The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-11/18/2020 Glenn Goldsmith,President ®f S®(U/�� Town Hall Annex Michael J.Domino ®� ®�® 54375 Route 25 John M.Bredemeyer 1114-4 P.O. IIP.O. Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971 A.Nicholas Krupski Telephone(631) 765-1892 Greg Williams �® Fax(631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED Minutes DEC 2 3 20220 P Wednesday, November 18, 2020 uthold`Gown 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, December 9, 2020 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, December 16, 2020, at 5:30 PM via Zoom online platform WORK SESSIONS: Monday, December 14, 2020 at 5:00 PM via Zoom via Zoom online platform; on Wednesday, December 16 at 5:00 PM via Zoom online platform MINUTES: Approve Minutes of October 14, 2020 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Good evening, and welcome to our Wednesday, November 18th, 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 to the screen. To my left is Trustee Domino, far left is Trustee Bredemeyer. To my right is Trustee Krupski, Trustee Williams. To my right is Assistant Town Attorney Damon Hagan. We have Senior Clerk Typist Elizabeth Cantrell. And also with us tonight is 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 17, we have number 33; on page 18 we have numbers 34 and 35. And on page 19 we have numbers 36 through 38. They are Board of Trustees 2 November 18, 2020 listed as follows: Number 33, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of RICHARD F. HANS & SIOBHAN HANS requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing asphalt 1,288 sq. ft. driveway and install a new 1,700 sq. ft. crushed stone driveway; relocate the existing 10'x12.3' shed further landward on the subject parcel; remove the existing front entry stoop, and replace with a proposed 50 sq. ft. covered porch with 6' wide masonry steps; remove the existing pedestrian walkway to the north of the existing dwelling, and replace with 264 sq. ft. blue stone walkway; remove the existing overhead electric and install 110 linear feet of underground electric; construct a 20.8 sq. ft. egress window well at the northeast corner of the existing dwelling; replace the existing 50 linear foot long paver retaining wall and existing steps in-kind; remove existing 758 sq. ft. of walkways and patio pavers and install a new 665 sq. ft. walkways and patio with stone north of the existing garage. Located: 2125 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-98-1-13 Number 34, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of 106 MULBERRY CORP. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two story, single family dwelling (25'x42'4", ±1,058.25sq.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 Board of Trustees 3 November 18, 2020 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 35, Cole Environmental Consulting on behalf of MARIA ULMET requests a Wetland Permit to install ±119' of new vinyl low-sill bulkheading and 8" piles along mean high water as indicated, and two (2) 8' returns at each end; existing piles to remain; regrade bank to establish 1:2 slope and place 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 36, 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 37, 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 Number 38, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of WILLIAM MURPHY & KIMBERLY REECE requests a Wetland Permit for the existing wood Board of Trustees 4 November 18, 2020 dock consisting of a 4'x16' fixed wood dock, a 3'x14' removable wood ramp; a 6'x20' floating dock and a 6'x9' floating dock situated in an "L" configuration; and for the existing wood pedestrian bridge consisting of a 4'x15' wood ramp to a 4'x33' bridge to a 4'x8' ramp to cross Wunneweta Pond on applicant's parcel. Located: 1652 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-1-4.1 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Town Code Chapter 275-8(c), files were officially closed seven days ago. Submission of any paperwork after that date may result in a delay of the processing of the applications. At this time I'll make a motion to have our next field inspection on Wednesday, December 9th, 2020, at 8:00 AM. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'm make a motion to have our next Trustee meeting Wednesday, Wednesday, December 16, 2020, at 5:30 PM via Zoom. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to hold our next work session Monday, December 14th, 2020, at 5:00 PM via Zoom, and on Wednesday, December 16, 2020, at 5:00 PM via Zoom. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve the Minutes of the October 14th, 2020 meeting. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VI. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. VII. RESOLUTIONS OTHER: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, 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 JOHN J. SAMPIERI IRREVOCABLE TRUST &JOYCE A. SAMPIERI IRREVOCABLE TRUST; Located: 1380 Bayberry Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-2-12 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, 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 Board of Trustees 5 November 18, 2020 to the application of SETH & BARBARA EICHLER; Located: 17915 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-6 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number three, RESOLVED, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, hereby declare itself Lead Agency in regards to the application of JJS EDGEWATER, c/o SCOTT M. EDGETT, MEMBER; Located: 610 Park Avenue Extension, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-125-8-28.6 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VIII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral VIII, State Environmental Quality Reviews. RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section XIV Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, November 18, 2020 are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: Heath Christopher Gray & Molly Marie Rhodes SCTM# 1000-118-5-5 David Moore SCTM# 1000-51-4-17 Southold Sunsets STM# 1000-54-4-3 Seth & Barbara Eichler SCTM# 1000-51-1-6 Brian M. Cleary SCTM# 1000-78-7-7 Jonathan Rebell & Noah Levine SCTM# 1000-74-1-35.56 Maria H. Pile SCTM# 1000-59-1-21.2 Michael & Mary Beth Petsky SCTM# 1000-53-5-12.6 Conrad A. Verostek Family Trust, Jessie Verostek Revocable Living Trust, c/o Jessie M. Verostek, Trustee SCTM# 1000-135-3-23 Timothy McManus SCTM# 1000-118-4-5 Kenneth Quigley SCTM# 1000-90-1-16 Heath Gray & Molly Rhodes SCTM# 1000-118-5-5 David J. Corcoran & David Corcoran SCTM# 1000-137-4-15 & 37.3 Luis Portal SCTM# 1000-70-5-52 Cameron Dowe & Megan Strecker SCTM# 1000-90-1-5 Robert & Kelly Krudop SCTM# 1000-122-4-34 Michael &Vanessa Rebentisch SCTM#-1000-78-4-19 Frankola Family Trust SCTM# 1000-71-1-19 Anita M. Samuels, Trustee Credit Shelter Trust SCTM# 1000-111-1-8.4 Nassau Point Property Owners Association SCTM# 1000-111-15 Fabry Family Irrevocable Trust SCTM# 1000-115-17-7 Susan Norris SCTM# 1000-118-6-8 Abby Tannenbaum SCTM# 1000-26-3-10 Robert & Patricia Winchester Qualified Personal Residence Trusts Board of Trustees 6 November 18, 2020 SCTM# 1000-111-15-7 Beachwood Road 22, LLC SCTM# 1000-116-4-22 1470 Jackson St., LLC SCTM# 1000-117-10-11 Sean & Leslie Olsen SCTM# 1000-70-4-25 Jeffrey & Carol Oak SCTM# 1000-80-3-14 Mary R. Frausto & Jeffrey S. Williams, Jr. SCTM# 1000-31-9-7.3 Vincent Matassa SCTM# 1000-43-3-7 Richard F. Hans & Siobhan Hans SCTM# 1000-98-1-3 TRUSTEE DOMINO: 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 Section XIV Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, November 18, 2020, are classified as Unlisted Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations: John J. Sampieri Irrevocable Trust & Joyce A. Sampieri Irrevocable Trust SCTM# 1000-118-2-12 Seth & Barbara Eichler SCTM# 1000-51-1-6 JJS Edgewater, c/o Scott M. Edgett, Member SCTM# 1000-125-8-28.6 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. MONTHLY REPORT: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I want to back up one second. I skipped Roman numeral V. Monthly report. The Trustees monthly report for October 2020. A check for$8,118.12 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. IX. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO NEW YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT NYCCR PART 617: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral IX, Environmental Declaration of Significance: Pursuant to New York State Environmental Quality Review Act NYCCR Part 617. Number 1, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf of JOHN J. SAMPIERI IRREVOCABLE TRUST & JOYCE A. SAMPIERI IRREVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing steps and construct new steps in-kind, in-place after bulkhead reconstruction; remove and dispose existing 97' of bulkhead, 10' east return, and 8' west return; construct new 97' of bulkhead, 10' east return, and 8' west return in-kind and in-place; for the existing dock, remove and dispose of existing 493 square foot dock; construct new 493 square foot dock in-kind, raising elevation 24" to match elevation of bulkhead. Located: 1380 Bayberry Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-2-12 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE: WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with this project having Board of Trustees 7 November 18, 2020 visited the site on November 10, 2020, and having considered the survey of property by Peconic Surveyors, P.C. last dated December 1, 2004, and having considered the plans for this proposed project submitted by Costello Marine Contracting Corp. received on September 16, 2020 at the Trustee's November 16, 2020 work session; and, WHEREAS, on November 18, 2020 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and, WHEREAS, on November 18, 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 Costello Marine Contracting Corp. received on September 16, 2020 it has been determined by the Board of Trustees that all potentially significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein: Navigation: The proposed dock 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 in relation to the riparian rights of shell fishers: The plan allows a standard fixed catwalk 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. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Michael Kimack on behalf of SETH & BARBARA EICHLER requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to backfill and compact clean fill to install approximately 2,256 sq. ft. of 12"x6'x12' gabion mattresses (316 Iss); install two (2) gabion returns at 15' each with filter fabric at 4' depth and approximately 4'-5' above grade as wave energy reduction; backfill areas above gabion mattress line to undisturbed slope, compact, cover with two (2) layers of burlap O/E and plant with American beach grass at 1' on center over all covered areas; reset and rebuild existing bluff stairs consisting of a 4'x12' (48 sq. ft.) top landing and 4'x20' (80 sq. ft.) existing staircase; add new 4'x10' (40vsq.vft.) landing to clear rock revetment and a 3'x8' (24 sq. ft.) removable aluminum staircase (192 sq. ft. total). Located: 17915 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-6 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE: WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with Board of Trustees 8 November 18, 2020 this project having visited the site on November 10, 2020, and having considered the survey of property by Nathan Taft Corwin III Land Surveyor last dated September 25, 2020, and having considered the plans for this proposed project submitted by Michael Kimack dated September 6, 2020 at the Trustee's November 16, 2020 work session; and, WHEREAS, on November 18, 2020 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and, WHEREAS, on November 18, 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 Michael Kimack dated September 6, 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 gabion mattresses. 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. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: En-Consultants on behalf of JJS EDGEWATER, c/o SCOTT M. EDGETT, MEMBER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock with water and electricity consisting of a 4'x12' landward fixed ramp leading to a 4'x68' fixed elevated catwalk constructed with open-grate decking; a 3'x14' hinged ramp; and a 6'x20' floating dock situated in an "I" configuration and secured by two 10" diameter pilings. Located: 610 Park Avenue Extension, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-125-8-28.6 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 November 10, 2020, and having considered the survey of property by Kenneth M. Woychuk Land Surveying last dated June 10, 2020, and having considered the plans for this proposed project submitted by En- Consultants dated August 21, 2020 at the Trustee's November 16, 2020 work session; and, Board of Trustees 9 November 18, 2020 WHEREAS, on November 18, 2020 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and, WHEREAS, on November 18, 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 En-Consultants dated August 21, 2020 it has been determined by the Board of Trustees that all potentially significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein: 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 DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). X. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral X, Resolutions Administrative Permits. In order to simplify our meeting, the Board of Trustees regularly groups together actions that are minor or similar in nature. Accordingly, I'll make a motion to approve as a group items 1 through 5. They are listed as follows: Number 1, Erich Schoenenberger on behalf of JEFFREY R. LEMLER &ANCA LEMLER requests an Administrative Permit to create an 11'x80' beach area with sand and to plant native vegetation; all existing trees to remain; create a 100'x70' path from house to dock using Long Island pea gravel. Located: 320 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-10-6. Number 2, Sean O'Neill on behalf of LORETTA HINDERLING requests an Administrative Permit to install a 20kw automatic generator on a 40"x52" concrete pad alongside existing air-conditioning condenser. Located: 1325 Smith Drive N., Southold. SCTM# 1000-76-2-2.5. Number 3, Tom Samuels on behalf of TIMOTHY CASAMENTO & KLEO KING requests an Administrative Permit for an as-built automatic generator to be placed on a 3'x5'concrete pad. Located: 2667 Long Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-9-1.2. Number 4, Gary Fisher on behalf of JOHN ABBOTT requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 341 sq. ft. composite deck approximately 30" over an existing patio with two sets of 5'x6' stairs. 4 Board of Trustees 10 November 18, 2020 Located: 8630 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-126-5-1. Number 5, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of STEPHEN V. FEALY requests an Administrative Permit to erect approximately 290 If, of 3'-4' high fencing along property lines. Located: 1780 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-5 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Next, number 6, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of TODD FREED & EDITH WEBSTER-FREED requests an Administrative Permit to remove two (2) dead locust trees along with the stumps and place approximately one yard of fill and revegetate. Located: 12400 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-116-6-12.2 The Trustees conducted a field inspection on November 10th noting that the trees were not dead. They appeared to be live with leaves. Therefore, I make a motion to deny this application. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 7, JUNE BECKSTEAD requests an Administrative Permit for as-built 12'1"x9'2" sun room. Located: 1392 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-8-2 1 did a field inspection on November 16th. We have an LWRP report that found this project to be inconsistent. The inconsistency was that the as-built sun room was constructed without a permit. Therefore, I make a motion to approve this application, which will bring it into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). XI. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral XI, Applications for Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments. Similarly, I'll make a motion to approve as a group items 1 through 7. They are listed as follows: Number 1, JOSEPH ZITO requests a One (1) Year Extension to Administrative Permit#9364A, as issued on December 12, 2018. Located: 3600 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-17-8 Number 2, Michael A. Kimack on behalf of LESLIE GAZZOLA REVOCABLE TRUST requests an Administrative Amendment to Administrative Permit#9663A for a 32 sq. ft. wraparound staircase to an existing 112 sq. ft. existing porch; and for a 648 sq. ft. on grade paver patio with step in lieu of the originally proposed 455 sq. ft. Located: 495 Elizabeth Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-2 Number 3, En-Consultants on behalf of MEGALOOP EQUITIES, Board of Trustees 11 November 18, 2020 LLC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9711 for a 468 sq. ft. grade-level masonry patio in lieu of the originally proposed 457 sq. ft. patio; an 18 sq. ft. masonry stoop with 6 sq. ft. masonry step to porch, and a stepping stone pathway between the house and garage; and to resurface existing 119 sq. ft. of masonry landing between house and garage in lieu of the originally proposed 117 sq. ft. Located: 650 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-2-17 Number 4, Tom Samuels on behalf of JOHN & LORI McDONALD requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9467 for an as-built 877 sq. ft. wood deck which wraps around a portion of the first floor of the dwelling. Located: 1700 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. SCTM# 1000-92-1-3 Number 5, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of RDEN ASSOCIATES, LLC requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #9-88-80-3-13 from Nicholas Pace to RDEN Associates, LLC, as issued on March 8, 1989. Located: 1760 Reydon Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-80-3-13 Number 6, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of RDEN ASSOCIATES, LLC requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#5724 from Nicholas Pace to RDEN Associates, LLC, as issued on March 18, 2003. Located: 1760 Reydon Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-80-3-13 Number 7, CHRISTOPHER MASOTTO & HEATHER MASOTTO request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#7504 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7504C from Lazaros Laskos to Christopher Masotto & Heather Masotto, as issued on March 23, 2011 and amended on May 18, 2011. Located: 55915 County Road 48, Southold. SCTM# 1000-44-1-17 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). XII.WATERFOWL/DUCK BLINDS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral XII, Waterfowl/Duck Blinds. I make a motion to approve number 1, TIM SWEAT requests a Waterfowl/Duck Blind Permit to place a Waterfowl/Duck Blind in Dam Pond using public access. Located: Dam Pond East Marion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). XIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Public hearings. Under Roman numeral XIII, at this time I'll make a motion to go off our regular agenda and enter into the public hearings. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is public hearing in the matter of the Board of Trustees 12 November 18, 2020 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 1, En-Consultants on behalf of HEATH CHRISTOPHER GRAY & MOLLY MARIE RHODES requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#4084 for the removal and replacement of existing 4'x12' ramp and 4'x17.5' shore-parallel float with 3'x16' aluminum ramp and 6'x20' shore-perpendicular floating dock, secured by two (2) relocated piles, at seaward end of existing 4'x47' fixed timber catwalk to remain with ordinary and usual maintenance, as needed; and to connect dock to water and electricity. Located: 8570 Nassau Point Road (aka 350 Aborn Lane), Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-5-5. The Trustees conducted a field inspection on November 10th at approximately 2:00 PM, and noted it was straightforward, but that the catwalk needs through-flow throughout. All Trustees were present. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MS. CANTRELL: I see Rob Herrmann from En-Consultants. Rob, if you can hear us. MR. HERRMANN: Thanks, Liz. I just un-muted. Can everyone hear me? (Affirmative response). So the application is noted as straightforward with respect to the substance of what we are proposing in terms of the rotation of the floating dock to a perpendicular position that would be aligned with the pier line of the two adjacent docks. We did note that the timber catwalk is to remain but with repairs as needed. And I know the Board had mentioned the issue with open-grate decking. So I don't think the applicant has any plan to completely replace the catwalk or all the decking at this time, but I understand we would need to stipulate, and I just don't know whether you would want to do this as a permit condition or have us modify the plan to indicate that with more specific respect to the repair, that as existing wood decking is replaced it would be replaced with open-grate decking. How would you want to handle that? MR. HAGAN: You can do it as a condition. It doesn't alter the dimensions of the plans of the layout. So you can do it as a condition, should the Board wish to approve tonight. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Subject to the plans, which is conditioned -- MR. HAGAN: There are no new plans because the plans are the plans. It's just a condition of the approval. TRUSTEE DOMINO: That any repairs has to be -- okay. Good enough. MR. HERRMANN: So the condition would be that when the decking is replaced, it must be replaced with open-grate decking; is that Board of Trustees 13 November 18, 2020 correct? TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's correct. MR. HERRMANN: Okay. We also have to deal with the fact that we received a copy of a letter that was sent to the Board that the applicant is trying to understand how to contend with, or address, from a Jonathan Perry, indicating that he is the underwater landowner. He was noticed as part of our public notice process because the Suffolk County tax map does show him as an owner of section 1000 -- I'm sorry, section 118, block 2, lot 11.4. So I'm just interested to know what the Board's position on that is and then I guess we have to make a decision, the applicant has to,make a decision how to try to respond to that. I don't know if Mr. Perry is at the hearing or, but certainly we would like some guidance on that because we don't want to procedurally misstep here. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We have been advised by counsel that we can move forward on this. MR. HAGAN: If Mr. Perry is available, he certainly has the right to comment on this. MR. HERRMANN: All right. So I think what we would do is probably ask that this just be held over so that the applicant has a chance to sort of respond to Mr. Perry's letter to see if he can remove the objection, so to speak. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not an issue on our end, so unless your applicant wants to table the application, the Board is prepared to move forward with a vote on the application. MR. HAGAN: After the end of public commentary to allow other people who wish to speak. There is another hand raised. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't disagree with that. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Rob, why don't you let the other party speak for a moment, then we'll circle the wagons. MR. HERRMANN: Sounds good, Greg. Thanks. MS. CANTRELL: So Jonathan Perry, you are waving your hand. I'll ask you to un-mute. Can you hear us? MR. PERRY: Yes. You can hear me now? Hello? MS. CANTRELL: Yes. MR. PERRY: Okay. So, first of all, Mr. Goldsmith, I sent you a letter dated November 13th, that I asked you to read into the record. Could you please do that? MR. HAGAN: The letter is already on the record and it is in the file. MR. PERRY: I would like to read it into the record so it is part of the actual record of this meeting. Is that not how this would work? MR. HAGAN: The written letter is in fact part of the record of this meeting, and is in the file and logged and stamped in. It is part of the record. MR. PERRY: But everybody who is listening to this does not have access to that at this particular juncture, so I'll summarize -- TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Everybody has access to that on the Town's website in the laserfiche section in the Trustees applications Board of Trustees 14 November 18, 2020 pending, and with the name that file is scanned -- MR. PERRY: Can I continue, please? MR. GOLDSMITH: Yes, you may. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: What I ask you to do is to realize that according to the Suffolk County tax map, which I noted in the letter, this particular dock is outside the boundaries of this particular property. Number one. Number two, as you are well aware, there is a requirement as per the Wetlands Code 275 that the applicant must be the owner or have permission from the owner to proceed with any work that is not on their private property. Clearly, since this is outside of the map, and clearly because it is within the confines of my property, which is why I was noticed in the first place, that I think you need to take that into consideration. The last factor that you may or may not be aware of is that there is current litigation involving the ownership of the property that this dock is going to be built upon. And that litigation has to do with the ownership of the land underwater, and is pending in the courts now. So I think it would be prudent upon this Board to take into consideration that the Court has yet to make a decision of who indeed owns it. And as per your own Town Code, one cannot do work on property that they don't own. So I don't see how in any good faith you can proceed to make a decision until the Court has made their decision as to who is indeed the owner of this land underwater. And that is the basis of the letter, and what I think you need to take into consideration that you would be potentially approving work on land that this person does not own. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Herrmann, are you prepared to comment? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. I think what we'll do is just out of an abundance of caution is ask to adjourn this meeting until your next meeting in December so that the applicant has a chance to communicate directly with Mr. Perry to figure out if this is something that can be resolved, and then we'll proceed one way or the other in December, we'll let you know what the outcome of that is. But it sounds like, on a substantive basis, in terms of the merits of the application itself, I don't hear that Mr. Perry is objecting to the dock based on its qualifications, but rather merely on this underwater land ownership issue, and it sounds like the Board is okay with the application at this point with the condition that any new decking would be open-grate. And if that's all correct, we'll just hold this over to try to resolve this other issue between now and your next meeting, if that's okay with the Board. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Anyone else wish to speak to this application? (Negative response). Board of Trustees 15 November 18, 2020 MS. CANTRELL: If anybody else would like to speak, please raise your hand. (Negative response). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to table this application at the applicant's request. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The next application, number 2, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of DAVID MOORE requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7331 for the as-built bluff staircase consisting of the following: Starting from the top of the bluff: One 8' wide by 16" step up to a 6'x8' platform, then a 4'x6' platform leading to a 33"wide by 15' section of stairway to a 4'x8' platform with bench, then a 33" wide by 20' section of stairway to another 4'x8' platform followed by 33" by 10' section of stairway ending onto a 5.5'x12' platform on top of bulkhead; a 4'x7' cantilevered platform off bulkhead; and a T wide by 20' aluminum stairway leading to the beach. Located: 21075 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-17 This application was inspected by the Trustees on November 10th and found to be a standard construction for bluff staircase. The project did not receive a review by the Conservation Advisory Council due to COVID-19. The project has been deemed to be inconsistent by the Town's LWRP whereas the as-built staircase was modified without seeking an amendment to the Wetland Permit#7331. Is there anyone who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MS. CANTRELL: I see Jack Costello raised his hand. Jack, if you can un-mute. MR. COSTELLO: Good evening. I'm just here to answer any questions on this difficult matter. If there is any way I could help out, I'm here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions from the Board? (Negative response). Seeing no questions, does anyone else wish to speak to this application? (Negative response). Seeing no hands. No, it's straightforward and detailed plans cover the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Costello. At this time I'll make a motion to close the hearing TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time I make a motion to approve this application as submitted, whereby granting a permit will bring this into consistency with the LWRP. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I Board of Trustees 16 November 18, 2020 WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits, number 1, Michael Kimack on behalf of SOUTHOLD SUNSETS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to demolish existing dwelling, decks and crawl space block foundation; construct piling system to elevate finished floor to 16' elevation with proposed house area of 957.77sq.ft.; proposed porch/side deck area of'262.75sq.ft. With access staircases; the proposed floor elevation puts the structure in conformance with FEMA. Located: 4200 Kenney's Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-4-3 The Trustees most recently inspected this application on the 10th of November and noted it was straightforward. The permit had in fact expired during construction. This property and the'prior application were worked over extensively by this Board a number of years ago. At this time they are just doing this to continue building, as they,have not finished yet. And I have a letter in the file from the LWRP coordinator noting that the Board issued permits for the application in 2018. At this time the Board determined the action was consistent with the LWRP. Since the action is the same as the one permitted, there is no need to review again. Okay, is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MS. CANTRELL: I see Mike. Probably Mike Kimack. Mike, I'll ask you to un-mute. MR. KIMACK: Good evening, everyone. If you have any questions of me, you are right, it's straightforward. It had expired during construction and unfortunately they did not realize that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Great. Thank you. Is there any comments from the members of the Board, or anyone else that wishes to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing on the application. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve the Wetland permit and Coastal Erosion permit for this application. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number two under Coastal Erosion and Wetland permits, number 2, Michael Kimack on behalf of SETH & BARBARA EICHLER requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to backfill and compact clean fill to install approximately 2,256 sq. ft. of 12"x6'x12' gabion mattresses (316 Iss); install i Board of Trustees 17 November 18, 2020 two (2) gabion returns at 15' each with filter fabric at 4' depth and approximately 4'-5' above grade as wave energy reduction; backfill areas above gabion mattress line to undisturbed slope, compact, cover with two (2) layers of burlap O/E and plant with American beach grass at 1' on center over all covered areas; reset and rebuild existing bluff stairs consisting of a 4'x12' (48 sq. ft.) top landing and 4'x20' (80 sq. ft.) existing staircase; add new 4'x10' (40 sq. ft.) landing to clear rock revetment and a 3'x8' (24 sq. ft.) removable aluminum staircase (192 sq. ft. total). Located: 17915 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-6 The Trustees visited this site on November 10th, 2020, with all Trustees present, noting the stair plans are straightforward, and the Board will discuss the gabions. The LWRP program coordinator found this to be consistent, and the Conservation Advisory Council did not review this application. Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application? MS. CANTRELL: Michael Kimack has raised his hand. MR. KIMACK: Yes, Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. It is a little different than what you might have seen before. We are proposing to utilize gabions in order to, in many respects to almost recreate the original slope that had been lost by having a continuous gabion line across. The gabions are 12" thick by 6 byl2. They weigh approximately three to four tons each. They are all going to be 316-L stainless steel, which has an 80 to 100-year lifespan to them. They'll be filled with four to six-inch riprap stone, primarily. They are down in the ground about four feet on that same angle, and in front of those we are replacing the regular heavy rock revetment also down four feet and back on a V-section in order to act as a means with which to take the energy out of the wave action. The gabions themselves will also do that because of the angle, primarily. The thing about the gabions is that they have a consistent height to them. If you'll notice, looking at how my return rock revetments are designed, the VE line presently is 15' elevation, and I wanted to be conservative on the belief that they are going to be raising that in the next couple of years by one foot. I use the VE-16 line, and I wanted to be above that to make sure the wave action did not get into the toe of the slope again. And it would be, the other good thing about the gabions is it has a consistent top to it all the way across. So we are really not going to be endangering the toe as we fill it up high. The other thing is the gabions, over a period of time, will pick up soils and will begin to revegetate themselves, so hopefully they'll begin to take on a more like profile of what the slope used to look like, except if you look at it, it would be like having a prosthetic hardened slope over there. Straight across. And then we have to do two returns in order to protect the property because the property to the west Board of Trustees 18 November 18, 2020 has yet to be renovated. Any questions of me? TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I don't have any questions. Anybody else on the Board have any questions? (Negative response). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anybody else here that wishes to speak to this application? (Negative response). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I would like to make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted, referencing plans stamped received September 28th, 2020. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland permits, number 1, Michael Kimack�on behalf of BRIAN M. CLEARY requests a Wetland Permit to convert-cleared wetland area (t 2,100 sq. ft.) to grass area; remove.six (6) trees as indicated on survey; construct new 25.0'x14.0' (350 sq. ft.) deck with landing and staircase. Located: 5875 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-7-7 The LWRP found this to be inconsistent and consistent. The inconsistency is the removal of trees and wetlands is inconsistent with Policy Six, unless they pose a risk to life or property. And the deck is recommended as consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council did not do a report. The Trustees had a field inspection on November 10th. The notes say okay to cut six ribboned trees. The deck is straightforward. Can maintain the cleared area as non-fertilized non-sod area. Okay to plant trees or bushes. We did receive updated plans stamped received November 18th, 2020, that do show that non-fertilized area on an updated map. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MS. CANTRELL: Mike, I'll ask you to un-mute. MR. KIMACK: Mike Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. There is one addition that I had submitted language in on. The plan basically shows that the driveway area was to be approved with beach stone and gravel. That was noted on there, but it had not been noted on the description, so I submitted language to that effect to Liz this afternoon, and it would be roughly about 600-square foot on that semi, on the circular driveway. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, I apologize, I was going to read it in for the final project description. Board of Trustees 19 November 18, 2020 MR. KIMACK: No, it was my responsibility to do. Liz reminded me, make sure you speak up. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application with the plans stamped received November 18th, 2020, and the following project description: Michael Kimack on behalf of Brian M. Cleary requests a Wetland Permit to convert cleared wetland area +/- 2,100 square feet to non-fertilized grass area; remove six trees as indicated on the survey; construct new 25'x14', (350 square foot) deck with landing and staircase; and driveway area to be improved with pea stone and/or gravel, (600-square feet); and the trees were dead and they pose a risk to life, thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP coordinator. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 2, Michael Kimack on behalf of JONATHAN REBELL & NOAH LEVINE requests a Wetland Permit to construct bluff stairs at 64'10" in length consisting of a top landing of 4'x6'; and 4'x5' (20 sq. ft.) to a 4'x17.5' staircase (70 sq. ft), and 4'x4' (16 sq. ft.) landing, to a 4'x15.83' (63.3 sq. ft.) staircase, to a 4'x4' landing (16 sq. ft.) and to a 4'x2.6' (13.6 sq. ft. staircase, with a 4 foot by 5 inch --should be 5 feet. It's a scrivener's error. It should be 4'x5' (20 sq. ft.) landing„to a 4'x11.8' (47.2 sq. ft) staircase, with a 4'x6' (24 sq. ft) landing, to a bottom removable wood or aluminum 4'x4.2' staircase. To maintain a 40-foot non-disturbance area landward from the top of the bluff with 8"x8" pressure treated beams placed along the landward edge of the non-disturbance area and held in place with three#7 rebar, three foot in length, which is located: 4790 Blue Horizon Bluffs, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-74-1-35.56. The Trustees did a field inspection last November 10th, at 8:40, all,were present, and noticed that the revised plans show armoring at the base of the stairs. The revised plans are in the file and show a cross-section of the bluff staircase and landings. This is last revised November 14th, 2020. In addition, the LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency arises from the fact that this is a high-energy area, and he's requesting armoring or some sort of stabilization at the base of the stairs. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? Board of Trustees 20 November 18, 2020 MR. KIMACK: Mike Kimack on behalf of the applicant. You have covered basically everything. We have been through it several times. The last time we moved it over to make sure it was within that five-foot easement that came on, so as you know there is no consideration of building a secondary one. We did armor the bottom where the stairs to where it would be in compliance with LWRP, and it has received a DEC permit. Are there any questions of me? (Negative response). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we covered it all, basically. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further questions, 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 per the new project description and in accordance with the plans stamped received October 15th, 2020. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Before we move to the next one, can we take a five-minute recess. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. Thank you. MS. CANTRELL: So for everybody watching,just to repeat, we are just taking a five-minute recess. (After a recess, these proceedings continue as follows). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next item, number 3, under Wetlands Permits, Michael Kimack on behalf of MARIA H. PILE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 36.0'x34.7' (1,249.2 sq. ft.) two-story dwelling on foundation in accordance with FEMA standards for the AE zone; and a pervious driveway. Located: 420 Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-1-21.2 This project does not have a report from the Conservation Advisory Council. There is an extensive LWRP memorandum from Mark Terry, which I will read into the record. It largely details many of the concerns of a voluminous number of letters that have been already entered into the file for which the Board also gave consideration to those that came in before our Monday evening, November 16th work session. The LWRP indicates to minimize the loss of human life and structures from flooding, that the structure setback to the wetland is proposed at 25 feet where there is 100-foot required to the top to prevent degradation of the function and balance of the ecosystem. The structure is proposed to be constructed in a FEMA flood zone AE E-111 with a first floor elevation of 12. The potential for damage and loss over time due to flooding is Board of Trustees 21 November 18, 2020 high as the wetland expands periodically. 6.1, to protect and restore the ecological quality throughout Southold Town. Note that the property is included within an area identified as geologically and ecologically significant that occurs from the Great Pond wetland to Goldsmith's Inlet in the Town of Southold. The vegetated communities in the area including the parcel consist of maritime dune, maritime interdunal swale and shrub swamp. The New York State National Heritage program classifies maritime dune community as G4-S3. The "G" stands for global rank and the "S" for state rank. Globally, the maritime dune community is considered to be, apparently, (inaudible), though it may be quite rare in parts of the terrain, especially in the periphery. The S3 rank indicates that the maritime dunes are considered rare in New York with limited range similar to the maritime interdunal swale community as classified as G3, G4, S2, which designates the community as more rare than the maritime dunal community. Note the rank of S2 is the highest rank of rarity in New York. The area is expected to contain protected species associated with these community types. In 2004, the National Heritage program further identified these maritime interdunal swale and maritime dune communities as significant national communities from a statewide perspective. Additionally, the report acknowledges that the dune swale complexes are extremely rare on the north shore of Long Island and states that any development within maritime dunes would likely reduce the landscape ranking factor for the maritime interdunal swale and reduce the overall quality or occurrence, and threaten its long-term viability. The site is also geologically unique, lacking the sufficient bluff system that dominates the north shore of the Town of Southold. Conversely, the area is comprised of low, the low primary dune, the interdunal swale, the secondary system, a rare geological community. In the event the application is considered for approval, the following are the recommendations of the LWRP. One. Verify the wetland line. New York State DEC shows a larger area. Two. Relocate the structure to achieve a greater setback to the wetland to meet the proposed purpose of the setback and the preservation of the function values the wetland. This would require reducing the setback for example, 30 feet, more in the context of a single-family home located to the southwest. Also set the structure on a higher topographical elevation of ten feet. Three. Establish a non-disturbance buffer equal to the distance of the setback. Number four. Require that the applicant show locations of drywells, the ability to comply with the Chapter 236 for storm water management of the Town Code. Number five. Require that a limit of disturbance be shown on the survey, limit of clearing, native vegetation. Board of Trustees 22 November 18, 2020 And six. Prohibit the use of turf and use of fertilizer on the parcel to protect water quality and encourage, that being the use of no non-native vegetation and vegetation that is suitable for the dunal community where sea spray and dry conditions periodically exist. Number seven. Require installation of and advanced IA/OWTS de-nitrification system. Those are the comments of the LWRP coordinator. The Board of Trustees performed an inspection on November 10th, and during the course of inspection the Board considered that they-- a discussion concerning the entirety of the property being non-turf, and that consideration be given to a non-disturbance on the entire north side of the house to the limit of the wetland, and the installation of an IA system. At the November 16th work session, the Board further entertained discussions concerning the serviceability of possibly not having a foundation here and putting the house on piles, and further increasing the distance to the wetland as was suggested in a number of the letters that the Board had received. At this time is there anyone who wishes to speak to this application? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: One thing, quickly. I just want to say, as Trustee Bredemeyer said, we did receive a number of letters. They were all read and reviewed by the Board in its entirety. They are part of the file, as part of the public record. So during public comment we do not necessarily need to restate what is in those letters because that has already been reviewed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Also for the record, the Board did discuss at the work session that we want to go back in the field and continue to do an assessment that was discussed, particularly with respect to the wetland line and the issues surrounding it. Again, anyone wish to speak to this application? MS. CANTRELL: Mike Kimack on behalf of the applicant has raised his hand. Because he's the agent for the applicant, I'll ask that he speak first. MR. KIMACK: Mike Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. I tried to follow, there were extensive comments, obviously, from the LWRP as a result of the input by several people. I can just go over the basics. It is a fragile area. We are aware of that. It does not have -- it has limitations to it, both ecological and also from a code point of view. The house was made as small as it was, about 1,300 square feet overall, given the stoops and so on. In order to fit into the zoning requirements, the Zoning basically requires under this particular sized lot 50 feet from front yard and 20 feet from one side yard and 25 from the other. It was placed in an area, if you can look at the plan of the site plan, in an area that was fairly flat. You can probably judge that from where the stakes had been placed. Yes, it's only 25 feet, but the area where it was placed, Board of Trustees 23 November 18, 2020 there was not a great deal of vegetation that had to be removed, for the most part. It was fairly an open area, as was the driveway going in there. And the silt fence line would certainly be this side of the wetland line. Cole Environmental laid that wetland line out, as a result of this particular application, made sure that we were basically aware of where it was so we could place it accordingly. The house is located in the AE zone, and under FEMA requirements it requires, it can be done on a block foundation. It does not require pilings. And in that particular case it only has to be raised two feet above the FEMA line AE elevation of 11. So the first floor was 13 feet, and the garage being 12.5'. It was placed, you can see from the contours, in a relatively flat area to avoid the slope that goes off to the house on the westerly side. And it's approximately the same location back as that house is, and basically is as deep as the house next door to it. Do you have any other questions of me? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional questions from the Board members? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, I think part of my issues with this house is, you know, because of the size of the lot, it was required to be moved 50 feet away from the road, but this Board is not really here to be concerned with the road. I mean, I think I would like to see it as far away from the wetlands as possible. That might be conflicting with some other Boards or some other jurisdictions but, I mean, we are awfully close to the wetland and awfully far from the road, in my mind, with this particular application. And it is a 1,250-square foot home, 1,300-square foot home. But it's also two stories. So it's not really a small home. MR. KIMACK: It has a small footprint, yes. That's correct. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I don't know if we have it in the file, is there a side elevation with the road as a base mark? MR. KIMACK: No, that's not in there. It's just basically the site plan itself, primarily. It had the information on it. Moving it closer to the road would require going to the Zoning Board for a variance. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are aware of that. Any additional questions from the Board? Go ahead. Sorry. MR. KIMACK: I mean, if you look at it, we still have to keep ten feet or so away from the septic system, so the best we would probably be able to do is maybe move it 15 feet, basically. So that 25 would become 40. 1 mean, that doesn't give you a lot, you know, to move it that way. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think we are in a position to plan the house at this point. If after the public hearing the Board is consistent with its work session wants to look at additional factors, a supplemental plan could be submitted for our review. MR. KIMACK: Um, so your concerns is that, what you are looking for is you want more, as much space between the line of the Board of Trustees 24 November 18, 2020 freshwater wetlands to the house itself. If we can extend that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That is true. And that was discussed, and the Board needs to absolutely confirm the accuracy of the wetland line that was done by Cole Environmental, and to look at some of these other factors and the specific suggestions of the LWRP coordinator so we can bring it into consistency. Okay, are there any further questions from the Board? I'll open it up for additional concerns and public comment. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Mike, in my reviewing of the file, one of the things that-- again, this is one Trustee's opinion -- is to try and be as aggressive as we can be with a non-disturbance area, you know, basically surrounding the whole house. I understand there is a building lot there and at some point we may end up with a house, but it would be nice to see the, you know, a non-manicured lawn, to kind of be more in its natural state, maybe some plantings to look nice. But that is something that I just wanted to add there. MR. KIMACK: Okay. I mean one of the possibilities I'm looking at primarily is for you gentlemen to go take a look, and we are not going to redesign it per se, but if I rotated the house so the front was parallel to the road, I could probably pick up another-ten feet from the back and still not have a variance situation. That would give us about 35 feet roughly, back there, by, let me see -- TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It might make sense to have the wetland line reflagged as per the survey, then we could revisit that in our next field inspection. MR. KIMACK: We can have it reflagged. There were flags out there that Cole had put down. I apologize if you were not able to -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Actually, we did see the flags. Mike Domino and I went in first and saw the flags. They should be there. You might want to check to make sure they are still there. MR. KIMACK: Yes. I mean, if we rotated the house, it would be about 35 feet, roughly, in that particular case. So that may be helpful. And we can still not have to deal with going to another agency, but you would pick up an extra ten feet. And we can then move the silt fence a little bit closer and be that further away. Generally, if you look behind the stakes on the property, there was a little bit of a clearance line before we even got to the first set of trees there, before we got to that line. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mike, I believe the Board was all in agreement that we would like to see it as far away from the wetlands as possible, with as little disturbance to the lot as possible. So whatever configuration that comes up with. MR. KIMACK: You are also making a recommendation for an IA system, too? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. MR. KIMACK: Okay. I mean, it's not within your jurisdiction, but that apparently may not matter anymore? Board of Trustees 25 November 18, 2020 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Correct. It's within the jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's within the jurisdiction. Mr. Kimack, do you have a copy of the LWRP report at this time? MR. KIMACK: I do not. I'll get it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would be advisable. MR. KIMACK: What we can do is, I'll make a recommendation to table this application so that I have a chance to talk to my client and revise the building, perhaps to swing it and also to discuss the IA system. MR. HAGAN: While the applicant can make a request to table, there are people who still wish to comment to the public hearing, so they have the opportunity to make their comments before it's tabled. MR. KIMACK: Okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments, questions from the Board before we open it up to public comment? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not at this time. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time I'll open it up to public comment. MS. CANTRELL: Michael Kimack, I'll mute you. Is there anybody who wishes to speak with regard to this application, please be advised you'll speak one at a time. When you are done speaking, I'll mute you again and lower your hand. Down the road if you wish to speak again you need to re-raise your hand in order for us to realize you need to speak again. So Louise Harrison is the next person requesting to talk. Can you hear us, Louise? MS. HARRISON: Yes. Can you hear me? (Affirmative response). MS. HARRISON: Very good. Thank you. Hi, I'm Louise Harrison, I live in Peconic. I am a principal of Conservation and Natural Areas Planning. I also work for Save the Sound, but I'm only representing myself and my own consulting firm at this point. Prior-to this hearing I did not realize that the final application was considered a Type II action under SEQRA, so I'm requesting that when my comments are considered that I have submitted in writing, that you would at least mentally strike my references to a positive declaration of significance and an EAF Part III. I stand by all my other comments, however, including the paragraph on page two about the short form EAF, which was filled out by the applicant and does contain errors. Of particular significance, it's not only Mark Terry's assessment of the consistency of the LWRP of this project with the LWRP, but also my own assessment of it, as a person who worked at the New York State Department of State for four years and on coastal policies and their application, in particular how policies are affected by and are ruled by the significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats, and as you know and mentioned, Trustee Bredemeyer, the Goldsmith Inlet and beach significant coastal fish and wildlife. habitat is exactly where the applicant's lot is located. The entire lot lies within that habitat. Any building put on that Board of Trustees 26 November 18, 2020 lot, actually, would destroy some of that habitat. And as you are aware, and I'm sure Mark Terry is aware and illustrated in his remarks, that there is a specific habitat impairment test that must be followed, and that in order to protect and preserve a significant habitat land and water use development shall not be undertaken if such actions would destroy the habitat, or significantly impair the viability of the habitat. Building on this lot will destroy the habitat, therefore development should not be undertaken on this lot. Moving the house around, changing its angle, reducing its size, placing it on pilings, are all laudable ideas, but they cannot mitigate the actual loss of a significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat. And that is something you need to consider very seriously in order to,comply with the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program and your responsibilities as Trustees of our wetland and natural 'resources here in the town. As you have noted by reading my comments, I also commented on the fact that this is not compatible with the Town's comprehensive plan, and I also have issues with the way the wetland,boundary was flagged and the issues about buffer zones. So that's all in my comments. I would like to say that I find it somewhat objectionable that I just, I believe it was Trustee,Williams,just remarked that it was a foregone conclusion there would be eventually a house on this lot. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm speaking for myself, discussing the file, that,was not my understanding. I don't know how the other Board members feel. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No, not at all. We don't make determinations until after we hear all the public comments, and in this case, the Board signaled through this Zoom meeting to all out there that we have intention reviewing all matters with the LWRP and going back to the site. MS. HARRISON: Thank you. I appreciate that. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: To restate, for clarification, if we come to see a house on this lot, I would like to see very strong non-disturbance areas. That's what I had said. If we come to see a house on this lot. MS. HARRISON: Thank you, very much, for clarifying. I was alarmed by that. I hope to not see a house on this lot and, as you noted in my letter, I support you working closely with the Town's land preservation committee to propose acquisition of this lot and all lots that lie within this significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat. The Town is blessed to have such a rare and beautiful maritime fresh water interdunal swale stretching all the way from Goldsmith's Inlet to Kenney's Beach, and if you have never had an opportunity to walk the length of that swale, in the swale, especially in the winter, and see the various forms of plant life that survive in the most harsh and trying conditions, that have been here for hundreds of years; gnarled, twisted, contorted and surviving. Board of Trustees 27 November 18, 2020 There are ancient trees throughout the swale that make Southold beautiful as well as an interesting and useful wildlife habitat. It's rare in the state. It's highly significant in the Town. And we should not ignore it. Enough mistakes have been made with past permits for houses in this significant coastaffish and wildlife habitat. It's time to reverse course and work in a positive manner to protect this habitat. Find a way to work with the land preservation committee, add a little extra time to your itinerary and work with them, make proposals to landowners and see who takes you up on it. I'm really pushing hard, as you know, for denial of this permit, and thank you for your time this evening. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to this application? TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I just want to add that there is a 4.5 acre of land basically bordering most of the houses, and a generous portion that is owned by the county. So it is preserved. MS. CANTRELL: The next person is Lillian Ball. MS. BALL: Hello. Good evening, everybody. I'm happy to be able to speak to you. I'm Lillian Ball from Southold Town, from across from the interdunal swale is where I have lived for the last 20 years. And many of you may recall I have a letter that I submitted, but I'll just summarize here. I have been involved in land preservation because of the initial property that we were able to preserve in this maritime fresh water interdunal swale, which is just an incredible jewel, as Louise said, and it is significantly impacted by any kind of construction that happens on it. And I think the rules are very clear in terms of the LWRP and Mark's suggestions. No matter what you do for this kind of construction, it will destroy the habitat. It will further degrade the habitat. It's not necessary, and I'm prepared, myself and several of the neighbors, are prepared to preserve it in whatever way we can. And we are prepared to stand in opposition to this kind of thoughtless development of what is so unusual and rare, and what is in fact one of,the reasons people come to Southold Town. You want have a habitat that is unique and rare. Threatened iris prismatica, the sundew cranberry, all those remarkable plants that exist there and have been there for hundreds of years should be open and available to the public. I for one, even though I'm no longer on Land Preservation, after 14 years I decided it was time for someone else to go there, and I'm happy to hear that it was Nick's sister who was taking over because we have a history in this area of working with Nick and his sister's dad Al Krupski to preserve this land. There have been mistakes made in the past. There were Article 78s that were actually brought against the Town by landowners who are now in favor of saving this area, but because the Town did give a permit without really consulting the biological information of what was there and seeing the ranking, that the fact that it is state rare and globally rare, in fact, Board of Trustees 28 November 18, 2020 and it's the only one on the north fork. We have a couple more in East;:Hampton that have been largely preserved, and what I would like to see happen in this amazing area, and many of the neighbors are concerned about and would also like to also see, is that it be preserved with the county, with the Town, with the Peconic Land Trust, with the neighbors, with everybody that is at all possible to have included, and to get it preserved and perhaps use that Suffolk County tax map that I believe was mentioned, the paper road, there is a paper road called Central Drive that runs right through the middle of it. And many of the adjacent neighbors are, you know, on that paper road and perhaps we could do something with a boardwalk so people can actually see these beautiful areas that are still here. I mean there is a wonderful cranberry bog preserve in Riverhead, very, very well attended, and I think if we do it in the right way, we cannot only save the habitat and this fragile ecosystem, but we can educate people about what the unique qualities are here in our Town of Southold. And land preservation has a policy of small lots, ways of dealing with small lots that may not be most advantageous, but I think both the neighbors and the Peconic Land Trust are prepared to really fight any construction on any of the remaining sites that are there. There are two that are already preserved, one with Suffolk County and one with the Peconic Land Trust, and there are others that could be preserved very easily with those mechanisms. Um, so what I would like to say in closing is to thank you for really giving this your utmost consideration, and keep in mind that past mistakes really, really showed us that there is no reason to build on that kind of a property. There are other places'in town that people can go. We need to save this habitat now and have no regrets in the future. We really can't let the lessons learned in the past by disregarding the botanical information destroy another lot in this area. And I'm pretty sure that I for one will be very, very opposed to it and make sure that everybody knows how special it is. Thank you, so much, for your time and for giving this your utmost consideration. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. May I say one quick thing, is if you guys can go to the Land Preservation with that same passion, it seems like there is a lot of community support for potentially purchasing this lot and preserving it. So not only the letters that came to us, but if do you do the same thing to Land Preservation and others, to potentially try to get your point across to them as well. MR. HAGAN: Did she say she was on Land Preservation -- MS. BALL: Yes. I was on Land Preservation for 14 years, so I know how Land Preservation works, and unfortunately small lots often fall through the cracks with Southold Town. And there are reasons for that, very understandable reasons for that. But I think there is a much broader coalition here based on the neighbors. We did raise $250,000 to purchase the Hartford Board of Trustees 29 November 18,2020 Preserve, which was right there on the corner of West Drive and Lake Drive, and Suffolk County has purchased other properties in there, and I think that there are ways that these intermittent, I believe there are four to five still remaining lots that are mostly un-buildable. We had property owners come to us on Land Preservation and request variances and say that they would be interested,in selling it. Well, the fact of the matter is, if you really read the letter of the law, if you stick to the letter of the law, they are un-buildable. And they should not be allowed to be tweaked, moved, changed. They need to be preserved. And I think you'll find there are many, many different tools in the Land Preservation toolbox, and many different ways we can approach it. I've already spoken about it to Melissa Spiro, but we'll see what happens with the Town. But there is also the county, and state, and DEC has funds, and the Peconic Land Trust, and our very committed many members of the civic association, are very committed to this. So we fought this battle several times before and we'll fight it again, and eventually I hope it will be preserved, the whole area, at least that block between West Drive and Kenney's Road, and Leeton Drive and Lake Drive. That whole area should be preserved TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. MS. BALL: And just one additional point. I want to make one last point, the adjacent property owned by Rick Byrd (sic), was a house that was built in the '30s, so they knew nothing then. And it was all, all that whole property, that whole land was cut up into,quarter acre lots in the '30s. And that's why the paper road is'still there. So there is no comparison between the adjacent lot where the house is built and what they are proposing now. The ignorance that preceded this is not an excuse. And we know better now. And Al and the Town, and so many, Jimmy King, and so many people on the previous Board of Trustees went to bat for this because they realized they made a mistake. They pulled the permit. They realized they made a mistake when the second house that is in this area was actually up in front of us. So let's learn from our lessons. Let's do the right thing. Let's preserve this land however we can. And if you will make the first step by calling it un-buildable, then we have a chance. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to this application? MS. CANTRELL: I see Kenneth Richter. And, real quick, I see there are a number of people on telephone. If you wish to speak, please note to press *9. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Also I would like to remind people calling in or speaking that we need to limit to five minutes because the Board has an agenda that is running into 18 pages tonight, and we have extensive comments that are becoming repetitive. We have a very extensive LWRP report, and the Board has already Board of Trustees 30 November 18, 2020 signaled we are going to be reviewing the entire matter and going back out on field inspection. Thank you. MS. CANTRELL: Kenneth Richter, you have waved, so I'm asking you to un-mute yourself if you can hear us. (No response). Ken Richter, are you there? MR. HAGAN: He put his hand down. We might move on if there is no response. Is there anybody else? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Would anyone wish to speak? MS. CANTRELL: He just logged off. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. Where are we with public comment? MR. HAGAN: There are no other people for public comment. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, at this time I'll make a motion to table the application at the applicant's request for the Board to review materials in the file, the LWRP, and suggestions made at the public hearing. That's my motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 4, Robert Brown Architects on behalf of MICHAEL & MARY BETH PETSKY requests a Wetland Permit to install a new foundation and lifting the existing cottage to be FEMA compliant; remove and construct new landing to entry, 3 risers to ground with 36" handrail to code; and remove and replace part of existing roof of 693 sq. ft. seasonal cottage including a 22 sq. ft. addition of landward northeast corner of cottage. Located: 65490 Route 25, Breezy Shores, Cottage#10, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-5-12.6 The LWRP found this application to be consistent. On the 12th of November this property was visited by Trustee Bredemeyer who noted that the plans lacked gutters, leaders to drywells. Following that, an inhouse discussion occurred at the work session and it was noted everything else was straightforward. I do have new plans in the file dated November 17th, 2020, that do show gutters to leaders to drywells. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MS. CANTRELL: Karen from Rob Brown's office is here. Karen, I'll ask you to un-mute. Can you hear us? MS. SOTKA: Hi, this is Karen Sotka from Robert Brown's office. I don't know, do you have any other questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any comments from the Board at this time? (Negative response). No, I don't believe so. Everything with the new plans makes it fairly straightforward. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MS. CANTRELL: Karen, I'll mute you. There is somebody named Board of Trustees 31 November 18, 2020 Rick who wishes to speak. He raised his hand. Rick, I ask you to un-mute your microphone. (No response). A gentleman with the name Rick's iPad. If you can hear us, you raised your hand for this application. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Sorry, that was the previous issue with the piles. Thank you, for picking us up. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, are there any further comments from the Board or is there anyone else that wishes to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Hearing none. I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application based off the new plans received in the office November 17th, 2020, which show gutters to leaders to drywells TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 5, Mark Lazarovic on behalf of CONRAD A. VEROSTEK FAMILY TRUST, JESSIE VEROSTEK REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, c/o JESSIE M. VEROSTEK, TRUSTEE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and deck (approximate footprint 740 sq. ft.); 20'x35' gravel driveway; install septic system; and install gutters to leaders to drywells. Located: 65 Grove Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-135-3-23 The Trustees most recently visited this site on November 10th, 2020, noting a modest-sized home proposed. The Board suggests an IA septic system. The LWRP coordinator found this action to be inconsistent with Policy Six, protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystem, protect and restore tidal freshwater wetlands, and to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements of the Southold Town Board of Trustees laws and regulations for all Andros Patents and other lands under their jurisdiction. The Conservation Advisory Council did not review this application. Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application? MS. CANTRELL: The agent for the applicant is raising his hand. Mark Lazarovic. Mark, if you can hear us, please un-mute your mic. MR. LAZAROVIC: Hello. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Hi Mark, how are you. MR. LAZAROVIC: Good evening. This is a proposal to build a small house on the property in an area about 5,000-square feet at an elevation approximately 13 feet or 14 feet, depending on the topo. It's an area 500-square feet that would be covering Board of Trustees 32 November 18, 2020 the house and an area of about 200 feet for deck. We are proposing a permanent fence to separate the non-disturbance area from the house area. The only excavation that would be done would be a sanitary system and a drywell. I agreedJo an IA system when we met on the 10th, and we have permits,from the DEC, both for wetland and -- a freshwater wetland permit and a wetland permit. If you have any other questions, I'm here. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Sounds good. Have you submitted updated plans showing the IA septic system? MR. LAZAROVIC: Yes, I spoke to, not Elizabeth, the other lady in your office. She said she received them on Monday. It's on the new survey. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I don't see these in the files. Can we move forward without showing it on the plans? MR. LAZAROVIC: There is a note where the septic tank is. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: (Perusing). MR. HAGAN: When were the plans submitted? MR. LAZAROVIC: It was mailed in and received by you on Monday. The date on the plan doesn't show any difference from the other date. It just shows the original date, the revised date of 4/20. But that's not, the note was put on just a couple of days ago. MR. HAGAN: We don't have new plans. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: At this point we don't have the new plans in our file,at our disposal. What I would recommend is after everyone else has had a chance to speak, we could table this application awaiting new plans. MR. LAZAROVIC: It's just an indication that the IA system is going to be built. It doesn't have a plan for the IA system. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I do understand that but we can't move forward without the plans. MR. HAGAN: We'll check the laserfiche. It's possible it might be in the scan room and that's why. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Hang tight, sir. Bear with us. MR. LAZAROVIC: Okay. Sure. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Under the new guidelines when the plans come in, they go into the scan room to get scanned. Possibly they are in the scan room. MR. HAGAN: We'll check the laserfiche system now to make sure the plans -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do we have a non-turf buffer on this? TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It's non-disturbance, actually. This is the landscape plan. (Perusing). MR. LAZAROVIC: That's the landscape, yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does it say that? It has to say "non-disturbance." TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anybody else here that wishes to speak to this application? MS. CANTRELL: I can't-- TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. Bear with me. Board of Trustees 33 November 18, 2020 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And the landscape plan also calls for hybrid seeding in all disturbed areas in the front yard. Do we want to go with';a more native grass on that? MR. HAGAN: We don't have the plans? MS. CANTRELL: No. MR. HAGAN: The Board is going to be inclined to table because we don't have the IA system. Perhaps you want to make the applicant clear that area as a non-disturbance. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: One thing it does say is existing vegetation to remain. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. But it still has to be classified on the plans as a non-disturbance area delineated along that line. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Okay. On the plans, Trustees, it does show that the front yard is to be, as Nick pointed out, hydro-seeded. And Nick would like to see something more native there. Does anyone else want to weigh in on that? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There are low or no fertilizer-requiring species now that are available, that are grass species that could be hydro-seeded. And the requirement would be it would be one of those fescue mixes, to mow or no mow. So it would be possible to have a lawn that would not have to be heavily fertilized as an option, as opposed to -- MR. LAZAROVIC: I would undertake to put in a lawn that has a low fertilization requirement. It's fairly shaded so it would not require a lot of water. It should stay pretty green anyway. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Okay. Lacking the new plans, we can't move forward with the action, we can't move forward with any action this evening. In addition to the landscape plan we have, it does say existing vegetation to remain. But we would like that to be clarified to be a non-disturbance area. MR. LAZAROVIC: Well, the landscape plan shows some trees and other vegetation that is going to remain. But it would be a disturbance area. But it will act as a buffer from 48. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: But you have the wood rail fence limiting the non-disturbance area. It needs to be labeled and classified as a non-disturbance area on the plan. MR. LAZAROVIC: It is. It says project limiting split rail fence on the site plan. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So it needs to be clearly labeled that it's a non-disturbance area. MR. LAZAROVIC: So you want the words "non-disturbance". TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So the non-disturbance area comes also with a requirement to file restrictive covenants for the legal department. So it has to be labeled as such and then get the C&Rs reviewed by the legal department for the file. MR. LAZAROVIC: So you want it relabeled. To be clear, you want-- MR. HAGAN: I believe the Trustees are trying to make it clear that, yes, we understand that your intention is a non-disturbance buffer that will be seaward of that fence, however the term "non-disturbance buffer" is a term of art located within our Board of Trustees 34 November 18, 2020 code and therefore the Trustees want to make sure that the area that is being identified is in fact labeled as a non-disturbance buffer going forward. MR. LAZAROVIC: I'll have the surveyor label that. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anything else that we need address for this? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just the new plans to show both that and the IA system clearly labeled. MR. LAZAROVIC: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak to this application? MS. CANTRELL: If you are done conversing with Mark, Pat Moore wishes to speak. So, Pat. MS. MOORE: Hi, everyone. My client is Mrs. Verostek who is the owner of the property. I have a survey that shows the proposed IA system. I don't know why it hasn't processed through you guys, but that's easily resolved. As I also understand it, the fence is a location where the DEC has identified no further disturbance, so it is consistent with, what you are asking for is consistent with the previous permits. Certainly, I mean, he's going to be the owner and the builder of his home, and this project is so low impact, it's amazing that he has been able to design such a small house with preservation of'90% of the property undisturbed. So we certainly favor this. We are in support of this application and I know my client is anxious to close, and this is the last permit of all the permits so that this can be finalized. My only question on IA systems, the requirement is it's now a county requirement, so whether it says it or it doesn't, it's a county requirement, so maybe in the future you don't need to be quite as diligent because a new house is going to require it anyway. So it's something to think about so it doesn't delay applications. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Also if it was on the application it would not delay the application. MS. MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a good point. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Okay, at this point we'll table this at the applicant's request to get new plans showing the changes that were discussed. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number six, 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 Board of Trustees 35 November 18, 2020 The1WRP found this to be consistent, however notes if replaced, existing vegetated buffer will be removed, require that the vegetated non-turf buffer be reestablished. A ten-foot non-turf buffer was required in a previous permit. The,°Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. The Trustees most recently conducted an inspection November 10th, noting we were a little concerned about potential land grab and about moving the wall landward a few feet to preserve the bank. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MS. CANTRELL: Paul Pawlowski is present. Paul, if you can hear us. MR. PAWLOWSKI: Hello. Yes, I can hear you. So basically we'll listen to whatever your recommendations are. If we need to move the wall a few feet landward we are more than willing to do that. I'm here to answer any questions that you may have. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. And I do note that on the plans here received October 30th, 2020, you are planning on re-vegetating that one area between the proposed retaining wall and the bottom one with native beach grass, correct? MR. PAWLOWSKI: Correct. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there any anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). So I believe according to the plans I'm looking at, the proposed retaining wall is about six feet seaward of the top of the bank, correct? MR. PAWLOWSKI: Just about. Maybe slightly less. But, yes. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We'll move that four feet, so it's closer to the top of the bank so you won't have as much fill. MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes, that's fair. That's fair. I remember Nick's`first visit, we kind of went over that. So that's not a problem to do. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, so you are requesting to table this so we get'new plans showing the wall four feet further landward? MR. PAWLOWSKI: That's fine. I do have another question, on, since I'm going to update the plans to show that. With fencing, what is the requirement of the Trustees; obviously I know the code for, you know, pool-compliant fencing, the gates, I know all that. But when it comes to the area near the bulkhead or secondary bulkhead, how do you want me to address that, this way I properly update the plans? Because the property lines along, you know, the neighbors is totally clear. But how would you like, does the bulkhead act as a fence, the main bulkhead? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would not be for us to determine. Board of Trustees 36 November 18, 2020 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If we are talking about the swimming pool protection, that's with the Building Department. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Typically -- MR. HAGAN: With the President's permission, of course -- TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, sir. MR. HAGAN: The rules with regard to what constitutes an approved barrier around a pool is something that the Building Department can answer. The Trustees do not have a specific regulation with regard to pool fencing. They regulate what gets put into the ground;in and around Trustee jurisdiction, but if you are asking whether or not the bulkhead would satisfy the requirements of pool fencing, that is based on certain measurements and dimensions and drop offs, and you would have to check with the Building Department on that. We have had similar matters brought before this Board in the past. I can think of one project on Fishers Island where there was a retaining wall but then it was an approved barrier, but the Board of Trustees does not have those regulations in their Wetland Code and so what is and is not an approved barrier, you'll have to ask the Building Department for that, and they'll be able to give you the appropriate -- MR. PAWLOWSKI: No problem. So the fencing will just be subject to Building Department code. I understand that now. It was just a comment on your last comments. So we'll address it according to Building Department code. I appreciate that. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Anyone else here wishes to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Any further questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none I make a motion to table this application at the applicant's request to get us new plans showing the wall moved four-foot landward. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number seven, KENNETH QUIGLEY requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing dock, ramp and land-side walkway located along the eastern shoreline. The subject's proposed fixed dock will consist of a fixed and elevated land-side catwalk (4'x73'); a fixed connecting catwalk (4'x18'); a fixed ramp (4'x24'); a fixed connecting pier (4'x14'); a fixed pier platform (4'x20'); two swing ladders; (2) 12" diameter piling tie-off poles 32' apart and 12' clear from the fixed pier platform. All surface decking shall be (inaudible) open-grate material, clearance of 4'6"to be maintained over wetland areas. Boat size will be 24'x8'; the loading transparent kayak launch will be 5'x12' to be connected to the dock via docking lines with dock hardware; water and electrical termination will be at the top of the ramp. All ramps to maintain slope standards not to exceed one in ten. Structural materials shall meet the minimum standards set forth by the Southold Trustees and all Board of Trustees 37 November 18, 2020 governing agencies. Existing land-side catwalk to be replaced. Located: 2245 Little Peconic Bay Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-1-16 We are in receipt of plans last revised November 17, 2020, and stamped received November 17th, 2020. In addition, on November 10th, at 8:12, the Trustees, all were present, did the most recent field inspection, noting there was a little confusion about the dimensions on the plans and the project description, which is why I read the new project description. The LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. Additionally, I would like to mention,just quick, Mr. Quigley has made a good faith effort to incorporate our suggestions into his design. And most recently, Trustee Goldsmith and myself reviewed onsite the dimensions and the location of a stake, benchmark stake, which is clearly labeled on the plans I referenced before, received and revised November 17th. That stake is 73'4" from the existing gravel driveway, and we are advocating that that stake remain during construction and afterwards as a point of reference to verify that all dimensions that exist on this plan and in the project description are in fact what is constructed. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? (Negative response). MS. CANTRELL: I'll remind the people on the phone that if you wish to wave to get our attention you would like to speak, please press *9. We,have a telephone ending in number 7612, just waved, so I don't know if you know, to un-mute, you would press *6 MR. QUIGLEY: Kenneth Quigley. I'm just here to answer any more questions you might have. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Again, Mr. Quigley, thank you, for your cooperation. It looks as if you have addressed the issues that we had. Did you hear my comment about the stake that you have on your plans? MR. QUIGLEY: Not to be removed until you come back for final inspection. TRUSTEE DOMINO: That pretty much sums it up. Any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Does anyone else wish to speak to this application? (Negative response). Hearing no further comments, I'll 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 Board of Trustees 38 November 18, 2020 according to the new project description and the plans received most recently revised November 17th and received November 17th, 2020. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application. Number 8, Frederick Weber, Architect, on behalf of HEATH GRAY & MOLLY RHODES requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling with a 2,785 sq. ft. first floor living space, a 1857 sq. ft. second floor living space, 768 sq. ft. attached garage, 126 sq. ft. front porch, 299 sq. ft. rear porch, and a 487 sq. ft. screen porch; a variety of stoops and steps to be constructed including front mudroom entrance stoop/steps (22 sq. ft.); rear mudroom entrance stoop/steps (51 sq. ft.); rear porch steps to grade (20 sq. ft.); areaway to basement (93 sq. ft.); and a patio off the screen porch of 156 sq. ft.; in addition, the following improvements would be constructed: 4,004 sq. ft. of new driveway and parking areas; new sanitary system for six (6) bedroom dwelling; new site drainage with capacity for 2" rainfall; 4'x7' outdoor shower with connection to drywell; 1,000 gallon buried propane tank; three (3) air-conditioning units on 3'x9' concrete pad and a 20kw generator on a concrete pad; the existing 96 sq. ft. shed will be removed; the grading of the site will remain similar to the existing; part of the new excavated basement fill will be removed and part would be used for minimal re-grading; no new fill would be provided unless required as clean fill for the sanitary system; the dwelling to be located well above flood zone levels and outside NYS DEC jurisdiction of 10' elevation (no disturbance below 13' contour). Located: 8570 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-5-5 This project has been deemed consistent by the LWRP. The Board of Trustees performed a pre-submission inspection on October 7th noting that we were looking for an IA system and that there be a non-disturbance area seaward of the small rock wall. The applicant, as a result of pre-submission discussions in the field, submitted to us revised plans received and stamped in the Trustee office November 5th, addressing those concerns. The Board reviewed the new plans on our November 10th field inspection noting that it had included those items from pre-submission inspection. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MS. CANTRELL: Fred Weber has just raised his hand. MR. WEBER: Fred Weber. Thank you. Just very quickly, it's a one-acre lot, fairly large lot. The existing house proved insufficient, I guess, to renovate properly, so we are proposing a two-story residence. We are setting back from 64'6" to 72'10". We are providing slight drainage for all roof and driveway areas Board of Trustees 39 November 18, 2020 and partially to contain runoff on pitches toward the lagoon. We are adding a new IA sanitary system on the landward side of the house and we have established the non-disturbance line below which the area will be left in a natural state, which is wooded with underbrush extending down to the wetlands. The existing steps and grade and walk to the dock would remain. And I would be available for any questions. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional questions? (Negative response). Not seeing any, does anyone wish to speak to this application? (Negative response). Not seeing any, I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted with plans stamped received in the Trustee office November 5th. That's my motion. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 9, Young &Young on behalf of DAVID J. CORCORAN & DAVID CORCORAN requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing one-story frame dwelling, frame garage, wood decks, breezeway, and outdoor shower; construct a new 2,861 sq. ft. two-story dwelling and garage with a 252 sq. ft. front porch and a 902 sq. ft seaward side wood deck; abandon existing sanitary system and install new IA/OWTS with leaching galleys type sanitary system; and to install a proposed pervious driveway that will consist of approximately 38 cubic yards of gravel over an area of 2,027 sq. ft. Located: 405 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-4-15 & 37.3 The LWRP found this to be consistent. It was recommended that the Board establish a vegetated non-turf buffer landward of the wetland. The Trustees most recently visited this property on the 10th of November, and noted that a 15-foot non-turf buffer from the wetland, line non-disturbance from third post of split rail along right-of-way and the right-of-way will be non-turf. So it will serve as a buffer along that side. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? Oh, and I do also want to note we are in receipt of new plans stamped received November 18th, 2020, which do in fact show a 15-foot non-turf buffer, and a flagged wetland line with non-disturbance all seaward of it. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. WOLPERT: Yes. Thomas Wolpert, engineer with Young &Young, representing the applicant David and Karen Corcoran. You have Board of Trustees 40 November 18, 2020 the revised plans. I would just like to point out that the intent of this project was to construct a new house that was no closer to the adjacent wetland than the existing house. And those wetlands are both to the north and the east of the subject property. In addition, we are proposing to abandon the existing cesspool in the rear of the house, which is on the seaward side of the house, and install a new IA system on the landward side of the proposed house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. WOLPERT: Yes. And as the Board member pointed out, we did submit revised plans in response to the Trustees inspection and field notes, and we are depicting both the non-disturbance area as well as the 15-foot wide non-turf area. If anyone has any questions, I would be happy to try to answer them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MS. CANTRELL: There are a couple other people who wish to speak. For those who wish to speak, please note you'll be handled one person at a time. So the next person to wave to us is David Badanes. MR. BADANES: I'm not sure if I'm on the right application. Which number are you on? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number nine. MR. BADANES: Okay, I misheard. Sorry. I'll lower my hand. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding the application, number nine, Young &Young on behalf of David Corcoran? MS. CANTRELL: There is an M. LoGrande who has their raised. MR. LOGRANDE: Yes. Mike LoGrande here. There is a slight delay. I just want to inquire, we received a copy of the survey and we appreciate being informed of this. We do not object to the construction of the house at all. I do have a question as to whether or not, I saw a copy of the plan and of the survey that was sent by Young & Young and it did not depict a well that we have on the property across the street that was there when we purchased the property, and it appears, I can't confirm, but it appears it's close to their septic system, and I just want to inquire as to whether or not that was addressed. Because it clearly was not addressed on the survey. MR. HAGAN: Approved locations of septic systems are governed, and whether or not they are too close to well water is governed by the Suffolk County Department of health. MR. LOGRANDE: So you are saying this is not the appropriate to raise this issue or we should raise it with the Department of Health? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct. MR. LOGRANDE: Okay. And, the other issue I would like to raise, then, and it may be addressed based on what was indicated Board of Trustees 41 November 18, 2020 on the plans, which was that there were currently railroad ties that have washed away as tides have come in, and have washed on to my property, which is not an issue per se. I'm just concerned that the runoff that has ensued as a result of those railroad ties coming down and crossing over the right-of-way, I just want to make sure that the appropriate retaining apparatus, whether it be rocks, which I guess is what is planned, be in place so that there is no erosion on to the property. I just don't know if that was addressed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. We have not addressed that yet. MR. LOGRANDE: Okay. Again, I want to say that I have no objection to the plans for the house whatsoever, I just, those are the only two concerns that I have as a neighbor. I just want to make sure we are addressing them before anything happens. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. LOGRANDE: Thank you, for your time. I appreciate it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So based on our inspection and reviewing the new plans, there is a three-foot angular rock retaining wall around the entirety of this project, which does include both sides of the property; one along the right-of-way, which does not have a height labeled, and one along the neighboring property to the west, which is a three-foot high retaining wall, which may or may not cause runoff problems with the neighbors. And I would think based on other applications we would want to see a side profile of the project structure and the finished grade from the street up. MS. CANTRELL: Tom actuality raised his hand in regard to the retaining wall question, I believe. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Feel free to un-mute him. MR. WOLPERT: Okay, um, yes. In response to Mr. LoGrande's comments about the deteriorating timber wall on the inside of our property, we do have a note on the plan that proposes to replace that existing retaining wood retaining wall with a stone boulder wall, and that would be a similar wall as on the west side of the property where we indicate a proposed three-foot high boulder retaining wall. And then the upper left-hand corner of sheet one, we do indicate a stone retaining wall detail. It's a typical detail with a maximum might of three foot. So the wall would probably be anywhere from one to three-foot max in height, just to retain the soils, as the prior timber retaining wall did on the east side of the property. So we have in fact addressed that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't believe, based on our field inspections, that the timber wall is three foot high on that side. And I could be incorrect on that. But from my recollection, it was just a simple railroad tie along that property line. MR. WOLPERT: Right. And that's probably why we didn't indicate the height on the east side like we did on the west side. But it would not be any higher than it needs to be to retain the Board of Trustees 42 November 18, 2020 soil. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Unfortunately, we are seeing more and more of these properties with retaining walls on the property line, and that does cause neighboring problems. So although you did address some of the concerns with your plans which were reviewed extensively by the Board, we are going to need further information on this. Specifically what I was mentioning earlier, which we have requested on many houses and applications lately, where we would need to see a final grade from the street elevation to the roof line, which is going to help us, because I'm not entirely clear how much fill is going into this property. MR. WOLPERT: There is not a lot of fill required. The proposed house, finished part of the house is at elevation 10, and looking at the existing side elevations, there is a 9 elevation existing now. So there is not a whole lot of fill going in to construct-- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Isn't it 6 right now? I see 7. MR. WOLPERT: Well, yes. Between two of the drainage leaching pools and leaching field number three, there is actually a side elevation of 9, and -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So it would essentially be three feet of fill on that, at least on the road, the southern half of the property. MR. WOLPERT: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So with regard to my prior comment about the need for a street view showing the retaining structures, fill and house, did you understand where I was going with that? MR. WOLPERT: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, we would need to see that. And then I mean, I'm also, just while I have you here, I'm curious justifying the need for raising the whole property with retaining walls. Especially to the west of the neighbor. MR. WOLPERT: Well, in order to make the grades with the proposed sanitary system, see where the two clean-outs are to come out of the house, we have to maintain certain cover on that sewer line leading up to the treatment unit and also the leaching galley system. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. So if you can provide the side profile, it would be greatly appreciated. MR. WOLPERT: When you say "profile" you mean a cross-section from the street through the house? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Basically we want to use the street as an indicator of current grade, and then show what the finished grade will be with the retaining structures on either side. So you would see -- MR. WOLPERT: Okay so you need two sections. A north/south and east/west. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. Thank you. Does anyone else have any questions or comments on this one? From the Board? (Negative response). MS. CANTRELL: We have Mr. LoGrande waving his hand again. MR. LOGRANDE: Yes, ma'am. Thank you, very much. Just one Board of Trustees 43 November 18, 2020 additional question. Because I just recently rebuilt a house across,the street. I owned the property there for 25 years. And a requirement from the town was to ensure that 100% of the rainwater was captured in these drywells, these leaching field wells. And I just want to, I'm not sure it's the purview of the Board of Trustees, but I want to ensure that if that's a requirement, I didn't, because I had to put in probably twice the number of leaching fields, and my understanding is that it's the same square footage or roughly the same square footage of the house I just built. Is that something that you guys would address in this venue? And if it is, I just want to ensure, because I had to put in something like, I don't want to say it was close to 13 rings to take all of the rainwater in. And I just want to make sure if that's a requirement, that that is being addressed. And it has to do with, the thrust of my saying this is that I want to ensure there is no additional runoff. Even if there is a retaining wall, I want to make sure there is no additional runoff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Are there any other comments from the Board at this time? (Negative response). All right, hearing none, I make a motion to table the application to allow the applicant to submit to the file side profile plans showing,the current elevation and the final elevation. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number ten, Dave Roberts on behalf of LUIS PORTAL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story wood framed dwelling with basement below and a first-floor area of 1,955 sq. ft., second floor 796 sq. ft.; 560 sq. ft. attached garage; 270 sq. ft. front porch; 205 sq. ft. rear porch; 960 sq. ft. new asphalt driveway; new concrete paver walkways; and a new 1,250 gallon septic system. Located: 350 Jockey Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-5-52 The Trustees visited this site several times, most recently November 10th, with all Trustees present. We explained to Mr. Roberts that the Trustees reflagged wetlands line on the site on 10/7 and suggested a ten-foot non-turf buffer landward of the wetland lines and an IA septic system. The LWRP coordinator found this action to be consistent, and the Conservation Advisory Council did review the application. They resolved to support the application, noting a ten-foot to 15-foot non-turf buffer with native vegetation landward of the 75-foot wetland boundary, installation of drywells in the location further away from wetlands, and IA system in the front yard. Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application? MS. CANTRELL: We have a gentleman named David. David, if you can un-mute. Board of Trustees 44 November 18, 2020 MR. ROBERTS: Hi. Good evening, Trustees. Yes, that is true, we did meet on the property on November 10th. I was instructed to do the ten-foot non-turf buffer and the new IA system, which we had submitted to the Trustees office as requested by you gentlemen to do so. So I believe we had conformed to everything you gentlemen had asked for. I'm here for any questions, if you need me to answer any. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I have no questions. Does anybody else have any questions? (No response). Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak to this application? MS. CANTRELL: If you wish to raise your hand, if you are on the phone, to tell us if you want to speak, please press *9. 1 don't see anybody else who wishes to speak TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe we discussed in the field a limiting fence may not be necessary in this case. It was an open discussion and we never had a further discussion on that, that I recall. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not for or against it, in this location. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Glenn? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Whatever everyone else decides. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to close the public hearing in this application TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve the application as submitted, with a survey dated received November 13th, 2020, and plans dated received November 16th, 2020, showing the ten-foot non-turf buffer, and the IA septic system. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 11, DKR Shores, Inc. on behalf of CAMERON DOWE & MEGAN STRECKER requests a Wetland Permit to construct an 18'x32' shed that includes an 8'3"x18' covered open porch; extend existing timber walk landward an additional 4'x8'6", to be 9"from grade using 6" round posts and cedar decking to match existing in order to attach walk to proposed shed/covered porch. Located: 975 Cedar Point Drive West, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-1-5 The LWRP found this project to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make a review. The Trustees have been to this site numerous times, most recently we had an inhouse discussion on November 10th. We had further discussion at work session. I just want to note for the record that we do have numerous letters in the file. All of those letters have been read and reviewed. They are part of the file in the public record. Also I want to note that this is an aquaculture operation and it is not the purview of this Board to Board of Trustees 45 November 18, 2020 make determinations based on land use on aquaculture. So please keep your comments to the structure itself as it pertains to the Trustee jurisdiction. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MS. CANTRELL: The agent for the property owner, Agena Rigdon is here. MS. RIGDON: Hi, everyone. Good evening. I'm here to represent Megan Strecker and Cameron Dowe in this application for a shed in this location for the purpose, as you said, to discuss, it is for the purpose of aquaculture and mariculture. Before I really get into this, I just want to point out a little bit of history. On April 20th, 2016, Sean Barrett presented an application approved by this Board for a wetland permit#8773, which approved a 2426 square foot shed, for this purpose solely. So at 624 square feet, it was located and approved at a distance of 79.6 feet from the bulkhead. There was an amendment to the permit to extend a walkway from the dock to the proposed shed at the time. Since then, Megan and Cameron had undergone extensive and painstaking review under grant process that was awarded to them from the East End Shell Fishers Association. They have kind of went back and really revisited this during the grant process and they had decided that they were going to do something a little more in character with the neighborhood. Keep in mind smaller. We are actually asking for something that is smaller and further away than what was previously granted. The accessory is actually 432-square feet that we are proposing, and it's sort of a barn-style lovely shed, compared to what was previously approved. And it is actually a further distance away at 83.6 feet from the bulkhead. There is a small roof overhang, that corner distance is at 75 feet. I have had a lot of discussion with Dave Bergen representing a couple of the homeowners, particularly Mr. Bradley. Mr. Bergen also represents the homeowners association as well. So neighborhood in general, had approached him. I did not personally receive any phone calls or letters regarding. So I've only had a chance to review the two letters that were forwarded to me by Liz. I'm unaware of any other letters. But I'm willing to discuss it. So Dave and I have gone back and forth with a lot of mitigation to make this project more conceivable. Keep in mind that it was designed smaller and reconfigured slightly from the originally approved location, and that was in efforts to maintain the mature screening and mature trees that are actually on the property right now, the red cedars, and then that would be, it would not have to cut down trees, and that's why it is in the configuration it is that is presently under review. The LWRP deems this project would be consistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, and the Town of Southold has, and particularly the Trustees, they have a responsibility to protect aquaculture and mariculture under the Board of Trustees 46 November 18, 2020 LWRP and the natural resources and local economy that emphasizes agricultural, fishing, as well as tourism, all of which Megan and Cameron are promoting. Keep in mind that the mariculture program that they are doing is actually enhancing water quality as well by filtering the water. And West Lake is part of the Peconic Estuary area, and that it also has enhanced the eel grass in the area as well. That has started to grow back. Now, I'm sure the Board has read my very extensive letter that was sent certified on October 27th. Since then I have discussed with Mr. Bergen on numerous occasions and we have come to a consensus. Everything in the letter shall stand as far as mitigation, minus one thing. Mr. Bradley did not want the tumbler moved landward because it would be right under his bedroom. So that is perfectly fine with us. We have conceded to enhance screening by additional planting of bayberry as well. And we also have agreed to be more mindful of the program on the property, specifically power washing. This shed was very, very, very specifically designed to cause the least environmental impacts possible. As leaders and gutters leading to drywells, it was, it will, the placement itself will cause the least amount of destruction to the mature vegetation that provides for screening as well as shading. It's really important to keep these oysters in the shade and to cull them as soon as they come out of the water, and then get them packed as quickly as possible. So the placement of the shed is particularly important at the end of the walkway, and we are only asking to extend the walkway by eight feet or so, to connect the two together, to make this a more viable and safer and quicker process. Does the Board -- I was forward a lot of comments from the work session. I did go over them with Mr. Bergen about relocating it landward, which really is not an option. We have gone over everything. Not only will it be closer to Mr. Bradley's bedroom, but it will allow access to the backyard at all if we moved it closer to the house. We would not be able to get anything through there if we had moved it. So would the Board like to invite any more questions? We really put a lot a lot of thought. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I have a question. So what is the current distance between the proposed shed and the house, or the wood deck? MS. RIGDON: I have to get a scale out. Hold on one second. I have, well, there is a deck. Keep in mind there is a deck right there. So would you like it to the house or to the deck? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Both. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Both, please. MS. RIGDON: Okay. To the deck it is 37 feet at its closest point. And then -- TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. MS. RIGDON: And at the point closest to Mr. Bradley it's 40 Board of Trustees 47 November 18, 2020 feet. But there is a shed there as well. Keep that in mind. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So we currently have 83'6"from the bulkhead to the proposed shed. And you said you had 37'-ish between the proposed shed and the wood deck. So it seems to me that you would have enough room to move this further landward, still have enough room to get around that shed and you can potentially bring it out of Trustee jurisdiction all together, more than 100 feet away from that bulkhead. MS. RIGDON: They would have to get rid of the shed that is there already, and I don't see that-- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That seems reasonable. MS. RIGDON: I don't think she would look kindly on that particular idea. I mean I understand what you are asking, but keep in mind that it's that much further away from the dock, it's that much less area that they are going to be able to use for work, and then the closer we move it to the road, then we are going to have potentially interfere with Mr. Bradley's day-to-day functions and/or viewing. He specifically did not want it'moved closer to the road. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Our concern is the wetlands that are further, this can get away from the wetland, the better it is for us as Trustees. That's what we are looking at. I don't know if there is a significant noise difference for the neighbor whether it's here or whether it's 17 feet further toward the house, but like I said, that would remove it from our jurisdiction. I don't believe that you needed a Building Department permit for this proposed shed -- no, you do. MS. RIGDON: Oh, we definitely need a building permit. This has already gone through Building and Zoning. But try to keep in mind there is a huge tree right there and they would need to cut that tree down to be able to move that shed closer to the house, and absolutely Mr. Bradley would absolutely flip out if we cut down a large mature cedar that is shading and providing shade for his house, screening for his house, screening for the activities that are occurring on Cameron Dowe and Megan Strecker's property. There is also a septic system that is not actually shown here, but there is a minimum distance you have to maintain between structures and the septic system. I mean, I could have that put on the survey, if you would like, but we have so maintain a 20-foot distance between sanitary and structures. Or even on slabs. So there's Health Department requirements, there is tons of trees right there. And there are very viable, they are, you know, they are alive, and there is there really no reason --they specifically made this shed smaller, reconfigured it on a slight angle, and moved it so they would not have to cut down any mature trees. And it's really important-- TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I appreciate it, but I think we are stretching the definition of a shed a little bit here. According to the plans here it says it's a one-and-one-half story barn. So, I'm looking at, do we have the neighbor's Board of Trustees 48 November 18, 2020 property anywhere located on any of these maps as it would be in relation'to the proposed -- MS. RIGDON: I did. I did on my latest plan that I had submitted to the Board, and with my letter that was attached to the letter, actually shows Mr. Bradley's house in relation to the shed. But I can't bring -- I mean, I don't know if he's on, but I specifically discussed this with Mr. Bergen about moving the shed further landward, and he was opposed to it. Vehemently opposed to it. He would rather see it where it is right now. So we really spent a lot, we spent a considerable number of hours and weeks going back and forth, you know, mitigating this, and then coming to some concessions and being agreeable. And I'm all for good fences make good neighbors approach, and I think that we have come to a conclusion that is the best for everyone. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All right, thank you. Let's hear some other comments. Is there anyone else here who wishes to comment on this application? MS. CANTRELL: There is somebody with a phone number with the last four digits 8664. If you don't know, in order to un-mute -- MR. GRECO: This is Stephen Greco, I'm an adjacent neighbor to Megan and Cam. To the point made, though, to call that a shed, it's, I believe it's a one-and-one-half story barn. So the concern is, there is a couple of concerns, and my wife and I, we understand the aquaculture industry and we understand the protection of the Peconic. But it goes further than that. I never did understand how a commercial business can be in an R-40 neighborhood, but obviously at this point, it can. So that was something, when I purchased the home, I was unaware of. But everyone, I guess, that purchases a home in Southold on the water should be aware of that, that they could conceivably be next to a commercial business. The concern is twofold. I'll keep this to point. Number one, is the structure that is being built in a residential neighborhood. It's important to preserve the residential beauty of West Lake area. And that's my concern. That's why I purchased there. And a structure like that, I really don't understand how that can be maintained in a residential neighborhood. The other point is quality of life. And I believe it was mentioned, because Mr. Bradley has mentioned it in the past, and that is about, you know, the power washing, the oyster tumbler, the sounds, the smells. My wife and I go out to Southold, we put a lot of money into our home to relax on the property. And that is not what is happening with a commercial business next door. It's tough for me to talk about this because we want to live in harmony with our neighbors. We really do. But at this point we were always concerned once we found out there was a commercial business next door, how big it would get. And this Board of Trustees 49 November 18, 2020 is why I'm speaking up, why I wrote a letter to the Trustees, and my main concerns. I appreciate the time that you give, have given me. I think that we are good neighbors. We would like to be treated in kind, the same way. We don't want to be driven from our home. We love it there. But the excessive noise and now the buildings that are being built along with, you know, employees and the work of a commercial property, it doesn't settle well with why I bought that house. Again, Stephen Greco, thank you, for your time. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir. And, for the record, we do have your letter and it is in the file as part of the public record. MR. GRECO: Thank you. MS. CANTRELL: The next person who wishes to speak is Dave Bergen. MR. BERGEN: Thank you, very much, for your time this evening. Just one quick housekeeping thing. I am here as an agent for the Bradley's, Mr. and Mrs. Bradley. I'm not here on behalf of the association. I have not had any conversations with the association leadership, the property owners' leadership regarding this application. Also, the other day at the work session it was mentioned that I represented myself as counsel. And I did not do that. That was maybe by somebody else saying that. And I was never-- MR. HAGAN: It was on your letter, Dave. MR. BERGEN: No, my letter, if you look at October 7th, you'll see it's Dave Bergen, agent for Mr. Bradley. That is what my letterhead said. You have a letter from Agena that refers to me as counsel, but not from me. So I just want to make, because that is important. It's a very valid point to bring up. It's an important note that I did not do that and it is not in my letter. I'm the agent. But getting to the application, Agena is correct. We have had some very productive conversations and the majority of points in the October 7th letter from myself to the Trustees have been resolved. We feel that they do want to be good neighbors. And so the only additional items that I'd ask for that are on the plan is the location of the tumbler, because we've talked about that, and that is important. I believe it was going to be in front of this proposed structure. And then there is some additional vegetation that is going to be placed on the property line between the Bradley's and the applicants. And that will help mitigate the sound as well as the odor. To address the possible movement of this structure landward, Agena is correct that we did not, we do not want to see that happen because if it is moved landward, environmentally, there is a tree that would be required to be taken down. There is a question of also the viability of the oysters; the farther you take them from the sea up to the land, it could create problems. It is definitely going to move the noise and odor from the operation to be much closer to the Bradley's living area, which will make it very uncomfortable for Board of Trustees 50 November 18, 2020 them. So I would ask that you please, if you are going to approve this structure, that the structure remain down as close to the water as possible. So those are my comments. And I don't know if you have any questions for me. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We don't have any questions. MS. RIGDON: If I could interject for two seconds. Dave, I do apologize. I did send an apology E-mail to Liz directly. I have, itwas an error on my behalf. You are the agent. Your letter said "agent." And I have neurological issues, so that was my mistake, and I apologize. An injury in 2017 started it all. Sorry. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here who wishes,to speak regarding this application? MS. CANTRELL: There is somebody on the phone, the phone number ends 8664. Before I do that, though, there was a person, with last name Obinata, they Q&A'd us saying they support Strecker in regard to the application. They wanted the Board to see that. I'm guessing they are not going to speak. And'now the person on the phone, if you wish to speak, press *6 to un-mute. MR. GRECO: This is Steve Greco. I already spoke. Thank you. MS. CANTRELL: Okay. Next is Matt Ketcham, is next on our list. MR. KETCHAM: Mat Ketcham, I'm a small business owner in the Town of Southold, and I just want to point out, I think this speaks to a larger problem. A lot of times we have no working waterfront. We have nowhere to work. We've had the rust tide, we've had COVID, we've had the scallops die off. You know, where else can you do these activities? I mean, if we are supporting aquaculture, we really need to, she is doing the best she can. She is communicating with her neighbor. She is acting in good faith. She's trying to keep her business going. I mean, I don't think she has any other options. I mean, she can't go do it anywhere else. I mean, where else are we supposed to do these activities. Um, and a lot of times these letters, it starts off with people saying, you know, we support aquaculture, but. It's like but, you really don't. You have people complaining about buoys in the bay also. We support aquaculture, but we don't want the buoys here because I go sailing there three months out of the year. You know, we are working year-round, harvesting sustainable protein, we deliver beautiful product to the local restaurants. We spend money locally. We employ people year-round. And I just think everybody needs to realize, what do we do if we can't do these activities? Just go out of business? I mean, there is nowhere else to go. It sounds to me like she is doing the best she can communicating with her neighbor. I don't think she is doing anything egregious. You know, it's not every day. So that's all. I just want to point that out. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, very much. Any other comments? Board of Trustees 51 November 18, 2020 MS. CANTRELL: Okay, we have -- I apologize, I'm not sure how to pronounce the name. Sonomi Obinata, wishes to talk, if you can un-mute. MS. OBINATA: Good evening. My name is Sonomi Obinata. I live in the south fork since 2000. So living here for 20 years. I move to this area, countryside, from the city, because of the beauty of the nature and then agriculture and then aquaculture. And that's the two value that I found that you can see nowhere else. And the residents, new residents started living here that only looking'for the area real estate value, which is not sustainable. It's going to be short time, the water rising, the weather is changing. That the climate change is happening. And then those are people truly care and know what's going on in the nature and give us input like how we lost the lobster, because the way and all the people who doesn't really, you know, support environmental, and are careless about it. And then how about the scallop that we been losing. I think all the new residents, you know, spilling some, you know, chemicals. The oyster, do you know what oyster does? Oyster actually clean the water. And this is environmental, right? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, ma'am. MS. OBINATA: And just doing her job, and is the true beauty, the value of this beautiful land, and those are people just looking for the profit of their own wealth. I truly against that. That's what I wanted to say. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, very much. MS. OBINATA: You're welcome. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other comments? MS. CANTRELL: Now there's two. There was a Q&A from Mary Hines, that she supports the applicant, and oysters clean our waters. And Penelope Rudder says she raises her hand to support Cameron Dowe and Megan Strecker. So you are aware, there are people who are Q&A'ing instead of speaking. We have Cameron Dowe who wishes to speak next. Cameron, if you can un-mute. MS. DOWE: Hello. This is actually Megan Strecker Dowe, I'm Cameron's wife. I just want to speak on behalf of all oyster farmers and anyone that has a small business in Southold. I'll try and make it quick. I know you guys are tired and have to listen to a lot of other people's cases. I established our company in 2013. I've been working with a very small staff since that time. Most of them are family members. It's usually myself and one other person on the boat, and that is usually my cousin. She stays with me when she is working two to three days a week, and then she leaves. There is, I feel like the structure we proposed is -- actually, I did study historic preservation, and it is very similar to all the vernacular style outbuildings that are on the east end, so I do feel they are in keeping with the surrounding area. Board of Trustees 52 November 18, 2020 We do want to keep as many trees as we can in our yard, and actually plant more so that there is more privacy and screening for both myself and my neighbors. And I'm just trying to find any other points -- having a shed is essential to aquaculture businesses. We need a place to store things in a sanitary way and keep food -- health and food safety as our priority. I appreciate everyone that has spoken on my behalf and if anyone has any questions for me, please feel free to ask. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, very much. MS. DOWE: Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else who wishes to comment? (NO RESPONSE). Any other questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to say something. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would as well TRUSTEE DOMINO: I find this application troublesome. The very purpose of Chapter 275, the findings, state that all structures near the publicly-owned waters, have some effect on the physical, biological, ecosystem functions and values. That's right in Section A. And our purpose stated in it, is the protection of the ecosystems that support the continued viability of harvestable shellfish and fin fish habitat. And the minimization of impact of new development, restoration and/or expansion on the resource area values listed above. It goes on to say that--well, I'll cut it short. For me, the construction of an 18'x 32' one-and-one-half story shed and a covered walkway does not meet my criteria for minimization. That's where I'm stuck. It's sort of a Catch 22 also. Because I want to support aquaculture, but according to the findings and the purpose, any structure has an impact on the ecosystem. So our purpose is to minimize that so we can keep the impact down and help you keep this aquaculture viable. It's quite stressful. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. I have a couple of comments on this application. As a fifth-generation family farmer, I definitely want to just put it out there that many members of this Board are extremely pro-aquaculture, and I think in particular on this property in granting docks and FLUPSYs, this Board has been very supportive of Ms. Dowe and Ms. Strecker to this point and going forward. Having said that I also want to clear that as someone who has worked in aquaculture and the eel grass restoration, I do not think that moving a building forward or landward away from the creek is going to have any effect on this shellfish whatsoever and it will have all the effect on the creek. We also talked about different neighbors. Well the Trustees are your third neighbor. So that has to be taken into consideration when working with your neighbors. I personally am supportive of a structure, I'm supportive of aquaculture, but I do think it has to be pulled back. I don't think there will be any negative effects. Maybe with your use of the property, but Board of Trustees 53 November 18, 2020 I think it's something you can work around. And also I do think we should discuss this with Planning because it is mentioned in the code different uses of different properties and size of structure and size of land. But overall I am supportive of the project and I am supportive of aquaculture and I would like to work with you on something here but you have to do just that and work with us. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Very well said, and I do concur with referring it to the Planning Department because I think we are coming perilously close to the borderline between a commercial operation and aquaculture. We support aquaculture. Aquaculture is supposed to be an accessory usage to a residence. I don't know if we are starting to blur the line to make this a commercial application as opposed to an aquacultural application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I might add, too, the Board is very strong with aquaculture. I chair the Town's Shellfish Advisory Committee which is involved in helping monitor surface water quality with the DEC, and I think that Trustee Krupski's comments go to the heart of the issue. I think there have been hints here that there is another shed that might be able to be removed or to facilitate the landward movement of the proposed and/or incorporate this as part of the discussion that Trustee President Goldsmith is suggesting we should have with the Planning Board, because this is very uncomfortable to hear the complaints of neighbors when everyone is really pro-aquaculture but we are coming up against industrialization of small properties to the detriment of quality of life of neighbors. MS. CANTRELL: There are two Q&A comments. The original application was for an 18x32 shed but Agena is saying it's 18x24. I don't know if the plans have changed over time. It's been going on so long I have no idea. Then Cecilia Portilla: The Trustee members say there is an impact on the ecosystem. But they do not say what the impact is. What is the impact on the ecosystem? What documentation is there to demonstrate there is a negative impact on the ecosystem. People are starting to ask questions via Q&A. We actually prefer you speak to us via our Zoom meeting instead of trying to answer these questions. It would take a lot longer to answer these questions than it does to speak to you directly. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do think we have addressed why the proximity of expanding the operation closer to wetland, I think Trustee Domino addressed that directly out of the Code. MS. CANTRELL: Jay Bradley has yet to speak, so I thought I would let him speak up. MR. BRADLEY: Good evening, and thank you for taking the time. You've spent a long time on this file. I would like to say I appreciate everybody giving the attention that we hope would be given to is being given to it. And there seems to be a lot of back and forth, and Dave stated our position, and I was going to Board of Trustees 54 November 18, 2020 remain'silent until it seems there has been a shift that, in thought, that the moving of the structure is to accommodate or ameliorate our concerns. The structure being landward would actually be worse. So I think it should be, if it's a neighbor issue, the current location and the mitigation discussions that have taken place, are, have put us in a more comfortable place and given the discussions that have followed Agena's initial introductory comments, we would not be supportive of moving it from its current location. Dave voiced the two concerns we had, where it would end up and the suppression wall, but that's a minor issue in the scheme of things, and you are talking about perhaps sending this to another committee or what have you, and we would be happy to make comments there, but I would want to just voice here, I think is important because you do have our letters in front of you and those letters may have been the genesis of much discussion and certainly was for Agena and Dave. But'to be clear, where it is now with the discussions and the mitigations that has been worked out to date, has put my wife and I in a more comfortable position. And we would not embrace the moving and the cutting down of trees. That is counter to what is in our best interest. And frankly, I know the way their backyard is, and it's counter to the operation and to our neighbors Meg and Cam. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. MS. CANTRELL: Agena, do you want to say anything in regard to all these comments they are saying on Q&A? MS. RIGDON: I would, actually. I would like to close. The Town of Southold adopted an LWRP for a reason. Specifically, yes, we know the north fork is beautiful, it's rich in resources, it has natural shorelines, meaningful history, but, you know, we do have this challenge of an ever-changing world, and especially with the COVID and people moving out here year-round, you know, I understand it, but this Board has an absolute duty, and I know you didn't really want to address the aquaculture and mariculture, but in Town Code it is this Trustees' not just the LWRP,waterfront consistency review, but this Board has to protect these occupations, this economy, this local development, this sustainable use, and it's just, once you start limiting things, it's just, it really is a slippery slope. You know, where it's just--they need your protection. Um, and we have done absolutely everything to mitigate this. It is as small as it possibly could be and placed in a very, very specific detailed location and space; so it doesn't cut down any trees, so it's as close to the dock as possible, so it's as far away. It meets every Building Department setback. It meets Zoning. This has been through Building Department and Zoning review. It meets every setback. It meets every single criteria under Chapter 26 Waterfront Consistency. It meets Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shoreline. It meets Chapter 280 Zoning in Low Density Residential Aquary District Use regulations. It meets Board of Trustees 55 November 18, 2020 everything. It was designed so particularly and so beautifully to match the character of Southold, the community heritage character of maritime occupations, and it is this Board's job to protect these locals that are trying to work for a living. I mean, we really, really put a lot of effort in this. Me and Dave, we put a lot of effort into this. And, you know, Mr. Bradley, thank you. Thank you for voicing your concern. And Mr. Greco,,thank you. Megan works her buns off. She is out there in the cold doing these oysters making sure they get back into the water. And she is enhancing our water quality, and she is doing what we all should be doing. And I give her credit. I mean, I applaud her. More people should be doing this. We need her on the south fork, too, because our water quality is horrible. Our brown tide has closed most of the bays, the inner waterway and tributaries. We can't even have shellfish over there. They are poison. There is toxin in the water that makes the shellfish poison. You guys are so lucky to have people like this enhancing the water quality and the scenic and recreational -- TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Agena, I think we are getting into the waves a little bit here, and unfortunately we are running out of time. MS. RIGDON: Okay, thank you, for your time. And just please consider this. I'm really begging you. They are about to lose their grant. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. So with all that being said, with all the discussion and everything, I'm going to make a motion to table this application for further evaluation and to discuss it with the Planning Department. MS. CANTRELL: If I can interrupt, Dave Bergen has re-raised his hand. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we are good, thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So that's my motion to table the application for further evaluation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (Trustee Goldsmith, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Krupski, aye. Trustee Williams, aye. Trustee Domino, nay). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I would like to request a five-minute recess. (After a five-minute recess these proceedings continue as follows). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We are back on the record. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 12, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of ROBERT & KELLY KRUDOP requests a Wetland Permit to install 87 linear feet of deer fencing; plant a row of arborvitae; plant staggered row of cedar trees (@45') landward of bank; install and perpetually maintain a 10'wide non-turf buffer (cedar trees and gravel) along the landward edge of the top of the bank; remove one (1) 38" oak, one (1) 16" oak, and one (1) 18" oak; and install a proposed 8'x12' shed. Located: 4650 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-34 Board of Trustees 56 November 18, 2020 The Trustees most recent field inspection of this property was November 10th, at 4:15 in the afternoon, all were present. And the notes read to move the shed a minimum of 30 feet from top of bank. 16-inch caliper oak looks healthy, do not remove. That implies that our inspection shows other trees were somewhat, not severely compromised. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and inconsistent. The consistency deals with the deer fencing, the planting of the arborvitae, the shed and the 10-foot wide non-turf buffer. The inconsistency revolves around the oak trees, stating that unless it can be demonstrated that the trees are a threat to life and property, they should not be removed. There is no report in here from the Conservation Advisory Council. In addition, we have a letter in the file from Robert Whelan. It is duly noted, again, it is in the record, it is in the file. It is in opposition to this application. It lists several points, asks for the definition of an estate fence, questions the tree removal and the location of the fencing ten feet from the top of the bank. Questions the deer fencing. No details on what that is. Is it standard agricultural eight-foot high fence, et cetera. And it states that he defers to the Board on proposed location of the shed and tree removals. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MS. CANTRELL: Pat Moore has raised her hand. Pat, you can un-mute. MS. MOORE: Thank you. Good evening. We are all tired, I know. This proposal is primarily to vegetate the property, to add vegetation. You can see from your inspection Mr. Whelan has some evergreens along the same side as where we propose to have a row of arborvitae. The shrubbery on Mr. Whelan's side is compromised. There's lots of bare spots. The deer have eaten from the Krudop side. Mr. Whelan has a deer fence on his side of the property, I'm not aware of a permit for it, but I'm assuming he intends to keep it with a permit at some point. But we would, we want to plant the arborvitae as shown and then the deer fencing is on the, to protect the arborvitae that is being planted. So it's on the house side of that vegetation. There is also a proposal to add additional vegetation that has been identified as cedar trees. As you know from being at property, the Krudop's have the pleasure of just looking at a dock, a floating dock that is not really floating, it's sitting on the ground. And some vegetation will provide some privacy and blocking the views of what is really the end of James Creek. The trees that are being proposed to be removed, the oak trees, are, they are red oak and they have been maintained all this time with arborists. Mr. Krudop has been very careful and wants to keep the trees, but they are sickly and they are in need of replacement. He actually wants to plant three white oak, which are hardier and more sustainable, and he's happy Board of Trustees 57 November 18, 2020 to --the ones that are being proposed to be removed, he'll replant three trees in general area of wherever he can in the back and wherever the Board prefers. He wants to keep his property wooded. He does like that. It provides shade. It's just the trees need to be, their lifespan is now at an end. So it is not a purpose of removing trees for the sake of removal. They are not in good shape, and if they do fall, they will most likely fall on the Whelan property as the trees are probably closest to his property line. The shed being, it was proposed where it is, it just made sense there, but I think Mr. Krudop is on, watching from home, and as far as it being 30 feet from the top of the bank, I'll defer to him; as long as it's in that general area, I don't think that's problem. And it's a pretty straightforward described application and certainly we are very interested -- and I hear Mr. Domino say two out of the three trees were clearly compromised. It's a 16-inch oak, yes, that's the one you thought was less compromised, but we are prepared to replace it because they are, whatever the disease they have, they have carpenter ants, holes and cracks, and it's just a matter of whether or not they have all been infected. So that's our request. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to comment? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you speak to, I believe the one other concern was the type of fencing. What exactly, what type of fencing is proposed? MS. MOORS: Well, deer fencing is identified there. Estate fencing the typical landscape fencing that is not stockade. It's more esthetically attractive. So it would be four to five feet in height as it's shown on this plan. Pardon me, on the side of the property it shows, my eyes are blurred here, six feet vinyl fence on the side yard, which the Zoning allows, and then like along the back of the property, no higher than four or five feet. So usually estate fencing is just a description of a more expensive fence versus a stockade. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So it's a white vinyl six foot fence on the property line and then across the back of the property? MS. MOORE: I don't recall being told it's white or it's natural. It's an attractive fence. Mr. Krudop is there and if you want to open it up to him, he can certainly explain it. But it's, I don't think you care whether it's vinyl or natural wood, as long as, I mean it's going to be an attractive fence. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Speaking for myself, I'm more concerned with the location of the fence than the actual type of fence. I would like to see it, pull the fence back 25 feet from the bank. No fence should be closer than 25 feet to the top of the bank. MS. MOORE: Mr. Domino, I'm sorry, every time you speak the math, I can't hear your numbers. So when you are telling me -- could you speak a little slower. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Very good. I'll try again. I think the issue is Board of Trustees 58 November 18, 2020 we need to move the fence back. No fence should be closer than 25 feet'-from the top of the bank. From the bank. And moving the shed back, the shed should be moved 30 feet. And the 16-inch oak is, does not appear to be compromised. It appears to be healthy and I would like that to remain. And that's my personal opinion. But I believe that was in the field notes agreed upon by all the Trustees. MS. MOORE: I can only tell you from the arborist that he has hired that that tree is not healthy. You can see the top, the base is a little better than the other ones, but it's not a healthy tree. It doesn't provide a very good leaf, full leaves at the top. It's, that's why we are prepared to replace it. I mean, we are not trying to get rid of the tree just for the sake of removing the tree. It's because obviously he'll have to spend money to remove the tree and replace the tree. So generally, we don't, people don't ask to remove trees and replace them. And that is their preference. As far as the fence, 25 feet, um, there has been a longstanding request for improvements to the bank, and right now the bank is being eroded, and he has been waiting for a permit for that. I'm looking at an older picture from the Whelan application when the dock, the original dock was there, that was replaced with the one is that presently there, and it shows the bank and how healthy and nice it was. We are actually proposing to vegetate and we are proposing to add gravel or non-turf buffer. So there is a significant improvement here. We are staying at a very safe distance. It's, we don't want to, we don't want to cut the property by eating into the property so far in. 25 feet is essentially cutting off the person's waterfront much more aggressively than need be, given how the neighborhood has developed. Mr. Whelan's fence is about a foot from the top of the bluff, excuse me, bank. So we actually asked for something that we thought was more reasonable being ten feet, and vegetation as well as a gravel non-turf buffer. So, the fence is just, we are talking posts, so we are not impacting the wetlands in any way. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you have an arborist report that indicates the health of the tree that the Trustees viewed as being healthy? MS. MOORE: I can ask Mr. Krudop. I know he's had the arborist there over the years. I can find out if we have a written report or we can ask for one. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that would be advisable. Some of us on the Board do have a little experience with trees. Mr. Domino is former chairman of the Town Tree Committee and botany at a reasonably good New York State college dealing with agriculture. Trustee Krupski is a bit of a plant man himself, at least he grows a lot. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So just another couple of points. I'm also going to agree with pulling the fence back 25 feet from the wetland. It's been a pretty common practice for us. It's not Board-of Trustees 59 November 18, 2020 abnormal whatsoever. If it's an issue with keeping animals in the backyard, maybe an invisible fence would be a better way to go if you don't want to divide it up. However, if you want to keep the deer out, which I totally understand, it would have to be 25 feet. Also just another point, in terms of putting in and maintaining a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer, with gravel and cedar trees, I don't know how advisable that would be considering there is a proposal in to put a low sill there at some point, and we may want, or the applicant may want to regrade the top of that bluff. So I would not want to go too close with the trees and gravel just to have them remove it as we come up with a project for that bank going forward, which is something else to think about. MS. MOORE: Okay. MS. CANTRELL: So the Board knows, Robert Krudop has been waiting to speak. He's been listening. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: That might be advisable if you have a planting plan for trees, I didn't see the oak trees on the planting plan that the applicant intends to plant. MS. MOORE: You want to see the replacement trees, you are saying? TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Yes. I was just reviewing the plans and I didn't see that on there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We should probably hear from Mr. Krudop now and keep this application moving along. MS. CANTRELL: So, Pat, I'm going to mute you. And Mr. Krudop. MR. KRUDOP: Hello. The estate fencing is, I'm not really agreeable to the 25 feet from the bank's edge. You just approved a neighbor down the street, just did it ten feet from his bulkhead, did the estate fencing, you know, just behind his non-turf buffer, between his pool and his non-turf buffer is right there ten feet to the bulkhead, which is the water's edge. In terms of the tree being 16-inch diameter tree, the bottom of it, if you noticed when you were here, was mushroomed out. Usually when they mushroom out, the center of the tree, it tends to degrade and it's compromised. That's why the bottom is so mushroomed on that one in particular. Even the surveyor, when he came to survey the trees, he mentioned it to me and he pointed it out because he saw it. And he's just a regular surveyor that goes on all these sites and sees it. In terms of an arborist, if you are really hung up on the 16, I'll leave it until it falls down. Because it's really, the growth is stunted. It's one of the smaller trees anyway. But you can see the other ones were compromised, and I'm glad that you were able to identify that. The Tenax is the deer fencing in question, it's a fabric fence with fiberglass poles that goes around the outside of the trees, so they don't eat the outside. The inside would be the estate fencing coming around the corner. That's what I wish to install. In terms of the 30 feet from the top of the bank back to the shed, if that's what you want to give me and you don't Board of Trustees 60 November 18, 2020 want to give me what I asked, I have to adhere to it. I'm at your mercy. If you have any other questions, I would be glad to answer them. ON in terms of the trees, the white oaks, I mentioned that to Pat Moore and she was supposed to mentioned that to you because I do want to put more trees in. I just don't know what you are going to give me or not give me, where things can be placed,;so it's kind of hard to place trees when you don't know what you can get or what you can't get. But if you give me two trees, they'll be planted, guaranteed. If you give me three trees, three trees will be planted. If you have any other questions I would be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I guess the other issue we need to discuss is the location of the shed. The Trustees felt quite strongly that it was too close to the top of the bank, and had recommended moving it back 30 feet. So is that something you would consider? MR. KRUDOP: Yes, I would consider 30 feet back. I think that places it right where the larger tree that needs to be removed, the 38" oak, the bark removed from the bottom and the mushroom growing out of it. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Additionally, I would point out your choice of white oak is good because that particular fungus growing on that 38" oak does not attack white oaks nearly as readily. MR. KRUDOP: Okay. Thank you TRUSTEE DOMINO: We have also, if that's amenable to you, moving the shed back, we would perhaps be best to table this application subject to new plans, because that's the only way we would be able to proceed forward. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And include moving the fence back? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The fence and proposed tree replacement on the planting plan. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Krudop, I guess the ball is in your court. MR. KRUDOP: In terms of, I'm sorry, I don't understand. It's intermittent in and out. TRUSTEE DOMINO: We are suggesting, I'm suggesting, that you consider tabling the application in order to modify the plans to reflect what we discussed. Number one, moving the shed back 30 feet, showing the location of the two replacement trees that you are offering, and moving the fence back 25 feet. MR. KRUDOP: If I may, when I table the application, then we bring it back to you with those changes or do you vote on it on the next, if we have the plans submitted to you before the next meeting do you vote on it then? How does that work? TRUSTEE DOMINO: We can't make a determination here, but if you get it back in a timely manner it would be, most likely be on the next month. MR. KRUDOP: Yes, if we are not shut down. Okay, I'll to get all that done for you and get it back to you. I appreciate your Board of Trustees 61 November 18, 2020 time tonight. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you. Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to table the application at the applicant's request. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 13, AMP Architecture on behalf of MICHAEL &VANESSA REBENTISCH requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 20.5'x21.8' (446.9 sq. ft.) one-story addition onto existing 58.5'x33.1' (1,971.5 sq. ft. existing footprint) two-story dwelling; and construct a proposed 24'x30' (720 sq. ft.) two-story detached garage with unheated and unfinished space in second-story level. Located: 1580 Corey Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-4-19 This project does not have a recommendation from the Conservation Advisory Council. It is found to be consistent with the LWRP. The inspection performed on November 10th, the applicant and the Board were short on time to have lengthy discussion that day. It was a very large agenda. And I should say the owner rather. And we did discuss a number of items, as a matter of fact quite a few moving parts to this application, I'll move quickly,through them. Also a number of the issues directly found on field inspection were further discussed at the Trustee work session on Monday the 16th. The issue of debris and the chicken coop and chicken house that is located within the wetlands, has been addressed, I believe by Trustee Domino and possibly accompanied by Trustee President Goldsmith. Trustee Domino did inspection. That issue has been cleared. Trustee Domino did research the dock configuration and the current dock with its FLUPSY is not conformity with dock permit number 98. The house addition the Board felt was fairly straightforward. The Trustees on field inspection had concerns about the location of the proposed two-story detached garage in that it appeared to be very close to the wetlands. Additionally on field inspection discussion at the work session the Trustees had concerns with the wetland line as flagged. The wetland line appears not to be protective enough of existing Baccharus and phragmites australis. The project description, although the LWRP report does indicate, and it's difficult to see on the plans, the project description should include the fact that an IA is proposed. That is the sum total of the concerns that we have. I believe at the work session, the Board hoped that we might open a dialogue with AMP Architecture and Mr. and Mrs. Rebentisch and possibly have a subsequent field inspection on the site to discuss issues. One another thing, sorry, I apologize, also there was a shed replacement that would require a wetland permit Board of Trustees 62 November 18, 2020 to be incorporated into the planned proposal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Two sheds. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Two sheds. I'm sorry. The small shed is next to!the proposed two-story. So we have two sheds that don't have permits that should be in the proposed plan, in the proposed project plan. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application? MS. CANTRELL: I believe this is the applicant. I'm not sure. You can un-mute. MR. PORTILLO: Hello. This is Anthony Portillo. Can you hear me? (Affirmative response). MR. PORTILLO: How are you, this evening, Board. Thank you, for your time. So we are, I was informed by the Rebentisch's of the site visits and the request from the Board to move the shed and the chicken house out of the wetlands. I believe they did comply.with and they did move those after the initial site visit. I believe a second site visit was completed, so I believe the Board confirmed that. I was not aware of the replacement sheds, and that could be added without a problem to the application. I would ask maybe further detail on the dock situation. The Rebentisch's furnished a letter from 1980 from the Trustees that indicated that the dock was not within jurisdiction, and they also used that letter to receive their hatchery permit from state DEC, and from their accounts that was a viable letter that would be used for that dock, that that dock was legal. But I guess just to discuss the proposed application, so the addition on the home I think is pretty straightforward. The Rebentisch's have five kids plus them two, and they are looking really for a family room. It's going to be located on the existing patio structure that is already existing, and they'll stay within that footprint. So I don't think we are adding to any type of runoff or increasing lot coverage there. Um, the positioning of the garage had a lot to do with the design of the IA system, the new IA system, which currently the home has, you know, two cesspools that are not functioning properly, and the Rebentisch's were advantageous about putting in an innovative alternative system. They have actually applied and had been approved for the grant money from the county and the state, which I just want to mention to the Board that that grant money, that the installation of the system is required by January 2nd of next year if they are going to receive that grant money, which we all know the systems are very expensive, so I just wanted to put that out there. The garage sort of fit into place because of how long the leaching field needs to be. We were unable to do a deep leaching field because of the groundwater situation in that area. To the surprise to myself and to the Rebentisch's, you know, the side yard, or I guess in this situation, the rear yard, had the wetlands line running really right up the side of Board of Trustees 63 November 18, 2020 it and it took up a lot of their square footage of their lot. So I think we did our best trying to incorporate a garage, which the garage would be used mainly storage -- parking and mainly storage-for their business. And also getting that IA system in there. It is very, very tight. There is, I mean I don't think we have much more than like inches to really move things around with that new system that we are proposing. So that's really what's going on here, and if you guys have any questions, and I think the Rebenisch's are also available for any questions on their end. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With respect to the discussion here, the wetland line is going to have to be reflagged by this Board. I know at the work session we had discussion concerning the reviewing with the Rebentisch's and yourself the possibility of moving the two-story garage further toward the turn in Corey Creek Lane, and specifically because we believe it may be located in the wetland, much like the chicken coop and the chicken house that was moved. And we have, any additional documentation that you have that you think substantiates, some kind of a letter from the Board of Trustees concerning jurisdiction would have to be provided to the Board, but what we have in the file here is a former Trustee permit and the dimensions that were proposed at that time. And they don't comport with what we see in the field now. The permit that was issued and dated August 1982, was resolved to, for the approval of the Town Board of wetland permit to construct a 20'x6' floating dock with 12'x2'4" ramp and 65'x1.5' catwalk in Corey Creek. So the issue with the current dock as constructed would have to be put under discretionary discussion by the Trustees with respect to compliance with the current standards. And there again, there are very many moving parts here, the two sheds would have to be incorporated in the plans and all would have to be sited landward of the wetland line. And with respect to approvals for other agencies and funding, we understand it's a very difficult time we are dealing with, so we would have to discuss with legal possibly other solutions there so they don't risk losing funding for an advantageous system, but at least from a top down look at the plans, it looks like the two-story garage, if it were to be moved somewhat more landward toward Corey Creek Lane without necessarily impacting the leaching field that you show on the plans for the IA. I think-- MR. PORTILLO: I agree to that. We did already receive a Zoning variance for the garage addition. I mean, I guess this really is not your guys' call, but if we were to move it toward Corey Creek it would also require an amended application to the Zoning Board, an approval, because of the setback on that garage. On that requested, you know, proposed garage. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I just make a suggestion. MR. PORTILLO: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there is a rush for the house and the septic system, it might make sense to drop the garage at this Board of Trustees 64 November 18, 2020 time and bring that into us separately, as a separate issue. Because, I mean I for one have no problem with the house. I think if we flag the wetland line and your clients were willing to put up a limiting fence to protect the wetlands from use, essentially, I personally don't have a problem with the proposed one-story addition and the septic. So trying to save time and maybe get us new plans for next month, and move forward with this, that might be the simplest course of action at this tame. MR. PORTILLO: I appreciate that recommendation. I think that's very thoughtful. Is it possible for the Board to consider at minimum approving maybe just the new septic design due to if we waited until December, we still have to provide your approval to the Health Department to render the permit from them. This deadline, I guess, was, you know, a little bit shocking as well to us, because the funding was basically approved about a month ago, and that didn't give us much time. And due to some of the issues that we are having with what is going on in the world, I think that has hindered the situation a little bit. But I currently have approved plans pending DEC and local Trustees approval with Suffolk County. So basically, if I render your approval and DEC approval for, at minimum the septic, I can receive the permit from Suffolk County. MR. HAGAN: The Board can only answer the questions that are before it. If there was a situation where you wanted them to approve only one element of your design then you would have to drop the other elements and then withdraw those portions of your application and let the Trustees approve just what you are putting in front of them. However, you still probably need new plans in that case because your current application has things that you would not want them to approve right now because of further design drawings, so you'll still have to have whatever it is that you want to have the Board approve on a single plan. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And there is no way of legally move forward with the septic in an expeditious manner? MR. HAGAN: He could drop everything else but the septic. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we would still need new plans. MR. HAGAN: Right. Because the plans that are before you right now are inclusive of everything. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. But at that point they might as well drop the garage and move forward with the house and septic and put it on next month, it would be on next month's meeting with new plans. That's the quickest option, is what your legal advice is. MR. HAGAN: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mr. Portillo, also the dock permit that there was, that I spoke of earlier, that permit*has not been transferred into the name of the Rebentisch's, so that permit would have to be transferred in. MR. HAGAN: There is no dock in this application. Board of Trustees 65 November 18, 2020 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, I mean as far as the housekeeping portion: Okay, I see -- okay. All right. Also, I had mentioned that the IA, which is acknowledged in the LWRP report, is not in our description. So that any other, any resubmissions to us should include the IA system in the project description. MR. PORTILLO: Understood. Okay. So to sort of recap, does the dock hinder the decision on the IA and the house addition or is that just something that really needs to be done administratively in regard to changing -- MR. HAGAN: The question of the dock is not before this Board at this time. MR. PORTILLO: Okay. Understood. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Having said that, the dock is not before you. In the field inspection we said we would research it. We are letting you know the status of that. There is no permit for this dock. It is wildly out of conformity with what was permitted. It is 20'6"x14', and so you are operating a business off a dock that does not have a permit. And it's not, probably not going to be handled by an administrative permit. MR. PORTILLO: Understood. So it sounds like we really need to file an application to legalize the existing dock and what was changed from the original permit, a separate application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A separate application would also include the two sheds and certainly a new wetland line to, so that we are sure those structures at the very least are located suitably. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: And keep in mind, to add to Mr. Domino, our goal iscompliance. MR. PORTILLO: I believe the Rebentisch's goal is the same. I think that they want to make right anything that is wrong and, you know, they've told me that themselves. I think they are on the call, if they want to speak up. But I would say I think I'll take the recommendation and speak to my clients about removing the garage. I guess we'll file the garage as a separate application as well, so possibly having three applications where we can, it sounds get a pretty easy approval on the IA and the addition, and then we'll to deal with the garage on a separate occasion and then file for the legalization of the two sheds and the dock. The reflagging, the property was flagged pretty recently. Is this'something that the Trustees, we would ask the Trustees to do or would we just go back to the environmental group that flagged it for us? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In many cases that has come up for discussion during the course of public hearing and after the Board has reviewed the existing wetland line on field inspection. Usually it's the Board's prerogative to flag it themselves, particularly where it consists with the common saltwater estuary and the wetland indicators. MR. PORTILLO: Okay. Understood. And then we can replot the flagging on our survey. Okay, understood. So I guess we'll table this for next month; is that correct? Board of Trustees 66 November 18, 2020 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, at your request we can table. And we can reconsider any resubmission you make in the interim. And it would still be advisable with respect to going forward, just split out and separate the garage and other issues to have a pre-submission conference with the Board of Trustees on field inspection day to get a sense of the Board, we would flag the wetlands at the same time and have a discussion concerning the possible future garage location. MR. PORTILLO: Understood. Thank you. I appreciate the tabling. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anybody else who wishes to speak to the application? MS. CANTRELL: There is someone on the phone with the last digits ending in 2814. If you are not sure how to speak, please press *9. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just for point, I would strongly recommend adding-a fence to the site plan, as I mentioned earlier, along the wetland line. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: New wetland line with a flag. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Correct. MS. CANTRELL: Somebody has just raised their hand. Anthony, can we mute you for a minute. MR. PORTILLO: Sure. MS. CANTRELL: Someone with the initials MR. MR. REBENTISCH: Hi, I'm not sure who called in before, but this is Mike Rebentisch, the owner of the property. Thank you, for your time and consideration. I know it's been a long evening and it will continue to be a long evening. Again, we are trying to do the right thing. As far as the dock goes, I legitimately went to guys twice, got the letter. I didn't ask for the letter, it was given to me. So whatever we have to do to comply, we are 100% on board. And you just let us know what we have to do. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. In you can supply us with any additional letters or communications you have concerning the dock, there again, it's not part of what we have in front of us now, but in our discussions going forward, we would like to see that. MR. REBENTISCH: Absolutely. We have all the DEC permits as well. As I said, we weren't trying to do this behind anybody's back. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Understood. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? (No response). Liz, is there anyone else with their hands up? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we're all good. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. At this time I'll make a motion to table this application at the applicant's request. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 14, FRANKOLA FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten (10) year Maintenance Permit to trim Board of Trustees 67 November 18, 2020 and maintain the vegetation growth to no less than two (2) feet in height on an as needed basis. Located: 840 Northfield Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-71-1-19 The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The proposed trimming of vegetation is located within a non-disturbance area as depicted on the survey approved by Board ever Trustees March 3rd, 2005. The Trustees all visited this site on the 10th of November and noted that this, the proposed action was in a non-disturbance area, which is not to be disturbed. I also have a very lengthy letter in the file from multiple neighbors -- eight neighbors in total -- against this application. Just to summarize, they are not in favor of the application. There was some clearing issues in the past. They talked to a local botanist about the Baccharus, which the Trustees are well aware of. Also the Trustees are well aware of the benefits of these plants with the habitat, preventing fertilizers and runoff and any other pesticides, and they are well aware of the history of this property, just to be clear. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MS. CANTRELL: We have a couple of people. I'll start with, I believe the applicant or somebody on behalf of the applicant with the same name. Frankola. If you can un-mute, you are free to speak. You have to un-mute for us to hear you. MR. FRANKOLA: Hello. I'm representing the Frankola family estate. This is Peter Pappis (sic). I just wanted to let everyone know, thank you, for your time tonight. It's been a long night. Basically what I just wanted to do there is basically just trim the existing area that you are not allowing us to. It's growing over into my deck and basically the deer are really walking through there and creating more and more chances of us getting Limes disease, which one of my family members already has because of it. So we are not really taking it down. We would just like to trim it a little bit because it really is getting very, very tall and wild. And like I said, a lot of the deer just keep going through it and it's like a health hazard to us. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, for your comments. Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MS. CANTRELL: There is a Mark Bridgen who wishes to speak. Mark, I sent you an un-mute. MR. BRIDGEN: Good evening. Thank you, for listening to our concerns. Yes, the four immediate adjacent neighbors object to this disturbance of the wetlands, and Trustee Krupski I think just read some of our main concerns, so I won't take much time since you probably have all read it already. But, thank you, for your consideration. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak regarding this application? Board of Trustees 68 November 18, 2020 MS. CANTRELL: There are two Q&A's. I'm not sure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. So just for the sake of the record, the Trustees have read the letters. The Trustees have also taken into account the comments of the LWRP coordinator, and also, without'viewing those prior, the Trustees made the same comments as the LWRP coordinator. This is a non-disturbance buffer. If any of the vegetation does cross over the line into the yard area it can be cleared, but seaward of that fence we need to protect that area. It is for habitat, it is for environmental protective features. Hearing no other comments from the Board or from the public, 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 deny this application. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 15, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of ANITA M. SAMUELS, TRUSTEE CREDIT SHELTER TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to repair existing 5'x18', 90 sq. ft. t lower dock, with stringers raised at north end, level with existing adjoining dock, using existing pilings; repair two wood steps from basin wharf to dock, with handrails between upper and lower decked areas; existing 96 linear foot bulkhead, including pilings; stringers and deadmen to remain; replace 518 square feet of existing wharf decking on existing structure, in-kind with 2z6 treaded wood boards around basin; and there is to be no excavations nor filling of property. Located: 155 Fisherman's Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-1-8.4 The Trustees visited this site on November 10th. All the Trustees were present. Field notes: Problem with existing configuration. Two docks colliding on property line. Need to clarify issues with neighbor. The LWRP found this action to be inconsistent, noting that there is not a permit for the structures. The Conservation Advisory Council did not review this application. Apparently there is a letter in the file from the neighbor to explain that the two docks do collide or join out in the water and everybody is comfortable with that. Also to clarify the LWRP report of inconsistency, the structures existed before there were permits. Is anybody here that wishes to speak to this application? MS. SAMUELS: Yes. Hi. This is Tom Samuels. Thank you, very much, guys, for taking this up tonight. It has been there for a long time, in my family since the early 1960s. The basin, the dock. My dad, of course, had worked on it, rebuilt it at a certain point after James H. Rambo originally had built it. It's gotten rather deteriorated, Board of Trustees 69 November 18, 2020 especially the lower section of dock which does connect, as you state, to the neighbor's property. But that has been the instance there forever. And really all we are looking to do now without replacing any pilings or stringers is to replace the decking on that lower dock, and any other of the deteriorated decking that surrounds the basin. So I'm here, obviously to respond to any questions, and I'll help you in any way that I can. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Thank you. Any questions from the Trustees? (Negative response). Anybody else here that wishes to speak to this application? (Negative response). Hearing-none, I'll 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 the application as submitted. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 16, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of NASSAU POINT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit for the removal and replacement of 34 linear feet of existing'timber bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead in same location of existing; existing steps down bluff and deck landward of bulkhead are to remain; existing 3'x9' steps to beach to be removed and replaced in same size and location as existing. Located: End of East Club Road off Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#-1000-111-15. The LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make any recommendation. The Trustees conducted a field inspection on November 10th, noting it was a straightforward replacement. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. PATANJO: Good evening. Jeff Patanjo. How are you? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Good evening. How are you. MR. PATANJO: Very good. So I have one revision on the application as you read it. I made a mistake and I made the bulkhead go around the landing for the stairs. The actual length needs to get revised. The actual length of the project is less than 34 feet. It's actually 23 feet. 23 feet total. So that was an error on my part, so if you need revised plans, I can send them to you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, we need revised plans and revised project description. MR. PATANJO: Absolutely. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak to this application? (Negative response). Board of Trustees 70 November 18, 2020 Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion to table this application for revised plans with the correct dimensions and correct project description, at the applicant's request. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 17, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of FABRY FAMILY IRREVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing;deteriorated timber retaining wall and replace with 53 linear feet of new vinyl retaining wall in same exact location as existing. Located,: 3700 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-17-7 The LWRP found this to be inconsistent because no permit can be found in the records for the bulkhead. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. The most recent inspection by the Trustees at this site on November 10th, notes that in is okay with the revised plans. This'is actually a holdover application from a previous public hearing when a three-foot non-turf buffer was requested by the Board. That non-turf buffer is shown on the plans stamped and received November 4th, 2020, therefore I have no questions on this application. Is there anyone here speak to this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. But as you see the revised project description. And I think I have 3.5' wide non-turf buffer on my plans. TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's correct. MR. PATANJO: Other than that, no other comments, unless you have questions. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further questions or comments, I make motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make motion to approve this application noting that the approval will bring it into consistency with the LWRP coordinator, and that the new plans received November 4th reflect the three-and-a-half foot non-turf buffer requested. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 18, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of SUSAN NORRIS requests a Wetland Permit to remove 181' of existing bulkhead; construct 181' of new bulkhead in-place and reinstall existing stairway off bulkhead to beach; and to re-grade disturbed area landward of new bulkhead. Located: 9580 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-6-8 The project has been deemed inconsistent with the LWRP Board of Trustees 71 November 18, 2020 because no permit could be located for the bulkhead, which probably predates permitting under this Board. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this project with a 15-foot buffer, which in fact had already been submitted on the plans. The Board of Trustees inspected this on October 7th and again on, reviewed it again on November 10th. There was a recommendation to consider toe armor, I believe it was further discussed at work session on November 16th, and the Board, I don't think it was compelling, but I'll wait for additional comments from the Board. Does anyone wish to speak behalf of this application? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello. Any questions, guys, the toe armor is a straight replacement. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Understood. I don't believe there are any questions. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? (Negative response). Seeing none, I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 19, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of JOSEPH & PATRICIA BRANTUK requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x20' open-grate landward fixed ramp onto a 4'x67' open-grate catwalk onto a 4'x82' open-grate fixed dock with a 32"x12' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a seasonal 6'x20' floating dock chocked off of the bottom situated in an "I" configuration and secured in-place by four 8" diameter pilings. Located: 44632 Route 25, Southold. SCTM# 1000-86-6-31.3 The LWRP coordinator found this dock to be inconsistent, which I believe was lengthily read through at the prior Board meeting, which is part of the public record. The Board has also taken this recommendation very seriously. Most recently the Trustees were at the site November 10th, 2020. All Trustees were present. The notes read as follows: Explain to Mr. Brantuk that the Trustees have consistently approved -- opposed floats in the area of less than or equal to 2.5' of water at mean low water. The applicant has a range of responsibilities but floats in insufficient water are not approved. Prior to that, on the 7th of October the comments were as follows: Pull dock back to match the dock to the north. Fixed-dock configuration, not a float due to inconsistent depth. Board of Trustees 72 November 18, 2020 It should also be noted that the Trustees discussed at length how the dock is at the very limit of the one-third. There is not an exact pier line. There is only the dock to the north which should be essentially mirrored, at most, to prevent docks extending further out in the creek going south. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MS. COSTELLO: Hi. Good evening. Jane Costello. So I submitted new plans as a result of the field inspection, which removed the floating dock and the ramp, and in its place we did a lower the fixed platform. The overall length of the dock has not changed, but as of now the whole structure is fixed, decked out with open-grate decking and it would make it more compliant with what the Trustees wanted. I don't think at the field inspection the overall length was discussed, but it is within that one-third rule. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was discussed, and I discussed it directly with Mr. Brantuk, as other members of the Board were reviewing it, further seaward, and it had been the subject of prior Board discussions at prior work session. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We do have the new plans in the file dated received November 18th, 2020. They are a great improvement in terms of having a ramp to a lower fixed portion of the dock. And we are absolutely heading in the right direction at this point. Just based on those notes and from the LWRP, we would have to pull it back a little ways. MS. COSTELLO: Do you have --what is a little ways? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So basically what was conveyed in the field visit, and there was a lot of going on with a lot of people, so I understand if it was somewhat lost in translation, but if you take a look at the dock to the north, our best option in this case is essentially to mirror that pier line. So if you measure from the -- because you can go as far landward as you want, at least in my opinion, but if you measure from the mean low water line out it should be roughly matching numbers when you submit a dock application. Do you guys agree with that assessment? MS. COSTELLO: I have to take a look, because the Singer dock is the dock to the north, and I know that the Trustees approved a dock structure that was very close to the Brantuk shared property line, and then later on they amended that and put it in a different location, and that's the dock that was actually built. But I'll have to review the files because I don't have it right in front of me, to be honest with you. I have the one that was not built. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Basically, I believe the entire Board is in agreement that it should be of similar length from the low tide marker going out seaward to the Singer dock. Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this application? Board of Trustees 73 November 18, 2020 (Negative response). I don't see anyone. At this point do you wish to table the application based on the Trustees' comments? I would like to say that I feel like with your most recent submission of plans you are definitely heading in a very positive direction. MS. COSTELLO: Yes. I'll table it at this point, then I'll take a look and we'll revisit it next month. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Motion to table the application at the applicant's request for submission of new plans next month. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 20, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of FERNANDO & MARIA VILLA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x6' cantilevered platform off of existing bulkhead; install a 32"x12' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6'x20' seasonal floating dock secured by two (2) 2" diameter steel pipes; and provide water and electric. Located: 15 Sun Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-76-1-1 The Trustees been to the site several times, most recently on November 10th, to discuss a new dock placement, and notes find it to -- new dock placement looks good. The LWRP found this to be consistent, and the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, just here to answer any questions. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I have no questions, Jack. Does anybody else from the Board have any questions? (Negative response). Is there anybody else that wishes to speak to this application? (Negative response). I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the new plans dated November received November 16th, 2020. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 21, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of JOSEPH & CAROLYN FERRARA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 3'x36' fixed dock. Located: 185 Osprey Nest Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-7-1 The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to the support the application. THE LWRP coordinator found it to be inconsistent. The inconsistency arises from the fact that the applicant has not demonstrated, in the words of the LWRP coordinator, the applicant has not demonstrated the dock standards have been met, Board of Trustees 74 November 18, 2020 specifically those pertaining to safe navigation of vessels around existing docks, and representative vessel not shown relative to the dock. We are, the Trustees most recent inspection is 11/10/2020 at 8:05. All were present. The notes indicate there was a property line question. Additionally, we received via E-mail from the Law Office of Wickham, Bressler& Geasa a communication. I'll just summarize the communication. That the application is legally and factually flawed and should be denied. Signed by Eric Bressler. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MS. CANTRELL: You have to repeat that because while you were saying that I have a note that says the Internet was unstable. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Does anybody here wish to speak to this application? MS. CANTRELL: Jack Costello is representing the project. I'll ask him to speak first. MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello. Hi. There seems to be confusion on this application. I would suggest tabling it for the evening until next month. There's property line issues involved in this. It's a little bit too confusing. So personally, I would suggest tabling this until next month. MR. HAGAN: This is a public hearing, so -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is a public hearing so we should -- MS. CANTRELL: Okay, Jack I'll mute you. Eric Bressler would also like to speak. MR. BRESSLER: Thank you, very much. This is Eric Bressler, Wickham, Bressler& Geasa. As you know, we represent Mr. Cooper, the neighbor with the longstanding dock to the north. We object to this project for the reasons set forth in both of the letters that we submitted. We note the objection of the neighbor to the other side, and we concur with the feeling of the Board that there are a lot of issues that need to be resolved, and at this time we would certainly believe that tabling the matter would be appropriate. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to table at the applicant's request. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 22, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of JOHN J. SAMPIERI IRREVOCABLE TRUST &JOYCE A. SAMPIERI IRREVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing steps and construct new steps in-kind, in-place after bulkhead reconstruction; remove and dispose existing 97' of bulkhead, 10' east return, and 8' west return; construct new 97' of bulkhead, 10' east return, and 8' west return in-kind and in-place; for the existing dock, remove and dispose of existing 493 square foot dock; construct new 493 square foot dock Board of Trustees 75 November 18, 2020 in-kind, raising elevation 24" to match elevation of bulkhead. Located: 1380 Bayberry Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-2-12 In fact the Board has communicated with Costello Marine concerning the Board's concerns with an inplace replacement of the existing dock as a covered intertidal wetlands. The Board is in receipt of a proposed amended plan stamped dated in the Trustee office November 18th. The Board, of course that being same date as today, we have not had a chance to review it extensively, but the Board did have, members of the Board did have a chance to look at those plans, and so I would just say that this project has been deemed to be consistent with the LWRP, and there is no Conservation Advisory Council report. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application? MS. CANTRELL: Jack Costello is back as the agent for the applicant. MR. COSTELLO: Hey guys, this is a pretty simple application, and the Sampieri's have been very good about backing away from their big dock, and they have been willing to decrease the square footage of their dock from 493 to the new dock would be 320. And they are willing to move the dock offshore. That would give the intertidal wetland 240 square feet of more uncovered wetland. And the five-foot non-turf buffer. And we are just trying to move forward with this project. I understand this has moved quickly for you guys, but I think they have done everything that you've asked and given more. I mean they have been very reasonable. So, I mean, I don't know if you can move on this tonight or what. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, we would --there has been some discussion by the Board to request, we appreciate what they are doing, and it is protecting the intertidal wetland and it does have consistency from the LWRP. Thought possibly understanding they do have a vessel that can use the full 30 feet of the 8'x30' fixed, thoughts were possibly to narrow that for general purposes on and off vessels, eight feet is more than we see in most docks, even commercial docks. And if they were to reduce that somewhat to say 6x30, that would also allow for an additional small vessel on the inside of the dock since you've gone further seaward it would actually increase the utility to current and future owners of boats on the property. And I know individual members, as I briefly showed individual members plans ahead of the meeting there were some additional ideas the Board members had to possibly have the catwalk where it turns into the "L"to continue it to narrow, and possibly put a more squared end on it, if it's a question of family members looking to enjoy the end of the dock. Just putting that out there, Jack. MR. COSTELLO: To be honest, I have a little bit of a hard time hearing what you are saying, but all I got is decreasing the short"L" to six-feet wide. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Very quickly, yes. So instead of 8x30, 6x30. And since they've already moved offshore the 6x30 would also provide room for shallow drafted vessel on the inside of Board of Trustees 76 November 18,2020 the dock as well providing additionally utility for the owners. MR. COSTELLO: We can certainly do that. It was just the point of giving that, let me see, the 240 square feet of intertidal wetlands within that "L" area was kind of a benefit that the Sampieri's are willing to do to establish that wetland. If you want to push it out two feet, and make that catwalk out a little bit further, that would be fine, too. But it was -- it's the stability of the family getting out to that 8x30 "L"was the issue. I don't mind moving it out a little bit more, about the reduction of the platform seems very fair on the Sampieri's point of view. But I would really like to keep that 8x30 "L." And if you want to push it out a little bit, that's fine. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: With the catwalks that we have approved in the Town involving consistently at four feet, however, being cognizant of the Sampieri's and their desires, I don't know if you heard Trustee Bredemeyer or not, but with the "L" that can continue that four-foot wide and potentially at the end if you want a bigger platform, like an 8'x15' or something like that, so you have a 4' out catwalk to a 4' "L"to a larger platform. So that would give them the area that they wish for the grandkids to fish, whatever, and also gives them the spot to dock their boat, with potentially 30' length of fixed dock and potentially a spot on the inside of that dock if they want a small boat or something like that. MR. COSTELLO: They really are not looking for a boating slip on the inside. They are looking to establish an intertidal wetland, which is what the Trustees should be looking for. And they are looking for a safe place for the kids to fish and access the boat. As far as pushing that "L" in or out, it is up to you guys. And as far as a boating slip on the inside, we are looking to give the Trustees intertidal marshland back. That's what we are covering right now. It's one of these things, it's, we are just looking for the boat slip where it is, we'll push it out, we'll give you the intertidal wetlands back, and decrease the square footage of the dock's presence. I mean, it seems like a very fair thing. And plus we are going to make it more sensitive. And then also behind the bulkhead we are going to do a five foot non-turf buffer that is indicated on those plans. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Speaking for myself, eight foot is not something we've done before. It's commercial size. It's not going to fly with me. That's just one Trustee. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I concur with Trustee Krupski. Our whole thing is to keep everything consistent. And as far as I know, I don't know of any eight-foot residential dock anywhere in Southold town that I'm aware of. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Over public bottom. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, over public bottom. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have seen replacement 6s where we are replacing pre-existing nonconforming. MR. COSTELLO: Well, what we are doing right now is a giveback, because we are willing to move the dock out, and they are Board of Trustees 77 November 18, 2020 spending the money to give back that intertidal wetland, which is 240 square feet. So, I guess you guys can see what we are doing. We are straightening everything out, moving everything out, giving back full length to that intertidal wetland and giving them their access to the water. And we are not looking for another boat slip on the inside. We are giving intertidal wetland. TRUSTEE DOMINO: The suggestion to uncover that and let the wetlands come back flowed from the conversation that the Trustees had on site. It's not as if the applicant or you came up with that idea. It was, that was an improvement from our point of view. And this is a very large structure. So. I have to support trustee Goldsmith and Trustee Krupski's position. MR. COSTELLO: We are decreasing the size of the structure by 173 square feet, and moving it out away from that intertidal wetlands. The other option is just to leave it. I mean, so we are giving everything. We are doing 240 square feet of wetlands back. Decreasing -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's over public Trustee bottom. So we are trying to bring it into conformity. I mean that's -- and, to be honest with you, Trustee Bredemeyer's suggestion is really us trying to work with you. MR. COSTELLO: So you want to change the "L"to six feet wide? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is what we are suggesting. That would bring it into conformity with other approvals we have granted with pre-existing dock structures. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: And if necessary, at the dock terminus -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If it goes to four foot. Not to interrupt you. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Yes. I understand you. Speaking for myself, Jack, I would entertain a slightly wider, if you want to go a little bit wider at the end and have an area for fishing or something like that, I would entertain that, but again, I'm just one Trustee of five. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional Board comments? I see another hand up. MS. CANTRELL: I think Jack was just going to say something. Jack, did you want to say anything else? MR. COSTELLO: Well, not really. I think they are being very fair, with the way this is going, but you can entertain any other comments. MS. CANTRELL: Okay. We have Jonathan Perry asking to speak. Un-mute your mic, please. MR. PERRY: Can you hear me? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, we can hear you. MR. PERRY: So once again there is the letter written to Mr. Goldsmith dated November 12th, 2020, in opposition to the project, and the basis is really the same set of circumstances that we previously discussed having to do with the Gray application this evening. So I'll just be very brief. I know it's late and everyone wants to go home. So at first I was notified by Costello Marine as an adjacent property owner, but my upland property is approximately Board of Trustees 78 November 18, 2020 nine lots away from the Sampieri property. So the only thing that is actually adjacent is the land underwater, which is the topic of dispute. Second, your Town Code 275-6-(a)(1) of the Wetland Code requires ownership or permission from the owner to perform work on wetland property. The Sampieri's presently possess neither one of those particular items. Third, if you look at both the Suffolk County tax map and if you look at the actual surveys that they supplied with their application, it's clear that the dock and the bulkhead are seaward of their property line and sitting within my property. Fourth, as we discussed, the pending litigation and waiting for the courts to make their decision before issuing any permit, um, 1 don't see how you could possibly issue a permit under these circumstances, because you would be in violation of your own Town Code. So it just is sort of baffling to me how you can consider this until the litigation has been resolved and the ownership issue has been resolved without potentially violating your own Town Code. So that is what I would like to say this evening. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, Mr. Perry. We'll confirm that your letter is in the file and will be part of the public record. I just wanted to confirm that. Any additional Trustee comments? (Negative response). Any additional hands up? MR. HAGAN: Dave Bergen has his hand up. MR. BERGEN: Thank you, very much. To assist the Trustees with this application I want to make you aware, and it should be in the records, that there was a meeting held, put together by Supervisor Russell back when I was a Trustee. Present at the meeting was President of the Trustees at the time Jill Doherty; Bob Scott who was President of the Board of Assessors; Lori Hulse, with the Town attorney's office; and Don Dzenkowski who was the senior bay constable. At that meeting the ownership of the bottom of this water body was discussed. Don Dzenkowski said based on his review of the history, the documents and the records, that it was owned by originally Burell (sic) then Perry. Lori Hulse reviewed from her perspective and said the bottoms were owned by Burell, later by Perry. Bob Scott said that Burell and Perry had paid taxes on the bottom for years, and so in the opinion of, it's his opinion that Perry, excuse me, Burell originally then Perry owned it. President of the Trustees Doherty agreed with what was stated and in, I looked in the file on laserfiche, and you'll see in there a letter from Jill Doherty as President of the Trustees, stating that based on the information provided, the Trustees were not going to challenge Perry's claim of ownership of the bottom. So I just wanted to make you aware of this and do with it as you may. Board of Trustees 79 November 18, 2020 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Any other questions or concerns? (Negative response). Jack, do you want to table this at the applicant's request for further consideration of issues? MR. COSTELLO: Hey, guys. As far as the Sampieri's property, it seems very simple. Can we move forward with the bulkhead and address the dock later? I mean, this litigation issue seems a little bit ridiculous, considering we are improving the property and making things better for the Town of Southold and the Trustees. I don't know how you guys want to handle it. I don't want to be difficult about it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm thinking that the Board would probably like to see a plan for the bulkhead only at this time to move ahead because of the age and status of the current bulkhead, possibly including the proposed 1 0x1 0 deck and obviously the non-turf buffer that you include, so it would be a clean application with everything that is landward of the underwater land, land that may be in dispute. MR. COSTELLO: Right. I would just like to point out to the Board what we are, seaward of the bulkhead, what we are offering to do is a reduction. A significant reduction,just so, I mean, I don't know what is going on with the Perry lawsuit, but as far as the Perry's go and the applicant, we are willing to reduce the square footage seaward of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We understand. The Board heard you, and each individual member was shown the plan tonight. So fine, understood. So it's up to you if you want to table at your request to possibly send a modification and just include the, just the bulkhead, or I guess we can move the application at this time. MR. COSTELLO: Okay. Fair enough, guys. Let's move along tonight. I'll table the application. I didn't realize it was going to be this difficult, so let's just table it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Accordingly, anyone else wish to speak? Do we have hands up, or? MS. CANTRELL: I think Mr. Perry re-raised his hand. MR. HAGAN: Keep it brief. MS. CANTRELL: Mr. Perry, did you want to say anything more? MR. PERRY: I think Mr. Costello is missing the point. The point is not the magnitude of-- MR. HAGAN: You are re-stating the statement that you made before, correct? MR. PERRY: No, I'm not. I'm making a comment in regard to the comments that were just made that have no bearing on the legality of the situation. The fact that he wants to modify something that he has no right to do in the first place doesn't make it any better because of the modification. MR. HAGAN: Mr. Perry, you are claiming an ownership interest in the bottom. What Costello Marine had just proposed is to only deal with the bulkhead which would then not cross onto the Board of Trustees 80 November 18, 2020 bottom. So are you rehashing -- MR. PERRY: The bulkhead is on the bottom land. According,to the survey that he provided with the application, the bulkhead is outside of Sampieri's property line. That is not correct. MR. HAGAN: Your objection is noted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Okay, seeing no further hands, no further comments, I make a motion to table this application at the applicant's request. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 23, En-Consultants on behalf of ABBY TANNENBAUM requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing one-story dwelling, detached garage, concrete foundation, and all related structures; construct a new±2,516 sq. ft. one-story, single-family dwelling on piling foundation with attached 5' diameter spiral staircase to grade; ±623 sq. ft. elevated deck; and 428 sq. ft. lower deck with 7.7'x±13' steps; remove existing cesspool, install new IA sanitary system, and construct 5'x6' steps to access elevated OWTS to be raised with ±3' high (max.) concrete retaining wall and approximately 84 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source; remove existing well and install new drinking water well; install stormwater drainage system; install pervious crushed shell driveway with edging; and maintain all non-structural surface area of property as an approximately 12,488sq.ft. Non-turf buffer. Located: 435 Narrow River Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-3-10 The LWRP found this to be consistent. The Trustees most recently visited this property on the 10th of November and noted it appeared to be straightforward project. One of the benefits of this project was the IA sanitary system that is applied for. Also the fact that the retaining structure that they added to the project is in the center of the property and therefore will not create runoff issues with the neighboring property. Is there anybody here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MS. CANTRELL: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants. Rob, go ahead. MR. HERRMANN: Good evening. I'm here. Thank you, Liz. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicant. This is a project to basically redevelop the subject lot, and as laid out in the application, a number of mitigation measures have been included in the application including the relocation of the dwelling farther from the surrounding wetland areas, raising the dwelling, the new dwelling on to a piling foundation to protect the house from flooding, which occurs commonly in that neighborhood; the installation of an IA sanitary system; the use of a pervious crushed shell driveway; and the fact that aside from the dwelling and deck and driveway Board of Trustees 81 November 18, 2020 surfaces the entire balance of the property which is over 12,000 square feet will be maintained as a non-turf buffer. So there would not be any fertilized lawn maintained on the property. If you have any questions I'll be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MS. CANTRELL: There is a Nina Eshoo wishes to speak. MS. ESHOO: Thank you, very much. I live on one of the adjoining lots, and I just had a question, as the gentleman just noted, there is flooding in this area, and the low point of that property, which is on the back corner where the, I guess it's where the whole system is going to drain into, the drain field, which is right up against the corner of my lot and the McLaughlin's lot, that is the low point or one of the low points of the property that often will flood whether if a high tide comes through or with ground water or a bad storm. So I'm wondering and questioning what risks I have or any of us have with a drain field right against the corner of the property there, given that that is an area that does get wet rather from time to time. I wouldn't say frequently, but it is the one area that will flood. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Mr. Herrmann, can you speak to that concern through the Board? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Sorry, for the delay. Liz had to un-mute me. MS. CANTRELL: We have a problem. Hold on. (After an audio/video problem is resolved, these proceedings continue as follows). MR. HERRMANN: So I'm going to defer that question to David Rhoades who is the project engineer and designed the IA system. Could you see if David is here and ask him to raise his hand so he can speak? MS. CANTRELL: He has raised his hand. David, I sent you a request to un-mute. MR. RHOADES: David Rhoades. Yes. We are proposing to put the septic system in that area. We are elevating it a little bit with a pressurized shallow drain field to raise it up and maintain the necessary separation from the groundwater. But the flooding that we have been discussing in that type of drain field in that area -- (inaudible). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you repeat that and possibly move to a better location depending on how you are contacting us? You broke up pretty significantly with your last several comments. MR. RHOADES: I'll go ahead and call in. MS. CANTRELL: So there is a Carolyn McLaughlin 111 wishing to speak. MS. MCLAUGHLIN: I'm the next door neighbor that primarily is on the property line, and generally I'm very much in favor of the project and appreciate all the positive aspects for it. My concern, in addition to what Nina just mentioned, is probably a minor one, and I'm not even sure if it's a Trustee concern, but the driveway, the crushed shell driveway is right Board of Trustees 82 November 18, 2020 along our border, and as Nina said, that is the low point, not just between us but between on the block. So my concern is that when it floods from the marsh, if a lot of crushed shell or whatever turns out the driveway will be to wash down the property line and onto our property and onto the other neighbors' property, since that is the low point on the block. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Typically speaking, from my experience, the crushed shell does hold in position fairly well unless it's a hurricane, in which case everything is going to move. But, thank you, for your comments. MS. MCLAUGHLIN: I was wondering if there could be a foot or two border or boundary there so it was not right on the property line, the driveway. I know in the back it looks like maybe there is a small border, but further up it looks like it's right on the property line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, thank you. MR. HERRMANN: So to quickly respond to that, I think the natural thing to do there, I don't think it shows specifically on the plan, but the natural thing to do there would be to put some sort of edge, whether it's a steel edge or whatever along the side of it, to keep the shells in place. And one of our thoughts was actually using the crushed shells would end up floating around less than say a pea gravel driveway. So certainly I'm sure that something can be worked out there to avoid that from becoming a thorn in the McLaughlin's side. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MS. CANTRELL: Okay, the gentleman that went to his phone, sorry, I've forgotten your name. You can un-mute. MR. RHOADES: This is David Rhoades, with TF Engineering, again. So we have chosen to put the septic system up in that area because there is a tidal wetland on the east side of Narrow River Road, and there is a freshwater wetland on the southwest corner of the property. So by putting it up in the northeast corner provides the most separation from those wetlands. And we are proposing to do a shallow, pressurized shallow drain field, and we are, the reason it's slightly in that area, in order to maintain that necessary separation from the Suffolk County, the groundwater requirements from Suffolk County, and I don't see any issue with, some minor water up in that area causing an impact on the drainage system. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Or any further comments from members of the Board? MS. CANTRELL: Nina Eshoo would like to speak. MS. ESHOO: Yes. I just wanted to have a follow-up, if I could. I don't understand the whole response. Is there a reason, understanding the balancing of the two wetlands, the freshwater and the salt water, that you mentioned it has to be backed up so close to the edge of the property, and it is the low point Board of Trustees 83 November 18, 2020 there? Is there any ability to move it a little bit away from the two borders of the two neighbors? We have both been here for a very long time and sort of know how that behaves in that area. MR. RHOADES: Again, we are trying to maximize the separation between that freshwater wetland to the south there, which is why it's put in that corner. MS. ESHOO: As I understand it, there will be a house built on that lot in any event, and I thought, maybe I'm wrong, I thought it received a permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The house is a separate issue on the neighboring lot, obviously, from this application -- MS. ESHOO: Right. But that is the wetland that I believe Dave is referring to. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct. And the Board did take all this into account at work session. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And I believe the Suffolk County Department of Health regulates the distance off the property line for a leaching field, and this is in compliance with that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was that would be a Suffolk County Department of Health issue, not this Board's issue. That's a very good point. MS. ESHOO: I was thinking maybe the flooding would be your issue, but, okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anybody else here that wishes to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Are there any comments from the Board members regarding this? (Negative response). I believe it's a very small amount of fill and the level of treatment there, that will remedy any issues, and honestly would be an improvement. If somebody was to rebuild the house as it is and reuse the sanitary system that would just literally leach out into the neighborhood, so, I think it's a huge improvement. Honestly. Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: En-Consultants on behalf of ROBERT & PATRICIA WINCHESTER QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUSTS requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 156 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in-place of and approximately 12 inches higher than existing timber bulkhead; remove and replace in-place ±24 Board of Trustees 84 November 18, 2020 linear feet of southerly timber return and approximately 32 linear feet of northerly timber return with vinyl returns; and backfill with approximately 50 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source. Located: 6625 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-15-7 The Trustees visited the site on November 10th, 2020. All Trustees were present. Field notes: The project is a straightforward replacement for bulkhead, and the final deck grade should be 18 inches from the top of landward retaining wall. The LWRP program found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council did not review this application. Once again this project is very straightforward. Is there anyone here who wish to speak to this application? MS. CANTRELL: Rob Herrmann has raised his hand. MR. HERRMANN: Thanks, Liz. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants. It is a straightforward application. It's worth noting that this is the project adjacent to the Nassau Point Property Owners Association bulkhead replacement application that the Board had heard earlier. And just on that-- TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: We are aware of that, yes. MR. HERRMANN: Okay. And just on the elevation, I think it will probably be a little closer to two feet that the deck will be below the top of that retaining wall. I know we were kind of sort of trying to eyeball it in the field. The top of that landward wall is an elevation of 10.6, and the top of the bulkhead is about 7.3, it would be going up to 8.3. So I just wanted to note it would probably be closer to 24 than 18 inches. But otherwise I don't have any other comments unless the Board has additional questions. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Thank you. Does anybody have any further questions? (Negative response). Is there anybody else here that wishes to speak to this application? (Negative response). I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 25, 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 Board of Trustees 85 November 18, 2020 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 IA/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 The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is the proposed structure is located in FEMA flood zone AE elevation six foot seven foot. The reconstruction, enlargement or addition of structures in special flood hazard areas where flooding is high risk does not meet this policy. And also removal of beneficial plant species to accommodate drainage drywells is unsupported. Survival parameters for plants and vegetation is not provided. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. The Trustees conducted, the most recent field inspection was September 9th, 2020, noting the seaward side of structure is open trellis. New plans showing open trellis to an accurate pier line. We also have a letter in the file from Mary Raynor supporting this project. We also have new plans in the description stamped received November 13th, 2020. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants. I think we had covered the LWRP comments during the original hearing but there had been some Board concerns regarding overall seaward projection of the dwelling relative to the adjoining structures. So, we put a lot of time and effort into the response to the Trustees' thoughts and comments during that last field meeting, site meeting, and so the combination of a couple of things have happened. We have reduced the overall square footage, the water side deck and the footprint of the entire dwelling structure has been moved three feet landward. There was also some clarification required that the subgrade foundation walls that were under that waterside second story terrace and trellis was an open structure, both above it and below it, and was not an enclosed habitable space that was part of dwelling. So in response to a couple of Greg's requests, part of the change in the site plan was to clarify that through the depiction of the foundation walls, and I think as Greg had also asked, we provided an architectural rendering of the seaward side of the house just to sort of confirm that open construction with the second-story terrace and trellis. So we believe that through the these changes we have, hopefully you'll find that we responded sufficiently to the Board of Trustees 86 November 18, 2020 Board's request. The sanitary, the IA sanitary system on the road side of the house had a to be completely reconfigured to accommodate the landward shift, but Jeff Butler's office was able to do that in a way that maintains the 80-foot setback to the wetlands on the opposite side of Beechwood Road. There were some other minor changes to the site plan that kind of came about as a result of the overall change in response to your concerns which are outlined in my letter, and unless you have any questions about anything, it's not really worth reviewing closely except that the amount of fill that was required in the front around the septic system was actually reduced also as a result of this. In that letter that I sent in on November 12th, I also provided an updated project description which notes the fill volume and the other changes that have been made, although it's worth noting that much of it is the same, including the overall footprint of the house. So we are hoping to hear that you think we did okay on this, but I'm certainly here to answer any questions you might have. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Two quick things, Rob. You were able to do the IA system in the front without a retaining wall; is that correct? MR. HERRMANN: Without a septic-related retaining wall. That's correct. There are, there is that retaining wall between the road and the sanitary system which is basically designed to protect the sanitary system. But it's not a, I'm not sure exactly how to phrase it and I don't have Jeff here to help me. But it's not a retaining wall that is required for the design itself that would normally be required to support the system or retain the fill around the sytem. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And how about some sort of survivability parameters for beach grass as per the LWRP report for where you are going to put the drywells in. MR. HERRMANN: So you are talking about in relation to the LWRP comments with the drainage system on the bay side of the house? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. So you do have a note here any existing naturally vegetated areas requiring servicing for purposes of installing the proposed draining system will be restored to pre-construction condition and revegetated with Cape American beach grass 12" on center. MR. HERRMANN: Yes, we have Marshall Paetzel Landscape Architecture involved with the project and I'm sure that they would oversee the survivability, so we would, you know, certainly be accepting the standard condition of typically what the DEC requires is 85% survivability over the life of the permit. So if you are talking about adding something like that, we would certainly have no objection to that, because it certainly is in everyone's interest to make sure that replanting succeeds. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone here wishing to Board of Trustees 87 November 18, 2020 comment on 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 KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application with the new plans stamped received November 13th, 2020, and new revised project description which reads as follows: Demolish existing two-story dwelling; construct new 1,650 square foot two-story dwelling (inclusive of a 146 square foot entry porch square with second floor and second story overhang above it; with a 310-square foot attached waterside deck; and a 3.5' wide steps to grade with 126-square foot covered second-story deck above it; construct 122-square foot masonry walkway and 8.5'x8.4' outdoor shower screened with wood walls on east side of house; 532 square foot pervious on-grade patio on north side of house; install pervious gravel driveway; masonry steps and stepping stone path; remove existing septic system and install a new IA/OWTS sanitary system; and install a drainage system, a leaching galley, drywells, and truck in approximately 85 cubic yards of clean sand fill from an approved upland source to achieve proposed grades, all as depicted on site plan prepared by Marshall Paetzel, Landscape Architecture, last dated November 10th, 2020, and also with the condition of survivability in j accordance with the DEC for the plantings. That's my motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 26, En-Consultants on behalf of JJS EDGEWATER, c/o SCOTT M. EDGETT, MEMBER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock with water and electricity consisting of a 4'x12' landward fixed ramp leading to a 4'x68' fixed elevated catwalk constructed with open-grate decking; a 3'x14' hinged ramp; and a 6'x20' floating dock situated in an "I" configuration and secured by two 10" diameter pilings. Located: 610 Park Avenue Extension, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-125-8-28.6 The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency arises from the fact that this is in a critical environmental area and therefore may be subject to more stringent rules and determinations by the Board of Trustees. Additionally, it questions whether the dock will impair navigation. Notes that the water depth at the end of the dock is 72 inches at mean low water, and surmise that means it's in the navigable channel area. The Trustees did a field inspection on November 10th at 4:00 in the afternoon, and noted that the proposed dock was within the pier line. That it was distant from the channel. i Board of Trustees 88 November 18, 2020 The application was straight, relatively straightforward. The Conservation Advisory Council did not review this application. Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. Just in response a little bit to the LWRP comments. The dock was designed to be set within the pier line of the adjoining docks, including the dock to the east. This is almost a mirror image of that dock that was permitted by the Board in 2012. Permit#7717. And with respect to the water depth, the area does drop very quickly near the shoreline, so the inside of the float reaches 30 inches of water, which is why with the deep drop we get out the 72 inches on the outside of the float. If the float were moved in, it would be sitting in insufficient water depth. In terms of the encroachment across the waterway, the dock extends 25% across where the Board allows 33%. So we are well within those parameters as well. So if the Board does have any other questions, that's all I have. Oh, and the catwalk would be open-grate decking. That's noted on the plans. TRUSTEE DOMINO: We'll note the hydrological data is on the Kenneth Woychuk survey stamped received September 2nd, 2020. And that this is known as Deep Hole Creek. Are there any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Anyone else wish to speak to this application? (Negative response). Hearing no further comments or questions, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: 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, number 27, En-Consultants on behalf of 1470 JACKSON ST., LLC requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing two-story dwelling and decks, and remove existing septic system located less than 100 feet from top of bank; construct more than 100 feet from wetlands but within 100 feet of top of bank a raised 20'x40' swimming pool, 925 sq. ft. of uncovered pool deck with steps (approximately 484 sq. ft. of deck situated within 100 feet of top of bank; approximately 441 sq. ft. of deck and new two-story, single-family dwelling with IA sanitary system located more Board of Trustees 89 November 18, 2020 than 100 feet from top of bank), planters raised with .25" wide, 30" high (max.) Corten steel edging, and a portion of 5' wide stone landscape steps; install 4' high pool enclosure fencing, +3'wide pervious gravel path, 12' wide landscape steps, and three (3) +18" high, +82' long terraces using 0.25" wide Corten steel edging; establish hedge and other landscape plantings; establish and perpetually maintain a 10' - 15' wide non-turf buffer landward of top of bank; and re-grade between proposed deck and landward limit of proposed non-turf buffer to modestly reduce existing slope to bank. Located: 1470 Jackson Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-10-11 This proposal has been deemed to be consistent with the j LWRP. There is no Conservation Advisory Council report for this project. Trustees Domino and Bredemeyer inspected this site with Mr. Herrmann on November 10th and found it to be very straightforward. The house itself is located substantially more than 100 feet from the wetlands and existing bulkhead. The proposal includes a generous 10 to 15 foot wide non-turf buffer that is variable in width to conform with the existing landform. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of applicant. I thank Jay for presenting the application very well for me. The only other thing I would note is that the proposed swimming pool is proposed to be a saltwater filtration pool. If the Board has any other questions, I'm happy to answer them. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Seeing no other questions -- is that another hand or is that-- MS. CANTRELL: It is a Joseph Brusco. I'll un-mute you. MR. BRUSCO: Joseph Brusco, I'm the property owner adjacent to the east of the property. And it looks like the house will be a beautiful place. I wish our neighbors good luck. But I just have a couple of questions and concerns. But excuse my ignorance. I'm not a builder so I'm not sure with these proposed drywells. But the swimming pool has a fairly large drywell, just within four or five feet of the property line it looks like. That's right, that goes alongside our residence. And that's one thing that concerns me. It's an eight-foot wide by four feet drywell that looks like just for the pool. And I'm just concerned about water from that pool drywell going --there is only one place it can go from that drywell and that's right into our residence. Along with these other drywells alongside the property line, but that's the most important one that concerns me. So I don't know if that is something that can be addressed or not. MR. HERRMANN: I can respond. So the drywell is a typical requirement of the Board of Trustees to capture the pool water when it is removed from the pool as opposed to what used to Board of Trustees 90 November 18, 2020 happen very commonly where a pool company would come and just sort of empty the pool out on to the ground or into the street or whatever. We are well above the groundwater table here, so that is a precast drywell that will be subgrade and so the water that is, when it is occasionally drained into that drywell, is directed straight down, not outward. And because it's so deep to groundwater there should not be any risk of that water then somehow moving out laterally toward Mr. Brusco's residence. Having said that, we may be able to find a different location for the drywell if it was a real serious concern. But it should not be. In other words, that structure is designed to move the water straight down, not out laterally. MR. BRUSCO: Once it goes down, we don't know where it goes after it goes past that four-foot mark, past the drywell, correct? TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Mr. Brusco, that water goes down and filters through the sand and recharges the aquifer. That's -- it's designed to filter the water down and filters it through the sand and clay and recharges the aquifer. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As depicted on the plan, it's a very typical installation location, particularly with the soils in New Suffolk is sandy soils, once in place, it will in fact do what Trustee Williams indicates. MR. BRUSCO: As far as the other two drywells in area two, I mean, there is no residence near there, but I assume, because those are much bigger drywells. Those are 8' deep by 10' wide. So those are just for the drainage of the soil? MR. HERRMANN: Those are, let me just see. I think there is a labeling. MR. BRUSCO: Area two, two drywells, 10'x8'. MR. HERRMANN: So there is a box on the left-hand side of the site plan that indicates drainage calculations, and there are drainage areas labeled for each section shown on the plans. So for drainage area two, for example, that is, the drywell in that area you are looking at is designed for those surfaces that are listed in that box, which is the driveway area, in part roof runoff that is being collected and leaders and gutters, and then also some of the turf area. So it's partial surface runoff and it's also roof runoff. But again, the same idea that Mr. Williams and Mr. Bredemeyer just added to my explanation which is that is directing water, the point of that is actually to protect your property and the public right-of-way out on the road and the other neighbor from water flowing laterally out on to adjacent properties, and instead to direct it as point source discharge directly down into the those drywells. So they are really designed to protect your property from runoff that you are concerned about. MR. BRUSCO: Okay. Again, the concern is with the pool drywell only because my residence is near there. You said it should go straight down. What if one day there is a problem, with my foundation or basement with water that we never had before. Then what? Board of Trustees 91 November 18, 2020 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just keep your comments to the Town Board. You can't talk back and forth amongst each other. MR. BRUSCO: Oh, I'm sorry. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: And Mr. Brusco, to respond to that, drywells are essentially what a septic system has been using for well over a hundred years. They work. Gravity forces the water to go down. If at some point in time the drywells on that property mysteriously stops working, we are all in a tight spot because then the water is not draining down. MR. BRUSCO: Okay. Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further questions? (Negative response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 28. En-Consultants on behalf of SEAN & LESLIE OLSEN requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing 295 sq. ft. slate patio and construct partially in its place a 14'x34' saltwater swimming pool and 685 sq. ft grade-level masonry pool patio; supporting/stabilizing footings of existing second-story deck as needed during construction; remove and two existing clusters of wood-tie retaining walls with two 20' long concrete retaining walls to maintain existing grade elevations to east and west of proposed patio; remove existing split-rail fences and install 4' high pool enclosure fencing; and install pool equipment to be connected to existing drainage system. Located: 975 West Hill Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-25 The LWRP coordinator found this application to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection on this application. The Board of Trustees visit this application on the 10th of November and noted that it was straightforward with a salt water stipulation. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann, on behalf of the applicant. As just noted, this pool is designed as saltwater pool, and there is an existing buffer adjacent to the bulkhead. So with that, I don't have anything else to add. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application or any further comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing in this Board of Trustees 92 November 18, 2020 application. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 29, En-Consultants on behalf of JEFFREY &CAROL P. OAK requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-kind and in-place existing 3'x9' ramp and 6'x16' floating dock secured by two (2) 8"-10" diameter pilings to remain. Located: 155 Lake Avenue (aka 155 Lake Drive), Southold. SCTM# 1000-80-3-14 The Trustees have been to this site several times this year. We recently performed an inhouse review of the application, noting it was a straightforward replacement. That was on November 10th, 2020, with all Trustees present. The LWRP coordinator found this action exempt from review. Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicant. The only reason this is a dock that the Board had granted a transfer back in September. The only reason we are here for a new permit is they are looking to replace the ramp and float in its entirety, but it will be an in-place replacement. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Thank you. Any questions from the Board? (Negative response). Anyone else here that wishes to speak to this application? (No response). I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll make a motion to prove the application as Submitted. TRUSTEE_GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 30, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of MARY R. FRAUSTO &JEFFREY S. WILLIAMS, Jr. request a Wetland Permit to demolish and remove all structures within 100.0' of the existing freshwater wetlands (Marion Lake), including the existing house and related appurtenances as well as the existing cesspool; construct a new two-story frame dwelling (40.0'x14.0'), setback 101.0' landward of the freshwater wetland boundary; and to install a new IA/OWTS septic system. Located: 1425 Bay Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-9-7.3 Board of Trustees 93 November 18, 2020 The LWRP found this to be consistent, recommended that vegetated non-turf buffer is installed to help protect the water quality of Marion Lake. The Conservation Advisory Council did not do an inspection. The Trustees conducted a field inspection November 10th, noting the proposed home is jurisdictional. Wetland noted at bottom of the bank is less than 100 feet to the home. Discusses ten-foot non-disturbance at the top of the bank and a 20-foot non-turf landward of that. Also there was a question of the scale and the topo and flagged wetland and flag the house. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. I had trouble hearing you, Glenn. What was the ten feet landward of the top of the bluff? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Non-disturbance ten feet from the top of the bank, and a 20-foot non-turf buffer further landward of the non-disturbance. MR. ANDERSON: So we have an existing house that is 28 feet from the top of the bluff. We are taking that house down. We are then building a 1,000-square foot house,42 feet from the top of the bluff, and of that 42 feet there would only be 12 feet of turf around this house. It is very, very tight and very unusual for this area. We have done many applications in this area, and 12 feet I think is insufficient. I think ten feet is reasonable. But I think 30 feet that you are requesting is excessive for this. There will be considerable disturbance here because you have to take down this house, and you would have also noticed the existing concrete walkway seaward of the house, as well. So I would like you to reconsider that. Please note that this, the property would be served by this IA system, and that the property right now is in great need of maintenance and a general clean up. I believe the neighborhood will be thrilled when this property is improved as per planned. I don't really have anything more to add other than that, but I think the buffers suggested here are excessive for this property given the existing setbacks that we already have. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: On the plans here stamped received November 2nd, 2020, there is a ten-foot right-of-way that is going to the south, I guess that is. So I think in the field we discussed seaward of that right-of-way to the top of the bank, to be the non-disturbance, and to the edge of the right-of-way, so the other additional ten feet would be non-turf. So pretty much from the landward edge of the right-of-way to the top of the bank would be non-turf/non-disturbance. MR. ANDERSON: You are talking about the seaward edge of the ten-foot right-of-way. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So from the seaward edge of the ten-foot right-of-way would be non-disturbance. So whatever that distance is. It varies there with the top of the bank. And the ten-foot right-of-way would be a non-turf. So from landward Board of Trustees 94 November 18, 2020 edge of the right-of-way to the top of the bank. MR. ANDERSON: So it could be sand, could be woodchips, anything like that is what you are saying. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It can't be grass. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak regarding this application? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would just have to see new plans, redrawing of that 101-foot line, right? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. It seemed to us and in looking at the plans, it just seems like the scale is off on this, because the scale for that bank/bluff looks a lot larger than it is in real life. So we were confused as far as the scale, because you have 101 feet supposedly from the bottom of that bank to the proposed two-story house, but when we were out in the field it did not seem that far away. MR. ANDERSON: Well, you know, I can have the surveyor re-check that, but this is done at a hundred scale, and when I apply a scale to this map, everything appears to check out. So I don't know what to tell you. The licensed surveyor, this is the way- this survey has been prepared for many years. This was a previous the subject of a zoning variance for an accessory garage and what you see the other cottage, which is landward of the house. And there has not been any change over the years to this, so I don't quite know what to say other than I can ask the surveyor to look into it. But as far as I can tell, it's correct. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, if you can check that out for us and then we'll also need new plans depicting the non-disturbance buffer seaward of the seaward edge of the right-of-way, and the non-turf buffer at the landward edge of the right-of-way depicted on these plans. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. And I'll draw those lines straight along that right-of-way because that goes to the back of this lot. Do you understand? So it's if you take the ten-foot right-of-way and extend it across the property, I'm assuming that's what you are talking about. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Pretty much, yes. So seaward of the right-of-way, non-disturbance, right-of-way, non-turf. MR. ANDERSON: I think that will work. That will work. I just don't want to block access to a right-of-way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Exactly. MR. ANDERSON: The purpose of a right-of-way is access. So we don't want to block access. That defeats the right-of-way. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That's why we decided to make it a non-turf for that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To give,you the right-of-way. MR. ANDERSON: So it would have to be standard gravel or something. I don't know what it would be. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So would you like to request to table this for new plans? MR. ANDERSON: Well, I think I have to anyway. I mean, I'm Board of Trustees 95 November 18, 2020 hearing this for the first time. That's fine. We'll just submit the plans. If you want to approve it subject to, we can do that as well. Whatever is easier for you. These meetings are getting very long. So if you want to approve it subject to, you might like that. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I wish. But we'll need new plans showing the non-turf as far as the right-of-way and non-disturbance seaward of that right-of-way. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And a re-measured line. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, a re-measured line just to check the distances. So any further questions or comments? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application at the applicant's request for new plans. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 31, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of VINCENT MATASSA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 30.5'x52' (1,546.0 sq. ft.) two-story dwelling (setback 102.0' landward of the tidal wetlands boundary); construct a 12.0'x32.0' deck attached to the seaward side of proposed dwelling, (setback 96.0' landward of tidal wetlands boundary); install 6.0' diameter circular stairs on the seaward side of the proposed dwelling, along the southeast corner of the proposed deck; install a ±900.0 sq. ft. driveway constructed of pervious material; install three (3) 8.0' diameter by 3.0' deep drywells fed by a series of gutters and leaders for the purposes of stormwater run-off containment from the proposed dwelling; install drainage to contain stormwater run-off from the driveway by installing a trench drain at the base of the proposed driveway which is to feed two (2) 8.0' diameter by 2.0' deep drywells to the east of the proposed driveway; and to install a septic tank and five (5) 8.0' diameter by 2.0' deep leaching pools with a 3.0' sand collar, 2.0' above groundwater, to service the proposed dwelling. Located: 920 Sandy Beach Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-43-3-7 The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. There was no Conservation Advisory Council report. The Trustees field inspection conducted November 10th, 2020, at 10:15 in the morning. The notes questioning the flagging of the wetland. Wetland flagging not protective of phragmites australis where it predominates. The house and the deck are in jurisdiction. An IA required. All Trustees were present. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MS. CANTRELL: Bruce Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Let's start with the wetland boundary. The wetland boundary that is depicted on the survey is essentially Board of Trustees 96 November 18, 2020 the exact same wetland boundary that was depicted in the 2013 permit, that would be permit#8024. The boundary itself is flagged where there is inundation. We don't go into the site and just flag the most landward phragmites because the phragmites as well as groundsel for that matter will migrate landward. So just appearing on property and just hanging a flag on most landward phragmites or groundsel does not equal a wetland boundary. It is supposed to be inundated by normal tides, and there is a relatively steep bank on this property near the water so where we flag is where those plants are actually inundated because that is how we flag wetlands. The property is your jurisdiction in any event because the deck is 95 feet from the wetland boundary. So we are not disputing that. The septic system, so that you know, the septic system is 150 feet from the wetland boundary and outside of your jurisdiction. There is no actual requirement for an IA system. It's not part of any local law, as you know. And under normal circumstances, I'm more than happy to do that, but there is another piece of information that might be of interest to you, and that is that there has always been a longstanding plan to hook these properties up to the sewer system of the village. So directly across from Sterling Creek is a place called Sandy Beach, and when working through those properties we have been unable to do anything down there because of the insufficient room to support any septic system. So also you have a restaurant in what we call the Brewer's yacht yard just two properties to the north, and then you have another restaurant in what we call the Sterling property. These properties have always been very problematic because the land can't support the septic systems for these restaurants and marinas given the densities out there, as well as the property densities that already exist in this area. So it would be a shame to require someone to install an IA/OWTS system that would probably be ripped out for a septic system that is 150 feet from the wetland boundary that is not specifically required by local law, knowing we'll probably wind up ripping it out and putting in, connecting to sewer when it appears. Now, it is the village, things don't move over night in the village, but I can tell you in working with the village, particularly in Sterling Harbor marina, that has always been the plans. So I would ask that you reconsider that because that could be an entire waste of the money and it is out of your jurisdiction. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, first of all, I'm going to rely on Trustee Bredemeyer and Trustee Williams to discuss with you the flagging of the wetlands line. As regards to the IA system, the house's jurisdiction. In August of last year, the Trustees resolved that new construction would require an IA system. So I cannot speak to the possibility of a silver lining in this area. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With respect to your assertion on the wetlands, Mr. Anderson, we certainly acknowledge that phragmites Board of Trustees 97 November 18, 2020 and Baccharus are facultative wetland plants, but in any wetland system moving upland from the obligate wetland plants through the natural successional stages and to the facultative, we don't discount just based on elevation, otherwise -- it's a plant-based code -- otherwise you would not have Article 25 of the State Environmental Conservation Law or our particular code being so plant specific. Otherwise massive emerging wetlands that lead into Baccharus into upland areas in some of our most pristine creeks along New Suffolk Avenue, like Down's, et cetera, West Creek, a view such as that could lead to the obliteration of literally hundreds of acres of wetland. So I wholeheartedly disagree with your discussion concerning the wetland. MR. ANDERSON: Well, what I can tell you is that wetland boundary that appears on that survey was approved by this town and this board at the last, in 2013. It has not changed. And all you need to do is compare -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm sorry, I disagree, with all due respect, Bruce. MR. ANDERSON: In any event, there was a 15-foot buffer established for that. So it's not like we are looking to clear any of that. So I don't really need to get into it so much except that I'm finding it alarming that whether we see a Baccharus we hang a flag. That's not how we define wetlands. And we shouldn't be defining wetlands. Because these are colonizing species. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In fact it's not, Mr. Anderson. The simple fact is you've got a preponderance, more than a standard deviation if you did it on an area basis. And things have changed a lot since 2013. Our creeks and areas are getting further inundated with water. It's an observation based on the Board on field inspection. And it is key to the fact that the Board is claiming jurisdiction here. MR. ANDERSON: I'm not arguing jurisdiction. All I'm saying is I believe the wetland lines are correct and I don't believe we should just be hanging flags on the most landward wetland plant we can find. I can also tell you that when you look down you will see a lot of, you'll see a fair preponderance of cactus growing right there, ula ursay (sic) and you will note that can't possibly grow in wetland. Now, I don't care because I assume there will be some buffer attached to a non-disturbance or otherwise, and I'm fine with that. I'm just trying to caution you because I'm seeing these wetland boundaries being over-flagged in this town and it's concerning me, because it that's not the proper way of doing things, in my opinion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For the record -- MR. ANDERSON: Now, as to the septic system, we were in front of you last month for Sunrise buses for a septic system out of your jurisdiction, which you approved because, and I said to you then, that it's out of your jurisdiction. That's fine. But Board of Trustees 98 November 18, 2020 we'll probably hook up to, we know we would hook up to a sewer line that is going to come from the Greenport sewage plant through Greenport lands culminating between the properties of Domino and Ratsey. And our intention is to hook up to that line. The same thing is going to happen here. So I think it would be a waste of money, frankly, for septic system that is 150 feet away from the wetland boundary to impose such a condition. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just a point of correction, for the record, the prickly pear Cactus, I'm assuming that is the cactus you are speaking of, unless someone has domestic cactus. The scientific name Opuntia humifusa is the scientific name. It is salt tolerant and regularly inhabits the sandy fringes of wetlands, and it can withstand regular inundation. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: For point of clarification, Trustee Williams here, Bruce. With the Al system, it is no secret that Suffolk County is moving toward them as a county-wide mandate. It's best practice and in a sensitive area that is overpopulated, we should be putting our best foot forward to do the best we can. Would you want to table the application to come into work session chat with us or, what would you -- MR. ANDERSON: I want to chat with my client. I guess we'll have to table it, because it sounds like you want what you want, but let me ask you this. What sort of, I have not heard anything about a non-disturbance buffer landward of this wetland where, you know, even if I were to go back and flag the most landward phragmites or whatever, what sort of buffer are you looking for, so I can inform my client. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: What kind of buffer are you thinking? MR. ANDERSON: Previous was 15 feet. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: That seems very appropriate. In the words of Trustee Krupski MR. ANDERSON: Then we'll have to bring you new plans. But I'll discuss it with my client. We'll have to do some new plans and I guess we'll have to table it for that. I can certainly hang flags on the most landward phragmite, but it's a shame to do so because I'm telling you it's not the way to do it. You should resist that. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: If you would like to meet us in the field next, at our next work session, we can -- Jay and I did identify wetlands. MR. ANDERSON: Like I said, I don't think it matters because -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It doesn't matter. We are discussing something that doesn't pertain to the application at this point. I think we can move on from that. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Do you entertain a motion to table this at your request and attend a work session and clarify some of these points? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right, hearing no further comments I make a motion to table this at the applicant's request. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. Board of Trustees 99 November 18, 2020 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number 32, 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 AVOWTS septic system with ±161.0 linear feet of retaining wall surrounding the septic system on the landward side of the proposed dwelling; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 50' wide non-turf buffer area landward of the tidal wetland boundary. Located: 565 Fisherman's Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-1-34. This proposal has been deemed to be inconsistent by the LWRP, as previously discussed. The Board has been to this site on March 11th of this year. The Board was there again on September 9th detailing on field inspection concerns about the height of the retaining wall, which also was subject to comments at the public hearing. As a result of the September 9th, the Board was awaiting plans, at the time of the October 7th field inspection, waiting for plans for a request to review the feasibility of putting the IA system in front of the proposed deck. As a result of field review of the site conditions, Trustee Domino and I performed a flagging of the wetland on the property to which we have received a survey, which is a little late for consideration because the Board did not have it on their field inspection on November 10th, that being stamped in the office with the flagged wetland line Mr. Domino and I had performed on, it was October 10th. And we also have some numerous additional supporting documentation for Mr. Anderson with attachments in the file, which came in on November 17th. There is also a detailed report claiming jurisdiction that is in the file, detailed report from attorney Patricia Moore dated stamped in October 23rd. I think it's important to continue the discussion, but we may not be able to move too greatly forward on this. In opening the discussion to who is present here, one feature that has remained a concern of the Board has been the retaining wall and its height, and the Board did acknowledge the communication and discussed it at Monday's work session on the 16th, the letter from Mr. Fischetti who detailed the engineering concerns that the county would not want to be locating a sanitary system seaward. That said, the plan shows a retaining wall on what would be the east side of the sanitary system, creating an elevated driveway. And question is where the neighbor to the east has concerns about the retaining wall, why can't the driveway be a grade-level retaining wall, and the retaining wall be moved to Board of Trustees 100 November 18, 2020 the westerly so the sanitary system itself is bounded. Or another question with respect to the sanitary system construction would be the fact that we have seen other systems where the IA treatment unit is the only raised portion, and they engineer it so, with a pressure mount, they don't have to have a retaining wall around the leaching. So the major concern for the Board, and I'll stand corrected, was the fact that this is jurisdictional and we will require the IA, and the fact is that the retaining wall is something that we are greatly concerned about. Is there anyone here wishing to speak to this application? MR. ANDERSON: Pat can go first. MS. CANTRELL: Okay. Then I'll mute you. Hold on a minute. Pat, can you hear me? MS. MOORE: Yes. I'm here. It takes a moment for my fingers to go to the un-mute. Thank you. We are pretty much the next to last meeting. I wanted to put on the record, you have my October 23rd submission that I provided for you the non-jurisdiction determinations that have been done repeatedly on this block, next door by both Mr. Bredemeyer, Mr. Domino, as Chairman of the Board, as presidents of the Board, and other presidents of the Board, it has been a repeated non jurisdiction determination. And I'll have Bruce talk about the conditions of the site. There has been no, you are always very, you are always making statements about being consistent. And we appreciate that. In this case, you are being completely inconsistent when you have multiple properties that are adjacent to each other and claiming jurisdiction when there is no jurisdiction. And I want to preserve that issue for the record. I'm going to defer to Bruce to discuss the application because we want to move this forward. The poor client has made this application January 23, 2020. It's been 11 months, almost -- sorry. Ten months. Almost 11 months if this gets delayed one more time. It is, they came in with a very reasonable application, and the other point I want to defer to Bruce and Joe Fischetti, is the fact that you are starting to design sanitary systems and direct what type of sanitary systems are to be constructed. And that is not in your jurisdiction either. This has Health Department approval. Bruce will tell you how far along they are on the Health Department. So I want to put that all on the record. It's late and I don't want to go beyond that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: She's right. We should just vote on what is applied for then. She is absolutely right. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a point to that. I want to affirm, because maybe you didn't hear when I did a synopsis for the record. You're stamped in received in the office report of October 23rd, is a part of the file. And with respect to the adjoining properties, that was maybe in a different time and a different Board. Each property in fact is unique. This Board of Trustees 101 November 18, 2020 property has the plants. I didn't plant them there. If you believe in the good Lord, he put them there. And one of them is Spartina patens and it is a protected species in our code. But, you know, we can continue to -- listen, I appreciate Trustee Krupski's comments. The fact is we are not trying to design a sanitary system. The Suffolk County Health Department regularly defers to the East End Trustees to grant wetland permits. I did bring up, maybe it was not clear, but the issue, here it was serious concerns about retaining walls when our experience they been overbuilt and create problems for neighbors. The neighbor's on the record complaining about it. And I see the retaining wall as really retaining your driveway. So anyhow, I'll listen now. I know this is a public hearing. MS. MOORE: Okay. I'll defer to Bruce. Thank you. MS. CANTRELL: Bruce, do you have anything else you want to say? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Okay, so to recap where we have been with this. We submitted an application January 23rd. We've had hearings in August 19th, September 16th, so forth. We have put in numerous documents including two engineering reports from Joe Fischetti, and a third engineering report from Doug Adams who is telling this Board and everyone else who wants to listen that this septic system is designed correctly, okay? As to whether or not a retaining wall on the adjacent, on the property on the easterly side, easterly side lot line can be moved to the other side of the driveway, I'll defer that to Joe Fischetti who has designed the system. But I will point out that the area that you guys flagged, I don't know, you know, again, if you find just-- by the way, your actual memo says Spartina alterniflora. You now are saying Spartina patens, which is more accurate. They can also occur in some of these places, but it's improper to consider that a wetland, and I'll point out that the DEC has already certified the mean high water line as the wetland boundary for that. We are very close to obtaining that permit. Now, moving on, we have looked and given you a couple of examples, recent examples where these sorts of retaining walls were proposed. And the other thing, putting the sanitary system around the septic or treatment unit, which I just witnessed over in Orient, does not mean that is something that can be done everywhere. I think that, you know, we have space considerations, I think it's reasonable to line up the house with the adjacent houses. You have in your files significant community support for this project as proposed. And we have one neighbor who is opposed. I think when you look at your own photograph and you'll see in the backdrop, the only one who has preserved any vegetation here has been us. Because the neighbor who is complaining has already cleared the vegetated area between the house and the water. And we put that on the record as well. Now, what I think makes sense, and the last part of this is we also provided you with the Suffolk County soil survey that Board of Trustees 102 November 18, 2020 came in, and that survey tells us that the strip of land that we call Fisherman's beach is comprised of two functions. One is beaches, which is termed BC in the Suffolk County soil survey. And the second component is where that vegetation actually starts, is called filled land dredge material. So the Board should take note of that. This is an area that has been previously filled with dredge spoil relating to the dredging of Haywater Cove. So please take note of that. With that, I would like to send this to Joe Fischetti so he can talk a little bit more about the septic system as designed and whether the sort of alterations that you are suggesting can actually be made here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Also for the Board's edification, that the report of Douglas Adams and the copy of the report from the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District both came in the office in insufficient time for the Board to review. So we may want to provide additional review of these documents in particular, and also in light of additional testimony that Mr. Fischetti will be giving us. MS. CANTRELL: Mr. Fischetti, you can go ahead. MR. FISCHETTI: Good evening. Changing the leaching galleys to a pressure mat system, which is what you had requested, or a mat system, would not eliminate the retaining walls. The only way it would eliminate the retaining walls, if I went to the Board of Review and asked for a variance on the height of the system from the wetlands. If you notice, one of the last sanitary systems that were designed with a mat system, one of the neighbors complained that where that system was in the corner was going to be flooded. You didn't actually look at the system that was designed. The system was a mat system that was designed only two feet to groundwater. And they are going to have to go to the Board of Review for a variance. But they are already going to the Board of Review for a variance. So it's not a problem to ask that. But that system is actually going to get flooded. So I'm not sure why he designed it that way. So you would still have the retaining wall if I went to a mat system. And I have given you my feelings as to why a galley system is better. As to the retaining wall, why would I extend the concrete retaining wall when I have the raise the driveway up so that the client can use the driveway? I have to put a retaining wall on that side of the driveway to raise the grade of the driveway. The driveway is too low. We are raising everything else in the house. And that's the reason, instead of eliminating the concrete wall there, having two retaining walls. So I eliminated the concrete retaining wall, and the driveway has a retaining wall on that side. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would just say, speaking for myself, if the retaining walls were pulled in from the property line a significant amount, I would be far more comfortable with the proposal. If that means have having a driveway that is on-grade Board of Trustees 103 November 18, 2020 and your client having to step up 12 to 18 inches to access their home, so be it. That is typical practice. We see it all over town. And I think that solves, would solve a lot of problems on this application, which has been drawn out for quite a long time as we try to work toward a solution. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I agree wholeheartedly. MR. FISCHETTI: How does the rest of the Board feel with that? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Absolutely. That's why I brought up the subject of the driveway in the beginning of the hearing. MR. FISCHETTI: I'll extend the retaining wall along that driveway surface in accordance with, and if you, if the Board approves it tonight subject to that design change. TRUSTEE DOMINO: We can't approve subject to design change. We need new plans. MR. FISCHETTI: It's very easy to do. The line, retaining wall will go along the line of the driveway pretty much up to the house. It has to be 20 feet from the leaching galley. I will extend that concrete wall that way, subject to approval tonight. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What you are telling me is it will essentially be a mirror image of the retaining wall to the west side, but we'll need a set of plans to reflect that, and that may go a long way to, I think, addressing all of the concerns. The wetland issues won't you know-- MR. FISCHETTI: Why would you need a set of plans? I'm telling you exactly where it will go. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Perhaps our assistant town attorney can address that point. MR. HAGAN: Because when the Board makes a determination, they make the determination based on the plans that are before them with the new project description so that it's clear at the time when they vote on the resolution to approve your application, that what they are looking at and what they are approving is what is ultimately going to be on the permit. MR. FISCHETTI: We'll submit a new set of plans. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You are requesting to table at the applicant' request. I think Mr. Anderson might want to speak to that. MR. FISCHETTI I'll leave that up to Bruce to answer that question. MR. ANDERSON: We can table the application for purposes of moving that wall. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. So move to table the application -- MS. CANTRELL: Wait. We have other people who want to speak. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, we have other people who wish to speak. We have Lori Badanes. Sorry, if I'm not saying your name correctly, but I'm sending you a request to un-mute. MS. BADANES: Hello. Lori Badanes. First of all, I really want to applaud your diligence. I have been with you since 5:30. Six hours. I really want to start by applauding that. Board of Trustees 104 November 18, 2020 I want to speak a few things on the record. I know we are tabling this, but we are the eastbound neighbors and there have been several untruths that were told tonight and I just need to put it on the record for my own sake that, first of all, as far as they speak of community support, I don't think there is community support for a concrete retaining walls. And I understand your concerns with retaining walls. We have the same concerns for retaining walls. We also have the concerns of vegetation, of a buffer blocking those retaining walls. So I don't know what my -- how we proceed on our end. Can you speak to that or-- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, thank you, for your concerns. The Board does consider input at public hearing when it considers an application for a final determination. MS. BADANES: I also want to say, not to drag it out, that you asked them to change the plans and put the pressure mat system on the bay side, and there has been no change to the plans. That was two months ago that you asked for the plans to be altered. And now we are just altering a retaining wall and moving a very high retaining wall on to the property line more. But I'm not sure that really solves the problem. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: In fairness to the applicant we did discuss and review moving it to the seaward side of the house, but after a discussion between us and the Health Department it makes a lot more sense to have it on the landward side for servicing and access. MS. BADANES: Okay. Thank you. I missed that part. Well, I thank you, very much. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. MS. CANTRELL: And we have someone by the name of Pat who raised her hand. Pat, if you want to speak. MS. KIRKPATRICK: Hi. I'm Pat Kirkpatrick, the applicant. I want to say, I do, I appreciate all the time you have given to this. This is my dream house. I have been out in Cutchogue every single summer my entire life, and my plan and my parents"plan was for me to build a house for retirement. So I understand all the difficulties. I would just say that, you know, I'll go along with you if you say we have to have the driveway down to grade. I was really hoping to bring the driveway up to the height because this is my retirement home and I already have bad knees and have had a knee replacement, and am trying to go up a whole flight of stairs, we already know the house is elevated and needs its own flight of stairs, so I was hoping to avoid some of the stairs. If that's the only way you will approve this, I'll absolutely do what you need to do, because I really tried to work along with it. I tried, it started day one, I wanted to say hello, have a neighborly, appropriate house. I mean I could have gone much higher with the second floor. I didn't want that. Trying to fit into the neighborhood. I tried to add as much screening, etcetera, et cetera. I really tried to work this to be as much as possible. Board of Trustees 105 November 18, 2020 We need retaining walls, that's a fact of septic systems. I can't get around that. And I have been told over and over again I kept my retaining walls as low as possible. If it turns out that there is enough room on the side and have more plantings in front on the street side so you don't see it, but I also know other people have retaining walls two feet high and have a hedge four feet high right on the edge of the road on the other side of the street. So I really appreciate everything you have done. I hope we can find something that allows me to retire and move out to my favorite place in the world. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Also you have a competent engineer who has already spoken to your application. You might have them investigate the possibilities of designing an incline walkway or investigate. I don't know if the infiltrators have the capability of having traffic-bearing slab capabilities or a portion of them. There again, so access reconfiguring might be possible from an engineering standpoint with a slight change in materials for that. But I would say you can talk to your engineers about that. MS. KIRKPATRICK: When it was designed, Tom Samuels designed the driveway. It's gradually going up and it was so that I could turn on to that portion of the septic because it is drivable. But obviously you can't drive on to the part that that has the retaining walls around it, because that's retaining walls. A car won't go up. But I'll do what I can on that, and as I said, if that's what I need to get my house built, that's what I will do, put it down where it needs to. So I thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: It sounds like our request will be to table it to depict the relocation of that wall, is what it sounds like today. Is there anything else that we should be aware of at this point? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board will have to make a determination upon the plans when they arrive, and we'll have to take it up at that time. You may, you know, screening or other landscaping that might be incorporated. I don't know if the rest of the Board can add to that. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. At this time I see no further hands. Any further questions or comments? (No response). Seeing none, I move to table this application for the submission of revised plans at the request of the applicant. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 106 November 18, 2020 espectfully ubmitted by, 4 Glenn Goldsmith, President Board of Trustees RECEIVED D E C 2 2020 3:1 o 3 � pm, So hold To Clerk