HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-12/21/2020 1
Glenn Goldsmith,President �®� so Town Hall Annex
�u �®
A. Nicholas Krupski,Vice President sem® �® 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
John M. Bredemeyer III3 Southold,New York 11971
Michael J. Domino c0 Telephone(631) 765-1892
Greg Williams �'® Fax(631) 765-6641
Com
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES 110-- (�O
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD JAN 2 1 202
A�ia
Minutes
�.
So _yid Town Clerk
Monday, December 21, 2020
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
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All right. Good evening, and welcome to our Monday,
December 21 st, 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).
I'll start off by announcing the people on the dais to the
screen. To my left we have Trustee Domino. We have Trustee
Bredemeyer. Soon to be joining us we'll have Trustee Krupski,
Trustee Williams. To my right is Assistant Town Attorney Damon
Hagan. We also have with us tonight Senior Clerk Typist
Elizabeth Cantrell and Court Stenographer Wayne Galante
MR. HAGAN: And with the late arriving Trustees, Krupski and
Williams, without them, we do have a quorum.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Since this is our last meeting for the year,
I would like to take this opportunity to wish everybody a Merry
Christmas, happy holidays and a happy and especially healthy New
Year. Hopefully some time here in 2021 we'll be able to see
everybody in person. So we are looking forward to that.
Agendas for tonight's meeting are posted on the Town's website.
We do have a number of postponements tonight.
In the agenda on page nine, under Amendments, 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'
i
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.
On page 15, number 25, 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,
has been withdrawn.
On pages 16 and 17, numbers 27 through 32 are postponed.
They are listed as follows:
Number 27, Richard Boyd, RA on behalf of CHRISTINE HOWLEY
requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing one-family
dwelling (2,820.76 sq.'ft.), and replace with new one-family
(4,284 sq. ft.) dwelling (14.5% lot coverage and 120' 8%"width
and 49' 4%" irregular depth).
Located: 320 Sailors Needle Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-144-5-29.3
Number 28, 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
Number 29, ,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 a AE zone; and a pervious driveway.
Located: 420 Lake Drive,'Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-1-21.2
Number 30, 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
3
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 31, 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,32, 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
Those have all been postponed.
Under Town Code 275-8(c), files were officially closed
seven days ago. Submission of any paperwork after that date may
result in a delay of the processing of the application.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
Tuesday, January 12, 2021
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to have our
next field inspection on Tuesday, January 12th, 2021, at 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
4
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustees Goldsmith, Domino and Bredemeyer, ALL AYES).
II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
Wednesday, January 20, 2021, at 5:30 PM via Zoom online platform.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next Trustee
meeting Wednesday, January 20th, 2021, at 5:30 PM via Zoom.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustees Goldsmith, Domino and Bredemeyer, ALL AYES).
III. ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING:
Monday, January 4, 2021, at 5:15 PM via Zoom online platform.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to hold our organizational
meeting on Monday, January 4th, 2021, at 5:15 PM, via Zoom.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustees Goldsmith, Domino and Bredemeyer, ALL AYES).
IV. WORK SESSIONS:
Thursday, January 14, 2021, at 5:00 PM via Zoom online platform; on
Wednesday, January 20, 2021, at 5:00 PM via Zoom online platform.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to hold our next work session
on Thursday, January 14th, 2021, at 5:00 PM, via Zoom, and on
Wednesday January 20th, 2021, 5:00 PM, via Zoom.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustees Goldsmith, Domino and Bredemeyer, ALL AYES).
V. MINUTES:
Approve Minutes of October 28, 2020, and November 18, 2020.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve the Minutes of the
October 28th, 2020, and November 18th, 2020 meetings.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustees Goldsmith, Domino and Bredemeyer, ALL AYES).
VI: MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for November 2020. A check for
$7,960.53 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the
General Fund.
5
VII. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
VIII. 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 JONATHAN REBELL & NOAH LEVINE;
Located: 4790 Blue Horizon Bluffs, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-74-1-35.56
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustees Goldsmith, Domino and Bredemeyer, 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
to the application of KEVIN M. MURPHY.
Located: 3265 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-8-22.4
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustees Goldsmith, Domino and Bredemeyer, ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, 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 SCOTT R. McDAVID & MAEGAN C. HINTON;
Located: 1250 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck SCTM# 1000-115-11-12.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustees Goldsmith, Domino and Bredemeyer, ALL AYES).
IX. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral IX, 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 XII Public Hearings
Section of the Trustee agenda dated Monday, December 21 st, 2020, are classified as
Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to
further review under SEQRA:
Evan M. & Elizabeth A. Minogue SCTM# 1000-115-10-6
Andrew Torgove & Joni Friedman SCTM# 1000-117-5-31
Michael & Mary Heagerty SCTM# 1000-119-1-16
Robert Strong &Joan Vitale Strong SCTM# 1000-115-11-18.1
North Fork Realty Holdings, LLC SCTM# 1000-88-5-65
Robyn Romano 2015 Family Trust & Joseph P.' Romano 2015 Family Trust SCTM#
1000-71-1-14
Caroline Toscano SCTM# 1000-113-4-8
Anthony Tartaglia & James Howell SCTM# 1000-44-1-9
6
Jack Cipriano SCTM# 1000-87-5-23.6
Joseph M. Silvestro SCTM# 1000-78-5-5
Vincent Matassa SCTM# 1000-43-3-7
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustees Goldsmith, Domino and Bredemeyer, 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 XII Public Hearings Section of
the Trustee agenda dated Monday, December 21st, 2020, are
classified as Unlisted,Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and
Regulations:
Jonathan Rebell & Noah Levine SCTM# 1000-74-1-35.56
Kevin M. Murphy SCTM# 1000-123-8-22.4
Scott McDavid & Maegan C. Hinton SCTM# 1000-118-11-12
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustees,Goldsmith, Domino and Bredemeyer, ALL AYES).
(Trustee Krupski enters the hearing room and is now present on
the dais).
X. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO NEW
YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT NYCCR PART 617:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral X, number 1:
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JONATHAN REBELL &
NOAH LEVINE requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct
110 linear feet of rock revetment at the toe of the existing bluff landward of the mean
high water line; in addition, the existing bluff will be re-vegetated with Cape American
beach grass plugs at 12" on center for entire disturbed area; and 2x12 ACQ terracing
will be installed to retain soil on bluff.
Located: 4790 Blue Horizon Bluffs, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-74-1-35.56
S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with this project having
visited the site on December 14, 2020, and having considered the survey of property by
Young & Young dated April 5, 2020, and having considered the plans for this proposed
project submitted by Jeffrey Patanjo dated September 10, 2020 at the Trustee''s
December 14, 2020 work session; and,
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2020 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself
Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2020 the Southold Town Board of Trustees classified the
application as an unlisted action under S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, in reviewing project plans submitted by Jeffrey Patanjo dated September
10, 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.
7
Protection of the toe of bluff using hardened structures including rock revetment
is necessary.
No existing rocks or boulders are to be utilized, moved, or relocated on the
beach.
As time progresses, continued soil loss at the toe of the bluff may lead to habitat
degradation and bluff instability.
A site inspection by the Southold Town Board of Trustees recognized erosion on
this property and the need for a bluff stabilization/erosion control plan.
THEREFORE, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town Board
of Trustees Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of
Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA for the aforementioned
project.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustees Goldsmith, Domino, Bredemeyer and Krupski, ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Suffolk
Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of KEVIN M. MURPHY requests a
Wetland Permit to demolish/remove the existing dock structure and replace it
with a new dock assembly comprising of the following components:
At-grade wood walk consisting of a 4'x27.5' northeast to
southwest portion and a 4'x24.5' southwest to northeast portion;
a 4'x10' landward ramp; a 4'x68' fixed catwalk; 4'x18.5'
floating dock ramp; and a 6'x20' floating dock configured in an
"L" shape formation, angled to the north.
Located: 3265 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-8-22.4
S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with this project having
visited the site on December 9, 2020, and having considered the survey of property by
Lisa McQuilkin Land Surveying dated October 8, 2020, and having considered the plans
for this proposed project submitted by Suffolk Environmental Consulting dated July 31,
2020 at the Trustee's December 14, 2020 work session; and,
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2020 the Southold Town Board of
Trustees declared itself Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.;
and,
WHEREAS, on December 21, 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 Suffolk
Environmental Consulting dated July 31, 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
8
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 BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustees Goldsmith, Domino, Bredemeyer and Krupski, ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, Michael Kimack on behalf of SCOTT
R. McDAVID & MAEGAN C. HINTON requests a Wetland Permit to
extend the existing dock an additional 24' with three (3) sets
of 8" diameter pilings; remove existing deck, reframe, and
install Thru-Flow decking for existing and proposed fixed dock;
relocate existing 3'x14' aluminum ramp; relocate and repair or
replace 6'x20' floating dock with two (2) sets of 8" diameter
dolphins.
Located: 1250 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck SCTM# 1000-115-11-12
S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with this project having
visited the site on December 9, 2020, and having considered the survey of property by
Peconic Surveyors, P.C. dated November 12, 2020, and having considered the plans for
this proposed project submitted by Michael Kimack dated November 7, 2020 at the
Trustee's December 14, 2020 work session; and,
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2020 the Southold Town Board of
Trustees declared itself Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.;
and,
WHEREAS, on December 21, 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 November 7, 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.
9
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 is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustees Goldsmith, Domino, Bredemeyer and Krupski, 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 make a motion to
approve as a group items 1 through 5. They are listed as
follows:
Number 1, Ruth Love on behalf of LOUIS BONETTI requests an
Administrative Permit to construct a 151 sq. ft. addition
including a one-half bathroom and slightly larger living room.
Located: 170 Silver Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-47-2-3
Number 2, AMP Architecture on behalf of BENJAMIN & SIOBHAN
MORDEN requests an Administrative Permit to the existing
residence. All work will be done to existing exterior walls,
nothing proposed is outside of the existing footprint:
Removal of the following:
(2) T-10"wX3'-2"h existing windows
(1) T-10"wX3'-2"h existing window
(2) 3'-9"wX1'-10"h existing windows
(1) 2'-8"wX6'-8"h wood exterior door
(1) 6'-0"wX6'-8"h 2 panel sliding glass door unit
Installation of the following:
(1) 9'-0"wX6'-8"h 3 panel sliding glass unit
(1) 4'-0"wX3'-0"h window
s (1) 7'-1"wX3'-0"h window
(1) 2'-0"wX3'-0"h window
(3) 2'-8"wX3'-0"h windows
(1) 2'-0"wX3'-0"h skylight
(1) 4'-0"wX2'-0"h basement awning window
New wall framing and siding to match existing will be installed as necessary to fill areas
of removed windows. Located: 801 Maple Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-1-30.2.
Number 3, Eugene Burger on behalf of ELLEN CHRISTINA RILEY, AS
TRUSTEE OF THE SHANNON RILEY TRUST requests an Administrative application to
construct a 98 sq. ft. one-story addition to the landward side of the dwelling.
Located: 2950 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-5-7.2.
r
i
10
Number 4, William A. Scherer, R.A., on behalf of DOMINIC & PATRICIA
GRASSO requests an Administrative Permit to install a 48" high aluminum fence to
enclose an approximate 14'x44' area with two (2) 42" wide gates.
Located: 1155 Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-66-3-6.
Number 5, LI ZHAO & NICOLAS SVETEC request an Administrative Permit to
install 85' of 6' high chain link fence; 75' to be on the southwest property line labeled
now/or formerly of Curtis & Rita Winkler, and a 10' return along the northerly line labeled
now or formerly of Thomas Schlichter& Felicia Scocozza.
Located: 550 Rene Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-6-4.5
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustees Goldsmith, Domino, Bredemeyer and Krupski, ALL AYES).
X. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 11, Applications for Extensions, Transfers and
Administrative Amendments. Again, in order to simplify our meeting, I'll make a motion
to approve as a group items 1 through 7. They are listed as follows:
Number 1, GASPER VITALE requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#8450 from
Donald Russ to Gasper Vitale, as issued on July 20, 2005.
Located: 230 Jockey Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-5-8
Number 2, Patricia C. Moore on behalf of KARL & MEGAN GRACE
ABDELNOUR requests a Transfer of Administrative Permit#9398A from D J Moore
2009 Res. Trust & D J Moore 2011 Res. Trust to Karl & Megan Grace Abdelnour, as
issued on March 20, 2019.
Located: 21075 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-17
Number 3, Patricia C. Moore on behalf of KARL & MEGAN GRACE
ABDELNOUR requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#7331 from loanna & David Moore
to Karl & Megan Grace Abdelnour, as issued on June 16, 2010 and Amended on
November 18, 2020.
Located: 21075 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-17
Number 4, Patricia C. Moore on behalf of KARL & MEGAN GRACE
ABDELNOUR requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#7775 and Coastal Erosion Permit
#7775C from David Moore to Karl & Megan Grace Abdelnour, as issued on April 18,
2012.
Located: 21075 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-17
Number 5, Patricia C. Moore on behalf of KARL & MEGAN GRACE
ABDELNOUR requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#7282 and Coastal Erosion Permit
#7282C from David & lonna Moore to Karl & Megan Grace Abdelnour, as issued on April
21, 2010 and Amended on July 18, 2012.
Located: 21075 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-17
Number 6, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of NICHOLAS &
GEORGIA NOTIAS requests a One (1) year Extension to Wetland Permit#9281, as
issued on July 18, 2018 and for an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9281
for the removal of 996 sq. ft. seaward patio; removal of 55.6 sq. ft. outdoor kitchen/ BBQ
area; removal of 364.88' x 4' wide pervious walk; and removal of 5'x6'x8' outdoor shower
along northerly portion of dwelling, as well as the concrete slab on which it sits.
Located: 450 Paradise Point Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-93-1-3
Number 7, En-Consultants on behalf of LAST MOVE LLC requests a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#492 from Haywaters Road, LLC to Last Move LLC, as issued on July 1,
11
1968 and Amended on February 18, 2015 and Amended again on May 20, 2015.
Located: 75 Haywaters Road, a/k/a 2400 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-111-1-2.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustees Goldsmith, Domino, Bredemeyer and Krupski, ALL AYES).
XII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral XII, Public Hearings, at
this time I'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting
agenda and enter into public hearings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustees Goldsmith, Domino, Bredemeyer and Krupski, ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a public hearing in the matter of the
following applications for permits under the Wetlands Ordinance
of the Town of Southold. I have an affidavit of publication from
the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may bee read prior
to asking for comments from the public.
Please keep your comments organized and brief; five minutes
or less if possible.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 1, under Wetland & Coastal erosion permits, Jeffrey
Patanjo on behalf of JONATHAN REBELL & NOAH LEVINE requests a Wetland
Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct 110 linear feet of rock revetment at the
toe of the existing bluff landward of the mean high water line; in addition, the existing
bluff will be re-vegetated with Cape American beach grass plugs at 12" on center for
entire disturbed area; and 2x12 ACQ terracing will be installed to retain soil on bluff.
Located: 4790 Blue Horizon Bluffs, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-74-1-35.56
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency arises
from the fact that, from the statement that the applicant has not demonstrated that the
project will have a beneficial or positive effect on the neighboring properties.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to -- did not submit a finding on this
application.
The Trustees have done several inspections at this site, the most recently on
12/14/2000, by'Trustee Greg Williams, area Trustee, stating the project looks
straightforward.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MS. CANTRELL: Jeff, if you can hear us, can you un-mute.
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. Can you
hear me?
(Affirmative response).
All right, how are you. Any questions, I'll be happy to answer
them with regard to this project.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I just want to ask will this have a positive
benefit on the neighborhood?
MR. PATANJO: Yes, absolutely. The new shoreline erosion in
addition to that is the neighboring properties I have been in
12
conversations with already, they are looking to do something
similar, the two neighbors to the west.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, very much. Anyone else wish to speak
to this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustees Goldsmith, Domino, Bredemeyer and Krupski, ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted noting that it will be a benefit and prevent erosion
and therefore bring it into consistency.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustees Goldsmith, Domino, Bredemeyer and Krupski, ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number 1, under
Wetland Permits, 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
This project has been deemed to be consistent with the
Town's LWRP.
On December 9th field inspections of the Board of Trustees
noted that the property was straightforward but that new plans
were anticipated in the Trustee office to address an error in
the previous plan concerning the length, which was read, the new
modified project description was read into the record. It's a
straightforward, small bulkhead replacement with steps.
Is there anyone -- and there is no report from the
Conservation Advisory Council.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. I'm here
if you have any questions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to
the application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustees Goldsmith, Domino, Bredemeyer and Krupski, ALL AYES).
13
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application as submitted on plans stamped in the Trustees office
received November 30th, 2020, reflecting the change to the 23
linear feet of timber bulkhead. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(Trustees Goldsmith, Domino, Bredemeyer and Krupski, ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 2, 1 do not have that file. Does anyone
have that file in their pile? I checked Greg's. I do not see it.
(Perusing).
Okay, number 2, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of NORTH FORK
REALTY HOLDINGS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace 104 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with new
vinyl bulkhead; and to install and perpetually maintain a 10'
wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 1095 Watersedge Way, Southold. SCTM# 1000-88-5-65
The Trustees visited this location on the 9th of December
and noted that it was a straightforward application.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent, stating
that a wetland permit for the bulkhead is not located within
Town records. He also recommended to further Policy 6 it is
recommended that the vegetation that occurs landward of the
bulkhead be preserved in a vegetated buffer, instructions to the
contractor should be given to minimize disturbance and
replanting of disturbance areas should be required. A non-turf
buffer does not provide erosion control.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with a 15-foot non-turf buffer.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo here on behalf of the applicant. And
we proposed a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer, and just a simple
remove and replacement of the existing bulkhead, just to prevent
additional erosion and loss of property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
Is there any comments from the Board or anyone else here
that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MS. CANTRELL: Can I interject. There is somebody with the phone
number ending 0729 who would like to speak.
The person on the phone, if you would like to introduce
yourself for the record and spell your last name.
MR. STEIN: Yes, Liz, it's John Stein with the Conservation
Advisory Council.
Is there a possibility, Jeff, to go to 15 feet rather than
ten feet on this, on the turf buffer?
MR. PATANJO: Yes, I don't think that's a problem. You have some
good property over there, and nothing will happen closer to the
shoreline anyway.
MR. STEIN: Okay. That was the only concern on this. And I just,
with the LWRP, just looking back, I didn't have a chance to read
Terry's report but is this, just a history on that.
14
MR. PATANJO: Was that addressed to me, John?
MR. STEIN: Or the Trustees on the Board. I didn't have the
ability to read the LWRP report on it, but did Mr. Terry
reference that there was no findings on the existing bulkhead?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct.
MR. STEIN: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay,-so Mr. Patanjo, it seems that you are
amenable to a 15-foot non-turf buffer?
MR. PATANJO: Yes, you can modify the plan.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, does anybody.else have any thoughts on
that? Is 15 okay?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. Better than ten.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak to
this application?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to close the hearing.
