proposing, three bedrooms, you need about 1,878-square feet for that kind of system. And what you are proposing shows me an area of 1,800-square feet. So I don't see why it's not possible to put it in there, by those calculations. In fact, if I was to vote, if I was ever expected to vote for this, it has to be demonstrated to me that, if my math is wrong, that it's impossible to do it, because it certainly looks feasible to me. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And just to speak to Trustee Bredemeyer' s Board of Trustees- 66 September 16, 2020 point, yes, it would be moving the system closer to the bay, but it would also be moving it further away from the creek. So it's, you know, one or the other here. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I would say the direction of groundwater is toward the bay, not the creek. Because the groundwater will generally travel along the topography, and of course the land goes lower as you get to the bay and it's higher when you are at the creek. Now, if you look at the cross section here, you'll see that you have leaching galleys that are two-feet above groundwater, which is estimated one foot above sea level. The two foot separation between the leaching galleys and the groundwater is the minimum separation. And then you'll see that you have a, you need to have some sort of finished grade, which will be one to two feet above the top of the leaching pools. And you'll also see the top of the treatment unit is at 8.5 feet, okay, and the land there, if you were to, you'll need to mound up over this system because the property is basically at four feet. And there is no other way to do it. So what is happening is you are creating a contour around the system and then you feather it back as you get to the side lot line and the front lot line. And when you do that at a 5% slope, you wind up having to build a wall at anywhere between 1.6 and 2.2 feet high. Now, when you talk about the proliferation of walls for septic systems, you might be correct about that, and you might discover that it's necessary, because much of the neighborhood, and I suspect.this neighborhood, I'm certain this neighborhood, features houses that are served by cesspools that are already installed into groundwater. So this is probably one of the few septic systems that would actually protect the environment as to what you find in the neighborhood. The only thing I can see about the wall is that it presents an esthetic difficulty for you. And that is addressing the landscape plan. So again, I don't think what we are applying for is anything unreasonable at all. The prior discussion on the plants above these mats is interesting, but plants will penetrate into the earth and absorb nitrogen wherever they are.. It's not that that would not happen necessarily absent of this type of system. The 'root system of any plant in any of these low lying areas will extend into ground water and necessarily take up nitrogen anyway. So I think the benefit of that is a bit overstated. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mr. Anderson, arguably I guess you could have plants over an infiltrator, but they are only going to penetrate the top of the infiltrator, the concrete top of the infiltrator, or if it's a plastic or fiberglass-constructed bottom. I guess, I have to tell you, there is, I'm speaking for my own perspective here, I'm not exactly convinced there is another way through, that there might be another way through this by some kind of conceptual review with pressure mat, looking at all the features on the property and maybe taking a second or third Board of Trustees 67 September 16, 2020 look on this with respect to the design. You know, the technology is fast coming at us all, but this technology, but certainly the plant-based systems has been well proven now. So I'm not convinced with the application in its current form. MR. ANDERSON: Well, the only thing I can suggest is to table it, let Fischetti show you graphically what he has been telling me, and that this is the minimum system. You are saying you want to put the system out on the beach in front of the house. I can have him look at that. We have never done that. But I can certainly ask him to evaluate that, and certainly there is a lot more room in front of the house. In other words between the house and the bay. I don't know why-- I don't think it's a good idea, but we can certainly have him investigate. TRUSTEE DOMINO: More importantly, we would like to investigate this new improved system. Because the point of the vegetation is this vegetation is an integral component in this system. And additionally, we reviewed your plans. We noted the depth to groundwater. We noted the separation required from the Health Department. We are pretty familiar with that. But the key point to me is that, in your previous discussion, you said depth to groundwater is estimated to be something. That is the point. When we get it down to reality and they start digging and we find out that the conditions are a little different than what was estimated, then we have to build accordingly, and that's when we wind up with retaining walls that are far greater than what is proposed. That has been an issue for me for a long time, and it remains an issue for me. MR. ANDERSON: But you have in front of you a test hole, okay, and the test hole says that where it was taken that is indicated on the plans, which is right where the leaching galley would go, it shows right on the plan, was taken at an elevation of 3.8 feet. And that groundwater was encountered at 0.6 feet. The difference between 3.8 and 0.6 is 2.2. Now, for design purposes, we are not using 0.6, we are using one. Because that is the accepted margin of error that the Health Department applies. So I just don't understand why you keep saying estimate. It's estimated to be conservative. The real number is 0.6. But we always round it up to one to give that extra level of protection for the environment. That is why it's designed the way it's designed. I'll be happy, I'll talk to Joe about preparing some sort of plan that places the septic system on the beach, or some other configuration. But we spent a lot of time on this. We think this is what it has to be. But we'll ask him to take another look at it, if you like. MR:HAGAN: There is another person that wishes to speak. MS. CANTRELL: A neighbor is waiting to speak. Bruce, we'll mute you so a resident can come in and speak and ask questions. Lori Badanes, if you can hear me. MR. BANDANES: Hi. My name is David Bandanes, I'm Lori's husband, Board of Trustees 68 September 16, 2020 and her family owns the house directly to the east, which is 495 Fishermans Beach Road. Thank you, for allowing me to speak before the Board tonight. First of all, as I said last time, last meeting, we do object to this proposal for various reasons, a lot of which have been stated tonight already. You know, flooding, the footprint, the drainage. So I'm not going to repeat those objections. They have already been eloquently stated by members of the Board. And also with the retaining wall. The only thing again I would like to add, which I stated last time, you know, I believe, and if I'm wrong you'll correct me for sure, is this is an additional structure on that property. So again, it's kind of shoehorned, whether they build it toward the bay or they build it toward the creek, or build it wherever, it's really shoehorning another structure, and I think I heard earlier today about, you know, percentage of footprint versus acreage of the land. I don't know the number here, but again, it just seems that this is another structure that is going to be added to this land. Or proposed to be added. Again, if, you know, we do have, as was stated last time, if there is going to be vegetation, we want survivability, we want that added so it's not just sort of quote unquote one and done. Whatever vegetation they add, and trees, first of all they have to be tall enough; second of all, we want that they would be, you know, maintained and survive for many, many areas. Anything else? MS. BADANES: There are also concerns with the retaining wall, height of the retaining walls, and, you know, we have not seen a landscape plan, but we are hoping there is some kind barrier. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are certainly concerned about the survivability of beach grass, because if you look up and down this beach there are some houses that also don't have beach grass in front of them on the bay side, that is something we would certainly want to avoid. MR. BADANES: Again, not only survivability of what is there but also vegetation between the two properties as well. MS. BADANES: They are proposing a driveway, to take down trees on our property line. And so they are going to remove the trees and put a driveway on our property line. And we are hoping they could move the driveway to accommodate mature vegetation as a buffer. MR. BADANES: So I think that kind of sums up our objection, and again, thank you for hearing our concerns, and you have a pleasant evening. MS. BADANES: Thank you. MR. BADANES: Thank you, again. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MS. CANTRELL: Bruce, I'll bring you back up in case you have anything else you want to say. MR. ANDERSON: The only thing I can suggest is we can ask Mr. Fischetti to take another look at it. Because he's the design Board of Trustees 69 September 16, 2020 professional for the septic system. So I would suggest you table it and let him take another look at it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Very good. Any additional comments from the members of the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table this hearing. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). X. RESOLUTION: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral X, RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes the settlement of the litigation entitled "Charles W. Grimes and Brenda Grimes v. Town of Southold Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold", and further authorizes Board President Glenn Goldsmith to execute a Stipulation in the matter and as a condition thereof grant a permit to the applicants as per the amended plans dated Aug 25, 2020, subject to the approval of the Town Attorney. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). XI. PUBLIC HEARING RESOLUTION: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral XI. Public hearing Resolution. 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 held 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 5:31 p.m. at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; now therefore be it RESOLVED, that on September 16, 2020 the Town Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby ENACTS the proposed Resolution "A Section of Richmond Creek, Corey Creek and Broadwaters Cove is Closed to all Shellfishing," 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 Board of Trustees 70 September 16, 2020 RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees in an effort to preserve our 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 41° 2' 1.52" North 72° 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 72° 27' 11.38"West running eastward to a painted yellow 4"x4" stake at a point located at 41 O 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. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this proposed resolution? (Negative response). MR. BELNIAC: There are two attendees left. I don't think that's the case. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. " TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the resolution as written in the agenda. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH:-All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Adjournment? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to adjourn with the Board's thanks to Alan for his assistance, and Liz. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? Board of Trustees 71 September 16, 2020 (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, o Glenn Goldsmith, President Board of Trustees RECEIVE® OCT 0 }2020 �.q'�15�m S &4"it thold Town-Clem Board of Trustees 72 September 16, 2020