MR. HAGAN: Do we wish to table for the purpose of submitting new
plans to illustrate the 15-foot non-turf buffer?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do not.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(Trustees Goldsmith, Domino, Bredemeyer and Krupski, ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve the application with
the stipulation of a 15-foot non-turf buffer, thereby bringing
this application into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustees Goldsmith, Domino, Bredemeyer and Krupski, ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 3, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ROBYN
ROMANO 2015 FAMILY TRUST &JOSEPH P. ROMANO 2015 FAMILY TRUST
requests a Wetland Permit to remove the two existing retaining
walls and associated steps and platforms; construct a 125 lineal
foot lower vinyl retaining wall; construct a 125 lineal foot
upper vinyl retaining wall; construct a 40 lineal foot long
westerly vinyl retaining wall return; construct a 42 lineal foot
long easterly vinyl retaining wall return; construct two (2)
sets of 4' wide by 11' long steps with cantilevered platform,
one on the lower and one on the upper retaining walls; and to
construct an 8'x10' un-treated timber platform constructed
on-grade between the lower and upper levels.
Located: 1415 North Parish Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-71-1-14
The Trustees most recently visited this site on December
9th, 2020. They noted the project needs to be staked, plans
redone to reflect house as referenced. Point two, retaining
walls, the Trustees required dimensions on the plan from house,
pool, et cetera, to retaining walls.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. Existing
vegetation should be avoided and retained to the greatest
extent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
this application.
15
Okay, is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding
this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant.
So a couple of comments that I heard were regarding the
dimensions. I do show offset dimensions may not be from the
house, but on the plan they are shown from the existing bulkhead
being 22 feet. The new retaining wall, 22 feet away from the
existing bulkhead, so that's an easily measured item in the
field to confirm that it's within the plan requirements for placement.
The next wall will be placed eight foot back from that, and
the next wall seven foot back from that, which is in the exact
same position as the existing upper wall. So the ultimate
intention here is to make those lower platforms a little bit
larger to accommodate the little deck area as you see on the
proposed plan with a bench. And that's an 8x10 bench -- sorry,
8x10 at-grade deck. The uppermost wall closest to the house is
going to be in the same exact location. There is no additional
land for the homeowner being obtained here. And really it's just
spreading the walls out slightly toward the seaward side, still
22 feet away from the bulkhead itself. Staking in the field,
it's going to be a foot further away from the middle wall and
then three foot or two foot away from the lower wall. So staking
in the field, in my opinion, is something that, it's kind of
useless. It's just going to be moving that wall two foot closer
to the seaward side. And justification in the field is all
dimensional on the proposed plan.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Which wall are you talking about moving two
foot seaward?
MR. PATANJO: The lower wall two-foot seaward. If you look at the
plan, we have the upper wall --we have a total of three walls.
The upper wall is in the same exact, I'm hoping you have the
latest plan which is dated, the latest revised 10/27/20 on the
lower right-hand corner.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have it stamped in the office November 30th.
MR. PATANJO: Okay, on the lower right-hand corner, on my title
block, under the location map, it'says dates. The last one
should be 10/27/20.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct.
MR. PATANJO: Okay. So you have the latest plan. On the latest
plan we have --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is a clear measurement, 22 feet from the
bulkhead and eight feet, and we see the existing wall. And then
seven feet back. That's correct.
MR. PATANJO: Yes, so the existing project has three walls that
are spaced a little tighter together, and in better engineering
practice, to have some more stability of the wall, is we spaced
them out a little further. We still have 22 foot of separation
from the existing bulkhead itself. All of the dimensions are
shown on the proposed plan, which are going to be shorter
dimensions. You can actually use a 25-foot tape measure instead
of 100-foot tape measure to measure to the house. So, as you
16
see, the dashed white lines represent the existing walls. The
heavy solid lines are the proposed walls. So you see where the
walls are existing. The uppermost wall, which is closest to the
house and the slate patio, that wall is remaining in the
existing location based on the field survey. I take the
existing field survey provided by the clients and I overlay my
plans directly on those. So it's based on an actual field survey.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Jeff, we often ask for a hard, fixed reference
point so that when the area Trustee goes out to do inspections
during construction or for the certificate of compliance, that
he has a solid point to measure from. And we have been
consistent on that through the years. And it was rather, it was
not that easy for us to see, to match up without staking the
plans to the actual intent of the project.
MR. PATANJO: I can understand that. And my hard reference
point, which is not going to move during this project, it will
always be in place during this project is the 22 foot dimensions
from the existing bulkhead, which is parallel. So you can take
both ends of that bulkhead, measure back 22 foot from the
existing bulkhead that is not being touched under this
application. The existing bulkhead, bulkhead on the waterside,
that is as close as you can get to Southold Bay, that bulkhead
is not being touched, that is right adjacent to the mean high
water line. You measure up 22 feet from each side of it, my new
retaining wall should be 22 foot parallel to that wall. And
then if you want to measure the second wall, you measure back
eight feet. There is your second wall. You measure back seven
feet, there is your upper third wall, which is in the same
location as the existing wall. It's just three parallel lines,
22 feet away from the existing bulkhead. If it were me measuring
in the field, I would take the 25-foot tape measure and measure
to my wall, making it very, very easy. Otherwise you'll have
multiple different dimensions, because these bulkhead walls are
not parallel to the home, and the home does have some bump-outs
here and there. So I chose these walls to be parallel to the
bulkhead itself, which represents an easier measurement.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In looking at this plan, I think it is going to
be, the finished product will be measurable directly off the
bulkhead.
Are there any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no other comments, I make a motion to close the hearing
in this application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustees Goldsmith, Domino, Bredemeyer and Krupski, ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted with the plans dated received November 30th, 2020.
17
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustees Goldsmith, Domino, Bredemeyer and Krupski, ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4, 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 I/A 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.
I don't see the Conservation Advisory Council
recommendation in the file.
The Trustees most recently conducted a field inspection
December 9th, noting, questioned what is happening to the
roughly 25 trees in the rear yard. Question the need for the
three-foot retaining wall which may negatively affect the
neighbor. And this is a continuation from last month's meeting.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. CANTRELL: We have Tom Wolpert, the expediter for this
project.
MR. WOLPERT: Good evening, members of the Board and staff.
Thomas Wolpert with Young & Young representing David and Karen
Corcoran.
Based on the comments received at the public hearing on
November 18th, we've submitted revised plans that now indicate
the volume of fill required to construct all the proposed
improvements. We have provided drainage calculations that
support the design of the storm water runoff system for the
property. And we have also provided both north/south sections
and east/west sections from the north/south section being from
the center of the road to Eugene's Creek, indicating both
existing and proposed grades, and the east/west section from
property line to property line indicating the two proposed
boulder walls.
I believe that addressed all of the comments that were
heard at the November 18th hearing, but if there are additional
questions and/or comments from the Board based on the inspection
December 9th, I'm happy to talk about those now.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: One of the questions that we had was it's not
marked on the plans, it seems like all the activity is pretty
much landward of the existing house. But just to verify for the
record, there will not be any trees removed or anything in the
rear yard, correct?
MR. WOLPERT: That is correct.
18
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The other question that we had concerns that
three foot wall on the west side, I guess that is.
MR. WOLPERT: On the west side?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes.
MR. WOLPERT: All right, so that boulder retaining wall on the
west side shows up in the section AA, which appears on sheet
three of three. And I'll just start with the purpose of that
wall is to retain the fill that is required in order to install
a sanitary sewer line which exits the house on the west side and
runs approximately 75 feet to the clean out, and then down to
the treatment unit.
In order to maintain sufficient cover over that sewer we
are proposing to raise the grade in that area to elevation nine
and thus the need for the small retaining wall.
Also on sheet three of three you'll see in section AA that
the top of that wall is elevation eight, and the bottom of that
wall is elevation 4.8. And subtracting those two numbers we have
an overall height of exposed wall of only 3.2 feet. So it's not
a significant wall but it is needed in order to cover that
proposed sewer pipe and flow by gravity to the proposed
treatment unit.
The way we design these sanitary systems is we really start
with the highest expected groundwater elevation, and that is
shown on the sheet two, on the hydraulic profile. So we indicate
the highest expected groundwater elevation of 1.0. We are
required to maintain at least two feet to the bottom of the
lowest leaching galley, and we work our way up from there. And
that is how we end up with elevation nine on that west side of
the house.
So it's not much of a retaining wall. Only three feet. And
I'm not sure it should be of concern to anyone.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And the retaining wall on the eastern side, I
believe there is railroad ties there now as a kind of a timber wall?
MR. WOLPERT: That is correct. There is deteriorating timber
retaining wall on the east side. And again, on sheet three of
three where we show section AA again, the top of that wall is
5.7, and the bottom of that wall is 3.0, indicating an overall
or net exposed height of 2.7 feet, just under three feet. But
then we are also proposing to fill most of that with a tapered
slope down to the adjacent property line. So there will be
about 15-inches of exposed boulder wall facing that easterly
property. And I think that should mitigate the concerns of the
adjacent property owner.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: But the proposed rock wall on that side will
not exceed the height of the current timber wall; is that
correct?
MR. WOLPERT: Correct.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, is there anyone else here who wishes to
speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
19
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. On the withdrawal on what we are calling
the east side, how far from the outer edge of the boulders is the property line?
MR. WOLPERT: I would say at least ten feet, perhaps 12.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did that include the right-of-way?
MR. WOLPERT: The right-of-way, if you are talking about the
adjacent tax map parcel, which is section 1000, 1 mean district
1000, section 137, block 4, lot 37.3, that, the Corcoran family
purchased the title to that parcel. That's why on our building
permit survey, the heavy bold line around the property
encompasses two tax map parcels.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
MR. WOLPERT the applicant actually has fee title to that parcel.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just for clarification, when you bring fill in
on the outside of that wall and taper it down, that would not
impede any foot traffic along that right-of-way?
MR. WOLPERT: No, it's a very flat slope. It's really just
feathering it in.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then is that going to be planted there?
MR. WOLPERT: We are not proposing to plant that, no.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So it will just remain bare dirt?
MR. WOLPERT: Well, I think it will be stabilized with seed or
something, but not like bare dirt, but not necessarily planted,
unless it was desirable to do that
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So you are going to revegetate, I guess is my
question, with something that is non-turf?
MR. WOLPERT: That's not part of this application or proposal,
no.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, I would want to stipulate that in.
That's right on the creek there.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think that was one of our concerns. I
thought we talked about it last month about leaving that quote
unquote the right-of-way as a non-turf buffer. I don't know if
we realized that you were filling it at the time, so by leaving
it in its current state would have kind of sufficed as a
non-turf buffer, but now if you are planning on filling and
potentially planting, I think we would like to condition that as
a non-turf buffer as well. From that easterly retaining wall to
the property line.
MR. WOLPERT: We don't have to fill that area. I think we were
trying to do that as a courtesy on the neighbor. But there is
no real benefit to us in filling that area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can we just stipulate it be planted with
non-turf? Because we already have that in there as a non-turf
area. Can we just stipulate it be planted with something
non-turf, as proposed to bare dirt. Because I'm for filling that
in there to avoid a wall. Is that something that would be
acceptable in the rest of you?
(Affirmative response).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, anyone else wish to speak regarding
this application?
(Negative response).
20
Any further questions or comments from the Board?
MS. CANTRELL: Tom, did you have anything else you wished to say?
MR. WOLPERT: No, I have nothing further to add.
MS. CANTRELL: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, hearing no further comments, I make a
motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustees Goldsmith, Domino, Bredemeyer and Krupski, ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted, with the plans stamped received December 8th,
2020, with the condition that no trees are to be touched in the
rear yard without a Trustee letter, as well as any planting that
occur in the right-of-way on the eastern side are non-turf by
nature.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustees Goldsmith, Domino, Bredemeyer and Krupski, ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number five, 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 740sq.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 LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. He is
concerned that the Trustees make sure the applicant complies
with the statutory regulatory requirements of Southold Town. To
that end he states: That the following is recommended that the
Board is considered an approval. I'll read the nine points
quickly:
The applicant should improve lot regulation; determine
Where the inlet,shown on the photo drains; number three,
determine the function of the drywell shown on the parcel; four,
verify the driveway is pervious; five, verify freshwater
wetlands occur on the parcel; six, relocate the structure to
achieve greater setbacks; and number seven, establish a
non-disturbance buffer equal to the distance of the setback;
number eight, require that a limit of disturbance be shown on
the survey; and nine, require the installation of an IA septic
system.
The Trustees did a field inspection on this site on
November 10th, 2020. All were present. The notes read it's a
modest-sized home proposed. The Board suggests an IA septic
system.
On December 9th, at 8:15 in the morning, the Trustees,
again, all present, did an inhouse review of the revised new
plans showing the IA system.
There is no report here from the Conservation Advisory
Council.
21
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
MS. CANTRELL: We have the agent for the applicant, Mark
Lazarovic. Mark, if you can un-mute.
MR. LAZAROVIC: Hello. Good evening. As you stated, we are trying
to build a minimal house on the lot. Most of the construction
will be at elevation 14. We are accommodating the land and
trying to make best use of it.
There is non-disturbance area that is behind the house and
around the house, and no construction will occur at that point.
It's all indicated on the survey.
If you have any other questions, I'm here.
I also submitted a survey, I'm sorry, a landscape plan,
indicating no fertilizer will be used in the turf areas, and
that's about all I can say. I welcome your questions.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm glad you referenced a landscape plan. A
landscape plan was stamped received November 30th, 2020, and
clearly states on that plan that the area seaward of the fence,
the project limiting fence, is to be a non-disturbance area,
which addresses one of the concerns of the LWRP coordinator.
Additionally there is noted on the survey a drywell. That
drywell is shown again on that plan as connected to the building
and part of your drainage calculations, which addresses another
issue raised by the LWRP coordinator.
(Trustee Williams has just entered the hearing room and is
seated at the dais).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And has noted before, the proposal now is for an
IA system.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
MR. HAGAN: No other hands.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it's a very appropriate non-disturbance
area. I would like to see it remain not disturbed.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to
close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application,
noting that the concerns of the LWRP coordinator have been
addressed. Approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER:Number 6, 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
This project was inspected on the 8th of December by Nick
Krupski. I believe it was the 9th of December. Revised plans
22
will show, the coming revised plans indicate that the top of the
bluff will be coming landward, making the plan acceptable based
on the Board's prior request of the applicant on November 10th.
This project has been voted to be supported by the
Conservation Advisory Council, and has been deemed to be
consistent with the Town's LWRP.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response),
Seeing no hands raised, are there any questions or concerns from
the Board?
(Negative response).
Seeing no concerns or hands raised. We ihave the new plans that
provide the details that the Board requested to move the wall,
therefore 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, and the revised plan received in the Trustee
office on November 20th, 2020.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 7, 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 Trustees most recently met the applicant in the field
on December 9th where we discussed a range of possibilities
including moving the structure slightly, making it smaller, and
saving some of the established red cedars.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent, as
mentioned in prior Board hearings.
Looking for the Conservation Advisory Council
recommendation, I don't believe they made one for this
application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this,application?
(Negative response). -
MS. CANTRELL: I know Agena is here, if you want to un-mute.
MS. RIGDON: Hi, how are you. Happy holidays. So I sent a
revised description to Liz with the new application, and
corresponding with the new survey for, that was dated on the
9th, the same day the Board met me on site. And thank you, very
much.
There were a lot of concessions with the applicant's next
door neighbor's agent, as well as suggestions and recommendations
from the Board. The application was revised so the shed is
smaller and further away from the existing bulkhead. And I'm
23
wondering if the Board at this point has any other questions.
Also please note that because we had to move it back, the
walkway connecting to the shed is now longer. So it's 4x20
instead of previously 4x9.3.
Does the Board have any other questions or comments at this
point?And thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I appreciate you working with us on this, and I
think the issue that I still struggle with is it is adding more
structure and building to an already pretty built-out small lot.
You know, the only reason that I even tried to work so hard on
this is because I am, you know, very supportive of aquaculture.
But I do struggle with, I mean, if it were a shed of these
dimensions, and I think I would be more inclined, but as it
stands now, to me it doesn't fit the description of a shed. It's
realistically a barn. And I just, my worry is taxing the
critical habitat there. And shellfishing is so good for the
environment, but I don't want to save it on one hand and destroy
it on the other. And that's morally where I am with this. I'm
not sure about the rest of the Board.
MS. RIGDON: That's why we had redone the survey, to note all the
trees. So we caused very minimal environmental impact. We are
not cutting down any mature vegetation, we reduced the size of
it, we moved it further away from the bulkhead, and pretty much
as for everything the Board has wanted us to do, as well as the
neighbor.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Well, I appreciate you working with us as far
as the distance and saving the vegetation and everything, but
I'm going to echo Trustee Krupski's concerns. I don't know if I
would be even struggling with this as much if it was not
aquaculture, because the proposed barn, I don't even know
necessarily if I would call it a shed, is pretty close to the
same size as the converted garage that is already on that
property. So to put a similar-sized structure that much closer
to the wetlands, in addition to the house, in addition to the
converted garage, in addition to the existing shed, like I said,
if this was not an aquaculture application, I think this would
be an easier decision. So that's what I'm struggling with. The
size of the proposed shed, proposed barn, being one-and-one-half
stories, um, that is what I'm struggling with.
MS. RIGDON: I understand your concern, and please keep in mind
that the Board previously approved a larger shed, 624-square
feet, specifically for this purpose. So the Board has the
ability to override and/or waive those concerns because it is
specifically for aquaculture.
And once again, keep in mind that the old shed that was
approved, that they let the permit lapse, that was done by Shawn
Barron, was 624-square feet. We have reduced it, we moved it
further away, and we have done everything the Board has asked.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone else have any thoughts or comments
on this?
MS. CANTRELL: We do have-another outside member wishing to
24
speak.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Might as well let him speak for now. Maybe we
can have more dialogue afterwards.
MS. CANTRELL: Agena, I'll mute you so that Dave Bergen can
speak.
MS. RIGDON: Thank you.
MR. BERGEN: Good evening. Dave Bergen on behalf of Marianne and
Jim Bracken, the next door neighbors. We wanted to let the
Board know that at this point we support the application, as the
applicants have agreed to various mitigation efforts in hope
that they will continue to make every effort to eliminate or at
least reduce the smell and noise, which was the route of all our
issues, so that we could enjoy, continue to enjoy the quiet
neighborhood that the area has presently.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MS. CANTRELL: Is that all you have to say, Dave, or is there
anything else?
MR. BERGEN: That was it. Thank you.
MS. CANTRELL: I'll just mute you. If you want to say anything
else just wave again.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone else have any thoughts on the
subject?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I support your comments and the comments from
Trustee Goldsmith.
MS. CANTRELL: We now have one of the property owners wishing to
speak. So I'll bring Cameron Dowe up.
MR. DOWE: Good evening. This is Cameron Dowe. One point I
wanted to raise was we did secure approval from the New York
State DEC for this structure. It's specifically for my wife's
oyster business, as you know. In addition, we are, as part of
that, we, she did, she was fortunate enough to secure a grant
from the New York state ground and,certified, and so I feel
like, you know, with the DEC approving this structure, that
should hold some water. So I respectively ask you to review
this application. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MS. RIGDON: Liz, may I mention one more thing. The LWRP has
supported this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I really, I'm going to reiterate my
original comments. I mean I would strongly recommend, and as
much as I appreciate you guys working with us on this, I think
we are headed in a very positive direction, the changes you made
are phenomenal. I just, for me it's still a barn. I don't know
of any two-story sheds. You know, I could get into some of the
environmental things. But realistically, you know, I support
aquaculture, I want you guys to be able to utilize your property
and make it functional for your business, I just think it has to
be more of a shed and less of a barn for me to move forward with
this. So if there is anything you can tweak to send it in that
direction, I would be very interested in working with you.
MS. RIGDON: So let me get this correct, if it was just one story
25
without storage, half storage on the loft, would the Board be
more acceptable if I could get you new plans showing that?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And no foundation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, something more shed-like.
MS. RIGDON: Well, even a shed has a foundation. It could be, you
know, footings or a slab. Usually it's on a slab. This one, I
mean, a shed, regardless, is still supported by a foundation of
some sort
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Me personally, I'm just one Trustee,
I'm more than concerned with the height and environmental issues
and shading and other building uses for the business. My main
concern is that in turning this application back into an actual
shed. But if other Trustees have other concerns.
MS. RIGDON: I would like to hear them. I would like to hash
this out tonight.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I would agree with Trustee Krupski on that
respect:As I mentioned before, if this was a one-and-one-half
story barn anywhere else, this discussion would be over. The
only reason we are considering it is because of the aquacultural -
aspect of this particular application. However, I know Trustee
Krupski said it, and I believe I feel the same, where if it's
more of a traditional shed, we would be a little more
comfortable with this. I think I said at the last meeting I
think we are stretching the definition a shed, a
one-and-one-half story structure, to me, and even on the
original plans, it said a barn. So if we make this more of a
shed, I think that would go a long way to easing some of our
concerns. At least my concerns.
MS. RIGDON: Okay, so on a slab and no loft second. It's really
not, it's more of a, it's not a two-story. So please don't
describe it as a two story. It has a loft area for storage only.
If we didn't put the loft--
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I believe it said one-and-one-half story.
MS. RIGDON: Right, it's a loft.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It has dormers. I mean, it's a cape, you know,
for lack of a better word.
MS. RIGDON: Okay. So one story only. We have that straight? The
Board would be acceptable to one story?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would be more interested in that, yes.
MS. RIGDON: Okay. If, Cameron, can you come back on?
Would the Board grant this permission to close with written
submission this evening if it was only a one-story, same-size
shed on a slab.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would need new plans and a new description
showing that so we could pass judgment on, it's a pretty big
change from this application.
MS. RIGDON: Cameron, are you on? I would like to hear from the
owner, and particularly Meg if she can be on.
MS. DOWE: Meg Dowe. It's very hard for me to discuss this
because I'm pretty upset about the whole situation and, um, I
had felt like we were complying to the codes that the Building
26
Department has posted for outbuildings on properties within the
lot parameters and the heights, and I'm just (lost audio signal)
this whole situation.
MR. DOWE: So if we are talking about making it into, not having
a mezzanine level, while it's not ideal, because it is
additional storage in the roof cavity, I know that it was
designed to meet the setbacks and be at a height of 17'10", in
line with the setbacks and, for a mezzanine, but, we really need
this for her to run her business and be out of the weather, so
we would accept this if you can -- and I will remind you that,
you know, we did have an approval for a larger structure, 30%
larger, and that was approved in 2016, and unfortunately I let
that lapse, but this is really a reinstatement of something we
already had for a larger structure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. And to be honest, we are asking
basically to make this into a shed. I don't think we are asking
for a huge change. But a shed doesn't have dormers on it.
MR. DOWE: We would be willing to remove those.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, do you wish to table this application,
talk to your expediter and come back the following month?
MS. RIGDON: Cameron, it's up to you, if you want to close for
written submission, I can give them a copy of new plans.
MR. DOWE: Agena, I'll take your guidance on the best part.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Agena, just so you know, we are either going to
vote on it tonight or you can table it and submit new plans.
MS. RIGDON: Okay, then I'll have to table it and submit new plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
MS. CANTRELL: We now have somebody under the name of East Crest
wishing to speak. So, Agena, I'll mute you and I'll mute the
Dowe's. And whoever this is, East Crest, could actually announce
their name and spell it for the record. If you can un-mute, you
are welcome to speak.
MR. STRECKER: Hi, my name is Robert Strecker. I'm Meg's dad and
Cam is my son-in-law, and I have been watching some of these
meetings that they have gone to and I know they met with the
Trustees several times already. And at this point they have a
grant that they are having trouble keeping. To keep this grant
they have to proceed with this project or they'll lose their
entire grant. And I think that saying that they had this
building permitted a couple years ago and in the meantime they
applied for this grant and got the grant to build the building,
is causing a real monetary hardship right now by you guys not
approving this tonight. And I think that to not approve it they
may lose the grant entirely and cause a real bad financial
hardship. To require, you know, if they say they are going to do
a one-story building and just eliminate the roof line, is not a
big deal. I think you should be able to approve it tonight so
they don't lose this grant and cause a real financial hardship.
And I have more to say, but I won't. I think that this has
27
dragged on and you tabled it a lot of times, and I think the
time is now that you should really make some decisions. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, for that information. Any further
comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
I mean based on the environmental concerns and not taking
anything else into account, I make a motion to table this
application for submission of new plans at the following meeting.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES). ,
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 8, Carmelhill Architects on behalf of
CAROLINE TOSCANO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new
3,242 sq. ft. two-story, single-family dwelling with attached two
car garage; a 74 sq. ft. front roof over entry; and 325 sq. ft. two
rear decks.
Located: 610 Jacksons Landing, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-4-8
The Trustees visited the site on December 9th, all Trustees
were present. We have field notes: Needs an IA septic system;
needs a non-disturbance and non-turf buffer; need a new survey
showing adjacent houses with proximity to water.
The LWRP coordinator reviewed this application and found
the project to be consistent, noting that it would require the
installation of an IA waste water treatment system; require that
a minimum of a New York state DEC 40-foot non-disturbance buffer
and a 25-foot wide buffer seaward from the structure noted on
the survey be memorialized in a C&R filed with the Office of the
Suffolk County Clerk; note that a 50-foot wide buffer was
required by the Board of Trustees and a Wetland permit#7475
issued in 2011.
The Conservation Advisory Council did review this
application and they resolved to support the application with an
IA wastewater treatment system, and new construction should be
setback 100 feet from the wetland boundary.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
MS. CANTRELL: We have Edward Koenig who is the architect for the
project. Edward, if you would like to un-mute, you are welcome
to speak.
MR. KOENIG: Good evening, members of the Board. My name is
Edward Koenig, I am the architect of record for this project. I
also did a similar proposal for my father about ten years ago.
Unfortunately, he was not able to build the house of his dreams,
and my sister Caroline Toscano bought the property and is now looking
to develop the property for her own full-time residence.
At the time ten years ago when we proposed the project, it
was approved with a standard septic system. And in the
intervening years since then, one of the neighbors who is on a
well water, a well that was very close to our property, has
switched to town water. So we feel now the property is less a
less sensitive situation and therefore, again, a standard septic
is
system will be adequate for the property.
We situated the septic system and the house as close to the
front property line as possible, and measuring from the
wetlands, the septic system is beyond the 100-foot jurisdiction
line requiring a low-nitrogen septic stem.
This project was originally gone through the motions of
proposals about six months ago, maybe a little more than that,
and now that the pandemic has hit, the cost of construction has
skyrocketed, and we also feel the additional financial burden of
a low-nitrogen septic system is unnecessary for this project.
We also have all our approvals pending from the DEC and the
Suffolk County Department of Health. The DEC recently asked for
two minor changes, but neither agency has requested or required
a low nitrogen septic system.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I appreciate your comments. Please keep in
mind, new construction on waterfront property, this Board has
been requiring IA septic for quite some time.
It's also noted by the LWRP coordinator that it should have,
IA septic and it's also noted by the Southold Town Conservation
Advisory Council that this project should have IA septic.
And I'm one of five Trustees, but I would want to see IA
septic here as well. It's not to benefit the neighbor's water,
it's to benefit the health of the water in the creek.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: As Trustee Williams said, that has been a
standard practice here for a long time. Starting in 2021 it
will also be a requirement from Suffolk County. So that is
something that we are going to stick firm with.
MR. KOENIG: I know Suffolk County is trying to push for the low
nitrogen septic systems and probably come this July they are
going to require them for all renovations and new projects. It
was my understanding though that as long as you are beyond the
100-foot jurisdiction from the water it was technically out of
the Board of Trustees jurisdiction. Is that not the case?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: You are incorrect. This is attached to a
project.
MR. HAGAN: The Trustees have routinely conditioned the approval
of any project that falls within Trustee jurisdiction to be
connected to IA systems at their prerogative.
MR. KOENIG: Okay, understood.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Would you like to table this application to
address the issues that we have noted?
MR. KOENIG: Yes, I want to contact the surveyor to get the
adjacent homeowners added to a larger scale property survey. And
I will have them also add the turf requirement at the rear of
the property. And I will have the engineers redesign a low
nitrogen septic system.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Okay, and might be helpful, the field notes
and other notes are in the file, which can be seen on the Town
website in the Laserfiche, so you would have access to all this
information.
MR. KOENIG: Now, will this case have to be reheard before the
29
Board with this additional information or is it approved pending
those changes?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: This will have to be reheard. Once we view
the changes we will review the application at that point, once
we have the new information.
MR. KOENIG: Thank you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I would like to table this application at the
applicant's request
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 9, 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
The LWRP found this to be consistent. I do not see a report
from the Conservation Advisory Council in the file.
The Trustees most recently conducted an inhouse field
inspection on December 9th, noting to remove the dock from the
revised plans. The dimensions don't match what is currently
there. Also noting that the garage was removed from the most
recent plans. We did receive new plans stamped received
December 14th, 2020.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. CANTRELL: We have the architect Anthony Portillo
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: One other note before we go to Mr. Portillo.
I want to note there is a letter in the file dated December 4th,
2020, and it mentions demolition of the existing dock.
MR. PORTILLO: Good evening, Board. Thanks for your time tonight.
Really quickly, just to reiterate what was just said. We
removed the garage, based on our last meeting. We also proposed
to remove the dock that was not filed for or approved for by the
Board. Currently our application is to get approval on the
addition to the home, which is on an existing concrete slab, and
the IA system, which we have approval from the Health Department
at this time. We have approval with the Health Department
pending your approval. We have to give them your approval to get
the actual stamped plan.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any further questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I want to make a comment concerning the survey
stamped received December 14th, 2020. The survey from, because
this survey shows the dock that does not exist, has dimensions
on the scaled survey. I submitted into the folder the dimensions
30
of the dock that was there, that I understand now is to be
removed. But I'm not going to accept a survey that does not
comport with reality. This structure was not there. These
dimensions should not be on this survey.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just for the record, can you just confirm for
me that that existing dock in its current configuration is to be
removed.
MR. PORTILLO: Yes, that is the proposed plan is to remove the
existing dock. Once removed, we would provide an updated survey
with the removed dock, but as the architect I'm proposing the
removal of it, and that would be part of our application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Does it note when that dock will be removed?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Did you hear Trustee Bredemeyer?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do we know when that dock will be removed?
MR. PORTILLO: Um, at this time I don't have an exact date, but
it would probably happen during the time we are doing this
construction. I would imagine having, you know, the GC there for
the project they can remove the dock as well. Which it's pretty
sensible not to have people come out to do one thing when they
are basically, get on site, they can handle both.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just as a point of clarification, if this
does go through, that dock would need to be removed during
construction. A C of C would not be able to be issued for the
project until that dock is removed in its entirety, as detailed
in the plans.
MR. PORTILLO: Understood. Yes, sir.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions or comments?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll 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 plans stamped received December 4th, 2020, and a revised
project description of a proposed one-story addition to existing
family residence, 20.5'x21.8'feet for a total of 446.9 square
feet, to the existing two-story house footprint 58.5'x33.1' for
a total of 1,971.5-square feet. And for the demolition of the
existing dock 81.5'x5.9', 396-square feet. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustee Goldsmith, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee
Krupski, aye. Trustee Williams, aye). (Trustee Domino, nay).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 10, AMP Architecture on behalf of ANTHONY
TARTAGLIA &JAMES HOWELL requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing one-story 10.4'x20.1' (205.8 sq. ft.) bungalow with
existing one-story 8.0'x12.4' (99.2 sq. ft.) covered porch
attached to bungalow to be removed; existing two-story
24.3'x30.5' (740 sq. ft.) garage/apartment with attached second
story 10.1'x22.0' as-built covered porch, and to remove the roof
31
cover off of the second story decking, not to be reconstructed;
existing two-story 34.9'x57.9' (1,468 sq. ft.) dwelling and to
remove and replace existing first-story attached 10.5'x26.8'
(280 sq. ft.) sunroom; remove existing traditional septic system
at front of property and replace with new Innovative and
Alternative Onsite Wastewater Treatment System with
approximately 740 sq. ft. land are to be disturbed and filled
after new system is installed; and that the existing
approximately 1,000 sq. ft. wood deck at top of bluff has been
removed, not to be reconstructed.
Located: 55255 County Road 48', Greenport.. SCTM# 1000-44-1-9
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
arises from the concerns that the structures that are to remain
are constructed without obtaining a Wetlands permit. The
proposal to remove the covered porch or bungalow installation of
the new IA system and removal of approximately 1,000 square foot
wood deck at the top of the bluff were deemed to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved on October 7th,
2020, to support this application.
The Trustees did numerous field inspections onsite, and on
October 7th noted that the plans needed to reflect the gutters
to leaders to drywells. Questioned the certificate of occupancy
of the seaside cottage. Questioned the final grade of the
revetment, and check to see if there was a non-turf buffer
noted.
And on December 9th, and subsequent field inspection, all
were present, notes read the site requires a six-foot non-turf
buffer landward of the top of the bluff.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MS. CANTRELL: We have Anthony Portillo again.
MR. PORTILLO: Hi, Board, again. So just quickly I wanted to
reiterate, the bungalow, we were at the, we requested approval
to remove the screen structure. That has been removed. The
current request, which we did receive Zoning Board approval on,
one is the, there is a room off of the existing two-story
dwelling that is currently unheated unfinished, and they want to
finish it, they are not making it any bigger, it's that size,
they are just finishing it and putting proper U-value windows in
and doors and insulation, and providing heat.
We also are applying for a second-floor deck. We are going
to remove, proposing to remove the cover of the deck based on
the Zoning Board request. We are going to be removing the cover
on the deck. Also we are looking to get approval for that
existing second-story deck off of the accessory apartment above
the existing garage. The accessory apartment already has the
C of O. 1 think over time the deck was built off of that.
This is prior to the owner, the current owners purchasing the
tome.
The last thing is putting in the IA septic system that we
are proposing. Again, we have Health Department approval
pending the Trustees approval.
32
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Could you speak to the non-turf buffer? The
non-turf buffer landward of the top of the bluff would be of
gravel or mulch. Just not fertilizer-requiring grass.
MR. PORTILLO: Yes. So this house, we are looking for gravel and
beach grass. That's what they are looking to install or looking
to plant.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm not seeing that on any of the plans that we
have before us right now.
MR. PORTILLO: Yes, I see the same thing. It was not denoted on
our drawings. But we can put in a non-turf buffer across the top
of the bluff.
Now, the deck-- so, when we got involved in this, the deck
was existing, and they.removed the deck, they removed the screen
port. So as things happen I think that might have been part of
the reason we didn't propose the non-turf buffer at the time. It
might have just been an oversight. But I would ask that if the
Board would consider approving this, we would show the non-turf
buffer if maybe that is a requirement by the Board, that is
noted on the approval and we can add that prior to submission to
the Building Department.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Generally, the Board does not approve something
subject to new plans. I'm hesitant to suggest that we table this
at this point.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have been working on this a long time.
It's been difficult.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: How does the Board feel about that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I personally feel it's a very minor change that
I would be comfortable approving subject to.
MR. HAGAN: It's been the opinion of the Town Attorney's office
that a complete set of plans should be before this body before
they vote to approve a plan.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Chairman?
MR. PORTILLO: If I can just say we obviously need to provide a
full set of drawings to the Building Department and we would be
subject to making sure that was provided on our drawings. I
would imagine the Building Department would obviously see the
requirements by the Board. I ask you would maybe consider that.
I would include that into our plans, obviously, submitting it to
the Building Department and I can also provide an updated
drawing to the Trustees office.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I think the Assistant Town Attorney was pretty
clear about that, so it would probably be best if you were to
request that we table it, at your request, subject to and
resubmit with that change to the plans and then, well, we can't
make the determination now--
MR. PORTILLO: Sure. Okay, no problem. Ten-foot non-turf buffer
would be acceptable?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We would ask for six but ten would be better.
MR. PORTILLO: I'll speak with the clients. I think I discussed
ten with them, but I'll verify and make it happen. Thank you.
33
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Sounds good. Therefore I make a motion to table
this at the applicant's request to provide new plans with a
non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. PORTILLO: Thank you, Board. Good evening.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 11, Patricia Moore,
Esq. on behalf of JACK CIPRIANO requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a proposed two-story 40'x65.2' dwelling with attached
two-car garage; 6'x40' covered porch, and 10'x16.5' proposed
deck; the installation of gutters to leaders to drywells to
contain roof runoff; install a public water line; (sanitary
system 158' from wetland and out of jurisdiction); with a 60'
Non-Disturbance Buffer area along the landward edge of the
wetlands.
Located: 8150 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-5-23.6
This project is deemed to be consistent by the LWRP
coordinator. He did make specific reference that the 60-foot
wide non-turf disturbance buffer is already perpetually
protected by a filed restricted covenant under liber D00012728,
and page 647, recommending that the covenant and restriction is
referred to in any future permit voted by the Board.
He also recommends an IA/OWTS or enhanced nitrogen removal
system be installed for this property because of its proximity
to Corey Creek.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
recommending an IA wastewater treatment system.
The Trustees during the course of field inspection I was
there, went down toward the bank, which Trustee Krupski went
down totally to the bank and water line to inspect. At the time
of our inspection, the Board determined that because of the
sensitive nature of this, basically near the headwaters of Corey
Creek, should have an IA/OWTS sanitary system. And also the
Board is very concerned that without a detailed plan of which
trees are either to be left or any in the other case be removed,
through a very concise plan of how the trees will be handled,
that the Board is concerned that the property might, through
inadvertence or poor communication be clear-cut.
There are three letters in the file objecting to this
proposal, which can be referenced on Laserfiche. One from a
Charles Peck 755 Meadow Court, Southold; another from a Douglas
Rockler, at the Cove at Southold. Another is a Mr. Doug Maxwell
who also provided communication to the Board against this
project.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MS. CANTRELL: Pat, you did wave? There you are. If you want to
un-mute, Pat.
MS. MOORE: Yes. Good evening, everyone. Thank you. I'm just
reminding the Board, this application has been previously
34
approved. The last approval was June 22nd, 2016. The lot was for
sale and unfortunately the four years passed by. We have a
buyer, the property is in contract.
I got your notes regarding asking about trees. I had the
buyer, since he is going to be the one building the house, to go
out and take a look. He's identified the trees to be retained.
The area between the back of the house and the 60-foot
non-disturbance buffer. He pointed out that a lot of the trees
were either dead, leaning over, but he did mark out the couple
of trees that he would keep, and I'm having Ken Woychuck, the
surveyor, show them on the survey. So I'm not ready, I have not
received that revised survey yet, and I'm hoping to have it in
time for the next meeting.
With respect to the sanitary, we have Health Department
approval that was obtained some time ago. It's still in effect.
I could have the survey just identify the proposed sanitary to
be an IA system without the engineering involved. Because we
would have to go back, ultimately the buyer, will go back with
an engineer for the design of the IA system. That is usually,
there are different systems that are available and I would
expect the buyer to choose among the systems with his engineer.
So if you would like me to have Ken just mark the sanitary
system as an IA system, that's fine. We have Health Department
approval and I would imagine the buyer would have to go and have
the Health Department approval amended with an IA system.
But that usually involves detailed engineering, and for the
purposes of the Trustees permits, we don't need the engineering,
it's outside of your jurisdiction. So we could engineer either
Fuji or one of the other systems and it would just be presented
to the Building Department at the time of construction.
So that's all I have. If you have any other comments, let
me know because I can incorporate them into the survey.
As I said, this was all approved, twice, actually, we had
approval from 2013 that unfortunately after the two years we
missed it by a month and had to reapply. So this is the third
approval for this property.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. I believe we have seen that type
of denomination on plans as far as keying in that there will be
an IA and then the owners can subsequently put in a brand of
their choice. We have seen that.
If someone else wishes to speak and raise their hand.
MS. CANTRELL: Pat, I'll mute you. There is a Doug Maxwell who
wishes to speak.
MR. MAXWELL: I appreciate the opportunity-to speak. And again, I
trust you have read the letter that I submitted. And I
appreciate that. As I said, I don't know if any of you were on
the Board many years ago and when I first addressed this and
gave you an audio recording CD of the creatures on the creek.
But as you've recognized, it is a very sensitive area of Corey
Creek being the end, and the arguments that were just presented
reference continually they were from times past. Often four
35
years on one application and up to ten on another. And I would
humbly request that a lot things have changed in our awareness
of environment, and I would just like to make sure we are
dealing with the most accurate updated versions of the survey.
And I really did not feel comfortable having the buyer determine
which trees would be kept and make an accurate assessment as to
what would be best for this sensitive land.
So again, I'm not-adversary of the buyer. I'm merely an
advocate of nature and just supporting what seems to be the
Board's intent, and just would like to go on record by asking
the Board would there be any harm in updating the survey and
revisiting the property and not allowing to buyer to determine
which elements of the property are preserved.
I just want to make sure that those are respected, and I
appreciate the opportunity to voice that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, very much, Mr. Maxwell. I was
actually on the Board for two of the prior approvals and walked
down to the water's edge with Trustee Krupski to check the
stability of the bank form there and the land form there, and we
also have been to the neighboring property with the proposed
projects at the Cove. So we have been in the area and we know
the general stability in the project area against what we have
seen previously. With respect to trees, as a point of
clarification, we welcome the individuals who would use an
arborist or an owner who is generally knowledgeable to mark up
trees and then we'll take the proposed plan back into the field
and ground true to see if in fact it accurately depicts what
trees may be removed.
One of the Trustees here is former chair of the Town Tree
committee, myself, have some chops in high grade college
botanist as I believe is Mr. Krupski, and I also enjoy putting
tables in the wood stove. I think the Board takes very seriously
trying to keep trees on lands adjacent to the water.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just as a point of classification, 60 feet
from the top of the bank is what we call a non-disturbance, so
nothing will be removed. So what we were concerned was between
that 60 foot where nothing will be touched and the hundred feet
where our jurisdiction ends, which would be in the rear of the
proposed house. What will be going away from that particular
area. But 60 feet landward of the top of the bank, everything
will remain as is.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you for the clarification. That's
important. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this
application?
Any additional comments from Board members?
(Negative response).
Seeing no one, I make a motion to table this application at the
applicant's request for submission of new plans depicting
proposed tree action and the addition of an IA/OWTS sanitary
system.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
36
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 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
The Trustees most recently performed an inhouse review on
this property, as they have visited it several times in the
recent months. It was noted that we would discuss it further at
work session with new plans and additional information.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and
inconsistent. The removal of native oak trees are not supported
by LWRP Policy 6, and is recommended as inconsistent unless it
can be demonstrated the trees are a threat to life and property
and submitted photos to identify what trees are depicted on the
plan. The condition of the other two trees have not been
discussed.
I don't believe the Conservation Advisory Council did a
review of this application. I also have a letter in the file
from a Robert Whelan dated December 15th, 2020:
Good morning. I notice that my neighbor to the south,
Mr. Krudop, had submitted a revised survey of the proposed modification
to the property. I would appreciate it if you could enter my concern into the
record at the upcoming hearing scheduled for Wednesday. Namely
the survey calls out for cedar trees to be planted adjacent to
the creek for your consideration. And under the understanding
that the trees will be true cedar trees and not Leland Cypress,
which is a totally different genre. True cedar genus Cedrus,
which is what I assume are the cypress trees they are detailing,
are very aggressive growers and I believe will grow out over the
embankment of the creek and compromise my view of the waterway
in a very short period of time. I defer to the Board to ensure
my understanding of the planting is accurate. Thank you, for
your continued cooperation, Robert Whelan, the neighbor.
It is my understanding that they are going to be native red
cedars along the bank, based off the plans, and they may be
Leland along the property border but not down to the bank. Is
there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. CANTRELL: Pat, go ahead and un-mute yourself.
MS. MOORE: Hello. Okay, I submitted to the Board various
alternative locations for the fence. I know my client would
prefer to have the fence located as close to the top of the bank
as is acceptable with the Board. Again, it is in line with prior
approvals the Board has granted along James Creek, and at this
37
point you have the survey that shows, based on our last meeting,
relocating the shed at 35 feet from the top of the bank, and
then the fence you have various alternatives, and I think the
Board wanted us to give to you the alternatives that you would
then consider. My client obviously would prefer the closest
location to the top of the bank.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So one thing I noticed, Pat, that I'm not clear
on, on all of these plans, and I just noticed this at work
session, it appears there is a deer fence at the very top of the
bank in a small rectangular area on the northeast side of the
property?
MS. MOORE: Yes. He has to, the planting of the cedars, he needs
to protect them from the deer, so he had them protecting the new,
plantings otherwise they may not survive. The deer fencing is
already along the property line that Mr. Whelan installed, so
this is a deer fence that is surrounding the new plantings in
order to protect them. His concern is planting there and then
having the deer decimate the plants. So he does show, he
consistently, all the plans have shown it as a deer fence
surrounding the plantings.
I think he actually, he described it to me more as a mesh.
I think Mr. Krudop, are you out there in Zoom land? Because I
recall specifically he was telling me it's really of a mesh
material to protect the plants. And I don't know if he's out
there because with the re-scheduled date, I'm not sure if he was
available.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know, I mean the difficult thing for me
is we are concerned about a fence in the wetland and then, you
know, we've been going back and forth with you and trying to
work on a distance away from the wetland. Typically we go at
least 20, 25 feet, and then now we have a deer fence that
essentially is literally on top of the bank. I don't know if
that's, it seems like a little counter-productive to me.
MS. MOORE: Yes, I think the surveyor identified it as a deer
fence but it's really a mesh.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, deer fence typically is a mesh. But I mean
our concern, I mean it's still a fence. That's, if you took the
word "fence" out then it would just be a deer. But now it's a
fence. And our concern is it's a fence, that word.
MS. MOORE: To clarify, a mesh, the fencing that the agricultural
community puts up is not what he is proposing here. He's
proposing to protect the plantings with some, with a minimal
post that just keep the mesh in place. So it's not, I think the
surveyor calls it a deer fence but it's really a deer protective
mesh. I know I've seen the difference, I don't know if the Board
has.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think I know what she's trying to say.
Tenax is one of the company names. It's the soft nylon
mesh. I could swear-- actually, I won't swear. I believe that
I did see that mesh along the property line there when we were
onsite. It's a soft nylon base.
38
MS. MOORE: Yes, I think it shows on his, on some of the
photographs. I'm looking quickly to see if it may actually be
on the cedars already.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean my issue is going right along the top of
the bank. You are going to have deer running the edge of that.
It will be a highway right there and just erode the whole bank,
which is again super counter-productive to what we are trying to
do with the future project here.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: As an alternative couldn't they just wrap the
plantings in burlap for now until they grow out and just
eliminate the deer fence?
MS. MOORE: That's actually more in keeping with the mesh that,
the protective deer. I have seen it with the orange but there
is also a less aggressive, similar to what you are describing,
the burlap cover. I can, if you, I really would like to get the
client's input on what he uses for the protection. I can try to
call him. You can put me on pause and I'll call him.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that something we can condition with the
removal after the plant is established?
Because the issue is if you put anything there that is a
straight line and don't directly wrap the trees, as I think
Trustee Goldsmith was suggesting, all animals, it will create
exactly what we are trying to avoid, regardless of what the
fence is made out of. It's habitat fragmentation, so it is going
to wipe out that bank. So there can't be a fence there long-term.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: But if you wrap those individual trees and
everything with the burlap then potentially deer or whatever can
go landward of those trees and would not eat the trees
necessarily, and would not have to run along the top of that
bank due to a fence pushing them in that direction.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So that would be less of, I mean I would not
necessarily to see that on a plan but I would need to see a plan
without a fence on it. It's kind of a biggish change.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I agree.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you agree with that, either of you
gentlemen?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: How about if it's temporary, as you said.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would be okay with stipulating it as a
one-year removal or something like that.
MS. MOORE: That might work. It's just having it for a shortened
period until they are established somewhat. So whatever seasons
you consider reasonable.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have thoughts on that in terms of the
conditioning of removal?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: If we condition it as a temporary fence we
would not necessarily,need to receive new plans. We can
condition it as temporary.
MR. HAGAN: Because the fence will be located in the location. If
the question is the fence is going to be located for a temporary
period of time, of say one year, if that's what the Board is
39
going to mandate, you are still going to expect the fence to
located in the location that is going to be set forth on the
plans, so you would not necessarily need new plans to vote right
now because that is depicting where the fence is going to be. But
you would then condition your permit on removal at the end of
one-year period. Would that be a one-year period from the
issuance of the C of C or would that be a one-year period?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I guess it's a difficult question. Does anyone
have any thoughts?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: One year from the issuance of a permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One year from issuance of a permit. Pat, is
that something that sounds reasonable to you?
MS. MOORE: Yes, I mean right now with the winter I don't think
you can plant, I think the fence has to go in but the
vegetation, the plantings probably will wait until March, so why
don't we set a date like March or April of 2022 so you have a
date.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm okay with that. Does anyone else have an
issue with that. March of-- I mean, I would --
MR. HAGAN: You would have a date certain if you condition it on
the two-year expiration date of the permit, which would put you
at that 2022 number.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a little bit cleaner, I,think.
MR. HAGAN: Thank you.
MS. MOORE: Okay, that works. That's easier. That way we can
establish --
TRUSTEE,KRUPSKI: Then the other thing I would want to condition
would be this temporary fence would be what six inches off the
ground. Does anyone --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sounds good.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't want the deer to be able to get their
heads under it, but the critters need to be able to walk under it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And then the plans that the Board is most
recently looking at was the ones that are stamped received
December 16th, which depict the estate fence 17 feet from the
top of bank.
Okay, is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
regarding this application, or any further comment from the
Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close the
hearing on this application.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
based off the newly submitted plans dated received December
16th, 2020, in the office, and with the condition that the deer
fence is to be removed at the two-year expiration of the permit
issuance and will be installed no less than six inches off the
ground so that small animals may move underneath it preventing
40
habitat fragmentation.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 13, 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 Trustees have visited this site numerous times, most
recently on December 9th, 2020. We actually did an inhouse
review on December 9th, 2020, to look at recently submitted
plans.
The LWRP coordinator found this project to be inconsistent.
Notes Policy 6, to protect and restore quality of the function
of the Southold Town ecosystem.
The Conservation Advisory Council did review this
application and they resolved to support the application.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this
application?
MS. CANTRELL: We have Jane Costello. Jane, if you want to
un-mute.
MS. COSTELLO: So after last meeting we discussed the pier line
issue and possibly reducing the dock, so I went out, I did more
site photographs, I did a composite drawing of the two docks on
either side of the proposed dock, and I think it is well within
the existing pier line. We have already removed the float and
made it a fixed structure. The entire structure is now fixed.
It will ramp down with a lower platform but the entire structure
is fixed at this point. If the Trustees have any other questions
I would be more than happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Sure. I'm looking at new plans received
December 2nd, 2020, showing the dock and configuration as you
had explained. It's going to be a new 4'x20' ramp with a 42'
catwalk to 107 fixed dock with a 6'x20' lower fixed dock, with
the entire structure to be decked with open-grate style decking
using all galvanized or stainless steel hardware.
Are there any other questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Hi, Jane. The one issue I have, which I
mentioned in the field when we went with your father, and then
at the last meeting was I really was not comfortable with the
length of the dock. It's barely at the one-third limit. And you
are not gaining any length. And then I referenced the pier
line. The only,issue with'the pier line that you guys did on the
design is that the pier line follows the shoreline when you have
a serious distance like that, especially, so drawing a straight
line from the antiquated dock, you know, pretty far down the
41
other way, back to Singer's, does not, in my opinion, reflect an
accurate pier line Which again, I'm only one Trustee, but at
prior hearings, I really stressed I wanted to see something that
was the length of Singer's dock from when it first hit the water
until the terminus. But again I'm just one Trustee. That is just
where I'm at with it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm another Trustee and I agree with Trustee
Krupski on this one. It's a bit excessive in length. It doesn't
buy that much more navigability for vessels, and we already
worked and detailed a long time developing the length on the
Singer dock.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Jane, do you know the length of the Singer
dock?
MS. COSTELLO: I believe it's 88 feet on low water.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: What's the length of your proposed dock for
Brantuk?
MS. COSTELLO: 137.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 137 to 88.
MS. COSTELLO: Yes, so if we reduce this back to the Singer dock,
I mean it's really going to be in extremely shallow water. Um, I
don't even know what to say about that. You know what I mean.
The Singer dock originally was approved 40 feet off of where we
are approving it, and then later on they moved the dock in order
to achieve more water at a shorter distance. It's the natural
way of the shoreline. It goes in and out. Um, I don't know how
the Board is even determining what a pier line is. I understand
there is such a span between the Singer dock and the Pierson
dock, so I understand it was difficult for us to even establish
that. I mean we had to go out and do research, we got a drone,
we did everything we could possibly do to see if this proposed
dock was really going to impede navigation.
You know, the Brantuk's did give up their floating dock in
order to satisfy the request of the Trustees. I don't know what
to say. I think if we shorten this dock we are going to have
more problems with prop dredging or stirring up the bottom lands
than what it's doing as far as impeding into the channel.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I don't think the structure impedes into the
channel because the channel is further west to that. I don't
think it impedes navigation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, if there were an argument here that by
you going out the additional 60 feet that you have you would get
to deep water and be able to really utilize the creek in a
different manner, you know, I could see that argument. But, you
know, I waterfowl this creek, I fish this creek. There is no
water there. So moving it in six fate is not going to change,
honestly, much about the function of this dock. And to be
honest, I believe there is other docks in the area that have a
stipulation on length of vessel just to avoid the prop scarring
and large IOs or inboards being utilized. Because this is a
critical habitat and, you know, a lot of work was put into that
second Singer dock for a reason. A lot of manpower and a lot of
42
time and a lot of research.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I don't have, referencing the hydrographic
study, I think we are talking a matter of inches of water depth
between where you are currently proposing it as opposed to
dialing it back a considerable amount. You are talking four or
five inches of water, which really should not impact--
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: You are talking eleven inches of water.
MS. COSTELLO: How many feet are you saying to bring it back?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To match Singer, it would be I believe 50 or 60
feet.
MS. COSTELLO: I mean, it's a foot of water difference. It's not
just a few inches. It's going to be a foot of water difference.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It will be eleven inches.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: In the past when we opposed very long docks it
was because we wanted to avoid the chocking issue. It was not
the functionality of the dock. So in this case it is a long
dock, but it is not chocked. So it kind of mutes that argument,
in my mind.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Honestly, for me, it's a public use of the
waterways. Some properties are not meant to have deep water
docks and, I mean if you want to start building longer docks
just bring it out to the creek mouth and then put any kind of
boat you want there. That's just my sense on it. But again, I'm
just one Trustee on that. I'm just trying to keep the public use
available to everyone where you don't have to go around a
130-foot dock.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I agree totally. Even though a nominal
pullback, 25 to 30 feet, you are only talking six inches of
water. You are talking about 25 times four, that's 100 square
feet of coverage. Additional. It is coverage. Even though, you
know
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The dock in its entirety is a foot shy of 200
feet long. I do recognize there is only roughly 130 around the
water, but if you are a public member utilizing that creek for
shellfishing or fin-fishing or any kayaking, paddle boarding, I
mean it's quite something to go around. And that's a very
pleasant creek in a very pleasant area to utilize.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It goes from being practical to being
impractical and an inconvenience.
MS. COSTELLO: All right, um. So I mean is the choice either to
pull it back as far as the Singer dock or, I mean, can we pull
it back six feet, or, I'm not even sure what to get out of this.
I understand what the Board's concerns are, it's just, you know,
coming into this, we are trying to design a dock that fits the
code and fits the criteria and design something that is going to
be meet what the DEC wants, the Army Corps want, the Trustees
want, and then all of a sudden we get to this and we all know
this particular dock, I think we have going around and around
for, I think 15 years or something like that. I'm just trying to
figure out a definite, exactly what this Board wants. Is it that
it cannot go any further than the Singer dock? Or do we have to
43
bring it as far back as the Pierson dock. I mean I don't know
how do;define even what a pier line is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean that's a fair question. I'll just
answer, for me, and this is one out of five, I'm at 50 to 60
feet but I don't believe the other Trustees echo my opinion. But
that is where I'm at.
MS. COSTELLO: So I'll request the application be tabled so we
can go back to the drawing board. Because if we pull this back,
I have to go back to obviously every other agency.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any other questions from the Trustees?
(Negative response).
Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Seeing none, I'll make a motion to table this application at the
applicant's request.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 14, 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
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
I do not see a CAC recommendation in here.
The Trustees conducted an inhouse field inspection on
December 9th, questioning about the existing deck dock. We
subsequently received, and I know this is, into the Trustees new
plans dated December 18th, 2020, that talk about a proposed 420
fixed dock leading to fixed 6x30 "L" section. We also have in
the file dated December 21 st, 2020, a letter from Jonathan
Perry, as well as numerous other forms of correspondence that
are in the file and part of this public record.
MR. HAGAN: Just as a point of clarification for this Board, the
Board of Trustees does not make a determination with the
ownership. The Board of Trustees is to evaluate the application
as submitted. We are aware there is ongoing litigation with
regard to ownership and the question of ownership, whether the
applicant,owns the bottomland property or whether it is owned by
another entity, the Trustees are not making any determination,
the Town is not making any determination with regard to that
ownership. They are merely giving an opinion with regard to the
plan. We are aware of litigation going on in the New York State
Supreme Court, and if there is some issue with regard to that
44
well then certainly the litigants will be able to avail
themselves certainly in that forum that does not involve the
Board of Trustees.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone here who wishes to speak
regarding this application
MS. CANTRELL: Jack Costello, with regard to the project. Jack, if
you want to un-mute.
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello. Hey guys. I'll tell you that the
dock is being reduced in square footage by 233 square feet, and
we are giving intertidal marsh of approximately 448 square feet
because we are moving the dock offshore a little bit. We are
only moving the dock offshore eight feet, which is the length of
the tables you are sitting at. So we are asking for very little
and we are giving back a lot. If there are any questions you
guys have, I would be happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I have a question on the decking. Is this
proposed to be open-grate decking?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, I just wanted to stipulate that
because I don't see that on the plans. So I just want to confirm
that.
MR. COSTELLO: Originally we were just going to replace the
original dock with regular decking, but with all this, you know,
all these negotiations we are willing to do all the decking in
open-grate.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
MS. CANTRELL: There is an Iona Perry who wishes to speak. Jack,
I'll mute you. And Iona Perry, if you wish to speak, I'll
un-mute you.
MS. PERRY: Good evening, I'll be brief, but on behalf of Dr.
Jonathan Perry I would appreciate if I could read into the
record the letter you spoke of addressed to Mr. Hagan and
Trustee Goldsmith dated today, December 21 st, 2020. So that is
as follows:
Dear Mr. Hagan, I write to you regarding the Trustee
applications of Mr. Heath Gray and the Sampieri Trust in a
single letter as the issues regarding each application are
identical. I have attached multiple documents dating from 1987.
Each of these documents supports the fact the land underwater
associated with tax ID 1000-118-2-11.4 is privately owned, and
Jennifer Berell (sic) and I are the current owners. I'm sure you
are well aware the Town Code 275-6-A-1 requires either ownership
or permission from the owners for work to be done on any
wetlands within the Town of Southold. Neither of these criteria
have been met for the above application. Therefore, if the
Trustees were to issue permits they would be in violation of the
town code and my constitutional rights.
Additionally, the issuance of the permit with knowledge
that the Sampieri's have made a legal claim for ownership of the
land underwater in question it problematic. The decision by the
` 45
New York State Supreme Court is still pending and I would ask
that you advise the Trustees to wait for the Court's decision
prior to issuing any permits. This would avoid violation of the
Town Code, my constitutional rights and the Supreme Court's
jurisdiction, thus creating potential damage liability for the
town and the individual Town Trustees. Sincerely yours, Jonathan
Perry.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak regarding this application?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I like the changes. I think environmentally
they are sound.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions or comments from the
Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with new plans dated December 18th, 2020, and a new project
description that reads as follows:
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-feet of bulkhead, ten-foot east return and
eight-foot west return; construct new 97-feet of bulkhead, ten-feet
east return and eight-foot west return in-kind and in-place
for the existing dock; remove and dispose of existing 493-square
foot dock; construct a new 4'x20' fixed open-grate dock leading
to a fixed 6'x30' foot open-grate "L" section.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 15, En-Consultants on behalf of EVAN M. &
ELIZABETH A. MINOGUE requests a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace (in-place and 12" higher) approximately 84 linear feet
of existing timber bulkhead and ±31' westerly timber return with
vinyl,bulkhead and return; remove existing dilapidated wood
groin, and construct±6' easterly vinyl return in place of
portion of groin situated landward of bulkhead; backfill with
approximately 50 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be trucked
in from an approved upland source; construct 4'x6' landing and
4' x±8' steps on waterside of bulkhead; and on landward side of
bulkhead, remove existing 8'x8' shed and wood wall planter;
construct 4'x67'wood walkway and 8'x10' grade-level stone paver
patio; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 6' wide non-turf buffer.
46
Located: 5650 (aka 5550) New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-10-6
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on this site on
December 9th. All were present. The notes read straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from the fact that that the wetland
structures were constructed without a permit.
The Conservation Advisory Council on December 9th, voted to
support this application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MS. CANTRELL: We have Rob Herrmann from En-Consultants.
MR. HERRMANN: Thanks, Liz. How are you guys.
Yes, it's a straightforward application. Just to respond to
the LWRP memorandum, typically an in-place bulkhead replacement
on the creek would be an exempt activity but it's noted in the
report that Mark Terry did not review it that way because there
was no history of permitting for the structure, but we did
indicate in our Wetlands application that the bulkhead is
actually a Trustees-permitted structure dating back to 1983,
pursuant to grandfather permit#1782. So I just wanted to make
that statement for the record.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, for that. Does anyone else wish to
speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It seems okay to me.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing none, I make a motion to close this
application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number 16
En-Consultants on behalf of ANDREW TORGOVE &JONI FRIEDMAN
requests a Wetland Permit to revegetate approximately 11,850
sq. ft. of existing 12,650 sq. ft. clearing through passive and/or
active revegetation with landscape plantings (outside cleared
path to dock and limit of previously established non-disturbance
buffer); maintain existing T wide cleared path to dock, a
portion of which is to be relocated from inside to outside of
non-disturbance buffer through natural revegetation of 45 sq. ft.
of clearing within buffer and clearing of additional 45 sq. ft.
outside buffer; repair and/or replace in-kind and in-place
existing split rail and picket fencing along property lines.
Located: 7165 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-5-31
And deleting the last line of what is in the project description
indicating the kayak rack has been removed from the new set of
47
plans, dated stamped and received in the Trustees office
December 16th.
This project has been deemed to be inconsistent with the
Town's LWRP. It was inconsistent because of a problem of
complying with the statutory requirements of the Trustees and
regulatory requirements of state wetland laws. Also the LWRP
coordinator states that the information in the application is
deficient. A planting plan with species of vegetation to be
planted, fertilization or non-fertilization and irrigation
requirements and survivability terms have not been submitted.
Soil conditions within the buffer have not been provided. What
type of plant species are best suited. And his comment with
respect to the kayak rack has been addressed now with the new
plan that we received December 16th.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the project and
is making the recommendation we see on the plans of a realigned
realigned path so that it goes around and not through the New
York state DEC non-disturbance buffer.
The Trustees on field inspection December 9th, we were
concerned about the permit history on the property and
potentially what was going on with the violations. And clearly
the Board did not want to have a kayak rack within the
non-disturbance area.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann En-Consultants.
Quickly, just a little bit of history here, will probably help put the
application in a more understandable light.
There was a permit that was issued by the Trustees in 2015
to develop this lot with a new house and with the exception of
the path to the dock that was only recently approved for
reconstruction pursuant to Wetlands permit#8677, and the small
area, I think it's 45-square feet of the state mandated
non-disturbance buffer that was inadvertently cleared for the
dock path, all of the clearing that has been done and for which
we are seeking your approval this evening was actually
previously authorized pursuant to that wetlands permit in
connection with the site development.
The problem was that that clearing was done after the
expiration date of the permit. And so a ticket was written and
the case is now before the Court, and the owners were required
to obviously resolve that ticket and violation. So what we are
coming back to you for now is to effectively legalize the same
clearing that was previously approved in association with the
proposed house but without the proposed house at this time,
along with the path to the recently permitted dock, with the
only twist being, again, that there was a small area of the
non-disturbance buffer that was inadvertently cleared for the
path. So we proposed just to restore that and then move the
dock path outside the buffer where it should be.
The only other components of the plan were the proposed
48
fencing replacement and the kayak rack, but given the desire to
expedite resolution of this with the Justice Court, we have for
now removed the proposed kayak rack from the application, and
you should already have in your file plans revised to eliminate
the kayak rack. They can revisit that at a later date.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With respect to the concerns of the
description of the plans to be put in here as far as the
remediation, am I missing something?
I didn't see anything with respect to a planting plan and --
MR. HERRMANN: I can't hear you, Jay, when you move away from the
mic.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm sorry, it's muffled with the mask.
Concerns about the LWRP coordinator with 'respect to types of
plants and the suitability, can you give us an indication that
what is planned or is it being left to naturalize or what might
we see proposed type plants that will be going in?
MR. HERRMANN: So it's a good question. It was not something that
was addressed because again there is no plans to disturb the
non-disturbance buffer. So in theory had the property been
developed with the house, the entire area of clearing outside
the buffer could be at the owner's discretion. They could do,
you know, lawn, landscape plantings, et cetera. For the moment,
we are really just looking to allow that area to, again, where
the clearing might eventually be permanently cleared for
development, in the meantime, we are just looking to allow most
of those areas to revegetate passively, and then in some places
perhaps along the property lines et cetera to put in some sort
of plantings. But to date there has been no specific plantings
plan prepared only because we don't know, you know, going
forward after this violation is resolved, if they come back with
a proposed house we would just be proposing to clear all these
same areas again. So if we can avoid putting too much investment
in what is going to be replanted there, that would be ideal.
' Again, the only, it's just 45-square foot area of the
non-disturbance buffer which we thought was best to just allow
that area to just passively revegetate because it will do so
very quickly once that path is moved outside the buffer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, so I'm looking at Ken Woychuk, the
plan dated stamped in December 16th, limits of approximately
12,650 square feet area existing clearing. So are we to impute
that will not are cleared any further until another plan came in
because of the only limitation that exists is the actual
limitation of the DEC non-disturbance area.
MR. HERRMANN: You are exactly correct, Jay. The only
additionally proposed clearing that is requested as part of this
application is a 45 square foot area that would be cleared
additionally if you looked down where that sort of turn is and
the buffer where currently the path for the dock cuts through
the edge of the buffer. So we need to move that path outside of
the buffer. Otherwise, no, the existing limit that is shown will
remain unless and until additional requests and approval is
49
granted by the Board.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. So that was read into the record as a
project description. Trustee Domino just pointed out to me that
it appears the path goes off the property line just slightly. We
can maybe stipulate that could be moved so it was on the
applicant's property.
MR. HERRMANN: Right on that northeast corner where that monument
is noted?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, it looks almost--yes, it's very
minimal.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. I didn't even notice it until my size guide.
So that's a condition easily resolved. Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, anyone else wish to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Any additional Trustee concerns?
(Negative response).
Okay, I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application based on the revised plans received December 16th,
2020, noting that the kayak storage rack has been removed from
the plans, and that the plans are proposing to move this 45-square
foot area out of the non-disturbance buffer, and to move
the path an additional.45-square feet to the south. And that
also that the path be moved a small amount off the adjoining
property owner's plot line as shown hot survey on the east side
of the what is the Christiansen property. That is noted to the
north of the project. Thereby bringing this project into
consistency see with the LWRP. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Chairman, may we have a small recess.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sure. Five-minute recess.
(After a recess these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 17, En-Consultants on behalf of MICHAEL
& MARY HEAGERTY requests a Wetland Permit to restore and
stabilize approximately 900 sq.ft. Portion of eroded bluff face
with approximately 150 cubic yards of clean sand/loam fill to be
trucked in from an approved upland source; wood terrace
retaining walls; and plantings of native vegetation, including
Cape American beach grass, switchgrass, Virginia rose, and/or
Northern bayberry.
Located: 10550 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-11,9-1-16
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 9th of
December and noted that it was straightforward. It's a
50
straightforward bluff renourishment below the fill that is sort
of correcting a problem that has developed there.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
this application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. The location is just as Nick just described. If you
have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak regarding this application or any comments from
the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing on this 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 18, En-Consultants on behalf of ROBERT
STRONG &JOAN VITALE STRONG requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 14'x34' swimming pool and surrounding 1,324 sq. ft.
patio (with 6' wide steps and 4' wide steps), raised up to
approximately 24 inches above existing grade with "geogrid"
retaining wall; install pool enclosure fencing, pool equipment,
and pool drywell; and remove up to five (5) oak trees from
existing lawn area.
Located: 750 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-11-18.1
The Trustees visited the site on December 9th, 2020. All
Trustees were present, with field notes concerns on the proposed
fence location, discuss alternate locations for pool, and
questioning if the dock is a permitted structure in its current
configuration.
The LWRP coordinator did review this application. He found
the action to be consistent, noting the application,speaks about
significant existing natural vegetation and a non-turf buffer
between the tidal wetlands and construction. Neither are shown
on the survey. It is requested that the Board require a
vegetated non-turf buffer landward of the tidal wetlands to
mitigate the up to five oak trees removed, protecting surface
waters and furthering Policy 6.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
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. I have a few different things to cover there in
51
response to all that. I'll get the dock out of the way first
just because that's unrelated to the application.
The only history that I could find was a field inspection
that the Board had with the prior owner in 2016. It was a
meeting wherein the Board discussed a stipulation of bringing
the dock into compliance with current code with a 6x20 floating
dock at the end of the current dock's service life. And I'm
just reading that off a 2016 field inspection report.
Looking at online aerial photographs you can see a dock in
one form or other has been here dating back prior to 1980, so if
there is some other outstanding issue that needs to be addressed
with the dock I'm sure the owners would certainly be happy and
willing to do that under separate process.
In terms of the proposed, oh,just quickly in response to
the LWRP, the edge of the, the existing edge of natural
vegetation/edge of lawn is in fact shown on the survey and site
plan. It's labeled as the edge of vegetation. And it's actually
the line that the proposed fence follows.
In terms of the proposed pool, this•idea of the pool was
also the subject of a Trustees pre,application conference in
September, 2019, prior to the applicant's purchase of the
property, at which time they were advised that the pool needed
to be at least 50 feet from the wetlands boundary. They then
purchased the property in the Fall of last year, and after a
very long and miserable year stopping and starting with the
plans with the pandemic, we finally got this application and
site plan before the Board, which conforms to the
pre-application conference guidance, but I did understand that
there were a couple of concerns during field inspections
regarding the location-of the fence, and the tree removal which
is also mentioned in the LWRP report.
So just addressing each of those things. Quickly, we did
submit a revised site plan dated December 12th where there were
two changes. One is most of the proposed pool fence was located
more than 20 feet from the wetlands boundary except for the most
southeasterly section of it nearest the bulkhead. So that
section of fence was moved back to at least the 20 foot wetland
setback so it now would sit landward of that rock wall which is
landward of the retaining wall which is landward of the primary
bulkhead.
In terms of the trees, because there is that one tree that
is positioned less than 50 feet from the wetlands boundary, we
added a proposal to plant two native trees within Trustees
jurisdiction as mitigation for that.
With respect to that one tree, and the reason we say up to
five trees to be removed, is the construction directly does not
require removal of that tree, but the concern is that the
excavation and construction could ultimately damage the roots to
that tree enough that it would end up failing and either falling
into the house or the bulkhead or whatever. So that had been
included in the application. But again, as mitigation, we are
52
proposing the addition of two new native trees that would have
be situated within the 100-foot wetland setback. And those two
changes are indicated on that revised plan.
Any other comments or questions from the Board I'm
certainly able and happy to respond to them.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: In the field notes it discusses, we discussed
an alternate location for the pool based on the five trees being
removed. If the pool were moved elsewhere on the property where
you would not have to remove those five trees, is that something
you would be open to?
MR. HERRMANN: Well, the short answer is no, because the whole
purpose of this project was to situate the pool as close to the
water as code would allow, on the west side of the pool. And
there are, you know, certainly other trees that are also set
throughout the property, and then as you move back you would get
closer to the driveway and the septic system and all of that. So
that was in part of the purpose of that pre-submission
conference was to find out where the pool could be situated in
that part of the property, and the guidance they were given was
at least 50 feet, which of course is what the code requires.
The reason I was focused on that one particular tree is
even on a vacant lot, you know, the Board would typically allow
broad scale clearing more than 50 feet from the wetlands
boundary, and again, with the exception of that one tree, all of
these trees are located 65 feet or more away from the wetlands
in what is currently a developed lawn area.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Rob, a point of clarification, from that
pre-submission, I was the one who met with them in the field. We
did discuss the code being at least 50 feet back from the
wetlands. However,) distinctly remember discussing alternative
locations that would be more suitable for that pool. There is a
whole section right to the, going up the driveway to the right
that is free from trees and it would be a suitable location and
we did discuss that during that pre-submission conference.
MR. HERRMANN: Well, one of the problems, Glenn, first of all I
apologize, I was not aware of that. One of the problems is once
you move the pool off the house to where it would become a truly
detached accessory structure, you could not just slide it back,
because the reason that it's allowed where it is allowed on the
west side of the property without a zoning variance is because
it's quote unquote attached to the dwelling. So if it were going
to be moved essentially north of the house, it would have to be
moved all the way north of the house until it was literally
completely north of the most north corner of the property, which
would put the pool up by the road. Which at that point, aside
from being completely outside your jurisdiction would be, you
know,just of a complete deal killer for the project and defeat
the entire property purpose of a pool.
Again, I think it's important that what we are talking
about here are the removal of oak trees from a developed,
historically cleared lawn area. You are not talking about trees
53
that are, you know, in a buffer area or even adjacent to the
buffer area. So if there is some additional mitigation that we
could work out with the Board in terms of planting of additional
trees or trying to save that, at least that one tree that is
south of the proposed patio, for example, you know, we would be
open to doing that. But a total relocation of the pool is
really a deal killer. And again, as it's proposed, it does
comply with Chapter 275.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: You did say moving the pool would kill the
deal of the purpose of the pool. What is the purpose of the
pool?
MR. HERRMANN: Well, the purpose of the pool is an obvious
purpose of the pool, but sort of the joy and the vista
associated with the pool is being closer to the water. And so,
you know, if we were arguing to place the pool closer than your
code requires, that would be certainly a different story. But
the intent of the design was to comply with Chapter 275. 1 mean,
it would certainly not be a, you know, a novel or
precedent-setting act for the Trustees to approve construction
where existing trees have to be removed. I mean that's, I don't
know if I'm missing something here or, again, if we are talking
about that tree that is less than 50 feet from wetlands, I mean
I would stipulate right now that we would, you know, that great
care would have to be,taken to preserve that tree, understanding
that if it failed later they would have to come back. But we
could eliminate that from the proposed removal scheme. But there
is really no way to avoid removing the other four trees, and
even if you could took the whole pool and patio and shifted it
farther to the northwest, you are still, you would still be
removing three of those four trees. So that's why we were
thinking that if we could propose the planting of replacement
trees within jurisdiction, that that would provide some
mitigation in response to your request.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Rob, I apologize if I heard incorrectly but I
thought when we were at the December 9th field inspection that I
heard that the gentleman who is doing the pool construction was
going to attend our work session where some of these questions
could have been posed. But one of the things that I wanted to
ask was did the pool actually have to be a rectangle or could we
do something about the shape so we could help mitigate or save a
tree or two. Again, I apologize if I heard incorrectly but--
MR. HERRMANN: No, that's okay, Mike. I was not at that meeting
but I believe Jason Peters is probably on. So if Elizabeth can
check to see if he's here, perhaps he could raise his hand and
give him an opportunity to speak.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Before we shift to him, I want to ask also about
the two trees that suggest replanting. I looked at the plans, I
didn't see a caliper size.
MR. HERRMANN: No, that was not indicated, Mike. Basically we
put that on the plan to indicate our proposal and willingness to
do that, and if you were, if the Board was amenable to that, we
54
would have to discuss the exact number and caliper size and,if
there is a particular species or whatever, then the plan could
be further updated with those details.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you.
MR. HERRMANN: So, Liz, I was wondering if Jason was here.
MS. CANTRELL: Yes, I was not sure if the Board was finished
talking with you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll wait until after the other gentleman
speaks, I guess.
MS. CANTRELL: Rob I'll put you on mute for right now.
Jason Peters, if you want to un-mute.
MR. PETERSON: Good evening. Jason Peters. Yes, I was with you
guys the day you guys came to inspect the property and, yes, we'
did. You guys were very vocal about the trees themselves and
the age of the trees, size of the trees.
The first thing I will say is that via the canopy of the
trees themselves, there is a lot-of trees that are actually
leaning to find sunlight on the property themselves, and the one
tree that is seaward of the 50 foot mark is actually leaning
seaward, and the trees that are younger age behind them are
leaning westward to try to find sun. And although there are four
trees right now that are within the proximity of our project
itself;there are a couple.of trees within that area themselves,
that seem to me, I'm no expert, but seem to be detrimented as
trimming prior to the owners now, have caused holes in the top
of the trees themselves. Being the age of the tree and not
knowing the actual extent of the damage within them, it could be
conversated by planting new, healthier trees within your
jurisdiction could be conversated about for the project itself.
Now, if we were to alter the shape and size of the pool
itself, we would have to move it seaward of its location. As
you guys can see, via the survey itself, the northwestern most
tree, southern eastern and southern western tree itself would
cause us to make almost a triangular-shaped pool. Now, the only
other location, the lot itself is very heavily, heavily treed.
The septic location and the proximity on the eastern side only
allows us to put it in the northwest most corner. Now there are
two trees in that location that I could only assume via traffic
would damage to. So in lieu of five we would have two trees we
would have to remove, and would be very proximal to Lupton Road
itself. And it would also make it very proximal to neighboring
home.
So that location although can be discussed, I don't think
it to be optimal, although it can be discussed, and it would put
it, approximating 80 plus feet from the dwelling itself would
mean we would have to trench electrical lines from the home
itself to power the pool equipment through those trees and we
would have to navigate through multiple different tree
locations. In my opinion if we are going to damage multiple
trees on the way out to get electric there, although the trench
would be small itself, I would assume those root systems would
55
be intertwined, the removal of the five, in my humble opinion,
is an option.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm concerned that it doesn't look like a
couple of trees to me. It looks like a forest. The canopy cover
on this is immense. The sheer bio-mass of photosynthetic
photosynthesis on the volume of tree leaves in our protective
wetland zone, you know, when you talk about planting a few other
trees for the equivalent of what-is being, you know,
bio-functioning of those few trees it would seem to me you will
probably have to plant a half acre of young trees. And these
trees are like 80 and 90-years old. I mean, I don't know, I'm
really hung up on this one. I'm not sure. It doesn't, trees
equal leaves, so you have to cut more trees down. And it's just
very problematic to me when I see a tree that age. If an
arborist came in and marked them up and did a study with
ultrasound or X-ray whatever, and said okay the tree will only
live a short time, I understand. But a number of those trees
look perfectly healthy. I mean the Board already had experience
with the oak wilts. We kind of know when they are not looking so
hot. So that's just my personal observation here, I'm really
disturbed with the number of trees being removed.
MR. HERRMANN: So, just as a thought, Jay, I mean it doesn't
sound like the Board is ready to approve this as exactly as
drawn. So what I think I'm going to suggest, again, you know,
totally moving this pool outside Trustees jurisdiction into a
detached pool location that would require Zoning Board and all
of that is just, I don't see that as a feasible alternative when
we are complying with code required setback and when, again,
with the exception of that one tree, we are not really proposing
anything different from what the Board approves all the time in
terms of site clearing more than 50-feet from wetlands except
here it's not site clearing it's individual tree removal within
an already cleared area. So I hear that you are hung up on
this. I'm not sure that I completely understand it. But I'm
just wondering if I could get a consensus of the Board, if we
could have an opportunity to potentially visit a modification of
the plan that might stay generally consistent with this proposal
but perhaps enable us to reduce the number of trees that are
being removed. Could we, would the Board consider a pool and
patio layout within this same general area if we could achieve a
reduction in the number of trees that would have to be removed.
And I'm not asking will you approve that, I'm asking will you
consider it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I could only say, Rob, that I had recommended
the opportunity to talk during the work session to just those
points.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay. Well, again, I was not aware of that. But
let us take the opportunity between now and your next meeting
and maybe we can do that and perhaps combine that with an
additional field inspection, maybe.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Sounds good.
56
MR. HERRMANN: All right, that's what we'll do. So with that I
would ask for a continuation to January.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Understood. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to table the application at the applicant's
request.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 19, Michael Kimack on behalf of SCOTT
R. McDAVID & MAEGAN C. HINTON requests a Wetland Permit to
extend the existing dock an additional 24' with three (3) sets
of 8" diameter pilings; remove existing deck, reframe, and
install Thru-Flow decking for existing and proposed fixed dock;
relocate existing 3'x14' aluminum ramp; relocate and repair or
replace 6'x20' floating dock with two (2) sets of 8" diameter
dolphins.
Located: 1250 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-11-12
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The alteration of
the existing structure to thru-flow decking is supported,
however the extension is not. The existing proposed dock shown
relative to the dock line has not been shown, and the proposed
vessel to be moored at the dock has not been identified. The
dock should be mapped and the structure should not extend past
the existing dock line. The proposed dock structure will extend
further into public trust waters, setting precedent for
lengthening of adjacent existing docks and further encroachment
into public waters. Further extending the dock structure would
result in a net decrease in public access to public underwater
lands in the near shore area. The applicant currently enjoys
access to public water via an existing private dock structure.
The incremental and segmented extensions of permanent private
dock structures into public trust waters does not meet this
policy.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection December 9th. The
notes say insufficient water depth for a float and to check the
pier line.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: If memory serves me correct, Mr. Kimack had
noted in the field that he thought he should table this
application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. I just wanted to see if there was
anybody else out there wanting to speak.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Understood.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing none and noting as Trustee Williams
said, that when we met with Mr. Kimack in the field he had
57
requested to table it, and seeing how we have some concerns with
the project as currently submitted, I will make a motion to
table this application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All'in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 20, Michael Kimack on behalf of JOSEPH M.
SILVESTRO requests a Wetland Permit to excavate and remove
approximately 280 cubic yards of fill behind existing section of
bulkhead; install approximately 80 linear feet of inset vinyl
bulkhead to create safer and more convenient dock area for boat;
install a 4'x30' (120 sq. ft.) floating dock parallel to new
bulkhead with 3'x12' aluminum ramp for access; remove
approximately 57' of existing bulkhead, tie rods and dead-men.
Located: 265 Elizabeth Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-5
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council on December 9th voted to
support this application, and suggested a ten-foot non-turf
buffer.
The Trustees on December 9th did a field inspection. All
Trustees were present. And at that time the Trustees noted that
an eight-foot non-turf buffer would suffice as it abutted a
pre-existing landscaping wall.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to,this application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, with the addition of, noting that the plans show an
eight-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 21, Suffolk
,Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of KEVIN M. MURPHY
requests a Wetland Permit to demolish/remove the existing dock
structure and replace it with a new dock assembly comprising of
the following components: At-grade wood walk consisting of a
4'x27.5' northeast to southwest portion and a 4'x24.5' southwest
to northeast portion; a 4'x10' landward ramp; a 4'x68' fixed
catwalk; 4'x18.5' floating dock ramp; and a 6'x20' floating dock
configured in an "L" shape formation, angled to the north.
Located: 3265 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-8-22.4
This application has been deemed to be consistent by the
LWRP coordinator.
The Conservation Advisory Council has supported this
application using best management practices and remediation of
58
removing debris from the wetlands.
The Trustees on field inspection noted that the project '
needed to be staked. So we need to have it staked. There was a
note on water depths, I see now the water depths are provided on
the licensed'land survey of McGwinn survey submitted and stamped
in the Trustees office on the 29th of October. And the
neighboring docks are not displayed on the plans. We only have
one neighboring dock showing in part on the licensed land survey.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
MS. CANTRELL: We have Robert Anderson of Suffolk Environmental.
Robert, if you want to un-mute yourself.
MR. ANDERSON: Hi. Robert Anderson, Suffolk Environmental, on
behalf of the applicant. I'm here to answer any questions the
Trustees may have.
It's just a pretty straightforward dock replacement. I
reduced it significantly in size and scope as to what was
originally there. What we currently is a dilapidated structure
that is causing a navigational hazard that we would like to
remove and replace with a more conforming structure that we have
before you. '
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Robert, for the Board's clarity
in making a determination, we usually like to have the
neighboring docks either on the plans or on the survey. And I
know this is a very swift running creek. It may have been
staked, but when we were out in the field there were no stakes
present, so we are,going to be any position to ask you table at
the applicant's request so we can do a follow-on review of the
facts. And'also the licensed land survey does, it seemed to
indicate there is adequate depths but it would be nice to have
it in the plan view as well because the scaling on the them, it
leads to what you have in your imagination to figure out what
the depths are in the vicinity of the dock.
So I think the plan views most best serve our needs for our
inspection if you can show neighboring docks and to do a take
off on the depths on the licensed land survey or maybe go out ,
and get additional depth soundings around the dock so we can be
sure that it meets the requirement for depth for a floating
dock.
MR. ANDERSON: Absolutely. I understand, Trustee Bredemeyer, I'll
make whatever changes you need to see on the plans, I'll put on
those depths. I'll stake it out in the field, the seaward limit
of the dock to be to the property. I'll take care of it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, so we will then table at your-request
if my understanding is correct.
MR. ANDERSON: That would be fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I want to clarify and make sure. Does
anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any other Trustee members wish to address this?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table the application for
59
staking the location of neighboring docks and additional depth
information to be submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 22, 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
The Trustees most recently visited this, or did an inhouse
review on this site on the 9th of December and noted that it had
reviewed the new plans. Reference to the new plans dates back
to the prior inspection where, and subsequent meeting, where the
Trustees wish to see the ten-foot right-of-way as a ten-foot
non-turf buffer, essentially, at,the top of the bank/bluff. I do
have in the files submission of plans dated received December
3rd, 2020, which do in fact show that right-of-way. With
non-turf buffer, I should clarify.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
I don't think I have a CAC on this one either.
,Okay, is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding
this application?
MS. CANTRELL: We have Robert Anderson again.
MR. ANDERSON: You actually have Bruce Anderson. Good evening,
everyone. So I think the submitted surveys which feature'the
ten-foot non-turf buffer, which lines up with this right-of-way
that it appears�many properties benefit from was extended at
your direction, and of course what is seaward of that is called
a non-disturbance buffer. So I think we were able to satisfy the
Board's concerns on this. I'm here to answer any further
questions you may have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anyone else here that wishes to
speak regarding this application or any additional comments from
the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing on this
application.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
base on the submission of new plans dated received in our office
December 3rd, 2020.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
60
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 23, 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 Trustees visited this site on December 9th, 2020. Field
notes -- all Trustees present. Field notes waiting for flagged
wetland line to be updated. New flags noted need on survey.
The LWRP coordinator found this action to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council did not review this
application.
The latest survey I have here is dated September 21 st,
2020.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application?
MS. CANTRELL: Okay, Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Good evening, again. Bruce Anderson, Suffolk
Environmental Consulting. At the last meeting there was a
discussion about the wetland boundary. So I take it that you
have seen the four additional flags A through D that I deployed
in the field and we are in agreement with that. Is that so?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Jay, do you recall?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I guess?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: We are discussing it. Bear with us.
Anybody recall that?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think we did, right?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Yes, Bruce, we did.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, we did, Bruce. Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. Okay, now, so in the prior permit that
was issued back in January 23rd, 2013, there was to be a 15-foot
beach grass buffer landward of that line. It was written into
the permit and stamped approve on the survey. And so my next
question is would it be acceptable to the Board to have that
61
redrawn from the newly flagged line.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Thatzounds reasonable. Any of the other
Trustees care to weigh in?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sounds reasonable.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Agreed.
MR. ANDERSON: Then I'll do that. The final thing is there was
discussion about the IA system. The client is agreeable to,put
one in, although, as I said at the prior meeting, who knows, but
the village has plans to eventually extend the sewer line down
that road. But in any event we have revised plans for that. You
have not seen them yet because they were just completed late
last week: I do have Joe Fischetti with me somewhere out there
in the virtual world to answer any questions you may have on
that. But he has redesigned the septic system for that. He had
to make some minor changes to the driveway. But the overall
house and so forth has remained the same as currently before
you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I think we see the plans with the new flagged
line, including the 15-foot beach grass buffer and updated to an
IA septic. I think that would satisfy the concerns we
discussed.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay, then I would just request that we table this
matter so that we can get those plans to you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Thank you. Before we table this, is there
anybody else'here that wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application at the
applicant's request.
.TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All*in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 24, 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 IA/OWTS
septic system with ±161.0 linear feet of retaining wall
surrounding the septic system on the landward side of the
proposed dwelling; and to establish and perpetually maintain a
50' wide non-turf buffer area landward of the tidal wetland boundary.
Located: 565 Fisherman's Beach Road, Cutchogue. 'SCTM# 1000-111-1-34
The,LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The proposed
location of the single-family residence is within FEMA AE
elevation 6 flood zone with the loss of structure onsite from
storm. Third, flooding from moderate to high.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not inspect therefore
they did not make a recommendation.
The Trustees have discussed this numerous times. Most
recently we did an inhouse field inspection December 9th, noting
that we were waiting for new plans. We do have new plans stamped
received in the office December 10th, 2020, that address our
62
concerns from last month.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application?
MS. CANTRELL: Okay, we have Suffolk Environmental again.
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting.
So the plans you are referring to is a survey prepared by
Peconic Surveyors last dated December 10th, 2020. And then
you'll see that the retaining wall off the southwestern side
line was moved to the inside of the driveway, which.is what you-
requested.
The other thing too is we also put in some photos that you
should have gotten, and the request had come that, as to what
the distance was between the retaining wall and the road. And
that distance is 17 feet. So I hope that addressed your concern
as well.
Also, there were stakes in the field that were put out
there which shows the height of the retaining wall. So I'm
hoping you were able to see those as well.
Now, back to the survey. What we have done here is we
created a non-disturbance buffer that extends roughly 120 feet
from the water's edge. And you'll see that and you'll see a
four-foot path that leads to the edge of the beach, which comes
down the middle of the site. The remainder of the property as
shown here is all to be non-turf buffer, which I think is also
responsive to concerns the Board may have.'
Nevertheless I'm here, I know Joe Fischetti is out there-as
well. Pat Kirkpatrick is I'm sure listening in. But we are here
to answer any further questions you may have on this.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: One more quick question. Did you say 17 feet
from the retaining wall to the road?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that's what we measured. We gave you photos
on that. They should be in your file'. I'll find where mine are.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here that wishes to
speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
MS. CANTRELL: I don't see anybody.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
I think we have beaten this one to death. Hearing no further
comments, 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
based on the plans stamped received December 10th, 2020, and
with the non-disturbance buffer therefore -- non-disturbance
buffer and non-turf buffer bringing it into consistency with the
LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
a`
63
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 26, Suffolk
Environmental Consulting on behalf of 106 MULBERRY CORP.
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two story, single
family dwelling (25'x42'4", ±1,058.25 sq. ft.) with attached
7.3'x48.2' (351.86 sq. ft), deck on south side of dwelling;
install a 25'x6' (±150 sq. ft.) stone driveway, a 12'x20' parking
area on west side of proposed dwelling, and an 11'x20' parking
area on north side of proposed dwelling; install a new
innovative, alternative nitrogen reducing water treatment system
(IA/OWTS); install sanitary retaining wall at an overall length
of 99.5' and a width of 8.0" across the top of the wall; and to
replace the failing bulkhead on west side and north side of the
lot as well as to replace the wood jetty which extends into West
lake, consisting of 198.0 linear feet of bulkhead to be replaced
along the westerly and northerly portions of the subject
property with the following measurements: Timber top cap: 2.25'
wide extended along the entirety of the bulkhead to be replaced,
9"'diameter timber piles, 6"x6" timber whalers, ±6.0' long
tie-rods, ±6" diameter dead-men, and the use of vinyl sheathing
(CLOC or similar); the bulkhead return located perpendicular to
the northerly portion of the bulkhead to be replaced at an
overall length of 11.0' with a 2.25' wide top-cap, 9.0" diameter
piles, 6"x6" timber walers, ±6.0' long tie-rods, ±6" diameter
dead-men, and vinyl sheathing (CLOC or similar); the existing
wood jetty to be replaced with new 15.0' long jetty with 9.0"
diameter piles placed 1.5' o/c alternating between the east and
west sides of the jetty, the use of vinyl sheathing (CLOC or
similar), 6"x6" timber walers on both sides of the jetty, and
2.75' tie-rods; existing wood dock assembly to be removed at the
start of the bulkhead replacement,and re-installed in-kind and
in-place at the completion of the bulkhead replacement
consisting of a landward 5'x5' wood platform to a 14.1'x3.5'
wooden ramp with 3.5' tall railings; a 13.5'x7.0' wooden float
secured by four(4) 9.0" diameter piles with two on the landward
side of the float and two on the seaward side of the float:
Located: 750 West Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-2-1
The project has previously been reviewed in subject of
hearing. It has also been deemed to by the LWRP coordinator to
be inconsistent. Concerns about minimize the loss and damage by
locating developed structures away from flooding and erosion
hazards. Move existing development structures as far away from
erosion hazards as far away from flooding erosion hazards as
practical, and noting that the parcel located within FEMA VE and
AE flood zones. Also that they comply with the Trustee
regulations and recommendations as set forth in Trustee permits
and the permit for the dock was not located in Town records.
And coordinator felt that not enough detailed information
was provided on the jetty.
There is a communication received in the Trustee office on
December 16th from Dave Bergen who represents that, for
tonight's hearing, documenting that the dock has been removed
64
and there are photographs that there is no dock in that place.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make a
determination on account of COVID 19.
The Trustees reviewed the file on December 9th and noted,
and the Board is concerned that, we want to make sure there is
an IA in the project description. It's unclear to me if I'm
seeing it on the plans. I may be missing the specific notation
of an IA. I know I see two things that look like a septic tank
and I can see leaching pools and future extensions but I think
there is a concern that the plans would enumerate that the IA,
excuse me, the licensed surveyor would enumerate the need for an
IA. And the Board is concerned that based on the topography and
the soil types, that the field inspection recommendation is for
non-turf throughout. So that would be American beach grass or
suitable vegetation that would survive in a marine environment
where salt spray is dominant.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this
application?
MS. CANTRELL: We have Suffolk Environmental again.
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicant 106 Mulberry Corp. With me is Joe Fischetti
who has designed the IA/OWTS system.
I'll first start by saying, John, a lot of your comment did
not come through. I think I have the gist of it but from my
connection, maybe I was not connected. The audio did not come
through.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll repeat myself. I apologize. Speaking
through the mask is horrible.
Okay, so the LWRP coordinator concerns about the potential
'flooding hazard but he specifically mentioned, I believe he felt
that description of the groin in this case, the jetty, needed
more description, based on what he was seeing.
There was no Conservation Advisory Council report.
The Trustees, when we did our review we just wanted to make
sure this was an IA system, because we didn't see it on the
survey. We did see it in the project description. And the Board
feels there should be a non-turf type of buffer throughout the
area, utilizing potentially native plants that would be salt
tolerant because of the area. And we did note earlier on the
record that we did receive communication from Dave Bergen. I
don't know if he's representing directly the project owner or
the neighbors but pictures and representation that the dock is
not there at this time.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay, much clearer. I heard all of that. And I
did see the memo Dave Bergen put in. So a couple of things you
should know, first is that the requirement that, let's talk
about flood plan first of all. If you look at the survey it
will tell you that we are in flood zone VE, elevation 10. And in
a flood zone like that you are required to put the principal
structure of the house that is on piles. Which is indicated on
the survey. So you'll see proposed location of house on
65
pilings. Three bedroom house with first-floor elevation of
four. 14, rather. Which, by the way exceeds the minimum ten
feet required by FEMA. So the comment as to inconsistency,
because you are in a floodplain, I would just draw your
attention to the application which specifically addresses that
point, and that the design of this house is in fact consistent
with the floodplain regulations that pertain to this lot.
The next thing I would say-- I'm sorry?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. I believe the Board understood
that.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. The next thing I would bring to your
attention to is, this house, this particular layout, is
identical to the house and layout that was approved by this
Board in 2009. And as part of that approval, the permit states
that it notes the non-disturbance buffer which is between a
retaining wall and a bulkhead fronting the bay, and it goes on
to say the remainder of the property is to be maintained as a
non-turf area. And we anticipate and expect and certainly
anticipate that the remainder of that site would be a non-turf
buffer, which is consistent with the prior approval of this.
The third thing is this is in fact an IA/OWTS system. We
are more than happy to provide you with a copy of the actual
engineering specifications which are completed for that. And
that will certify to you that we are talking about an IA system.
And then finally, there is the jetty that is being
discussed there is this jetty that actually extends off the
bulkhead adjacent to where the dock is depicted on the survey.
And you'll see, it extends about 17 feet out into the water.
In discussing it amongst ourselves, and also with
representative of the West Lake Association, it's our intention
probably not to rebuild that but to remove it in any event,
because we are not convinced that it's doing any good for anyone
there. And to us it's just an unnecessary expense.
So you can expect from us revised plans showing that
portion of the jetty, I'm talking about off the north end of the
property, to be removed from the plan. We simply wish to drop
that from the proposal. _
It was approved on the prior proposal in the prior permit,
although it is our feeling that it really does not do anything
and it's not necessary for our purposes, and I believe the West
Lake Association is supportive of that change.
The plan is to rebuild the bulkhead as shown on the plans
before you. We then expect that the inlet will be dredged, and
of course we'll construct our house in accordance with the
reasonable permit conditions affixed to your approval if
granted.
So I'm here to answer any further questions you may have.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Consistent with the letter and photographs
we got from Dave Bergen, if the new plans could also indicate,
it's my understanding there is a plan to remove the dock
permanently and strike from the new plans replace in-kind in-place
66
so that way we would have the new plans would just show the
removal of the dock.
MR. ANDERSON: We were advised we had to do that because we are
replacing the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, well --
MR. ANDERSON: But I'm quite sure we want to have a dock at this
property.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, so we have an individual, Dave Bergen,
I don't know if he represents somebody, indicating the dock is
removed. We have your plans saying the dock will be removed and
replaced. So the internally inconsistent material we have in
the file has to be sorted out.
Can you hear me?
MR. ANDERSON: Dave Bergen is not speaking for the applicant.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Are there any other questions
from the Board?
(Negative response).
I noticed the Trustees were looking at the specs on the survey.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Does the plan shows the side elevation of the
proposed retaining wall? In other words how much is exposed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I do not see it. A question has been raised
by Trustee Domino of the amount of exposed face of the retaining wall.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay, I think Joe Fischetti can walk you through
the septic design. Also you would have and should have
received, actually received a video of which depicted the
project as a whole which was sent to you I'll say about a month
ago. Did you all get a chance to look at the video?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, we did. The clerk played it for us.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Perhaps, Joe, you can jump in if you wish.
MS. CANTRELL: Bruce, I'll mute you so I can bring Joe up. Joe,
if you want to un-mute yourself.
MR. FISCHETTI: Okay, good evening. This project was originally
submitted to the Health Department Board of Review in August of
2011 and it was approved by the Board of Review of the Health
Department. We did receive an approval from the Health
Department for our original sanitary system which was not an IA
system, and that may be the file that you have, which shows a
septic tank.
When this came up again, when we needed an IA system, I was
able to keep pretty much consistent the original design of the
leaching pools, the retaining wall, and was able to replace the
septic tank with a hydro-action AN-400 system, and the control
panels, without any changes to the original basic site plan and
retaining wall.
The elevations in the property are elevations five and
four. The retaining wall is about, is elevation 7.4. So again,
we are only two-and-a-half feet or so above the existing grade.
And that would have been shown in that video that I prepared for
you. .
There was also a 2-D submission that was submitted to you
showing all the dimensions and elevations. So you should have
67
that in your file. If you have any questions I would be glad to
answer them
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't have any additional questions, maybe
,the Board members do.
The sanitary system is what it is. That's about a three
foot high retaining wall. We have tried to have them reduce
where possible.
Now, this shows conventional leaching pools. There is no
added benefit with using the galleys, infiltration galleys as
far as reducing potential wall height?
MR. FISCHETTI: We have done there before and the system that has
been designed and approved by the Health Department and the
Board of Review.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. I think the Board though was very
concerned with that we should have non-turf throughout. And the
previous, the plan really only depicts it in that, you know, the
proposed area that is non-turf area is seaward of the retaining
wall to the bulkhead. So I think that would be something we
would want to see on the new set of plans that we would see that
as well as the denomination that it will be an IA system.
MR. FISCHETTI: Well, I'll let Bruce answer those questions now
because it's out of my--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Out of your area, okay. We walked in the
wrong wheel house.
MS. CANTRELL: Bruce if you want to un-mute.
MR. ANDERSON: That's completely acceptable. I probably have to
revise the plans to remove that groin that I spoke of earlier,
and the non-turf throughout the remainder we can easily add that
to the plan, and I would say that, you know, we'll make sure,
I'm not sure what you are looking at, it's sort of a
disadvantage, but if you somehow, if you don't have the
engineering plans we'll be certain to get you another set so
everything agrees. That too should be consistent with the
survey. So we are agreeable to those comments.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Bruce, I apologize. Trustee Domino pointed
out it does show a non-turf throughout the whole area but a
non-disturbance between that buffer, between that retaining wall
and the bulkhead. So actually that was clear. I apologize.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do we want to move that retaining wall off the
property line?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We have been fairly consistent with that.
MR. ANDERSON: I would simply say the applicant controls the
adjacent property owner, so we certainly have no objection to
it. We are the only ones impacted from it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Bruce, one last comment from me, if I might. It
shows the proposed retaining wall says top of wall 7.4, and the
nearby elevation is 4.1, which works out to about 40 inches of
exposed retaining wall. Is there any way that could be reduced,
even a wee bit?
MR. ANDERSON: I'll defer to Joe Fischetti on that point.
MS. CANTRELL: Joe, if you want to un-mute, you are welcome to
68
MR. FISCHETTI: Okay. Hold on a second. We really can't lower
that wall because then the whole system gets lowered. And
again, only on one corner at the 4.1 is the highest part of that
wall. The rest of the wall is, over at the other end it's five,
it's two-and-a-half feet. We are not talking here major. This
is not a fence.- These are very small, there is no, the area
that that wall, Mike, is looking at is the water. There is no one
there on that side. The only property is on the opposite side.
So there is no one that will see this wall. There are no
property owners anywhere near this wall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is no one on the water?
MR. FISCHETTI: Well, yes, it's on the opposite side. You saw my
video. It's on the opposite side. You are talking two feet of
concrete wall. The wall is needed for the sanitary system.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI did we address pulling that wall off the
property line? Was that touched on yet?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Not by Mr. Fischetti, no
MR. FISCHETTI: I didn't hear that, sorry.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, one of my biggest issues is retaining
walls at or very near the property line. So, you know, I
certainly think a two-and-half-foot wall and if we can come up
with a planting plan, I'm willing to work if we have an absolute
maximum height of exposure, but I would like to see, me
personally, the wall moved off the property line.
MR. FISCHETTI: It is off the property line one foot.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
MR. FISCHETTI: I could put plantings in one foot.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In terms of, you know, the wall is going to
come into public viewshed, obviously, but in terms of the walls
along property lines, that for me is not just viewshed but is
also a drainage issue, and I --
MR. FISCHETTI: Can you explain why it's a drainage issue? We
have drainage done on this property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand but I'm not realistically looking
to put a neighbor in a situation where they could have a
waterfall next to their property.
MR. FISCHETTI: Which neighbor are we talking about?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I believe there is only one neighbor on this
site, correct?
MR. FISCHETTI: Opposite this property. Same owner.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It may not always be the same owner.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It is today.
MR. FISCHETTI: The only neighbor is to the west.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, to the west is across the, no, the only
neighbor is to the east, correct?
MR. FISCHETTI: Sorry, to the east. You're correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So is there any way to move that wall in
slightly on that side?
MR. FISCHETTI: You have to say that again. I didn't hear that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any way to move that wall in on that
side at all?
69
MR. FISCHETTI: Which side?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The only side with the neighbor.
MR. FISCHETTI: The side with the neighbor is on the east side.
There is no retaining wall on the east side.
MR. ANDERSON: No,.no, Joe --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:'Did I look at the plans the wrong way?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It shows the retaining wall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On the east side, Joe, the only side with the
neighbor, the plan does show a retaining wall.
MR. FISCHETTI: Sorry, yes, I'm looking at it the wrong way. How
much do you want it moved? Because we are pretty much --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, what can we do. I think we are willing
to work with you.
MR. FISCHETTI: Okay. I'think you want plantings there. If I
had two feet between the property line and the retaining wall,
we could plant within two feet. Would that be okay?
MR. ANDERSON: If I may, I don't know if anyone can hear me.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. There's a couple of things. We can
obviously plant it. We can also slope up to the wall. Because
the same people, you know, it's held in single and separate.
It's a legally separated lot but it's controlled by the same
family. So if that were a concern, it could certainly be
planted. It could be grade up. Those are things we would be
willing to do. We don't think it's necessary to do it but it's
not out of the realm of what we can do with this.
The problem with moving the wall to the west is that we
will run afoul of the Board of Review decision. So that wall
right now is separated from the leaching pool by ten feet. That
is the minimum separation. So it's just a suggestion I have.
If you also look at the proposed grades on here, on the survey,
you'll see there is some mounding up, it goes through half the
house and it comes out on that sort of southeastern leg there.
So do take notice of that.
At that point the wall is four inches exposed. Adjacent to
the house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. I will say I personally prefer to hear
it's two foot off. I know the property is owned by the same
person now but I'm just thinking about in the future and I would
be a lot more comfortable if we can at least get another foot
off. If that means shifting the whole system over, so be it,
but.
MR. ANDERSON: Just so you know, I'm sure your attorney would
confirm this. You are in a buyer beware state. So the next guy
who owns it, if that's the concern, is buying a property with a
wall visible or not visible, you are buying a property with the
surrounding environment being whatever it is, I would not, if I
were you, get too concerned what about the next owner of lot
118, which is adjacent to and east of it, because even if that
were to change hands whoever would be buying, would be buying it
under a certain set of circumstances, that being the house and
70
the septic wall adjacent to the property.
MR. FISCHETTI: Am I still available to talk? Yes, I see I am.
We can, I'm looking at this. We can give you another foot on
that western property. I have, I can shift everything to keep
that ten feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: As Trustee Krupski noted, and I think we have
seen in previous applications, we do not like to see retaining
walls right on the property line. So anything we can do to move
that and/or vegetate it so it's not visible to a neighbor is
greatly appreciated.
MR. FISCHETTI: We'll do that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional questions, members or--we
have Mr. Bergen wants to speak.
MS. CANTRELL: Are you guys finished with your conversation with
Joe and Bruce for the moment?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, I think moving the retaining wall, doing
some sloping in front of other retaining wall faces and
plantings, and/or plantings I guess I should say, would satisfy
a lot of my issues.
MS. CANTRELL: All right, so I'll mute Joe and Mr. Anderson. And
Dave if you want to un-mute, you are welcome to speak.
MR. BERGEN: Thank you. Dave Bergen, for West Lake Association.
Good evening and thank you for allowing comments related to this
application.
The Board should know that both sides have been working for
about four months now in a cooperative manner to try to reach
agreements regarding all the issues with this application. Most
recently we found ourselves down to one minor issue to be
resolved, yet the Moy's this past weekend notified us they were
breaking off all attempts to resolve the challenges and
proceeding with this application.
As the hearing is now been open, we are obligated to place
our challenges to this application on the record. Before we
list these challenges, there is an emergency condition to be
brought to your attention.
The bulkhead was in need of replacement this past summer.
Recent storms have resulted in further structural damage to the
bulkhead to the point now that it's in danger of collapse. A
collapse could result in the complete blockage of the inlet
preventing any flushing of West Lake, which would result in an
environmental disaster for West Lake.
But to our challenges with this application. The
application involves three distinctive parts: The dock, the
bulkhead and the house. Again, it's a very complicated and
comprehensive application.
I'll first address the dock. The application is for
replacement in-kind. The proposed dock is not in-kind as the
pilings are different, as you can see on the drawings.
I want to refer you to both the LWRP determination, and by
the way there is a Laserfiche file on this application. It's
71
about, I think around 100, 110_, 120 pages. So I'll be referring
to where you can find it in the Laserfiche application that you
Trustees have.
I'll refer you to the LWRP determination on page 54, and
the February 6th, 2020 e-mail from Elizabeth Cantrell to the
applicant, which is on page 61 of Laserfiche, which states that
the existing dock is not permitted. The memo states that should
the dock be removed it cannot be put back in place without first
obtaining a permit. Actually, Chapter 275-11-C-2-10 states that
a non-permitted structure if removed cannot be put back without
a permit. The pictures submitted last week, taken December 6th
shows that the dock has in fact been removed.
Now, the dock which is proposed shows the dock being
attached to the bulkhead. This bulkhead is not the property of
the applicant. The bulkhead is the property of West Lake
Association being contiguous to a right-of-way.
Now, I recall the other night on Monday's work session, this
right-of-way or road came up in the discussion. One person
referred to it possibly as a public road end. I urge the Board
to refer to the October, 2010, ZBA hearing Minutes. This is
critical for this entire application. This all went before the
ZBA in October, 2010. And that's found on pages 79 through 83
in the ZBA Minutes and page 40 through 45 in Laserfiche.
This right-of-way plus the bulkhead was discussed in the
ZBA hearing. The representatives of the Moy's testified that
the Moy's own 99-and-a-half feet of the bulkhead up to the
section owned by West Lake Association. You'll note in the ZBA
Minutes the road in question is referred to by all parties
including the ZBA as a right-of-way. The bulkhead running along
from the inlet to the east to which the dock has been attached
is owned by the association.
Chapter 275-6-A-13 states that the applicant must have a
signed affidavit from the property owners giving permission to
attach a structure to this property. As of this date, West Lake
Association does not give the applicant permission to attach a
dock to their property.
Also, Chapter 275-11-6-A-2 states that a structure attached
to a right-of-way must have written consent of all parties
having interest in that right-of-way. The proposed platform is
on right-of-way property. There is a hydrographic survey showing
depths included in this application.
Finally, the present length of the existing dock from the
bulkhead is 23 feet. Should the dock for some reason be granted
a permit, we want to be sure the permit does not allow for the
dock any further seaward than 23 feet.
Second, the bulkhead. I again refer you to the ZBA
determination of October 20th, 2010, found on pages 40 through
45 on your Laserfiche file. It includes a C&R requiring the
Moy's to maintain and repair the bulkhead. They have not
complied with this C&R. As the current pictures show, the
bulkhead is in a state of disrepair and must be repaired as soon
i
72
as possible.
The applicant's plan includes a jetty, as Bruce had
described, and this jetty, according to the e-mail of 2/6/20
also lacks permits. We have recommended and as Bruce said he
agreed that section be removed from the proposed work.
As previously stated, the association owns all but
99-and-a-half feet of this bulkhead. Again, as per ZBA. As
such, the applicant would require our written permission to
perform the work.
Third, the proposed house, this proposed structure is in
some way similar to the structure permitted by the Trustees on
July 27th, 2009. And that's found on page 30 of your
Laserfiche file. But is also in fact different. Others will
speak to some of the specific differences and concerns.
In the e-mail dated 8/18, August 18th of 2020, on page
eight of the Laserfiche file, from the Trustees, was a request
for elevation. The plans shown on Laserfiche are dated March
3rd, 2020. Did the applicant ever submit the requested
information? We couldn't find it.
We suggest this Board follow the lead of the Trustee Board
back in 2009-10, where the applicant was required to hire an
independent expert at the applicant's expense to evaluate the
environmental impact of the project as allowed under 275-7-D.
In conclusion, again, this is a very complicated application
involving three major components.
The project impacts the environmental health of West Lake.
It impacts 14 additional property owners on West Lake including
a commercial aquaculture business, Yennicott Oysters. Given
the recent severe damage to the bulkhead, we would suggest that
consideration be given to removing the house and dock from this
application so that a permit can be issued for the bulkhead, i
allowing for its immediate replacement. This would allow time
for challenges related to the dock and house to be worked out in 1
order to avoid an environmental disaster. Thank you. And I'm
available for questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions from the Board for Mr. Bergen?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not at this time.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: No questions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, it did come to mind with this
presentation that maybe it is time to segment the bulkhead out
as additional complex issues are dealt with. I don't know how
the members of the Board feel.'
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think I would like to discuss it at some
point. I'm not ready to go one way or the other on that at this
point in time.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'm just a little confused on if it's an
emergency or if they don't have permit or don't have permission
to do it. You know, I'm a little confused on that. Is it an
emergency that it needs to be replaced, but yet you also say
that they don't have the authority to replace it. So I'm a
t
73
little confused with that aspect.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Fair point.
MS. CANTRELL: Dave, would like to respond to that? He put his
hand up.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There are other hands up as well.
MS. CANTRELL: Dave, if you want to speak.
MR. BERGEN: Glenn, you brought up a very good point. In the
discussions we had, ongoing discussions we had about all the
concerns between both sides, we all agreed that that bulkhead is
in dire need of replacement and it is an emergency situation.
And so as far as I know, the Moy's and West Lake all agree
totally that that bulkhead needs to be replaced, and we are
willing to give permission for that part of our bulkhead to be
replaced. It's just should be, the question came up the other
night in the work session as to who owned what, was not seemed
to be completely clear, so we wanted to make sure the record was
very clear as to who owned what with regard to that bulkhead and
return.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So just to clarify then, are the Moy's
currently in receipt of permission from West Lake Association
for the bulkhead? Just the bulkhead.
MR. BERGEN: We are willing, they do not have that permission as
we sit here tonight.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's good. That's fine.
MR. BERGEN: We are willing to give that permission if this is
segmented out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, that's, it takes away from -- it speaks
for itself.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Would West Lake be in a position --
MR. BERGEN: Sorry, was there a question there?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: No, it's a thought I trailed off on.
MR. BERGEN: That's okay.
MS. CANTRELL: Mr. Anderson wants to speak again as well as other
attendees. Bruce, go ahead.
MR. ANDERSON: Just a couple of things. First of all, Dave
Bergen left out the legal analysis as to the ownership, which is
also contained in that Laserfiche record written by Matt
McCormick (sic), and in that submission it is quite clear that West
Lake does not own it, and it is widely known that West Lake
Association holds no deed for West Lake Drive. So it's, the
Board should not just take Dave Bergen's word for it.
Secondly, the really interesting thing about all this is
that while the West Lake Association wants the bulkhead rebuilt
and wants it segmented, what they have not-mentioned to you yet
is that our clients are picking up 100% of that cost.
So the idea that we are going to pick up 100% of the cost
and then we are going to come back and have some discussion as
to whether a house can be built of the same exact dimension that
was already approved by this Board and supported by the courts,
because it's so complicated, is really completely unfounded.
In the prior history for this, and I was the consultant
74
for, at that point it was Sim Moy who made that application, we
did all the consulting stuff. We hired and paid for outside
consultants. We did groundwater sites. All of that is still
part of your record. So this is really not that difficult to
understand, because it's all but fully vetted and fully studied.
You should know this application, this house, everything
you see here is as what was approved by the Town, the Zoning
Board, the Trustees, the DEC and the Health Department, pursuant
to a Board of Review decision.
We have with us today are also Mike Solomon, he is the
attorney for 106 Mulberry Corp. I would like to hear what he
has to say about some of these matters.
MS. CANTRELL: Do any of the Board members have anything to say
to Bruce?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't. We can move on to the next person,
right?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, please. I'm sorry.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No worries.
MS. CANTRELL: Mr. Solomon, if you would like to un-mute.
MR. SOLOMON: My name is Michael Solomon, I'm with the firm of
Solomon, Herrera & McCormick out of Levittown. I'm a full-time
resident of Greenport in the Town of.Southold.
With respect to Mr. Bergen's comment regarding the issue of
the ownership of we'll call it road/right-of-way/easement area,
that has never been legally defined, and as of this date a deed
to that property has never been conveyed into West Lake. This
has been a running contention with the Moy family probably going
on ten or 15 years. There have been some waving around of
documents claiming there is a deed that does exist. Our title
search and report that we provided to the Board of Trustees sets
forth the fact that there are missing links in the title. There
has never been a proper deed conveyed to West Lake, so they
can't claim ownership of the parcel or the right-of-way or the
road. And by the way that would apply to all the roads
throughout the whole West Lake Association, not just the
property that is in front of our client's parcel.
The fact of the matter, as it relates to this application,
I don't believe it's critical as to the ownership of the road
for purposes of the decision because my client would have a
prescriptive easement or prescriptive right to use that roadway,
which they have done for probably 50 or 60 years. So that would
not affect the merits of the application on the build, on the
house.
The issue regarding the bulkheading has been a bone of
contention between West Lake Association and the Moy's going
back probably a good ten years. I personally appeared at
several hearings with regard to the dredging of that canal.
And what Bruce Anderson has stated to the Board is 100%
accurate. West Lake is asking the Moy's to pay for the
replacement of a bulkhead, the full length, and at the same
time they are trying to assert some sort of claim of ownership
75
or claim of some right to an interest in property to which they
don't own. And you basically heard it from Mr. Bergen, they are
trying to hold the dock issue as somehow a noose around my
client's neck. Basically they are saying well we have not given
you permission to rebuild the dock. Our position is they don't
have to give permission because we don't be they either own
it or have a right of interest in the adjacent property.
I would also call, and we had a difficult time because of
COVID, we have not been able to get back into the records, but
this dock has existed, from what I have been told, since about
1970, so the dock has been there going on somewhere 50 years.
And we are told that it was permitted at one time during that 50
year period of time by virtue of our failure to get access to
get into the records to do our own investigation, we have not
been able to come up with it, but our client told us that that
permit does exist.
My client is going and is willing to spend a substantial
amount of money to replace the dock. He's indicated or they
indicated they are willing to do the whole length of the dock,
despite the issue that if West Lake Association is claiming they
have a right-of-way, whether it's 30 feet or 50 feet they are
claiming, it would make sense that the cost of the replacement
of that dock would fall on their shoulder and not just on the
shoulder of the Moy's.
But as Bruce has well said, this whole matter was brought
before the Board of Trustees in, before the year 2009, and there
were issues at that time concerning the construction,
unfortunately the case ended up in the appellate division. The
appellate division granted the application, was sent back in
July of 2009. The Trustees issued their approval to the project
that went through the Board of Zoning Appeals, was ultimately
approved. Since that time unfortunately there were health
issues and death issues in the Moy family and that's the reason
the property never got built and developed under the old permit.
But now I'm hearing we have this issue of emergency, and
I'll let the Board know, as the counsel to the applicant, I
would never sever the application to provide for separation of
the bulkheading and the building of,the house. Because there is
a history here and it's been a prior approval, if any urgency
should happen here, the entire project should happen here, the
entire project should be approved expeditiously with the dock,
permit my client to go ahead and take care of Mr. Bergen's
emergency and protect the canal and do what is necessary.
Blocking it and indicating let's just do part of this
application and then we can negotiate down the road, and I don't
want to get into the elements of the negotiation because
unfortunately Mr. Bergen is indicating, well, it came down to
one element. It came down to several elements, which my clients
had the absolutely right to review and felt the negotiations
were not proceeding in good faith. but that's really not to be
brought up before the Board. We are trying to settle it on our
76
own terms. We are unable to do it. We are being hit with now a
claim there is an emergency. Well, if there is an emergency, I
would urge the Board to expedite the processing of this
application, take it to the top of the heap and my client will
make sure the financial resources come in to get this project
done on a timely manner. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
MS. CANTRELL: We have three other people, two other people who
wish to talk. So the next person is Ricki Fier. Ricki, if you
wish to talk, please un-mute your mic.
(No response).
Ricki, can you hear us? If you would like to talk, you can
un-mute your mic.
(No response).
The next person is a gentleman named Henry.
MR. KAMINER: This is Henry Kaminer. I live at 130 Midway Road,
so I'm one of the 15 people on West Lake. I am not speaking
officially on behalf of the West Lake Association, I'm speaking
as a citizen and a resident. And I'll try to make my remarks
brief.
I'm 86 years old and it really makes me sad to listen to
this hearing. We have been here almost 20 years, and the same
arguments have been going on for 20 years. And they preceded my
arrival. And the original people who are arguing it are no
longer alive. And there is still this argument. What this
comes down to is that the Moy family presents to the Board, they
want the zoning variance, they want various things, they present
documents, they have lawyers and pictures, and after arguing it
is granted, but there is a proviso that they must maintain the
bulkhead, et cetera, because all of us here, they control access
to this pond. And when their bulkhead is leaking sand, no
matter how often we dredge, it fills up with sand coming out
from, through their bulkhead. And what happens is they agree
and then they never carry out their responsibilities. Their
bulkhead is very, very old. It has been patched only a little.
They spent a lot of money repairing their bulkhead facing the
bay, after the big storm. And I spoke out in favor of letting
them do that. But they never fulfill their responsibilities.
And if this fills in and water cannot pass through, the DEC
will say that it's closed up and will not let anyone dredge ever
again. This will become a swamp. And 15 people, the value of
their homes will be cut in half, and Southold will lose the
taxes because our taxes will be cut in half once our property
value is cut in half.
And now, what I want to urge you, all the questions about
the sanitation, that's up to you, you know what you are doing,
we are very happy with whatever you decide. There has to be
room for emergency vehicles, police cars, fire engines
ambulances, to get through and go around to the front of the
house. That whole area near the channel is so weak, I would not
even walk there. I would fall into a hole. And I'm a big person.
77
They have to do a massive reconstruction. And the whole thing
about this roadway, that's a red herring. It is not true that
there is no deed. It is not true --the original developer of
this whole area sold off the lots and by some accident kept the
whatchamacallit road to himself. And we went to the trouble of
finding his heirs and they were happy to sell us for five
dollars the road and its responsibilities. We are negotiating
with the Cedar Beach Association for how much each of us should
maintain. That is the only reason that there is a delay in
ascertaining who owns that road. We and Cedar Beach own that
road. I really would like to urge you, please, whatever you
decide, you want to decide to give them permission to build this
kind of cesspool or that kind of cesspool on this small piece of
land, fine. But preserve that right-of-way, before you sign
anything and give'them any permission, make sure they are
starting on replacing that bulkhead, because so many times in
the past, ten areas ago, seven years ago, they get permission,
they do their thing and they don't do, they don't take care of
the channel. And whenever we want to dredge, they complain as
follows: Our bulkhead is so fragile that if you dredge you may
knock it down, so we don't want to give you permission to
dredge. If it's that fragile, fix it. And our dredges have
never damaged their bulkhead. Thank you, very much, I tried to
remain brief.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
MS. CANTRELL: The next person is Ken Quigley. Ken, if you want
to un-mute and just state and spell your name, please, for the
record.
MR. QUIGLEY: Hi, Ken Quigley, I'm speaking on behalf of the HOA
as an officer as well as resident on the lake. As a retired
architect I took responsibility to review some of the drawings
within the applicant's file and advised the members of the
association on what was really going on with the house, the
bulkhead and the dock. Most people just can't read drawings.
So since the association, in my understanding, they have a
question of ownership. I won't talk about the extension of the
dock, I'm sorry, of the bulkhead, up on to property that may or
may not be Mr. Moy's.
MR. HAGAN: I'm sorry, sir, can you state the name of that
association?
MR. QUIGLEY: I'm sorry?
MR. HAGAN: Can you just state the name of the homeowners
association.
MR. QUIGLEY: West Lake Homeowners Association.
MR. HAGAN: Very good. Just to clarify for the record.
MR. QUIGLEY: No worries. My apologies. So I looked at the
drawings, and the one in particular obviously is the site plan,
which is Robert Fox's drawing from June 12th, 2019, and I had a
few comments. I recognize it's not the original ZBA drawing that
they are making some small modifications. They removed a series
78
of details that Mr. Fischetti probably drew originally that
don't appear on these drawings. And I would like to raise some
concerns about the differences of that missing information.
As Mr. Domino mentioned before, we have some fairly
significant rate changes across the property. Although the
lowest portion of the corner is 4.1 feet, the primary property
is about five feet datum point. That proposed retaining wall
creates this 40-inch retaining wall. And the bulkhead is
sitting in exactly five feet. So when you look at the revised
site plan, they added contour lines this time. A ten-foot
contour line, eight-foot contour line and seven-foot contour
line. When you take a look at the cross-section of that
property, it raises some significant environmental questions
about water runoff. We got a condition where within just a few
feet of the driveway is a 45 degree angle of dirt. How did this
berming on the property work with the site plan that has been
approved?
There doesn't appear to be any kind of storm water
management plan for the property. And as per the town code
Chapter 36, all water runoff needs to be contained on the
applicant's property. When you look at 50% of the property
going east to west is sloping radically to the channel, how are
they going to keep water on this property?
I question whether or not the ZBA ruling on maximum of 350
cubic yards could be added to this property under the ten-foot
berm and adding nearly five feet of dirt throughout half the
property. It actually fits the ZBA requirements. We are
concerned that down the road if they can't make this work that
the applicant is going to seek administrative amendments to the
Trustees or make field changes on their own that may effect the
quality of the lake for years to come. That there will be
additional fill needed, as I mentioned: That the fence
stipulated in the ZBA drawing is not on the site plan itself,
that is supposed to protect people from stepping off the
driveway and falling into the canal. And my last point is
something Mr. Fischetti offered tonight was that the drawings of
the design of,the septic system have not been submitted to the
file. There is nothing for us to review. We would like to know
how this IA system got to the height that it needs to be of five
feet above the current property. Why so much dirt? What is
keeping all this back on, all this water on the property. But
as Mr. Krupski mentioned, it could easily be a waterfall going
over the side of the retaining wall, at this stage in time.
There is nothing that will retain that water to the property.
Regarding the bulkhead drawings by Suffolk Environmental
Services, I think that those drawings are a little deficient in
some of the notations. They don't have any heights, any specific
information that coordinates the drawings directly to the
official site plan that has either been approved by the ZBA or
the one before you that is being used to evaluate whether this
extensive septic system is going to work properly for this
79
property. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MS. CANTRELL: Okay, Alvin Schein.
MR: SCHEIN: Thank you, everyone. I'm sure everybody is tired
at this point and wants to go home and this has gone on more
than anybody wants to listen to right now, so I'll try to keep
my comments brief. My name is Alvin Schein. I am the President
of West Lake Association. I also live full time on West Lake.
I have a house that fronts on the lake.
I want to respond to some of the comments that were made
earlier by the applicant's representatives. I had other notes
which I won't even bother with. I'll try to stick with the
points to respond to the things that were said.
I want to point out for the record that section 275-11-C-A-8
says that any application for a dock to be constructed at the
end of a right-of-way or common headland requires written
consent of all parties having an interest in the right-of-way,
and it goes on to say parties with a legal or beneficial
interest in any existing or proposed docking facility. That
means legal or beneficial'. We have both legal and beneficial
interest. As Mr. Kaminer said earlier, we do have a deed from
the heirs of the developer. The deed is jointly with Cedar
Beach Association. We have not recorded it as yet, as Mr.
Kaminer pointed out, because we are still working out relative
responsibilities of dividing the road, which is taking a while.
We do have a deed. And we told this to Mr. Solomon and to Mr.
Anderson as well. They are choosing to disregard that. The
statute is clear, you need the consent of the owner, either
legally or beneficial interest. They can't take the position
there is no owner, because there is an owner. Forever, since
the West Lake Association was established' West Lake Association
has taken care of the roads. All of the members contribute dues
to maintain the roads, maintain the bulkhead --sorry, to
maintain the channel itself, I should say, to dredge the
channel. Over the past ten years we spent over$125,000 to
dredge the channel and the Moy's have contributed nothing. Even
though they had a boat docked on the inside of the lake on an
illegal dock.
They came to us to try to negotiate a deal to get our
consent for the dock, okay, and we were willing to sit down with
them. We had numerous discussions. It was fairly pleasant. We
thought we were getting somewhere. We spent a lot of time and
energy drafting an agreement which we sent to Mr. Solomon. We
didn't really hear anything for five weeks, despite asking what
was going on. Mr. Solomon said that there were a couple of
issues, one of which was our concern about when the dock would
be rebuilt, which was an important issue. And I think that may
have been it. I'm not sure. Because we are not sure what they
intend to do with the property. We have no comfort once they
get the permits that they'll actually build it or are they just
going to sell to a third party.
80
Mr. Anderson was referring to what is going to happen to
the rights of somebody who buys the lot. Maybe that's what they
are planning to do. Our concern is to get the bulkhead rebuilt
or repaired immediately. It's in deplorable shape and the
representatives of the Moy's are not willing to admit that. And
they taken the position they don't need our consent for a dock.
Which I think a preposterous. In any case, the dock is illegal,
it's been removed from the bulkhead and it really can't be
replaced without a new permit. And our position is there can not
be any dock without the consent of West Lake Association. Thank
you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: One more hand.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This has to be the last hand, right?
MS. CANTRELL: Ricki Fier, if you would like to speak, you are
welcome to.
MS. FIER: Yes. Can you hear me now?
MS. CANTRELL: Yes.
MS. FIER: I'm also a resident and I'm Henry's wife. This has
been going on for 20 years. I would just like to tell you a few
things. And I'll try to keep it as tight as I can. They have
asked you, the Moy's have helped for permission to make their
property more to their liking, and it was seven years ago they
came before a different Southold authority, the Zoning Board,
and then as now they requested the Board's. The Board generally
granted their request with conditions. The condition was that
they were to maintain their bulkhead which had been visibly
deteriorating and leaking sand into the inlet as documented in
photographs at the time. They agreed. Since that time they
have made some small adjustments but the condition overall has
deteriorated gravely. It appears they think you won't notice
that in the seven years that have passed they have flouted the
conditions which the town has placed on them and flouted the
authority of the Town. And it seems as if they are laughing at
the Town. Their new request mocks the authority of the Town to
regulate construction and to protect our precious waterways. If
you grant their request, and forget about their septic tank
system, that's the least of the problems, without any proof from
them, that they will immediately repair the bulkhead and that is
now over a decade overdue, they'll high five each other and
laugh all the way home.
For the sake of the residents and the delicate ecology of
West Lake but also for the authority of this body, I hope that
you can hear this. I would like to add something else. I'm a
healthcare professional, and if this channel gets blocked,
which it is already, severely blocked, we will have a swamp. A
mosquito-infested swamp, which is a very serious health threat
including West Nile fever, and other various things, because
there are many channels near us that have already done that.
Because of the variety of inlets that we have. And right now,
we have a healthy lake that has wonderful fish and clams. People
81
go clamming, et cetera. They are talking about stopping all of
us around the lake from having a backyard that we can use like a
human. It will be smelly, it will be mud. It will be no lively
fish or anything else. It will be a dirty, dirty swamp.
So I am asking you to be very careful about what you grant
them because they do not follow through on what they say they
are going to do. That you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. I don't see any more hands up
presently. I do believe the Board had made the request and it
was acknowledged that Mr. Fischetti could move the sanitary
system retaining wall off the east property by another foot. So
I guess we would like to see that on the plans and the plans
updated to -- I'm sorry, I keep using word plan. I mean the
survey. And then the survey and plan both show that they have
an IA system.
Is there anything else that the Board wishes to see in
revised plans that would add on to that?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No, but I would just like to state it seems
everybody is in agreement that the bulkhead needs to be
replaced, and this is an application to replace that bulkhead.
In addition to a house. So, you know, everybody wants it
replaced. We need to issue them a permit to replace that
bulkhead in order for somebody to be able to replace a bulkhead.
So it's kind of muddying the waters here. They can't do it
prior to getting a permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm in total agreement. It does seem though
that the dock is a real issue for the Trustees to discuss. I
don't know if we want to go into additional work session on it,
because that right-of-way provisions for docks, right-of-ways
and other, I don't know.
MR. HAGAN: I believe that the applicant wanted to table.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: My apologies. One more thing. I did have in my
notes here that we had earlier requested an elevation off of the
bulkhead depicting, from current grade depicting where the lot
was going to go and then where the retaining walls were going to
go, and the structure. So that is a fair point someone brought
up. And I think we should add that to the list of things we do
want to see going forward.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: If we are going to table so they can provide
us with more informational plans, I see a test hole down
here that shows water at five-and-a-half feet. But I don't see
a cross-section of the septic system anywhere so I could make a
veiled judgment as to whether or not this retaining wall really
has to be as high as depicted on this survey.
It's the suggestion if you are going to table it, put that
information there. Additionally, the dock that did or did not
exist for seven years did not have four pilings. In this plan
shows four pilings. Correct that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: If we have, we have requested in the past
water depth hydrographic survey for that dock, if we are getting
new plans we'll need to see that as well.
82
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Bruce Anderson, did you hear all those
concerns? Hello, Bruce?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think he's still on.
MS. CANTRELL: Hold on. Everybody is moving around too much. Hold
on. Bruce, do you want to reply to --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we are going to do replies. We
just want to make sure he heard that. Bruce did you hear all
our requests?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. I'm agreeable to all of those.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Fair to say with can table at the
applicant's request?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. As a consequence of a lengthy
discussion this evening and additional information that we
requested including elevations, side elevations,, elevations for
sanitary system, moving the retaining wall, concerns of dock and
water depths, I move we table this application for the
submission of that information.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
s ectfully ubmitted b�,
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees