HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-03/18/2021 i
Glenn Goldsmith,President Town Hall Annex
A. Nicholas Krupski,Vice President ®� ®�® 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
John M. Bredemeyer III3 Southold,New York 11971
Michael J. Domino Telephone(631) 765-1892
Greg Williams a® Fax(631) 765-6641
Irou
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECEIVED
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Ck (t; 16
APR 1 9 2021
Minutes l2
soul ld Town Clerk
Wednesday, March 18, 2021
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
John Burke, Assistant Town Attorney
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All right, good evening and welcome to our Thursday,
March 18, 2021 meeting.
At this time I would like to call the meeting to order and ask that you please
stand for the pledge of allegiance.
(PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll start off by announcing the people on the dais
to the screen. To my left we have Trustee Domino and Trustee Bredemeyer.
To my right we have Trustee Krupski and Trustee Williams. To my right is
Assistant Town Attorney John Burke. We have Senior Clerk Typist -
Elizabeth Cantrell and also with us tonight is Court Stenographer Wayne Galante.
Before we begin, just a little word of caution, we have been having some Wi-Fi
issues, so if we do lose Wi-Fi please be patient and stay with us. We'll get it back
up momentarily. So please don't log off because we'll be back on.
Agendas for tonight's meeting are posted on the Town's website.
We have a number of postponements tonight.
In the agenda on page 18, we have number 23, 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,
has been withdrawn.
On page 19 we have numbers 24 through 28, have been postponed.
Board of Trustees 2 March 18, 2021
They are listed as follows:
Number 24, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of GARY MANGUS & MIRIAM MEYERS
requests a Wetland Permit to install a 6'x20' floating dock accessed by a 3'x20' _ _
ramp with railing built directly off existing bulkhead; ramp and dock deck are to be
"Thru-Flow" or equal to allow light penetration; install electric to the dock; dredge
25-27 cubic yards of silt to provide 30" minimum to marine bottom for float and boat;
angle of repose from proposed marine bottom to existing marine bottom to be 3:1
min; and spoils to be deposited and contained inside bulkhead for dewatering.
Located: 1295 Island View Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-57-2-16
Number 25, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of WILLIAM F. GRELLA &
GARY OSBORNE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a proposed
110' long by 4' wide fixed dock with un-treated decking and
removal and replacement of existing timber jetties with new
vinyl in same location as existing (one 36 linear feet, one 37
linear feet, and one 49 linear feet in length).
Located: 1200 First Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-7-30
Number 26, AMP Architecture on behalf of WILLIAM F. GRELLA
& GARY OSBORNE requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built shower
(5'3"x7'6", 41 sq. ft.); pavers on sand (19'8"x47'4", 713 sq. ft.),
and other landscape structures; and for a proposed exterior
right turn staircase (4'2"x11'7", 83 sq. ft.)
Located: 1200 First Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-7-30
Number 27, DANIELLA C. RAVN &STEPHEN E. RAVN requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a 40'x20' in-ground swimming pool
with a pool drywell; proposed 63'x30' surrounding pool patio;
proposed 20'x14' cabana with outdoor shower; 73'x40' pool
enclosure fencing; a proposed 50'x40' garden area enclosed by 8'
high deer fencing; and proposed 3' high, 1-rail board fence will
be located along the property lines adjacent to neighbor's property.
Located: 625 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM#•1000-75-6-3.3
Number 28, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of
106 MULBERRY CORP. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two
story, single family dwelling (25'x42'4", ±1,058.25 sq. ft.) with
attached 7.3'x48.2' (351.86 sq. ft), deck on south side of
dwelling; install a 25'x6' (±150 sq. ft.) stone driveway, a
12'x20' parking area on west side of proposed dwelling, and an
11'x20' parking area on north side of proposed dwelling; install
a new innovative, alternative nitrogen reducing water treatment
system (AI/OWTS); install sanitary retaining wall at an overall
length of 99.5' and a width of 8.0" across the top of the wall;
and to replace the failing bulkhead on west side and north side
of the lot as well as to replace the wood jetty which extends,
into West lake, consisting of 198.0 linear feet of bulkhead to
be replaced along the westerly and northerly portions of the
subject property with the following measurements: Timber top
cap: 2.25' wide extended along the entirety of the bulkhead to
be replaced, 9" diameter timber piles, 6"x6" timber whalers,
±6.0' long tie-rods, ±6" diameter dead-men, and the use of vinyl
sheathing (CLOC or similar); the bulkhead return located
perpendicular to the northerly portion of the bulkhead to be
replaced at an overall length of 11.0'with a 2.25'wide
Board of Trustees 3 March 18, 2021
top-cap, 9.0" diameter piles, 6"x6" timber walers, t6.0' long
tie-rods, t6" 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
And on page 20, we have number 29, 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,
has been postponed.
Under Town Code Chapter 275-8(c), files were officially
closed seven days ago. Submission of any paperwork after that
date may result in a delay of the processing of the application.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
At this time I'll make a motion to have our next field
inspection on Wednesday, April 7th, 2021, at 8:00 AM
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next Trustee
meeting Wednesday April 14th, 2021, at 5:30 PM via Zoom.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
III. WORK SESSIONS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next work
session on Monday, April 12th, 2021, at 5:00 PM via Zoom online
platform and on Wednesday, April 14, 2021, at 5:00 PM via Zoom
online platform.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. MINUTES:
Board of Trustees 4 March 18, 2021
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of
the February 17, 2021 meeting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral V, The Trustees monthly report for
February 2021. A check for$9,733.75 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the
General Fund.
VI. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board
for review.
VII. RESOLUTIONS - OTHER:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, RESOLVED, the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Southold, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, hereby declare itself
Lead Agency in regards to the application of PATRICK & EVA FLANAGAN;
Located: 325 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-75-6-3.2.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, RESOLVED, the Board of Trustees of
the Town of Southold, pursuant to the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, hereby declare itself Lead Agency in regards
to the application of ADF VENTURES, LLC, c/o FREDERICK FRAGOLA;
Located: 17877 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-4
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VIII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VIII, State Environmental
Quality Reviews,
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the
following applications more fully described in Section XIV Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Thursday, March 18, 2021 are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA:
Southold Sunsets, LLC SCTM# 1000-54-4-3
Stuart Thorn SCTM# 1000-51-1-20.1
Stuart Thorn SCTM# 1000-51-1-21
Board of Trustees 5 March 18, 2021
Joel Singer SCTM# 1000-51-4-11
Oriental Unicorn, LLC SCTM# 1000-26-2-47
Michael & Grace Ann Griffin SCTM# 1000-37-4-15.1
Strong's Marine Inlet, LLC, c/o Strong's Water Club & Marina SCTM# 1000-114-3-1
James & Katie Capozzi SCTM# 1000-35-4-12
JJS Edgewater, LLC, c/o Scott Edgett SCTM# 1000-123-8-28.6 -
Alison Byers & Lawrence Busch SCTM# 1000-119-1-14.1 & 14.2
Oliver Henderson & Stephanie Leong SCTM# 1000-86-6-9
Domeluca II, LLC SCTM# 1000-23-1-2.10
Gloria Nixon SCTM# 1000-138-2-13
Andrea Court Property Holdings, LLC SCTM# 1000-90-2-14.1
Jennifer B. Gould SCTM# 1000-31-13-3
Erath & Son, LLC SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.30
James P. Riley, Jr. 2002 Family GST Trust, c/o Ellen Riley, Trustee
SCTM# 1000-111-5-7.2
Theodore Stratigos & Carissa Laughlin SCTM# 1000-57-1-27
Long Island One Real Estate, Inc. SCTM# 1000-44-2-12
Steven Eisman &Valerie Feigen SCTM# 1000-17-5-3.2
Anthony & Eva Caluori SCTM# 1000-81-3-3
Marc Turkel & Neena Beeber SCTM# 1000-86-5-11.2
Konstantinos Zoitas SCTM# 1000-30-2-78that's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the
Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications
more fully described in Section XIV Public Hearings Section of
the Trustee agenda dated Thursday, March 18, 2021, are
classified as Unlisted Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and
Regulations:
Patrick & Eva Flanagan SCTM# 1000-75-6-3.2
ADF Ventures, LLC, c/o Frederick Fragola SCTM# 1000-51-1-4
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO NEW
YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT NYCCR PART 617:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Michael
Kimack on behalf of PATRICK & EVA FLANAGAN requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a 4'x80' fixed catwalk with Thru-Flow
decking and staircase (320 sq. ft.); construct a 4'x20'fixed,dock
(80 sq. ft.)With Thru-Flow decking (400 sq. ft. total).
Located: 325 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-75-6-3.2
S.E.Q.R.A. POSITIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with
this project having visited the site on February 9, 2021, and
Board of Trustees 6 March 18, 2021
having considered the survey of property by Nathan Taft Corwin
III Land Surveyor received on October 20, 2020, and having
,considered the plans for this proposed project submitted by
Michael A. Kimack last dated November 1, 2020 at the Trustee's
February 11, 2021 work session; and,
WHEREAS, on February 17, 2021 the Southold Town Board of
Trustees declared itself Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.;
and, WHEREAS, on February 17, 2021 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 Michael A.
Kimack last dated November 1, 2020 it has been determined by the
Board of Trustees that the proposed dock could have potentially
cumulative, significant environmental adverse impacts:
Impact on Surface Water
Potential moderate adverse impacts to surface water quality could occur as a part of this
action. The water depth at the end of the dock is inadequate for most vessels.
Moderate adverse impacts could also occur from the repeated scarring of the bottom
through the operation of a vessel and increased, repetitive turbidity capable of harming
marine life.
Impact on Plants and Animals
The proposed dock is located within a within a New York State Department of State
Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area, New York State Critical Environmental Area
and a Peconic Estuary Critical Natural Resource Area. The proposed dock will cause
habitat degradation and fragmentation of high quality, vegetated tidal wetlands in these
areas.
Impact on Open Space and Recreation
The proposed dock will extend into public waters and could result in adverse impacts to
recreational user groups of such waters.
Consistency with Community Plans
The proposed dock is inconsistent with the Town of Southold Comprehensive Plan
(2020):
Chapter 6: Natural Resources & Environment I Water Resources Section;
Goal 5: Protect Freshwater and Marine Habitat
Objective 5.2 Protect tidal and freshwater wetland habitats.
A. Continue to achieve a "no net loss" policy of tidal and freshwater wetlands.
Objective 5.4. Promote sustainable use of marine habitats and resources in Southold
Town.
Board of Trustees 7 March 18, 2021
C. Preserve ecological quality of public lands and waters by reducing the density of
future dock structures in Town creeks and/or water bodies through the establishment of
common easements and common docks.
Access to the dock from the subject parcel is not permissible due to a 50' wide non
disturbance buffer created by the Planning Board.
Access to public waters from this parcel is restricted to one pedestrian access easement
on Lot 3 established in the original Standard Subdivision of John Scott.
Access to the proposed dock from the one pedestrian access easement would result in
the loss of high quality, vegetated tidal wetlands from traversing to and from the
proposed dock location.
The proposed dock is inconsistent Policies 6 and 9 of the Town of Southold Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program.
Consistency with Community"Character
The proposed dock is located near the headwaters of a creek in an undeveloped coastal
landscape historically absent of dock structures.
THEREFORE, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees
Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of a Positive Declaration pursuant to
SEQRA for the aforementioned project.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Jeffrey
Patanjo on behalf of ADF VENTURES, LLC, c/o FREDERICK FRAGOLA
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the
installation of 109 lineal feet of rock revetment at toe of
existing bluff; installation of terracing consisting of 2"x12"
un-treated timber boards with un-treated timber 2"x4" stakes
every 8' along the face of the disturbed bluff; planting of
entire disturbed bluff with Cape American beach grass plugs 12"
on center; install 10'x19' platform on-grade at top of bluff
with 4'x12' walkway leading to 4'x6' steps to 4'x6' platform to
4'x22' steps to 4'x6' platform to 4'x41' steps to 4'x6' platform
to 3'x10' aluminum retractable steps to beach; all decking to be
un-treated; a temporary silt fence will be installed surrounding
the at-grade 10'x19' platform during construction to prevent any
sediment from leaving the immediate work area until stabilized;
and landward of the top of bluff is selective tree clearing as
required to remove deceased or dead trees as marked with orange tape.
Located: 17877 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-4
S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Board of Trustees 8 March 18, 2021
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with this project having
visited the site on March 10, 2021, and having considered the survey of property by
Metes and Bounds Surveying dated November 19, 2019, and having considered the
plans for this proposed project submitted by Jeffrey Patanjo dated February 7, 2021 at
the Trustee's March 15, 2021 work session; and,
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2021 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself
Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2021 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 February 7,
2021 it has been determined by the Board of Trustees that all potentially significant
environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein.
Vegetative, non-structural measures are not capable of stabilizing the erosion of
the bluff alone.
Protection of the toe of bluff using hardened structures including rock 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?
(ALL AYES).
X. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral X, Resolutions -Administrative
Permits, in order to simplify our meetings, the Board of Trustees regularly groups
together actions that are minor or similar in nature.
Accordingly, I make a motion to approve as a group items 2 through 7.
They are listed as follows:
Number 2, Patricia C. Moore on behalf of FRANK & JOANNE GUMPER
requests an Administrative Permit to install drainage in front yard consisting of a precast
storm leaching galley (8.5'Lx4.9'Wx2.5'high) with traffic bearing concrete slab; and to
establish and perpetually maintain a 158sq.ft. Non-turf buffer on the south side of
property adjacent to bulkhead.
Located: 2400 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-58.
Number 3, GEORGE & STAVROULA PROTONENTIS request an Administrative
Permit to replace/extend existing fence 120' and 80' on either side of house using either
PVC or wood.
Board of Trustees 9 March 18, 2021
Located: 215 Tarpon Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 100-53-5-3.
Number 4, Nancy Dwyer on behalf of LANCE & ERIN FARLEY requests an
Administrative Permit to construct a 3'x14.5' wood deck landing with stairs to grade and
handrails; existing second floor 12'x14.5' deck above sunroom to be re-decked with new
handrails around.
Located: 105 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-4-8.
Number 5, John Tortorella on behalf of RUSSELL & JULIANNE KARSTEN
requests an Administrative Permit to replace in kind 1258 sq. ft. pool patio with marble
stone; construct 108 sq. ft. sun shelf; 138 sq. ft. patio; 286 sq. ft. patio and "L" shaped
39 sq. ft. water feature.
Located: 57908 Main Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-66-2-2.2.
Number 6, Patricia C. Moore on behalf of RICHARD & SCHEHERAZADE
MADIGAN requests an Administrative Permit to maintain existing managed lawn up to
the landward edge of the existing berm with no use of chemical/inorganic fertilizer; for a
Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to hand-cut Common Reed (Phragmites australis) to
no less than 12" in height by hand, as needed; on berm running along the westerly side
of property and up to the seaward side of existing berm and to cut and maintain
Phragmites to maintain access along 4' path to Orient Harbor.
Located: 856 Narrow River Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-27-4-9.6.
And number 7, Tom Samuels on behalf of PAUL ROMANELLI &THERESA
BOYLE requests an Administrative Permit to remove an existing sub-surface sanitary
system and abandon, fill with clean sand and restore ground surface with topsoil and
lawn; establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer running along edge of
wetland line.
Located: 1750 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-3-5.1
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, GUSTAVE J. WADE requests an
Administrative Permit to remove approximately fifty (50) Locust
bushes and numerous poison ivy vines, and place on the surface
woodchips made from the removed locust bushes; the placement of
the woodchips is to be limited to the same area as the removal.
Located: 1024 East Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-110-7-28
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is the plan submitted is not readable and gives no indication of
what is being proposed. The applicant is proposing to clear a
beach habitat in close proximity to wetlands and will result in
physical loss of ecological components. The amount and method of
clearing has not been identified.
As such, I make a motion to deny this application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Quick note, on the Transfers and Amendments,
number 13, En-Consultants on behalf of STEPHEN MERKLE & ERIKA
SHALETTE requests an Administrative Amendment to Administrative
Permit#9692A for the installation of a 4'x7' outdoor shower
(unroofed/over gravel drainage bed piped to proposed drywell)
Board of Trustees 10 March 18, 2021
adjacent to proposed 8'x12' shed; installation of additional section of 3' wide
stone walkway to outdoor shower; construction of 36 If(in lieu of 32 If) stone
retaining wall around shed; connection of shed to water and electricity.
Located: 1800 Little Peconic Bay Road a/k/a 3700 Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-111-14-20:
Apparently a letter was sent to the office today to withdraw without prejudice.
I'm not sure that it was received or not, but that was the intent of the applicant.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
MS. CANTRELL: Denial without prejudice or just denial?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Was this the applicant withdrew it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We'll deny without prejudice.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
XI. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral XI, Applications for
Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments. Again in
order to simplify the meeting, I'll make a motion to approve as
a group items 1 through 12. They are listed as follows:
Number 1, HOWARD & LISA KOFF request a One (1) Year
Extension to Wetland Permit#9440 as issued on April 17, 2019.
Located: 1380 Oakwood Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-12-32
Number 2, En-Consultants on behalf of BLUE MOON PARTNERS,
LLC c/o RANDALL FAIRHURST, MEMBER requests a One (1) Year
Extension to Wetland Permit#9464 as issued on May 15, 2019.
Located: 360 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.33
Number 3, En-Consultants on behalf of PIPES COVE MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION c/o ROBERT WALLACE PRESIDENT requests the Last One
(1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit#9207 as issued on April 18, 2018.
Located: Pipes Cove Condominiums, 6th Street, Greenport.
SCTM# 1000-49-1-25.8
Number 4, ANTHONY & BEATRICE FALCONE request the Last One
(1) Year Extension of Wetland Permit#9283, as issued on July 18, 2018.
Located: 405 Williamsberg Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-17
Number 5, ANTHONY& BEATRICE FALCONE request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#6615 from Cheryl L. Hansen Revocable Trust to
Anthony & Beatrice Falcone, as issued on May 16, 2007.
Located: 405 Williamsberg Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-17
Number 6, ANTHONY & BEATRICE FALCONE request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#9283 from Cheryl L. Hansen Revocable Trust c/o
Cheryl L. Hansen to Anthony & Beatrice Falcone, as issued on July 18, 2018.
Located: 405 Williamsberg Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-17
Number 7, Patricia C. Moore on behalf of CnC PARK AVENUE
LLC requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#6535 from Nancy Sue
Mueller to CnC Park Avenue, LLC, as issued on February 14, 2007
and Amended on June 20, 2007.
Located: 2252 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-8-11.3
Board of Trustees 11 March 18, 2021
Number 8, Martin D. Finnegan on behalf of LUCKYFRONT, LLC
requests a Transfer of Administrative Permit#9577A from Barbara
Becker to Luckyfront, LLC, as issued on November 13, 2019.
Located: 38015 Main Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-2-15.8
Number 9, En-Consultants on behalf of HEATH CHRISTOPHER
GRAY & MOLLY MARIE RHODES requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#4084 from Robert A. Love, Jr. To Heath Christopher Gray & Molly
Marie Rhodes, as issued on September 18, 1992.
Located: 8570 Nassau Point Road (aka 350 Aborn Lane), Cutchogue.
STM# 1000-118-5-5.
Number 10, ERIC JADOW requests a Transfer of Administrative
Permit#9193A from James & Kimberly Gavin to Eric Jadow, as
issued on April 18, 2018; and an Administrative Amendment to
Administrative Permit#9193A for the as-built 3'10"x7'2" outdoor
shower on a bed of gravel with 6' high wood privacy walls on
three sides with five (5) mahogany 4"x4" posts set in concrete
with 1"x4" mahogany flooring and plumbing.
Located: 3655 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-136-2-11
Number 11, En-Consultants on behalf of ABBY TANNENBAUM
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9764 to
revise the locations of proposed I/A sanitary system and private
drinking water well.
Located: 435 Narrow River Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-3-10
Number 12, En-Consultants on behalf of TEAMC99A PROPERTIES,
LLC c/o CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH, MEMBER requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit#9642 to relocate proposed
stormwater drainage/infiltration chamber and modification of
proposed I/A sanitary system (located more than 100 feet from wetlands).
Located: 980 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-1-6
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 13 has been withdrawn at the
applicant's request. And Trustee Bredemeyer has number 14.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 14, Martin D. Finnegan on behalf of
BARBARA BECKER requests an Administrative Amendment to
Administrative Permit#9577A to install mesh fencing along the
bluff edge, 5'from the top of the bank which would connect to
the existing deer fencing; trim invasive plants within 100' from
the top of the bank.
Located: 38015 Main Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-2-15.8
1 was on the site with Town Bay Constable Joseph O'Leary
responding to the complaint that they had installed some
temporary fencing in the form of chicken wire, and the invasive
plants behind it are, some ornamentals that have been already
trimmed to four feet. So that they are live plants.
Reviewing the plans earlier, it would seem that we would
want to allow for escapement or entrance of small animals,
Board of Trustees 12 March 18, 2021
blocking the deer. The entirety of the property other than the
house is being maintained as a conservation reserve, so they are
planting beneficial plants so that the deer problem has resulted
in erosion to the bluff when the deer go around the sides of the
deer fencing. But there is, we would want to stipulate
provisions for an allowance for rabbits and other small animals
and critters to get through the fence. So we want to the have
at least some 9"x9" openings to cut through the fence.
Accordingly, I would make the motion to approve the
application as submitted with allowance for small animals to
pass either beneath or next to the fence posts with opening,
typically 9"x9".
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
XIV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral XIV, at this time I make
a motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and enter into the
Public Hearings.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a public hearing in the matter of the
following applications for permits under the Wetland ordinance
of the Town of Southold. I have an affidavit of publication from
the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may be read prior to
asking for comments from the public.
Please keep your comments organized and brief, five minutes
or less if possible.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number one under Amendments, Michael Kimack on behalf of
SOUTHOLD SUNSETS, LLC requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#9752 and
Coastal Erosion Permit#9752C to install an underground 500-gallon propane fuel tank
(3' diameter x 10') anchored onto poured in place concrete counterweights with
watertight containment sump, concrete vault and metal protective manhole with lid for
nozzles.
Located: 4200 Kenney's Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-4-3.
The LWRP found this to be exempt.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support the application. The
Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application and recommends
propane tank elevated and fastened above ground with a breakaway.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on this on March 10th. We also
discussed it at our work session where we, too, talked about the possibility of elevating
the propane tank so that in the event of failure down the road we are not re-disturbing
the wetlands to act as that tank.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MS. CANTRELL: We have Mike Kimack wishing to speak. Mike, if you want to un-mute
Board of Trustees 13 March 18, 2021
yourself.
MR. KIMACK: Good evening, everyone. The reason that it is in the
ground, primarily, and it's well fastened, it's a steel tank and
epoxy coated. It has a long-life durability without any
expectation of breakage. It's a 500-gallon LPG tank and it is in
an area that obviously is going to be flooded. It's in a zone
that will probably get about five or six feet of water, and it's
going to be, anywhere you put it, you don't want a breakaway
propane tank because you have to keep it high enough, and there
is really no real easy way to put it two or three feet above, a
500-gallon bank.
The septic tank is in the ground. It's basically the IA
system as we had discussed. It's right in front of it. This tank
will be right behind it. And so the whole system is in the
ground, and during a storm and the water basically coming over
the top of it, the tank will be well protected and well secured
down with all buoyancy, etcetera. I did check with, looked
online to see because I knew one of the questions you would ask
is what would be the durability of that tank, and the durability
of that tank is decades in terms of there is really little
opportunity, little chance that it will have some breakage to
cause any harm, but there will be much greater opportunity for
that to occur if it's above grade.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here that wishes to
speak regarding this application?
MS. CANTRELL: Yes. We have somebody by the name of Jasmine
who wishes speak. So, Mike Kimack, I'll mute you to allow
Jasmine to speak. And Jasmine, if you want to un-mute yourself
and tell us your last name and spell it for the record.
MR. KATRAMATOS: We stay in the house right next to his, and our
concern with that tank is it seems to be very close to our
property line. We have the same concerns about flooding.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Does anyone else wish to speak regarding this
application?
(No response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: My two cents on this application, Mr. Kimack,
is that I think the Trustees' biggest issue with this original
permit, both the Wetland and Coastal Erosion, were that we did
not want to see that much disturbance adjacent to the house or
seaward of the house. There are two sides that ultimately were
critical habitats. I think we worked with you and your applicant
thoroughly on the house and I think we came out with a very good
product. You know, you discussed septic being buried. Well, of
course the septic is buried, and ideally the septic is there for
the length of the house. And so essentially that dunal area
would not then be disturbed. I think, speaking for myself,
putting a tank in there, it will eventually, I mean decades,
fine, 20 years. That's too short. Then we'll dig back into the
Board of Trustees 14 March 18, 2021
dune. I don't think I personally want to see that.
Environmentally that is kind of, it's against the grain of what
we are trying to do.
I think it would be more appropriate to put several
100-gallon tanks strapped to the structure or to a structure as
close to the house as, you know, legally possible, which would
alleviate a lot of those concerns about disturbing the dune.
I mean you can make arguments back and forth about putting
it in the ground or not and with storms what could happen.
Quite frankly, I don't buy into those arguments. I think
environmentally the issue is we don't want to continuously
disturb this site. So 20 years is too short a time. It doesn't
work for me.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: To me, too, I think that the neighbor brings
up a good concern. I don't know what the distance off the
property line is for a 500-gallon buried propane tank. But it
does seem, I mean, if I'm reading these plans, that's five feet
off of the property line.
So,if there is, as Trustee Krupski said, an option to put
above-ground tanks that are strapped to the piles of the house
itself, you know, I think that would go a long way to alleviate
some of the concerns here.
MS. CANTRELL: Michael Kimack would like to speak again in
response to your comments. We also have George Katramados who
also waived their hand prior to your discussion right now. So
which person would you like to hear from first?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We'll go with George first.
MS. CANTRELL: Okay, Mr. Katramados, if you would like to un-mute
yourself
MR. KATRAMADOS: Thank you. I appreciate it. I appreciate the
comments the Trustees have made. Those are some of the questions
that I was going to bring up as well.
On the diagram, I don't see the distance, I know you
mentioned five feet from the property line. I don't see that
specified in the diagram. I do see that it's a minimum of ten
feet from the septic tank that they have. But again, my concerns
are it's in a flood zone, it will be secured from what I
understand, what from what you guys said, but it's also a tank
that will rise with the water if it's not secured properly.
I'm not sure what the concrete structure will be like
inside that is supposed to hold this and how deep that is
supposed to go.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir. Mike wants to speak again?
MS. CANTRELL: Yes. Mike, see if you can un-mute yourself
otherwise I'll send you a request to un-mute. Mike Kimack?
MR. KIMACK: All right. To Mr. Krupski's comments, this tank is
much greater than 20 years life expectancy. I don't know where
the 20 years from.
That whole area right now has been disturbed, obviously
putting in the septic tank, so it also is planned to be
completely planted with American beach grass. That was approved
Board of Trustees 15 March 18, 2021
in the original document.
This particular tank is, there is a concrete, there is a
big concrete block that is locked on the bottom about six feet
down, six or seven feet down below grade just above the water
table. The tank is a 30-inch diameter and it is steel-strapped
down to that, and the particular weight of that concrete pad is
based upon the fact of the buoyancy calculation. And it's three
feet below grade. So any kind of flooding is not going to pick
up and disturb that tank in any way. Any kind of water rise
basically is not going to disrupt it because it's being held
down based upon its buoyancy calculation. So any flooding in
that area, from the tank's perspective, it is not going to be
endangered of coming out of the ground or floating up out of the
ground or causing any problems. It's the safest place for it, in
that ground, locked down with buoyancy calculations, on a
concrete slab that I think is ten feet by six feet by eight
inches thick, and it is sized accordingly to weigh down the
entire structure against flooding that might possibly occur if
the water table does in fact come up that high.
So where it is and where it's placed is from a safety point
of view much more preferable than putting it above grade. It's
not going to be disrupted by any storms. As a matter of fact it's
in the safest place it can. Yes, we'll plant American beach
grace on top of that but in order to continually fill it, it's
really not a problem with just walking in and refilling the
five-hundred gallons. It's not going to have to be filled
that many to times to disrupt anything.
And the life expectancy is much more than 20 years. That's
my comments.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to
speak regarding this application?
MS. CANTRELL: George Katramados would like to speak again.
MR. KATRAMADOS: Thank you, just one additional comment. Based
on what I just heard it will be held down with steel straps.
Steel straps, I don't know if they are going to last 20 years we
are talking about or more supposedly for the tank. Especially
with corrosion from the saltwater intrusion, from the flooding.
So it still doesn't resolve my concerns about the tank floating up.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anybody'else wishing to speak
regarding this application?
MS. CANTRELL: Michael Kimack.
MR. KIMACK: Stainless steel straps.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Any further questions or comments
from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to deny without prejudice
l
Board of Trustees 16 March 18, 2021
this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustee Goldsmith, aye. Trustee Krupski, aye. Trustee Williams, aye).
(Trustee Domino, nay. Trustee Bredemeyer, nay).
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits,
Number 1, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of STUART
THORN requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to
construct a 4' wide walkway leading from bluff stairs to new
stairway leading to beach; construct new 3'x5'10" stairway from
bulkhead to beach in-kind and in-place of previously existing
stairway; allow ordinary maintenance and repairs to existing
upper 6'x8' platform, 3'x16' staircase, middle 10'x16' platform,
3'x5' staircase, 3'x4' middle platform, 3'x8' staircase, 3'x4'
lower platform, and 3'x10' staircase as needed to reconstruct
retaining walls; remove and dispose of the existing retaining
walls and construct eight (8) new retaining walls,
in-kind/in-place consisting of retaining wall #1 is 24' long;
retaining wall #2 is 12' long wit 8' east and 8' west returns;
retaining wall #3 is approximately±30' long; retaining wall#4
is approximately±40' long; retaining wall #5, #6  are all
40' long with 5' west returns; retaining wall #8 is 40' long;
and to install ±114 ton of 1-3 ton rock armoring along the
seaward side of existing west bulkhead section.
Located: 19375 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-20.1
The Trustees most recently visited this site on the 10th of
March. I noted that we need to review permit history, discuss
at work session the bottom stairs should be removable. Toe armor
height minimum is also discussed.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application preferring that the stairs at the bottom are
retractable and parallel to the bluff. The bricks around the
pool should be pervious and the lights on the staircase are a
navigation hazard and should be dark-skies compliant.
The LWRP found this to be both consistent and inconsistent.
It is his recommendation that the actions with the exception of
the 1 0x1 6 middle platform are consistent with the policy
standards and therefore is consistent with the LWRP, provided the
following is clarified: Rocks naturally occurring in the
environment or in public lands should not be used in the
structure. The 1 0x1 6 middle platform is not permissible pursuant
to Chapter 275 Wetland and Shoreline, Article Two, permit
275-11, Construction and Operation standards. And is
inconsistent with Policy Four, structure located within FEMA
VE-16 flood zone velocity hazards should be minimized due to
potential -- due to frequent damage and loss. Platforms
associated with the stairs may not be larger than 100-square
feet. Platforms may not exceed 200-square feet and must be
Board of Trustees 17 March 18, 2021
landward of the top of the bluff.
Okay, is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding
this application?
MS. CANTRELL: There are two people. One by the name of Nan and
somebody by the name of Terry Crowley
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Terry Crowley is probably Costello.
MS. CANTRELL: Who would you like to start with?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll start with who we assume to be the
applicant
MS. CANTRELL: Terry Crowley, if you would like to un-mute
yourself.
MR. COSTELLO: Hey guys, can you hear me? Jack Costello. I had
to switch computers because I was having problems getting on the
meeting. Are there any questions I can help with right now?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. So there was just a few points that I
covered. Mostly with the LWRP, but then a few other Trustee notes.
Number one, we have an inconsistent with the LWRP with that
10x16 platform. That would not be allowable under the code 275.
Then also we were discussing at work session adding a buffer to
the top and stipulating a three-foot overall height of the rock
revetment, at minimum, just to sort of alleviate having too much
bulkhead and not enough revetment at the bottom.
MR. COSTELLO: Well, the height of the rocks, doesn't really
bother me. That's fine. As far as that 1 0x1 6 platform in the
middle of the bluff, as you can see I'm kind of inheriting a
problem and that platform has been therefore, you know,
conservatively, 40 years. How do you suggest that I rectify that
situation considering the longevity of obviously it was not put
in yesterday or in the past 20 years.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is it 100 feet in the code? So if you cut off
six feet?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's 100 square, so we would have to cut off--
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Make it 10x10?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It depends. You can rework the steps, obviously
whichever way it works, but just to bring it down to 100.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Less than 100 square feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 99.
MR. COSTELLO: Okay, fair enough. So we'll agree to reduce the
size of that middle platform to 100 square feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And then the last and final thing there was,
you know, along most of the top of the property, there is that
patio, but then heading further kind of north there is just
grass. So we would want to see a ten-foot buffer installed
there.
MR. COSTELLO: I would hate to go back-- it doesn't seem like
there is a lot of room there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is where the lawn gets pretty substantial
on that side. If you look at the plans where the patio starts to
end there, that is where the lawn really kind of blows out.
MR. COSTELLO: Okay, so that's fine, we can do that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, and I think we would need new plans on
Board of Trustees 18 March 18, 2021
that, right?
(Trustees respond in the affirmative).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay so just to clarify, we would need new
plans showing a buffer and a change in reduction of that middle
platform.
MR. COSTELLO: Got it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can we pin down access, how the material is
going to be brought in?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a,good point. Did you hear that--
MR. COSTELLO: Well, the stairs will be built by land. Of course
the non-turf buffer will be built by land, and the rocks will be
brought in by barge. Anything I can't carry, I'm bringing in by
barge, put it that way.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, thank you. Is there anyone else here
that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MS. CANTRELL: Yes, there is somebody by the name of Nan. So
Nan, if you would state and spell your name for the record.
MR. LANCEY: This is Nan's husband Paul. We are neighbors to the
east of the property. L-A-N-C-E-Y is the last name. Simple
question, just concerning the height of the boulders on the beach.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So the height, we are stipulating they be a
minimum of three-feet tall against the bulkhead.
MR. LANCEY: My concern wasn't the minimum, it was the maximum.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, they would not be over the top of the
bottom retaining wall.
MR. LANCEY: That's uncomfortable. I'd like to know is it going
to be no higher than a person, six feet? That would be more
comfortable. But up to the top of the bulkhead is pretty high.
MS. CANTRELL: Jack Costello re-raised his hand.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll clarify that with the applicant. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is this gentleman asking about the size of the
boulders?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, he's asking about the overall height of the
revetment.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Height of the toe armoring in front of it.
MS. CANTRELL: Jack, if you want to un-mute yourself, if you want
to reply to the question, through the Board.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. Down by Paul's property to the east, we
would just be basically filling in holes where the original rock
wall had failed. We are not intending on bringing up that
elevation on the easterly property really at all. We are only
adding 64 tons of stone to where the beach has settled, and we
are just actually going to fill that area in and we want to make
sure we have permits to fix the rocks and add where there is
holidays.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So if we were to stipulate a maximum height on
that, could you give us a number on that?
MR. COSTELLO: It would really be no higher than existing. Like I
said, we were just going to fix where boulders had rolled away
from the bulkhead or had significantly settled down. So what
Paul is seeing is really not going to change from when he
Board of Trustees 19 March 18, 2021
originally bought the property. Like I said, we are, it's two,
we are going to fix that area up, basically, without raising the
elevation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does that satisfy everyone's concern?
(Affirmative response).
Okay, is there anyone else that wishes to speak regarding this
application, or any further comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application for the
submission of new plans.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number 2, Costello
Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of STUART THORN requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove and
dispose of the existing retaining walls and construct new
retaining walls in-kind/in-place consisting of retaining wall #1
is ±30' with 20' east return; retaining wall #2 is ±40'with a
50' east return; install an additional ±64 ton of 1-3 ton rock
in front of existing bulkhead; backfill with approximately 3
cubic yards of clean trucked in fill.
Located: 19455 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-21
This application has been deemed to be both inconsistent
and consistent by the LWRP. Specific recommendation from the
LWRP is that naturally occurring rock under public ownership
should not be incorporated in this structure.
The Conservation Advisory Council has voted to support this
application.
And the Board had indicated to discuss additional items on
this application, which I believe were largely handled through
the discussion on the prior with Trustee Krupski.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, once again. I kind of addressed
this with the last hearing. This is the adjacent property to
Paul Lancey. As far as the rocks down below we are just going to
fix what has failed over the past 20 years or so, and then it
would just be fixing retaining walls that extend on the
property. It's basically the same piece of property. I think I
addressed it all in the last hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Understood. I don't see anyone here
indicating otherwise. There was a question whether we could just
open both at the same time instead of opening as they came. Any
questions for this additional one? Anyone want to speak to this?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application as submitted noting that we, with the stipulation
Board of Trustees 20 March 18, 2021
that pre-existing rock materials that are immediately adjacent
to the bulkhead be incorporated into the stonework and that no
native beach materials in public ownership may be used in
constructing this structure, thereby bringing this job into
consistency with the LWRP. That's my motion
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 3, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on
behalf of JOEL SINGER requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to install an additional ±150 ton of 1 to 3 ton
rock as armoring at base of eastern section of bulkhead; reset
any existing dispersed rock at the western section of bulkhead
(rock armoring not to exceed 2.5 ton per linear foot); remove
existing 3' stairway down bluff and 6'x10' existing lower
platform on top of bulkhead; construct new 5'x4' access platform
at top of bluff, 3' wide stairway down bank in-place with a new
4'x6' mid-bluff platform with integrated bench; construct new
6'x16' lower platform on top of bulkhead; realign existing
cantilevered platform and stairway to beach with bluff
staircase; install terracing boards down bank where needed; and
vegetate top of bluff and any disturbed areas along bluff face
with native plantings.
Located: 20575 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-11
The Trustees most recent field inspection to this site was
conducted on March 10th, all were present, and the notes read
that it's a straightforward application.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and
inconsistent. The notes read that the proposal is consistent
with policy except for the proposed 6'x16' lower platform which
is, in reading from the memorandum, not permissible pursuant to
Chapter 275, wetland structures should had been located landward
of the top of the bluff.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application, asking for best management practices, stairs
parallel and retractable at the base, and a ten-foot non-turf buffer.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Hey guys, Jack Costello here to answer any
questions I could help with.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, Jack. My first question would be
basically one from the previous hearing asking about access. If
you could just clarify that.
MR. COSTELLO: The stairway would be accessed through the
property and the rocks down below would be accessed by barge.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: A question about, on your plans, notes there
will be plantings landward of the top of the bluff where there
is disturbance. Can you give me a number on that, how many feet
back from the bluff might those plantings be? The notes
indicate Rosa rugosa, beach plumb and -- '
MR. COSTELLO: This is another situation where there is just not
lot of room there. Basically they'll planted to a point where it
Board of Trustees 21 March 18, 2021
will stabilize that edge. You guys have been to the site. You
can see behind that deck there is really not a lot of room to
dictate the exact footage. There is no room to really do much of
anything with. But the fear is any runoff coming off the top we
kind of want to berm it and stabilize it with a variety of
Bayberry, Rosa rugosa and Cape American beach grass, the basic
plantings we would use to stabilize that top edge. But there is
not much room to go anywhere with it beside like a small bermed
area. Because you basically step off that back deck right off
the bluff. So, you know, what we are looking to do is stabilize
that top edge with everything we can do, and we are going to
plant, basically plant all of it as much as we can, really.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's what I was looking for. You are willing
to maximize the extent of the plantings where practicable. Is that a yes?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you. Lastly, you understand the Board,
that the restriction on the platform structures occurs when they
are associated with the stairs, and I believe I speak for the
Board in the understanding that this 6'x16' platform is not
associated with stairs but is associated with the bulkhead.
MR. COSTELLO: That's correct. The 6'x16' is right on top of the
bulkhead, you know, as access to navigate the stairs down to the
beach, with water.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right then. And access a splash pad, too.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, absolutely.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
MS. CANTRELL: Appears to be nobody else.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are there any other questions or comments from
the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing none, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted noting that the 6'x16' platform is not associated with
the stairs and is permissible, and therefore addresses the
concerns of the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 4, En-Consultants on behalf of ORIENTAL
UNICORN, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion
Permit to remove and replace (in-place) approximately 126 linear
feet of timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; construct two (2)
10' vinyl returns, and backfill with approximately 15 cy of
clean sand/loam to be trucked in from an approved upland source;
construct approximately 125 linear feet of timber landscape tie
retaining wall (with 4' x 3' steps) along landward edge of the
Board of Trustees 22 March 18, 2021
15' wide naturally vegetated non-turf buffer to be restored and
perpetually maintained with native plantings upon completion of
construction; and remove and replace split rail fencing along
property line as needed.
Located: 860 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-2-47
The Trustees visited this site on March 10th with all
Trustees present, noting that the project was straightforward
and a note to suggest a toe armor.
The LWRP program coordinator found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application, recommending additional underwater stone
armoring at base.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application?
MS. CANTRELL: Rob Herrmann, from En-Consultants.
MR. HERRMANN: Thanks, Liz. Good evening. This is a
straightforward application. It's a replacement of a l
Trustees-permitted bulkhead. Regarding the possibility of toe
stone, I certainly understand the thought behind it, but we
would not be able to get approval for that from the DEC.
Replacement of any kind of stone armor fill below mean high
water, they have been very consistent for many years now to
prohibit that. So we would not be able to amend the plans to
show, to incorporate toe stone.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Okay. Is there anyone else here that wishes to
speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close the public.hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll make a motion to approve the application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ADF
VENTURES, LLC, c/o FREDERICK FRAGOLA requests a Wetland Permit
and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the installation of 109 lineal
feet of rock revetment at toe of existing bluff; installation of
terracing consisting of 2"x12" un-treated timber boards with
un-treated timber 2"x4" stakes every 8' along the face of the
disturbed bluff; planting of entire disturbed bluff with Cape
American beach grass plugs 12" on center; install 10'x19'
platform on-grade at top of bluff with 4'x12' walkway leading to
4'x6' steps to 4'x6' platform to 4'x22' steps to 4'x6' platform
to 4'x41' steps to 4'x6' platform to 3'x10' aluminum retractable
steps to beach; all decking to be un-treated; a temporary silt
fence will be installed surrounding the at-grade 10'x19'
platform during construction to prevent any sediment from
Board of Trustees 23 March 18, 2021
leaving the immediate work area until stabilized; and landward
of the top of bluff is selective tree clearing as required to
remove deceased or dead trees as marked with orange tape.
Located: 17877 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-4
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. A 25-foot wide
non-disturbance buffer landward of the crest of the bluff was
created by covenant and restriction in 2009. Clearing of trees,
construction of a platform and accessing the stairs within the
25-foot non-disturbance buffer is not permissible.
Further, the bluff in this location is unstable and highly
erosive. The construction of access stairs is inconsistent with
policies four and six. The rock revetment and stabilizing of the
bluff is recommended as consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on March 10th,
noting that the project was not staked.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. CANTRELL: We have Jeff Patanjo present. Jeff, if you would
like to un-mute yourself.
MR. PATANJO: Good afternoon. Jeff Patanjo. How are you this
afternoon. I heard a bunch of comments I'm trying to open my
plan as I kind of put those comments in my head. The first thing
I said is staking. The project is not staked because typically
I have never staked one of these in the past. For a typical
stairs going down it shows on the proposed plan between the
trees, it shows also the silt fence around the area at the top
of the bank, which is landward of the coastal erosion hazard
line, which is way landward of the top of bluff line. So we
associated the proposed 1 0x1 9 platform, which is smaller than
the requirement for the ZBA variance of 200-square feet, where
it's the 190-square feet. So we did that flush with the
surrounding grade. We installed the temporary silt fence to
prevent any sediment from washing down the bluff during the
installation of this. Obviously landward of the existing
retaining walls and the existing coastal erosion hazard line.
Plans were modified several times for this application based on
Trustees comments as well as the New York State DEC comments
with regard to platforms and sizes of the decks. We actually
removed, there was a proposed pool removed from the application,
and pretty much modified the application in general to meet the
requirements of all the various environmental agencies looking
for comments on this.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, now, we do have, the LWRP found a
25-foot wide non-disturbance buffer that was covenant and
restriction back in 2009. So as a result of that, that platform
in any configuration will not be permissible in that
non-disturbance buffer.
MR. PATANJO: For clarification, what is permissible in a
non-disturbance buffer as far as, you know, work-wise?
Board of Trustees 24 March 18, 2021
If we remove that platform and just have the stairs down, is the
non-disturbance buffer from the coastal erosion hazard line or
is it from the top of bluff line? I didn't see any evidence of
that non-disturbance buffer requirement.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It would be from the top of bluff and through a
non-disturbance you can have a four-foot wide pathway.
MR. PATANJO: So what I'm hearing, and I'll open my plan right
now. And I have it opened. So looking at my plan from the top
of bluff location in a perpendicular manner to the coastal
erosion hazard line I have 12 feet to that line. So if I go
from my actual, the proposed deck to the top of bluff elevation,
I have 15.81 feet. So if I move this proposed deck back another
4.1 feet back, it would meet the requirements and it would be
outside of that 20-foot wide non-disturbance buffer, correct?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So the 25-foot non-disturbance --
MR. PATANJO: All right. Okay. So 25-foot non-disturbance
buffer. Okay. I'll have to review that with the client to see
what he would like to do. Unless Elizabeth, if you see him raise
his hand, Fred Fragola from ADF Ventures, I did just message him
to see if he was on the call to see if he would like to do that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Question of access.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Patanjo, a question of access for the
material for the revetment at the bottom.
MR. PATANJO: Access was shown on the plans to be provided
through barge, and/or landing craft onto the beach area.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
MS. CANTRELL: Mr. Fragola has raised his hand.
MR. FRAGOLA: My name is Fred Fragola. Hello, how are you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, how are you.
MR. FRAGOLA: I have absolutely no problem with what the Trustees
are requesting of me, to move the platform,back, by all means we
can stay the 25 feet back that you are indicating.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir. Anyone else here wish to
speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just two brief comments. The first would be
that when, Mr. Patanjo, when you do prepare further plans,
think there was some concerns over where the actual top of bluff
was on the site plan. So if you can just double check that, we
really, as soon as we start to see the drop off I think on this
property would be appropriate location for that. I think it's
only a few feet away from where you originally had it marked.
And the other point, just a point of clarification for the
record, the Trustees always require for any sort of
platform/deck, the start of steps, the Trustees would require
staking for that. We are not looking for you to stake it all
the way down. And if it's against the very toe of the bluff, not
necessarily looking for that to be staked, if that's not going
Board of Trustees 25 March 18, 2021
to be changed, but we would want to see the starting point and
any and all platform structures, steps, et cetera.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And I think even more so in this instance
where there is a 25-foot non-disturbance buffer already, so we
need to see that 25-foot non-disturbance buffer on the revised
plans as well. So.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And stress no further clearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No further clearing. Absolutely. So the
25-foot non-disturbance buffer from the top of the bluff, there
was supposed to be no activity, no clearing, no construction.
It's supposed to be left in its natural state.
So at this time I'll make a motion to table this
application for submission of new plans showing the 25-foot
non-disturbance buffer, and removal of structures from within
that buffer, as well as having those proposed structures staked
out for our next field inspection.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under Wetland Permits, number 1, Costello
Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of MICHAEL & GRACE ANN
GRIFFIN requests a Wetland Permit to construct 70' of rock
revetment using new 1 to 2 ton rocks and existing rocks
currently on site; fill any void areas landward of revetment
with clean trucked-in fill as needed and regrade bank.
Located: 435 Pine Place, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-37-4-15.1
The Trustees most recently visited this site on the 10th of
March and noted that it was a straightforward application.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be a consistent
application.
And the CAC resolved to support this application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, on behalf of the applicant, here
to answer any questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does the Board have any questions or comments?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further Board comment, is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 26 March 18, 2021
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number 2 under Wetland
Permits, En-Consultants on behalf of STRONG'S MARINE INLET, LLC,
c/o STRONG'S WATER CLUB & MARINA requests a Wetland Permit to
modify existing +19.2' x 46' travel lift/boat haul-out slip to
create +19.8' x 56' slip, as follows: Remove (without
replacement) existing +46 If timber bulkhead ("E") beneath south
lift rail ("Q"), extend existing south rail (to remain) seaward
by approximately 10 feet to finished length of+56 If over slip,
and construct +2' x 56' wood walk with handrail ("M") along most
seaward portion of lift rail, in place of existing +2' x 40'
wood walk; construct +25 If of vinyl bulkhead in place of
existing +24' timber bulkhead ("D"); construct +46 If of vinyl
bulkhead approximately 1 foot (+8") landward of existing +46'
timber bulkhead to be removed ("C"), excavate and dredge +1' x
46' area between existing and proposed bulkheads to max. Depth
of-4'MLW (with 6" overcut), and use approximately 15 cy of
soil/spoil as backfill; install new+57 If north lift rail (+56
If over slip) in place of existing lift rail ("P"), and
construct +2' x 13'wood walk with handrail ("N") along most
seaward end of lift rail; construct +13 If of vinyl bulkhead in
place of existing +14' timber bulkhead ("B"); remove and replace
(in-place) existing +18' and +27' sections of timber bulkhead
with +45 If of vinyl bulkhead ("Al" and "A"); incidentally
dredge +19.8' x 56' haul-out slip (within 10' of existing
bulkheads beneath lift rails) to maximum depth of-4'MLW(with
6" overcut), and use approximately 77 c.y. of spoil as backfill;
relocate two existing tie-off pilings seaward of slip; and on
landward side of slip, install 4' x 12' steel pad within
footprint of proposed +20' x 23' concrete boat launch (w/P.C.
grade beam foundation), and re-grade surrounding gravel/broken
asphalt surface. Reconfigure floating docks southwest of travel
lift slip, as follows: Remove (without replacement) 5' x 170'
floating dock ("G") and adjacent 166' in-water bulkhead ("H");
remove and replace six (6) 4' x variable length finger floats
(attached to floating dock to be removed) with six (6) 4' x 24'
finger floats and associated pilings to be attached to existing
+5' x 172' floating dock to remain ("J").
Located: 2255 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-114-3-1
This project has been deemed to be consistent by the LWRP
coordinator Mark Terry, though there were some specific comments
in the file that I think might be appropriate for discussion.
I'll review them.
So, verify the dredge material and spoil to be used as
backfill onsite is suitable and not contaminated, and complying
with the operation standards under 275-11 to require turbidity
controls and minimize use of CCA wherever possible. And clarify
where the pump-out facility boat that services this marina, that
the Board discussed during the course of inspection.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this
application with the recommendation of runoff mitigation upward
of the travel lift.
Board of Trustees 27 March 18, 2021
The Board in reviewing plans onsite, the manager felt this'
was fairly straightforward and fairly detailed plans.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicants. Everyone can hear me okay?
(Affirmative response).
Jay, I couldn't make out all of the comments you had
mentioned. I did, the one thing I did hear was just a question
about sampling material in terms of using dredge material for
backfill. That would be an unusual requirement. Typically
sediment testing is required if the material is going to be
trucked offsite and repurposed for some other use. And in which
case you would need to know, we would be interested to know if
there were contaminants if it was being used for, I don't know,
in a playground, fill at some other site. But the material
would be replaced, would be just repurposed immediately landward
of the bulkhead that is being replaced here. So the material is
not really moving very far. I was not sure if there was
something else that you had asked.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The other thing was standard turbidity
controls.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. That would be fine. And that is obviously a
condition of typical bulkhead replacement applications. That's fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And I guess there was also an iteration, if
you will, to minimize CCA, so deck materials on catwalks over
the water, we would not want to have CCA.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. So that material, I think I had talked to
Jeff Strong about that. I don't know if Jeff is on the call.
But that could be an untreated wood material.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. That's fairly straightforward. Are
there any additional comments or questions concerning this
application?
(Negative response).
With respect to the Conservation Advisory Council, the CAC
was requesting runoff controls that are upward of the travel
lift. I notice, it's not uncommon to see a gutter before the
travel lift with grading, and a lot of times because of handling
wash down. I couldn't find anything on the plans with respect to
the runoff.
Is there any notion that could be incorporated?
MR. HERRMANN: Are you talking about in the area of the proposed
concrete boat launch?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm talking about the boat launch, yes. The
travel lift, boat launch. Yes.
MR. HERRMANN: I guess what I'm trying to understand is where
precisely you are talking about. It sounds like you are asking
for some sort of a gravel drainage bed, and I'm just wondering
if you are basically the short side of the slip, if you will, on
the landward side of that like where the steel pad is?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe they are referring to the fact
that the parking lot where it grades down toward the travel
Board of Trustees 28 March 18, 2021
lift, toward the boat launch and to capture at the head of it or
at the launch. I'm just putting it out there.
MR. HERRMANN: I mean, unfortunately I would not be able to
provide that kind of answer on the fly, you know that, I would
have to ask the engineer, as a Jeff Butler design, I don't think
Jeff is on the call. I would have to ask Jeff where would be an
appropriate location for that, I mean I would think in
connection with any plan they would have to, they would have to
address runoff. I mean, I know one way we had talked with Jeff
was the fact that the parking area that will be replaced and
resurfaced around here, is not going to be a continuous asphalt.
It will be sort of broken, kind of the nature of what it is now,
which is not continuous asphalt. And part of the idea there is
to, was to limit movement for surface runoff at that site.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Not to interrupt you, Rob, but there is not a
requirement in New York state yet for any containment for a
travel lift pad. It is so in some other states. There is talk
about it eventually coming to New York, but as of now that's not
a requirement.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So if we are to stipulate pervious parking
area materials, that would cover it, probably, if there is no
construction.
All right, anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Seeing no hands, seeing no additional comments, I make a
motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted with the stipulation that standard turbidity
control is used throughout construction and that the proposed
amendments to the parking area be of a pervious type of
material. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Wetland Permits, number 3, Jeffrey Patanjo on
behalf of JAMES & KATHIE CAPOZZI requests a Wetland Permit to
remove and replace 102 linear feet of existing deteriorated
bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead in same location as existing;
and to install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf
buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 1525 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-12
The Trustees most recent inspection on this site is March
10th. All were present. Notes read it's a straightforward
application.
The LWRP coordinator found this application to be
consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council supports the
application unanimously.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
Board of Trustees 29 March 18, 2021
MS. CANTRELL: Jeff, if you want to un-mute yourself.
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. If there
are any questions, I'm happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions from the Board? It's really
straightforward
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
All right, seeing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 4, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JJS
EDGEWATER LLC, c/o SCOTT EDGETT requests a Wetland Permit to
remove and replace existing 89 linear foot long and 60 linear
foot long jetties in same location with new vinyl jetties; and
new jetties to be no higher than 18" above existing sand elevation.
Located: 610 Park Avenue Extension, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-8-28.6
The Trustees reviewed the application inhouse after being
to the site several times for a previous application, with no
notes in the file.
The LWRP found this to action to be inconsistent, noting
there is no doubt that the shoreline of this area has been
altered. The function of the jetties are questionable when
looking at a map. It does show photos from 1984 and current, but
unfortunately the photos are not of the subject area. They are
approximately half mile to the west.
The proposed jetties would impede public access. They need
to ensure they would not be higher than 18 inches. He has 18 feet
but I assume that's a typo and it's 18 inches.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed the application
and resolved to support the application using best management
practices.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
MS. CANTRELL: Jeff has his hand up.
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. Yes, 18
feet, yes, that's a little tall, so I'll reduce that to 18
inches maximum above existing grade. The purpose of the
application is to remove and replace the existing jetties as
they are currently situated, in the same location, however with
a limited height. We'll lower the height of the existing
jetties, which has been approved multiple times in the past, at
18 inches maximum, which has been in conformance with both
Trustees and New York state DEC requirements. I do have a
preliminary approval from the New York state DEC that the
Board of Trustees 30 March 18, 2021
project has been approved, with the exception of modifying the
length of one jetty, which is going to be the jetty on the east
side. I have to modify that to reduce it by six foot, because it
extends over to the neighboring property line. Other than that
the New York state DEC and the New York state Department of
State have no objection to the replacement of this, based on
both their tidal wetland regulations as well as their
regulations for environmental and marine habitat department.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Questions or comments from the Trustees?
MS. CANTRELL: We have Scott Edgett, would like to speak.
MR. EDGETT: Good evening, guys, how is everybody doing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Good evening, Scott.
MR. EDGETT: I actually just wanted to make a quick comment, for
what it's worth. Two of my neighbors who have received letters,
but in regard to this, have reached out to me and asked if they
can do anything in support. Obviously, you know, trying to
maintain the land under these houses is important, and being '
that most of, if all of my westerly neighbors have already
replaced their groins in the past eight years, so I want just to
wanted to make a comment that they are all in support and wanted
to see if there was anything they could do to encourage that as
well. Just because we see how well they work in protecting the
land under the house.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you
MR. EDGETT: Thank you, guys.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to
this application?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would just say I don't have an issue with the
application. I think it's a noble effort to protect what is
left, I guess, of Park Avenue Extension. My only thought was
that in most applications in the past with groins extending out,
the DEC reviews these as a whole and has sort of a master plan
when they look at these, as opposed to application to
application like we do. So in the past we have a history of
tabling for the final DEC permit. That would just be my
thoughts on this.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I would agree. It seems, according to Mr.
Patanjo, they are already talking about dialing it back three
feet. So let's wait for DEC final plans and approval before we
move ahead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I don't have any objection to what we see
here. I actually thought it was six feet or so. So
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Jeff, do you have any comments on that?
MR. PATANJO: No. No, I don't.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is the Board's inclination to table pending
DEC or do you want to move forward on the vote?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think that is what we've done on all the
previous ones. I think he mentions the ones to the west. I think
Board of Trustees 31 March 18, 2021
we did that as a course of action, so I don't necessarily see
any problems with it, but if we approve something and the DEC
comes back with a different number,just them go first.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And he would have to come back, right.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And if he's almost got preliminary approval,
it should not be that much longer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Jeff, any input?
MR. PATANJO: No. I'm a little shocked because when I submit
the applications, it's very tough as an expediter, as you know,
going back and forth inter-agencies to kind of come to a
conclusion of what is approvable or not. The DEC also moved it
back six feet on the 44-foot length. Typically, in doing a job
like this I don't even come back to you guys if I'm shortening
the proposed project that extends beyond the property line as we
see on the proposed plans. So my proposed application would be,
as you are looking at the jetty replacement on the east side, so
44 feet minus six feet is going to be 38 feet. So if you can
approve it as being a total of, I have 89 feet, minus six foot,
my math tells me that's 83 feet. A simple markup would be
definitely a good solution to limit the, number one, the time on
future public hearings for the same exact project that will get
approved, apparently approved by the Trustees, with a limited
six foot of an existing jetty, that is already apparently
permissible to be replaced. Maybe you can do a condition that
the replacement will be a total of 38 feet on the west side,
instead of having to come back one more month. The plans have
been resubmitted to the DEC and I would expect they will be back
to me in probably one to two weeks. So we are hoping to get this
project started and completed on behalf of Scott, the applicant,
this summer, obviously for the use of the house and for the
replacement of the structures before they go into further
deterioration and they are ultimately no longer good. I can
understand the fact it's another month, but it's another month
of usability of the property and the disruption of the property
during this time period. So I would ask that the Board consider
making it a condition that the eastern most jetty portion be
limited to a total length of 89 feet minus six feet, 83 feet,
and approve it based on that with the 83 feet on the easternmost
jetty portion but it limits the extension beyond the property
line. That, obviously, if that is not an option for this
application, we would ultimately say we have to table the
application based on the Board of Trustees review and we will
make an amended application, we'll have to postpone this to next
month.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It's been the policy of this Board under the
guidance of the Town Attorney's office that we have to have
plans certain in hand before we can vote on it. Whether it's 83
feet or 89 feet, currently we have 89 feet in the project
description and 89 feet in the plan. So that's not your final
project. We need to have that final project with stamped plans
Board of Trustees 32 March 18, 2021
indicating that final before we are allowed to vote on it.
MR. PATANJO: Understood. If that's the word, I will absolutely
get you modified plans to indicate minus six foot on the
easternmost jetty, and we'll get your revised plans and we'll
see you next month.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Perhaps I misheard. I just want to clarify. If
you have a DEC permit that does not preclude you from having to
apply to this Board for Southold Town business.
MR. PATANJO: Absolutely not. 100%. You guys, the review process
between you guys and the DEC and the Army Corps of Engineers and
Department of State as well as Southold Town Trustees, they do
not happen concurrently. They have to happen independently. And
unfortunately for each, me and the applicants, all the different
agencies do not coordinate with each other, and you know, that's
my job is actually to make sure that all of the plans
coordinate. So if you, the goal in my head was to go ahead and
try to get this one, get it approved at the 38 eight or whatever
I said, but regardless, it doesn't matter. Let me revise plans.
I'll get them to you. And then in the meantime when I get you
revised plans, I'll in the same time concurrently send you the
DEC approval for your record.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak to
this application?
MS. CANTRELL: Scott Edgett wishes to speak again.
MR. EDGETT: I'm not trying to stretch anything out, just in
comment to that I was wondering, and I know you want the plans
adjusted but is it possible that we can just put a stipulation
that the groin, because the concern was that the groin does not
cross over the current property line, which is the six feet he's
talking about. Can't we just make a stipulation stating that the
groin has to maintain on this property and potentially approve
it this evening?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Unfortunately we need plans that depict that.
MR. EDGETT: Okay. I hate to be such a pushover but I guess that
makes sense.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
MR. EDGETT: Thank you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to table at applicants
Request.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Before we go to the next, I request a five
minute recess.
(After a brief recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All right, back on the record.
Number 5, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ALISON BYERS &
Board of Trustees 33 March 18, 2021
LAWRENCE BUSCH requests a Wetland Permit for the installation of
540 lineal feet of un-treated timber post and rail fence along
the toe of the existing bluff; proposed no-entry signage will be
fastened to posts every 100' along face of fence; there is to be
no obstruction to existing beach access along the shoreline due
to proposed fence installation.
Located: 10335 Nassau Point Road & Off Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-119-1-14.1 & 14.2
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is the use of a vegetative non-structural measures to manage
flooding and erosion hazards. The installation of the fence does
not meet this policy. Vegetated non-structural measures are not
proposed.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection March 10th,
noting that the project is intended to protect environmental
slopes.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant.
So the application, this is a well-known fact for this
location, people come down the street, park their cars, they
walk down the beach, they climb up the bluff, they use their
barbecue grill and whatever they do on the bluff, bla, bla, bla.
The intent of this is to actually stop people from walking up
the bluff as, indicated, regrading the bluff, knocking down the
sand and any vegetation that may grow, looking for a natural
environment, and it will be the installation of some posts, some
signs, and other than that, no disruption to the environment.
It's solely to protect the property and the existing bluff.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Questions or comment from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. I just had a question about where the, it
was not really clear on the plans and at the site. Is the plan
to, where exactly is the fence going to be? Is it going to be
following the toe of the bluff/bank?
MR. PATANJO: Yes, following the toe of the bluff/bank. We
actually had some dimensions on there from the spring high tide
as well as the normal high tide. It is pretty much going to be
following right along the edge of the bluff just to stop people
from walking up the bluff. That's solely the purpose of this, to
stop the infiltration of people walking up the bluff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. I would like to stipulate that in there
just so it doesn't accidentally wander off the toe.
Then another question, is this going to be split-rail fence
only with no additional fencing.
MR. PATANJO: Yes. Untreated, probably a locust, which is the
typical split rail fence. With ten foot long rails, with the
Board of Trustees 34 March 18, 2021
standard two posts, with split rails, one, two, will be two
rails with a single post every ten feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then my last question is, you know, certainly
sign pollution is a thing that we deal with that everywhere. How
often are we proposing to put a sign and what size sign are you
applying for?
MR. PATANJO: On the proposed plan, we indicated it. It's on the
proposed plan, so that's evident there. 100 foot. Only one
everyone 100 foot, which is I believe I dictated that from
Chapter 275, which was the requirement. Along the post and rail
fence. So we have ten posts. We'll have ten -- no, it's more
than that. So every ten posts on every ten foot along there
we'll put a sign stating "private property, no trespassing."
And the signs are a simple eight-and-a-half by eleven. They are
not going to be a large, intrusive sign. Obviously the applicant
as you may know they are looking to maintain the naturalness --
that's not a word, I don't think--the natural'environment
there. They are not looking to do anything to put neon signs or
anything. Simple eight-and-a-half by eleven, do not trespass,
and that's it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, thank you. Does anyone else wish to
speak regarding this application?
(No response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the stipulation that the split-rail fence follows the toe
of the bluff, and also noting that this fence is to protect the
property, so it's not for managing flooding or erosion hazards
as stated by the LWRP, which will bring it into consistency with
the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 6, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of OLIVER
HENDERSON & STEPHANIE LEONG requests a Wetland Permit for the
removal of the existing storm damaged and deteriorated pier and
replacement with new 4' wide x 118' long fixed pier, 3'wide x
16' long aluminum ramp and 6' wide x 20' long floating dock
supported with two 10" dia. CCA piles in same approximate
location as existing. All decking on proposed pier to be
thru-flow and floating dock to be un-treated timber or
composite. A 4' wide x 4' long platform will be installed on
pier and 4' wide x 4' long steps to beach area will be installed
on south side of pier to gain access to beach area and replace
existing storm damaged steps. In addition, a proposed 75' long
vinyl retaining wall will be installed to replace existing
upper timber retaining wall with a raised elevation of
Board of Trustees 35 March 18, 2021
approximately 12" above existing grade and 35 CY of clean fill
will be imported and spread to a maximum depth of 12" landward
of the proposed retaining wall and stabilized with grass seed.
Adjacent to the house there will be one additional 5' wide x 5'
long stair case added to the existing deck on the south side of
the residence and the existing timber decking on the existing
deck will be removed and replaced with un-treated composite
"Timber Tech" decking. There will be no size increase on deck or
modifications to sub-structure,just replacement of decking boards.
Located: 775 Wood Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-6-9
The Trustees most recently visited this site on the 10th of
March and recommended that the applicant reconfigure the dock
layout to a "T"to help bring it into the pier line. Prior to
that we visited the site on 9th of February where we noted that
we needed to review the pier line, as it was a little close.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent, noting that the
proposed action is within the New York state Department of State
significant fish and wildlife habitat area, critical
environmental area, discuss how the dock will unduly interfere
with public use of the waterway, net loss of public use. What is
needed to extend the dock into an ecologically sensitive water
body to achieve a water depth of 3.4 feet at the end of the
dock. Length of the dock sets a precedent of long-term adverse
impacts to the water body. By proposing excessive length it will
set a future pier line. Require that the applicant map the dock
on an aerial photo prior to any approval to better assess the
pier line. Richmond Creek water quality shows evidence of
decline due to anthropogenic influences. The algal blooms that
are harmful to shellfishing and fish species are occurring in
the upper reaches of the water body more frequently. There is a
high probability that commercial valuable shellfish species that
occur in the proposed area, these natural resources will be
adversely impacted due to the dock. Discuss different docking
facilities, water, dealing with trash and boating. Preserving
public interest. The extension of private residential dock
structure in public trust lands and water result in a net loss
of such land and water.
Additional project scope. The proposed 75-foot long vinyl
retaining wall will be installed to replace existing upper
timber retaining wall with a raised elevation of approximately
12 inches above existing grade and 35 cubic yards of clean fill
will be imported and spread to a maximum depth of 12 inches
landward of the proposed retaining wall stabilized with grass
seed. It is recommended high maintenance turf areas be minimized
and the grass seed proposed would be replaced with native
salt-tolerant vegetation that does not require fertilization. A
vegetated buffer is also recommended landward of the retaining
wall to mitigate introduction of overland pollutants.
The following action is recommended as consistent with the
LWRP. Adjacent to the house there will be one additional 5'x5'
long staircase added to the existing deck on the south side of
Board of Trustees 36 March 18, 2021
the residence, and the existing timber decking on the existing
deck will be removed and replaced.
All right, so therefore the LWRP coordinator found this to
be inconsistent, with the minor additions consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
the application. The Conservation Advisory Council does not
support the application because the overall size of the dock
should be reduced and kept in line with the neighboring docks,
and construction of thru-flow decking. The proposed site is 50%
longer than the other docks in the area. More details are
required for the proposed retaining wall/bulkhead.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MS. CANTRELL: We have Jeff Patanjo.
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. Any
questions, I would be happy to answer. We met in the field,
discussed the new layout. I provided to the Trustees the pier
line plan which was an aerial topography with a new associated
dock, which was revised based on the Trustees comments and field
discussions. Any comments, any questions, I will be happy to answer.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: When we did review those new plans, it seemed
to us as if the scale is off. When we mapped it out, the scale
does not equal what is on the plans. I think we had a 90-foot
according to the scale but it says 118 on the plans. And the
floating dock I think measured out to be 15 feet as opposed to
20. So it seems like the scale on that plan that you most
recently dropped off is off a little bit.
MR. PATANJO: I'm going to do math. I'm going to do math right
now. You know I didn't do math good before. I'll do it right now.
The overall length on this is 138 feet. And let me look at
the color run distance, that's DI on the plan. This is 138
feet. So looking at it right now, the elevations and the
distances are exact for this actual plan. So you are saying that
the aerial has a different distance? Or are you saying the
proposed plan, meaning my plan sheet, the drafting?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. So the site plan, which we would make our
decision off of, which is scaled at one inch is 30 feet, that
shows, and I'll just go really rough numbers here --
MR. PATANJO: I'll stop you right there. Its one inch equals 40
feet. So maybe your scale is wrong? One inch is 40 feet. So
did you use the right scale when you were measuring?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The scale on your site plan says one is 30.
MR. PATANJO: That's for a typical section. If you look at the
typical section for the dock on the lower right-hand side is the
scale for the typical section is one inch is 30 feet. And
vertical is one inch for three feet. And if you look for plan
itself on the right-hand corner, the scale of the drawing
itself, overall, is one inch for 40 feet. So that might be where
we have an issue.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, you might be right there (Perusing).
MR. PATANJO: Checking my math here and looking at my proposed
plans it's pretty accurate on the aerial and my proposed plan,
Board of Trustees 37 March 18, 2021
because I overlay all that
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct. Okay, then the, I mean I
actually believe you are correct there with the scale versus the
typical section dock.
And then in terms of the retaining wall, I mean I for one
would like to open a discussion about it. It appears that, I
mean there is definitely a good area of vegetated wetlands -
landward of that, and I think by putting that in, it's almost
like a land grab in that sense. And I can understand, we are
far enough back where it's not a bulkhead. And I know that the
property owner is trying to add land there, essentially, so they
can have some sort of a backyard. But for me it just seems like
it's a little too far seaward. I don't know if anyone else has
any thoughts or comments on that.
MR. PATANJO: I have a thought or comment. My initial thoughts,
I'll interject here real quick, sorry, there is no wetlands at
that point from the uppermost retaining wall where we are going
from to replace. Everything up there is vegetated and
fertilizer-dependent material. We are trying to get way from
that. We are trying to obviously I don't want to say a land
grab, but we discussed this in the field, trying to obtain some
more useable property for the people. The intent here is to not
disturb anything beyond that uppermost retaining wall area. I
did modify the plan based on last month public hearing comments
which say we are going to use a fescue grass seed, which is a
non-fertilizer dependent, non-irrigation dependent grass seed
for the purpose of just maximizing the property for the
applicant. The existing and the DEC comments on this
application, they have no problems with the floating dock, they
have no problems with the proposed dock. They wanted us to go
ahead and leave the existing terrace -- I don't want to say
terrace. What do you call it, terrace retaining walls? There
is three of them right now. They are not in amazing condition
however the area is stabilized, the area is vegetated. The
intent was to let those areas go ahead and go through their
natural state, stabilize themselves, and deteriorate over time.
We discussed this in the field as far as putting in the
uppermost retaining wall, it's not-- I use the term land grab.
I don't want to say land grab. The land is owned by the land
owner. Right now, as it is, and as it's been in perpetuity for a
long time, it's been a fertilized and it's been a land that has
been maintained. However it's on a steeper slope. We are trying
to do a similar item. We are trying to obviously raise the
grade to stop any flow of fertilized water, you know, if they do
fertilize this area, we are trying to raise the grade. We are
trying to stop that flow of water over that existing area, and
go down that existing bank into the wetland. The intent is to
try to stop that. The homeowners, the applicants, Stephanie and
Oliver, they are well aware of the fact they need to be stewards
in the environment. They don't want--this area, they just
purchased this house. They are doing renovations to the house
Board of Trustees 38 March 18, 2021
as you know, you were there. We were there. They are trying to
make it better, they are trying to make it clean, they are
trying to make it environmentally friendly. The intent here is
have a more useable backyard, more useable surface, do something
better for the environment.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do any of the other Trustees have comments on
this application in terms of the retaining wall?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Did we discuss a buffer of any sort from this
retaining wall?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't believe we did. I mean, I know we
talked about fescue, but I still, I think it would be more
appropriate, if you were going to go that route, to add a
buffer. I mean, personally, I still think that, you know, the
property naturally slopes into what is upper tidal with
Baccharus and then, you know, tidal wetland going through the
different Spartinas it's sort of set up to be a natural area
without erosion issues. For me, adding a retaining wall there,
at least in its current position, you know, I'm not here to add
lawn. So that's really up to the other members of the Board, if
they have any opinions there.
MR. PATANJO: If I may add, there is no adding of lawn. The lawn
right now extends to that exact limit. It does go that way. The
intent of this is actually to level it out, to reduce erosion on
lawn. If you look at the plan, look at the typical section, we
are actually adding fill for the sole purpose to stop the, I
don't want to say effluent, that's the wrong term, it's not a
sanitary system, but I'm trying to stop the flow of, you know,
erosion running down over into the wetlands. It's all going to
be contained on that upper level. The upper level, which in fact
is going to be planted with fescue grass as recommended by the
Board at the last public hearing, we are going to obviously
plant that. It's going to be also, you know, non-turf buffer,
the non-turf buffer is typically from, I guess you would say the
high tide line. We have right now, I'll go back to my little
model space over here, if anyone knows Auto-Cat, DI, which is
distance from the high tide line to that upper wall, it's
typically 26 feet. 26 foot in the center at the northern side is
15 feet and at the southern side it's 35 feet. So the average
is 25 foot of separation, which is in essence a 25 foot non-turf
buffer to the high tide line, which is in general the vegetated
wetland side. So this in fact is trying to stop any intrusion
of grass area per se into the water body. So it's a positive for
everybody. It's a positive for the Trustees and environment.
For LWRP and Conservation Advisory Council, it's a positive for
them. The fact of now this upper retaining wall is going to be
modified, it will be raised. No longer will all of the runoff
from the subject property be running down the slope, down the
bank into the tidal wetlands. Now it's going to be contained. It
will be raised, it will be leveled out, it will give all of the
runoff the opportunity to leach into the ground, as it should,
and not run down that bank. As it currently exists. Right now,
Board of Trustees 39 March 18, 2021
currently runs down the bank and goes into the tidal wetlands.
If I raise it up one foot, whatever the distance was, a
foot-and-a-half, no longer will it run down. It will be
contained within. It won't run down the bank and it will be
better for the environment. I'll shut up now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. So my response to that, I mean we
can't count, you know, and maybe I misheard you, so I won't
speak too bluntly on that. But you were saying from the,
essentially the existing shoreline or possibly from mean high
water to the bulkhead, or we'll say retaining wall.
MR. PATANJO: Upper retaining wall, yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 27 feet. We can't count vegetated wetland
toward the non-turf buffer. That's wetland. And also on this
plan, I mean I suppose we could go with the, you have the
hatched line for the vegetated wetland, the wetland line, but
I'm not even clear on a measurement from the wetland line to the
retaining wall.
MR. PATANJO: That's 16 feet. I just mentioned it. If you take
the hatched area from the wetland line that was identified, that
is 16 feet. So from the lower retaining wall, which is about,
the vegetated wetland line is about-- let me do DI. I'm going
to learn you Auto-Cat tonight. Four feet. So four feet off of
the lowest most-seaward retaining wall, four feet away is the
approximate location of the vegetated wetland line. So from
that approximate location of the vegetated wetland line to the
existing retaining wall is about 17 feet. So in essence you are
obtaining a 15 to 18-foot non-turf buffer. Which is outside of
the vegetated wetlands line.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Question for you, Jeff. How much fill are
you proposing?
MR. PATANJO: On the proposed, 35 yards, which is probably a
little bit too much of an approximation. So it's probably going
to be a little less. But we wanted to use that-number just to
make sure we were okay with the Trustees if we brought in more.
We would be more than happy during construction project if you
guys came and counted trucks. We absolutely understand that.
Absolutely. And that we don't want to go above and beyond that
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would say, at this point, I don't know if we
should meet in the field to discuss possible alternatives for
that line again, unless another Trustee feels strongly and wants
to make a motion on the application. But I would suggest
meeting in the field again to look at it and discuss that line.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would support that thinking.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It seems reasonable then we can come to
terms on whether we want an immediate non-turf area or, I mean,
I don't have a problem with fescue but I understand with this
kind of construction we would typically be asking for non-turf.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the other thing here, too. Even with
fescue, you know, if we were to approve something like this, I
would still want to see non-turf landward of that. I would not
Board of Trustees 40 March 18, 2021
want not want to see nothing up to a retaining wall either
MR. PATANJO: Can I interject here and actually offer a non-turf
buffer on the landward side, let's say a five-foot non-turf
buffer, you know, to actually capture anything you think could
run off. I think the applicants Oliver and Stephanie, might be
on to actually answer that, but I am okay with, and they can
raise their hands if they are on the Zoom call, but I'm
acceptable to doing some sort of say five-foot wide non-turf
buffer, if it's amenable to the Board. I mean, we are looking
right now at the distance from the existing wetlands line to the
face of the new one is 17 feet. So we are offering, based on
the five-foot non-turf buffer along the upper line, it will be
22-foot wide non-turf buffer. If that's okay with the Board, I
could submit revised plans with a five-foot wide non-turf buffer
from that proposed retaining wall line, understanding there is
an additional 17 feet beyond that up to the wetlands line. So
it"s a total of 22 foot wide non-turf buffer, which is pretty
much double your standard for the Trustees purview.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know if anyone has additional thoughts
on that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: What about potentially in front of that
retaining wall, calling it non-disturbance, seaward of that,
then coming up with an acceptable non-turf landward of that?
MR. PATANJO: That's what I said five-foot wide non-turf buffer
in front of, landward of the new retaining wall.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Even if we do that, we have the issue of are we
going to do it subject to the plans showing five foot--
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I don't think we can.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We can do it that way. We have to table it for
new plans anyway.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we could do something subject to if
it's just in regard to a minor non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Also, is there a hand raised?
MS. CANTRELL: Yes, I was waiting for you to finish your
discussion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For me though, the holdup is still the
location of the wall. I feel we are just taking from what could
be a wetlands move. They are supposed to be allowed to move and
I think we are drawing a pretty hard line somewhere that might
be a little too seaward of where it should be.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Then let's table it and meet in the field again.
MR. PATANJO: I want to just point out the fact if I negate this
from the application package, meaning take away this proposal to
raise the grade here and stop the runoff into the wetlands area
and pull it away completely, right now you are actually telling
me that if we leave the grade where it is, it will stay the same
as it is, it's going to be a normal application where everything
runs off into the wetland. We are trying to do better for the
environment and stop the runoff. By virtue of raising this
retaining wall, we are stopping the runoff from running down
that existing bank, down those terrace slopes. I just want to
Board of Trustees 41 March 18, 2021
point that out, that we are trying to do better. Right now it
runs off. We were out there in the field. You know it runs off.
We talked about it running down the bluff--down the side of
the bank. It's not a bluff. It runs down the bank. We are trying
to stop it from running down the bank. It's not a land grab,
it's trying to stop the water runoff from running down the bank.
So if in fact you want to change that application, we can
certainly take away doing the fill. We can take away the
proposed retaining wall at the uppermost level, and we can just
do a dock, which apparently is not a problem. We can go ahead
with that. But it will obviously defeat the existing component
of allowing this runoff to run down the bank.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, we should hear from whoever else wants to
speak.
MS. CANTRELL: So there is a Mr. Grant Henderson, if you want to
un-mute yourself and speak.
MR. HENDERSON: Good evening, everyone, and thank you for the
time and consideration. As Jeff Patanjo said, my name is Oliver
Henderson, I'm joined by my wife Stephanie Leong. We are new
residents. We are very excited to be part of the community. We
have taken every one of Jeffs piece of advice, and what we can
do to help encourage the preservation of the environment and the
community. It's really what is made us fall in love with this
property and being on the water, and trying to do whatever we
can to better the environment.
As you guys can see from your two field visits,
unfortunately it's an eyesore that has pre-existed from the
prior resident that really did not maintain the land or take
care of it. And as you saw with our house, we are trying to make it
very energy efficient, environmentally friendly, in the same
vein as our intent here with the dock and with land, doing
whatever we can to be the most environmentally friendly. And we
respect everyone's opinion, time and consideration and look
forward to hearing your advice and decisions.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think ultimately there has been discussion
about runoff, and which, to be fair, I mean would be remediated
or remedied by a non-turf buffer and not, you would not have a
problem with runoff if you were not putting fertilizer there.
You know, personally, I would like to take another look at this
in the field to discuss with the Board either different
possibilities or, I mean to put eyes on it. The first time we
were there, there was an issue with snow. I think it would be
ideal to put eyes on this for another site visit.
So if there are no further comment, that's what I'll move
to do, based on myself wanting to put on eyes on it again.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Agreed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to table this application for
the next inspection date.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
Board of Trustees 42 March 18, 2021
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 7, Inter-Science Research Associates,
Inc. on behalf of DOMELUCA II, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to
demolish existing barn and sheds; construct new single family
residence with an overall footprint of 26'9"x63'0"; a
39'9'2"x63'0" terrace including approximately 18'0"x30'0"
interior space; a second 26'9'2"x24'2" terrace running east; a
25'0"x19'0" terrace including approximately 16'0"x20'0" interior
space running south from the main single family dwelling;
proposed 18'2"x82'0" swimming pool; and the proposed driveway
does extend into the 100 foot setback; the proposed driveway is,
however, located within the footprint of the existing driveway.
Located: 14895 Route 25, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-23-1-2.10
The project was reviewed by the Board of Trustees initially
on February 9th. At that time the Board suggested an expansion
of the non-turf buffer and also a possible addition of a portion
of what was then described as non-turf buffer as being
non-disturbance buffer. We are in possession of a new set of
plans, specifically, landscape plan received in the office today
after discussion at work session last Monday, detailing a
broadened non-turf area that is now 30-feet wide where, in the
area where it's populated with privet presently, for removal of
privet and reestablishing native plantings.
This project has been deemed to be consistent by the LWRP
and is supported by the Conservation Advisory Council.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MS. CANTRELL: Jim Walker is present from Inter-Science. Mr.
Walker, if you would like to un-mute yourself.
MR. WALKER: Okay, with the guidance of the Board of Trustees we
have shown the 15-foot wide non-turf buffer that was originally
imposed on the property. With more guidance from the Trustees
at the work session, we successfully showed another 15-feet, so
the whole thing would now be a non-turf buffer. It is the area
where the privet hedge is and it is the area where we had Town
permits to remove the privet and install trees, shrubs, wild
flowers and grasses. So now we also have shown a deer fence at
the top, lined with Southern Arrowwood so it keeps the deer from
jumping over. It discourages them. It doesn't prohibit them,
but it works very effectively, and we have another deer fence
down by the water at the wetland edge with nine-inch cut outs at
each fence post to allow turtles and small animals to move in
and out of the wetlands and the wetlands buffer. We show
one-foot additional elevation on the existing driveway, next to
wetland we tend to call out for maro (sic) as a subbase because
maro is a good and non-toxic subbase material for driveways. So
I believe we have met all the directives of the Board of Town
Trustees. And I'm confident that the New York state DEC, which
does have jurisdiction over the driveway, will give us a similar
Board of Trustees 43 March 18, 2021
approval. And the Board of Town Trustees should be aware we are
in front of the County to install an INOWTS sanitary system for
the small, single-family residence that will be built on this property.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, any questions from board members?
I know I have one.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: My question would just be on the necessity
for that lower fence. Just because, if we have the upper one to,
when we usually put a fence in it's to delineate the extension
of a non-turf or non-disturbance buffer. But the lower ones I
don't know what that, what the purpose of that one necessarily is.
Can you speak to that'lower fence and its location?
I mean it's pretty close to the edge of the wetlands there.
MR. WALKER: The deer fence at the lower area was put in on
behalf of, at the request of the Board of Town Trustees. In any
case this office has a whole lot of experience in installing
native wetland buffers, a series of things that we have been
required to do by regulatory agencies, which amount to putting a
whole lot of lot of native plants in an area that is exposed.
And what you are going to have if there is no lower fence, is
you'll have deer come in and also geese and ducks and muskrats
and they are going to eat all the new wetlands buffer plants
that are installed. So the idea is we keep them out of the new
plantings that are installed from the wetlands up the bluff.
And that's really the only reason for that to be there. We even
have used turkey wire fences in the water to allow Spartina
Alterniflora plantings to take foot in an area that was eroded,
for instance, from Superstorm Sandy, and we reestablished tidal
wetlands. And the whole deer fences work very well, they are
nearly invisible and really we are simply trying to discourage
the deer from going up and eating --deer will even pull native
shrubs out of the ground and walk away with them and chew on
them. We have done this kind of native planting all over the
place. Montauk. Places where there is lots of deer. And
realistically what we are trying to do is encourage the native
plants to grow, where right now you have privet.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So would that lower fence have to be there
for the entirety or just until the native plants take root?
MR. WALKER: That's a great idea. Generally, we have temporary
fences. Down by the water it could stay there until the plant
establishes. Generally a year or two, minimum, required for native plants
that naturalize.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, so would you be open to accepting that
as a condition that the lower fence to remain for two years?
until those plant establish and then removal of the lower fence?
MR. WALKER: That's fine by me.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you hear that?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I did hear that, yes. We are also looking at
the plan. Seaward of the proposed four-foot high deer fencing in
some sections it-- all right. There is a fence. So the
non-turf as delineated on your maps, seaward of that and up to
the wetland, we would want to have as non-disturbance area, at a
Board of Trustees 44 March 18, 2021
minimum. And I'm not seeing that delineate on the maps. So in
other words when you, along a broad area here, that from the
eastern boundary all the way south to where it ends,just
adjacent to where the old barns were, that area that would be
seaward or waterward, if you will, of your specified non-turf
area, which also coincides along the distance, along a large
part of the distance along the top of the bluff, we would want
to have that as a non-disturbance area for clarification.
And then I believe that that clarification plus maybe, I don't
know whether the Board will feel two to three-year timetable to
establish the native plantings, and then removal of the turkey
wire fencing at that time. And that would give an opportunity
for robust growth. And then if per chance, if there was an
issue that we want to maintain they can always come in try to
amend or submit an Administrative Permit concerning trying to
protect the habitat you created.
MR. WALKER: The bottom of the buffer corresponds with the
Woychuk survey. In other words, the 15-foot wide non-turf buffer
ended where that line is. If your intention is to have the
non-disturbance buffer extend from one fence to the other,
that's fine, we'll show it on the survey from Kenneth Woychuk
which will be submitted to the Board.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, I think there a misunderstanding. The
top of the bluff, in most of the plan, your proposed as hashmark
non-turf buffer, it goes to the top of the bluff. From the top
of the bluff to the wetland line, where you are proposing the
temporary, what would be a temporary fence. That area we would
want to have an absolute non-disturbance, particularly with
increased high tide. Storm tides in Dam Pond are typically two,
three, four-feet higher than normal. So we would want to have a
delineation off the map clearly showing that seaward of your
non-turf area, the entirety, up to the wetland line and wetland
itself is all non-disturbance. Permanent non-disturbance, an
area you don't go in.
MR. WALKER: I think that's fine, and a two or three-year turkey
wire fence will allow plants to grow in, and then the deer, if
they get into the wetlands buffer, will browse and not rip out
plants completely. So that's fine. I understand those two
directives and those two thoughts. So that's fine with the project.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Since your application is still pending
before the Suffolk Health Department for the IA, it would be
advisable to get the plan amendments on the plan itself, because
we would need to see clearly on the plans non-turf and the
non-disturbance area, and then we could consider Board action on
the proposed house construction with the landscape plan next month.
MR. WALKER: That's fine with me. We are still in the front of
the DEC. We are still in front of the county. If the Board of
Trustees is interested, we are being asked by the County to show
a trench system for the IA/OWTS because of the glacial till here
has a lot the rocks and a lot of clay. So we are finishing up
with the County. We are finishing up with the State. And I can
Board of Trustees 45 March 18, 2021
give up a new landscape plan to be followed up by a new survey.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That sounds quite reasonable. So we'll
table at your request. Not knowing what the Department of
Environment Conservation might do, you may wish to submit the
landscape plan concurrently with them with respect to their
thoughts about fencing so close to the tidal wetland
MR. WALKER: We would always submit to the Town the exact same
drawing that we submit to the State. So that's fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, thank you, very much. Any additional
questions, any hand coming up?
Anyone else have any questions?
(Negative response).
Not seeing any, I make a motion to table this application at the
applicant's request for submission of detailed plan outlining
the non-turf versus non-disturbance buffers. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 8, Douglas McGahan on behalf of FABIO
PASQUALE GRANATO requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing
1,337 sq. ft dwelling, decks and foundation; demolish existing
8.3'x6.3' storage shed; and demolish existing 24.2'x22.2'
two-story garage; construct new one-story wood frame dwelling
with a poured concrete crawlspace foundation, with a total gross
area of 2,859.90 sq. ft. (45.4'x68'); new wrap around deck with a
total of 2,854.64 sq. ft, front stairs of 198.17 sq. ft., rear
stairs of 136.13 sq. ft. And side stairs of 45 sq. ft.; new 8'x19'
(152 sq. ft.) trellis style pergola on rear deck; new 6x6 wood
timber planters, 3'8" in width outside of the decks to conceal
the foundation height as the dwelling is to be raised up 2';
total dimensions of the house with wrap around deck and planters
will be 68'4"x64'2.5" and located 49.4' from the rear yard setback.
Located: 1725 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-13-2.4
The Trustees most recent field inspection at this site was
on March 10th, and noted that the application seemed to be
straightforward at that time.
The LWRP coordinator found this application to be
consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
MS. CANTRELL: I don't see anybody.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, we have what looks like --we have new
plans. Everything looks to be as we requested, moving the
building back. There is a question about I did not see in the
description nor on the plans a non-turf buffer, which we
normally require landward of the bulkhead. There is room for a
ten-foot non-turf buffer. How do you wish to proceed?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I personally think it's minor enough change
Board of Trustees 46 March 18, 2021
just to do it as a stipulation.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would be comfortable with that if there was
someone we could ask the question to and they on behalf of
applicant agreed that was fine. But I see no hands.
MS. CANTRELL: You would need plans for covenants and
restrictions, too.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. I think they would probably be amenable
to that, from discussions with the applicant.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: How about we consider approving subject to
submission of a landscape plan showing a ten-foot buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That seems appropriate, yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Would that work?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay. Any other questions or comments from the
Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted and noted on plans received February 23rd, 2021,
subject to the submission of landscape plan showing a ten-foot
non-turf buffer landward of the wood bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 9, Cole Environmental Services on
behalf of GLORIA NIXON requests a Wetland Permit for the
in-place replacement of dilapidated ±57 linear feet of bulkhead;
grading of area; installation of coir log; planting of spartina
alterniflora and spartina patens; installation of an 8' return
on the southerly side of bulkhead; in-place replacement of
existing "L" shaped fixed timber dock consisting of a 3'x10'
fixed dock off bulkhead to a 4'x16' fixed dock; dock decking to
be Thru Flow.
Located: 5170 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-138-2-13
The Trustees originally visited the site back in January
12th 2021. A couple of field notes. The applicant has
submitted new plans dated received in the office February 17th,
addressing the concerns of the prior public hearing.
The LWRP coordinator found this action to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council supports application.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this
application?
MS. CANTRELL: We have Chris. I'm going to assume it's Chris
Cole. Chris, if you want to un-mute yourself and just state your
last name for the record.
MR. COLE: This is Chris Cole from Cole Environmental, and just
here to answer any questions that the Board may have.
Board of Trustees 47 March 18, 2021
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Does anybody have any questions?
(Negative response).
I just want to state for clarification, the LWRP found this
to be consistent and inconsistent. The inconsistency was a lack
of permit, probably due to it being a (inaudible) structure.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
MS. CANTRELL: I see no other hands raised.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Questions or comments from the Trustees?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted using plans stamped received February 17th, 2021, with
the stipulation of the turbidity controls by issuance of permit
will address the inconsistency of the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 10, Enviropermits, Inc. on behalf of
ANDREA COURT PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to
remove and replace in-place and 12" higher than existing 96
linear feet of navy vinyl bulkhead and backfill the bulkhead
with clean fill from the upland side; remove the existing
bulkhead return and install 75' of navy vinyl bulkhead; install
a 4'x96' grated boardwalk landward of the bulkhead; install a
4'x6' cantilevered platform and a 4'wide beach access stairs to
grade; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 10'x96'
non-turf buffer planted with native plantings along the landward
edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 280 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-2-14.1
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with a recommendation of a 35-foot return on the west side of
the bulkhead, and aluminum retractable stairs parallel to the shoreline.
The Trustees conducted field inspection March 10, noting
recommended 15-foot non-turf buffer. Otherwise straightforward.
We also have a letter in the file here dated March 15th
from a Peter Herz, where he says he has concerns that there will
be no adverse effect or damage to their property and their
waterfront lot by connecting that bulkhead.
Is there anyone here wishes to speak regarding this application?
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(No response).
On the plans it does have that ten-foot non-turf buffer,
however there was also a four-foot graded boardwalk just
immediately landward of the bulkhead. So that is a 14-foot
non-turf buffer. So it's not just a ten. The boardwalk and
ten-foot non-turf, it's also 14 feet, which it pretty much
Board of Trustees 48 March 18, 2021
matches the neighbor to the south.
Are there any other questions or comments?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe if we can clarify that in making any sort
of motion that it would be ten-foot back from said 4-foot
boardwalk for a total of-- I mean, if you approve subject to
the plans, if it's clear, then so be it. But otherwise I would
say just to clarify.
MS. CANTRELL: Did you see the letter from the neighbor?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. So the proposed bulkhead is supposed to
connect to the neighboring bulkhead, and they are just looking
for assurances there won't be any damages to their bulkhead or
their property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Typically we have not seen a problem with that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, hearing no further comment, I'll make a
motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
application as submitted with the plans stamped received January
21st, 2021, that shows a four-foot graded boardwalk and a
ten-foot non-turf buffer, which acts a 14-foot non-turf buffer
in totality. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 11, Eligio Lopez on behalf of JENNIFER
B. GOULD requests a Wetland Permit to replace existing brick
patio with new 196 sq. ft. bluestone patio in same footprint;
remove existing bluff stairs and replace in same footprint new
approximately 3'x10' stairs with railings on both sides for stability.
Located: 1825 Truman's Path, East'Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-13-3 L
The Trustees most recently visited this site on the 11th of
March and noted that the project was straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application is there anyone here that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
MS. CANTRELL: Jennifer Gould is on.
MS. GOULD: If you have any questions, I'll answer them, but,
like you said, it's a pretty straightforward.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Are there any additional comments
from the Board or anyone else that wishes to speak regarding
this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 49 March 18, 2021
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 12, AMP - -
Architecture on behalf of ERATH &SON, LLC requests a Wetland
Permit for the existing 15'6"x22'6" (350 sq. ft.) seaward side
deck to remain with new deck boards, and to add 14'10"x21'4"
(320 sq. ft.) and 5'4.5"x17'6" (95 sq. ft.) of new deck for a total
of 765 sq. ft. of deck, of which 350 sq. ft. of deck total is to be
covered; for the existing 22'4"x26'4" (590 sq. ft.) one-story
garage and to increase the footprint by 5'0"x26'4" (130 sq. ft.)
for a total first floor footprint of 27'4"x26'4" (720 sq. ft.);
and to construct a 27'4"x26'4" (720 sq. ft.) second-story addition
which will be finished and unheated.
Located: 580 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.30
The project has been deemed to be both inconsistent and
exempt under the LWRP. The inconsistency draws from the fact
that the structures there had no prior Town Trustee wetland
permits. The exemption exists due to a second-story addition is
exempt from LWRP review.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
using best management practice and the installation of gutters,
leaders and drywells.
The Trustees inspected the property on the 10th of March,
noting that they need gutters, leaders and drywells, and check
plans. Subsequently, I have reviewed the plans. I don't see
gutters, leaders and drywells on the plans although I might
stand corrected if somehow they are burrowed in the detailed
architectural elevations.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak to this application?
MS. CANTRELL: Anthony Portillo is the architect with regard to
this project. Anthony, if you would like to un-mute yourself.
MR. PORTILLO: Good evening, Board. Thank you, for your time
tonight.
So just to clarify, I'm not the architect, I'm actually
just doing the filing portion for this project. I just wanted to
mention a couple of things. There is an existing ten-foot
non-turf buffer against the existing bulkhead. I just wanted to
the let you guys know that. In regard to leaders to drywells,
I'll make sure that the architect provides that, and we'll
submit a storm water management plan as part of our submission
to the Building Department. If there are any other questions,
feel free, I'm here to answer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That sounds straightforward. If there are no
objections from the Board, I'll stipulate 236 compliance which
goes to the Building Department.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sounds good to me.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else wish to speak to this
Board of Trustees 50 March 18, 2021
application?
(Negative response).
Seeing no other hands raised, I'll make a motion to close
the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to approve the application as
submitted with the stipulation that compliance with Chapter 236
with properly drawn plans for containment of roof runoff to
gutters, leaders and drywells be submitted to the Town Building
Department.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 13, Frederick Weber, Architect on behalf
of JAMES P. RILEY, JR. 2002 FAMILY GST TRUST, c/o ELLEN RILEY,
TRUSTEE requests a Wetland Permit to revise the existing
driveway, patios and paths consisting of a 167 sq. ft. screen
porch; a 175 sq. ft. roofed patio (replacing existing 2nd floor
deck); 147 sq. ft. raised patio (replacing existing 1 st floor
deck); 40 sq. ft. spa; 148 sq. ft. spa terrace; revise the driveway
and parking area for a total of 2,887 sq. ft.; remove existing
sanitary system on seaward side and install a new I/A sanitary
system on landward side and greater than 100' from surface
water; new 184 sq. ft. patio at cottage entrance; 391 sq. ft. of
walk and steps; 1,125 sq. ft. entertainment patio with 51 sq. ft.
outdoor kitchen; retaining wall, a 210 sq. ft. gravel area to the
north; 24 sq. ft. masonry steps and 130 sq. ft. gravel area to the
west; new access to the beach consisting of new 136 sq. ft.
steps/landing; 78 sq. ft.`& 57 sq. ft. new gravel areas; 102 linear
feet of new masonry retaining walls and 55 sq. ft. of resurfacing
wood steps; existing A/C units and cellar entrance will remain;
a spa filter, spa heater and a 1,000-gallon propane tank will be
installed; retaining walls will be constructed along south
property line (96 linear feet) and along east south side of
driveway (50 linear feet); site drainage will be provided for a
2" rainfall; and to establish and perpetually maintain a
non-disturbance buffer area on the embankment.
Located: 2950 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-5-7.2.
The Trustees most recent field inspection at this site was
on March 10th. All were present. The notes read the patio with
an IA system is straightforward. Some concern about the
revetment wall and the side seating on the beach, and the
non-turf buffer area, a question about that.
I would note that those, subsequent to that there were new
plans submitted on February 3rd, showing the side steps were
eliminated.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency is concerned about the structures proposed in the
Board of Trustees 51 March 18, 2021
100-foot minimum setback from the wetlands, and recommended that
the Board clarify the size of the stair landing, which it subsequently does.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MS. CANTRELL: Fred Weber is present.
MR. WEBER: Good evening. Okay, I'm Fred Weber. I'm the
architect for the project and I'm here representing the owner
and I would be willing to answer any questions that anybody
might have on the project.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, to clarify for the record, that plans were
submitted on March 15th, 2021. And those are the plans that show
the side steps removed and the non-turf buffer-- non-disturbance zone
and non-turf buffer.
Gentleman, do you have any questions for Mr. Weber?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, those are the plans, it looks like a good
project.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right, is there anyone else wishing to speak
to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted and as detailed on the plans stamped received March
15th, 2021.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thereby bringing it into consistency?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Exactly. Noting that will bring, the changes on
those plans address the inconsistency.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 14, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc. on behalf of THEODORE STRATIGOS & CARISSA LAUGHLIN requests
a Wetland Permit to improve the site by replacing ±101.0 linear
feet of bulkhead on the southerly portion of the subject
property with 15.0' returns along the easterly and westerly
property boundaries, as well as to install and perpetually
maintain a 15.0' wide non-turf buffer area with railroad ties at
its landward boundary (approximately 16.0" high); install an
electric powered retractable ramp/davit system consisting of(1)
4'x5' wood platform, (1) 3'x15' hinged aluminum ramp and (1)
electric davit secured with a concrete footing, setback 15.0'
from westerly property line. Located: 550 Blue Marlin Drive,
Greenport. SCTM# 1000-57-1-27
The Trustees originally visited this site on February 9th,
2021, noting that the project was straightforward. All Trustees
were present.
The LWRP found this action to be consistent, and also noted
an inconsistency with concern of the structures and FEMA VE
Board of Trustees 52 March 18, 2021
flood zones should be avoided or minimized due to potential _
damage.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support
the application. The Conservation Advisory Council does not
support the application because the size of the retractable ramp
system is not specified and is not permitted according to
Chapter 275 wetland code. The structure should be constructed
using through-flow decking and vegetated non-turf buffer to be
installed landward of the bulkhead. There was no evidence of the
15-foot returns on the existing bulkhead. Is there anyone here
that wishes to speak to this application?
MS. CANTRELL: We have Bruce Anderson on behalf of Suffolk
Environmental.
MR. ANDERSON: Hello, this is Robert Anderson of Suffolk
Environmental on behalf of the applicant.
I would like to make mention that we have had this project
approved by the DEC on January 11th, 2021, to which I believe we
had made that a part of the record. Our proposal includes for
the mechanically retractable aluminum ramp and 4x5 platform with
one foot of the platform existing over the proposed top cap to
the bulkhead.
A 15-foot non-turf buffer area as proposed with railroad
ties landward to delineate lawn area from the non-turf buffer.
Our proposal is to replace everything in-kind and in-place with
the exception of the mechanical davit system and establishment
of the 15-foot non-turf buffer area.
I'm happy to answer any questions the Board might have
regarding this application.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Does anybody have any questions?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Anybody else here that wishes to speak to this
application?
MS. CANTRELL: Seeing no hands being raised.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted with plans stamped December 29th, 2020, stipulating
the use of turbidity controls, and by issuing a permit and using
best practices will address the inconsistency of the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 15, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
on behalf of MILDRED PASCUCCI requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a proposed two-story, single-family dwelling with the
first floor area to include 518 sq. ft. of living space, a
1,445 sq. ft. deck, a 70 sq. ft. ramp, and 148 sq. ft. of stairway;
second floor to include 1,741 sq. ft. of living space, a 345 sq. ft.
Board of Trustees 53 March 18, 2021
deck, 112 sq. ft. of stairway, and 625 sq. ft. landing; install
sanitary system along the easterly portion of the lot; install
151 linear feet of retaining wall; place an approximate 370
cubic yards of clean sand surrounding the proposed IA/OWTS
septic system; install a well; install a 30'x15' French drain 2
feet deep and construct a 560 sq. ft. gravel driveway; landscape
the property consisting of 2,600 sq. ft. surrounding the house to
be planted with red fescue, 6,600 sq. ft. planted with Cape
American beach grass; install three groupings of Atlantic Red
Cedar and supplement plantings adjacent to the septic system
with Groundsel Bush installed 6 feet on center and within the
bounds of the property.
Located: 305 Narrow River Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-3-11
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies
are, according to the Suffolk County hazard mitigation tool, the
parcels in the area are susceptible to flooding. The parcel is
located within storm surge zone. The parcel is expected to
flood during category one hurricanes and storms. Extreme and
high New York State Department of State coastal risk hazard
area. Extreme risk areas are areas of frequent inundation. High
risk areas are areas outside of extreme risk areas that
currently are at infrequent risk of inundation or at future risk
of sea level rise. It is expected that the property will be
inundated during storms and most hurricane. Sea level rise will
also adversely impact this parcel in the future. Hydrological
conditions of property change over time and shallow depth to
ground water has been recorded and is expected. The test hole
conducted in 2015 should be updated. Location of IA/OWTS is
located in an area where high ground water expected to flood and
closest to surface waters. Through Policy 6, it is recommended
that the Board re-assess the soils, vegetation and hydrology on
site for wetland systems especially to area adjacent to King
Street.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application using best management practices for the IA/OWTS
septic system.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection March 10, 2021,
noting that the long form EAF will be requirement and an outside
consultant may be required to map the wetland vegetation.
We do have a number of letters in objection to this project
in the file. To quickly summarize: This lot is wetlands. This
lot is freshwater wetland. Advanced septic systems are designed
to improve water quality on buildable sites, not to allow
development on a degraded ecosystem we are trying to protect.
This proposal will cause harm to surrounding properties on
Narrow River, Harbor and Douglas roads. The proposed four to six
foot retaining wall 150 feet in length is an affront to the
unique beauty of Narrow River Road. Climate change is real in
our corner of Orient.
They also attached photos that showed this parcel inundated
at times of storms. And it is signed by a lot of people. And
Board of Trustees 54 March 18, 2021
there are a couple of other letters in the file that are part of
the public record and part of the file in opposition to the
project, basically stating the same objections as the first
letter.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. CANTRELL: We have Mr. Anderson again.
MR. ANDERSON: Good evening. Bruce Anderson, for the applicant
Pascucci. By way of project history, this is a project that we
became involved in subsequent to a permit issued by this Board
which was issued on November 16th, 2016. That was permit 8920,
issued to Mildred Pascucci. The house, the basic development,
and so forth, are proposed today are identical with what was
proposed and approved by this Board in 2016.
Going through your records, leading to up to the permit in
2016, the same sorts of objections by neighbors were raised. So
there is nothing new about what you are receiving today. They
are the same objections that were raised in 2016. And the permit
issued despite over those objections.
After the 2016 permit was issued, the engineer then
representing the property owner went to the Health Department,
and their application was denied by the Health Department
because the septic system was located on Harbor Road, and it was
directly up gradient from the two properties across the street,
which is now on your plans noted as Reiger and Auerbach. And so
Joe Fischetti was then hired to see if he could resolve these
problems with the Health Department. And he did so.
During the -- and he applied to the Health Department. He
went to the Health Department's Board of Review. And in order
to secure that approval we had to move the septic system to the,
off the eastern side off of Narrow River Road or King Street,
and that is the plan that is before you.
In 2018 1 became involved, the first thing we did is
extended 2016 permit, which the Board did. We finally secured an
approval from the Suffolk County Board of Review. In order to
close out the permit, we needed permits from the Trustees.
Now, in 2019, another year had passed. I came before you to
again request that the permit be now amended for the revised
septic system that the Health Department was requiring, and we
went and had a lot of back and forth, if you remember, so we
moved the retaining wall off the property lines and we created a
landscape plan that featured all of the complete native planting
of the site and the planting of the grounds of which were within
the property line and outside the retaining wall, which was
required in connection with the septic stem.
So in 2019, the Board approved that amendment and gave us
obviously another extension on the permit to November 2nd, 2020.
Unfortunately, due to just undue delay on the part of Board
of Review, it took literally months, almost-- more than a year,
I would say a year-and-a-half to simply get the Board of Review
approval. By that time, the Trustees permit had expired, and
Board of Trustees 55 March 18, 2021
that's what's caused this application.
So the important thing to realize is there is no change,
there has been no change to the site conditions. There has been
no change to the potential house. There has been no change to
the location of the septic stem. The application that we filed
to this Board is the identical application that was approved _
during the, at the November 2nd, 2019 amendment.
Now, if you go back and you take a look at the 2015
process, for the original permit, which was obtained by Young &
Young, you'll come across the Local Waterfront Revitalization
memorandum which deemed it inconsistent only because the site
plan did not identify the location of regulated future wetland,
which is on the other side of the road, the other side of King
Street or Narrow River Road, on the downward side of a berm that
was constructed I think by the farmers to protect their farmland
from coastal flooding.
The issues that are now raised by the same LWRP coordinator
are in fact inconsistent with the prior LWRP report. So the LWRP
coordinator is inconsistent with his own comments.
You should also know that despite all this, this is a house
that is to be built on piles. It has a first floor elevation of
10.5 feet. We have a septic system that is suitably raised above
groundwater that has been approved by the Health Department. Had
the Health Department, had they the ability to timely provide
the applicant with their written determination of approval,
there would already be a house on this property today. But that
delay is beyond the control of the property owner.
The final matter you should know that a long form, also the
long form EAF, we are happy to give you one. But it's a Type II
action and frankly it's not even subject to SEQRA. So I don't
quite understand that comment.
Then finally, in your records you will find a letter of
non-jurisdiction Tidal Wetland Act that is dated 1999, and the
second one which says the same thing in 2015. And those are
already in your files.
So what we have here is a lot that is been recognized by
the Town as a building parcel, having already gone to the
Building Department, you'll recall earlier in 2015 there was a
proposal for a swimming pool that would trigger a zoning
variance, which was withdrawn, and otherwise the lot from the
Building Department's standpoint, from the Town's buildability
process, is recognized as a residential building lot.
So all we are asking for is re-issuance of a permit that
entirely consistent with the prior regulatory decisions of this
Board so that we can finish with the Health Department, because
they'll require that written permit again, and also we can apply
for a building permit. And that's what we are here for. And
I'll answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. While this plan may be identical
to what was approved back in 2016, 1 don't believe that the site
conditions are the same as they were in 2016. Speaking for
Board of Trustees 56 March 18, 2021
myself, I think there were four members of this current Board
who were there back in 2016 for the initial permit, and the
conditions today are definitely different than they were back
then. Whether it's due to sea level rise and/or a combination of
that valve that is across the street, maybe not functioning as
well as it did in the past, but we have basically a full stand
of Baccharus, we do have pictures in the file of standing water
on this property. So I think more diligence is definitely
warranted in regard to the long EAF, as well as a little more
scrutiny on this particular project. Just because it is
identical to whatever was presented years ago, the property has
definitely changed.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: I would like to respond to that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sure.
MR. ANDERSON: If you go and you look at your prior record in
2015 leading up to the permit issuance of 2016, you'll see a
mature stand of Baccharus throughout this property. Your notes
will say that as well. You'll see pictures of flooding on the
property in 2016. The Baccharus you see today is not the growth
of any recent planting. Those are all mature Baccharus. They are
the same Baccharus, in the same condition, with the same degree
of flooding that existed in 2015. It was very well photographed
back in 2016 and inventoried by this Board.
I respectfully disagree. Nothing really has changed on
this lot. So, unfortunately, it is still a building lot. It
still contains the same conditions that it did back in 2015.
It's very clear when you go through the record.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can I, you worked very hard for this
application, and we as a Board worked hard on this application.
But I will not let you enter into the record that this is the
same Baccharus, the same flooding conditions which I think is
the term you just used now. Evidence shows in the area that it
is flooding more consistently than it did back in 2016, when we
first approved it, and knowing full well that if the Health
Department had moved quickly, there would be a house there, but
this is now. That was then, this is now. The law of entropy
says things do not get better as time has passed. They did not
get better. So it's not the same application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The situation is, Bruce, you know, I live a
quarter mile from there. I'm a regular visitor to that site. The
berm along the entirety of Narrow River Road across from the
property is flooding on even relatively minor nor'easters, and
leaving the bluff flooded entirely. And although initial
reviews back in 2015, 2016, there were even a few leaves and
thorns of upland type on what would be the west part of the
property, and at that time when the Board dug around, I think we
found groundwater around six inches below the grade in the
middle of the lot. Of late, the property is entirely flooded
almost weekly, and the situation is only getting worse.
Board of Trustees 57 March 18, 2021
Unfortunately this lot is at the lower gradient of a
contributing watershed that the whole block dumps down fresh
waters onto this from the surrounding natural gradient of the
properties.
I mean, I'm a lifelong resident of Orient and I can only
tell you what has happened in the last three years is absolutely
phenomenal. The adjacent wetland is owned by the Department of
Environmental Conservation. The barrier beach is totally
invaded. What used to be a protected creek inside Hallocks Bay
which would be known as Pete Necks Creek now directly empties
right into the bay. And this is immediately to, just to the
east, which means when high tide in Orient Harbor fills up, it's
directly feeding not only through the Pete Neck's channel but
directly now through what used to be Pete Neck's Creek channel
backing into this whole area known as Gideon's Narrow, which is
large salt marsh across the street. It's a different place. And
it's a different world.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to
speak?
MR. ANDERSON: I would urge you to go back and look at your
photos back in 2015. Now, I did not take those photos. I was not
involved in the project back then. I became involved in it a
couple years later after the Health Department had denied the
initial septic system. But in going through those photos you'll
see mature Baccharus, you'll see flooding on the lot back in
2015. 1 simply cannot imagine --there is no evidence in the
record that I could find that there has been a material change
in this property. And the other thing, too, I suspect that this
was not a property the Town wants to preserve as some sort of a
park. So it is a residential property, it is zoned residential,
it is a buildable property in the eyes of the Town. We are
asking for no variance relief whatsoever and we are simply
asking for the same house that has been approved now three
times, and as early as 2019. Because that was the last time I
was before this Board for an approval. And that was done on
November 2, 2019.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
MS. CANTRELL: Yes. The next person would be Carolyn McLaughlin.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN: I'm glad --the reason so many people,
neighbors signed on to this letter is that we all know that this
is wetlands. That that lot is wet, most, if not all of the time.
The point that was made about flooding in from the marsh, I mean
there are now two or three cut-throughs from the beach into the
marsh there, where it use to be, as you had, the water used to
have to come in from Hallocks. That is definitely making the
flooding worse on Narrow River Road and on that lot. It is just
flooding even on high tides.
The flooding is definitely worse. We are concerned about
flooding into neighborhood properties, that wantonly absorbs
water. Time out. What, 380 cubic feet of soil or sand that is
Board of Trustees 58 March 18, 2021
going to be put in there. That is going to displace a lot of
water on to other properties. This idea of sticking a septic
tank, advanced septic tank on a big pile of sand, right on the
edge of the property that is closest to the marsh across the
street and then saying, you know, that's fine. I mean that just
seems like, you know, like a really, really bad idea.
We have to protect Hallocks Bay, you know, and not allow
more gunk to go into it. It's been degrading. We all know that.
There is, you know, 12 property owners signed a letter. There
is two more that wanted to sign the letter. There is over 22
people that have signed it. I mean, this is just, it's a bad
project. It was a bad project and in the beginning. It's
gotten to be a worse project. That lot should not be built. It's
not a buildable lot
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone else here
who wishes to speak regarding this application?
MS. CANTRELL: Yes. Catherine Matthews.
MS. MATTHEWS: Hi, I'm,Catherine Matthews, I live right next door
to the property. I have been in Orient for 50 years, and
numerous people have tried to find potable water on that lot,
and to no avail. How is it that as the quality of my water has
deteriorated, miraculously, they have found potable water on
that lot? It astounds me. I'm confused about that.
Number two, the original proposal for the variance was
under the name of Ben and Christine Hansen, and when they were
denied the ability to build on the lot, they reached out to Mrs.
Pascucci and the buildability of the lot now is dependent, they
are depending on Mrs. Pascucci to get a building on this lot.
So when they were told they couldn't build on it, they said,
okay, well, the original owner, she is grandfathered in, so
she'll be allowed to build a house. She has no interest in
building the house. It's the Hansen's that want to build a
house.
I don't understand why anybody would want to build on a
piece of property where no one in the community wants them to
build.
Plus, I have to correct the Board. There is no berm
directly across from this property. The berm is further up on
Narrow River Road. And the proposed septic system is not even 20
feet away from the wetlands, and the systems, by the way, are
not tried and true. So we don't know that they are 100% good at
keeping all the stuff from the bay.
So I think that it's unconscionable that the Board would
approve a building on this particular lot. Everything has
changed. I battle every single day with flooding. Tonight I had
Eileen Webb here, and Helen McManski (sic) was here. They got
tired of waiting for this to come up, so they left. It's raining
out. Unless they didn't have an SUV they would not have been
able to get home tonight because the puddle in front of my
house, which is 275 Harbor Road, is right next door to this
property is flooded to the point that you have to have an SUV or
Board of Trustees 59 March 18, 2021
a truck to get through it.
So things have definitely, definitely changed in the years,
and I can't imagine a house being built on this property.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else here wishing to
speak?
MS. CANTRELL: Pat Moore wishes to speak. Pat, if you're
listening, if you would like to un-mute yourself.
MS. MOORE: I am. Thank you. I appreciate the late night. My
name is Patricia Moore and I represent Mildred Pascucci. The
Hansen's have been patiently going through this process.
Mrs. Pascucci, she and her husband purchased the property
in 1981. And they actually got all of the development permits to
start construction, but her husband passed away before the house
could be built. They have held on to this property for the
entire time, and then finally Mrs. Pascucci was getting on in
years. She went through contract with the Hansen's, and both the
buyer and the seller here have been working diligently through
years of regulatory process.
The Health Department took an unimaginable amount of time
to get through the process. They started off with, and I think
Bruce explained to you, that the original design by a prior
engineer placed the sanitary system in an inappropriate
location. The Health Department denied, or through the Board of
Review, because they got as far as the Board of Review. The
Board of Review denied the application. We then, Pascucci and
myself, we had to bring an Article 78 to protect our interests
due to the Health Department denial.
While the matter was in litigation, the Hansen's then got
the good counsel of Joe Fischetti who redesigned the sanitary
system in an appropriate location, and then also, I think, I
don't recall the original may not have been an IA system.
Because of the regulations, the new system is an IA system. So
there is, Bruce can confirm this. I just don't recall, since I'm
peripherally involved. I get involved when the matter necessitates it.
We are at a point where the Health Department was facing a
taking if there was no resolution of the approval. If we don't
get a resolution of the approval then we are back to a takings
issue, because we do have the Pascucci's, when they bought the
property, the regulations would have allowed them to build.
Now at this point we are adding one regulation in after
another and the, really a four-year process or more, we have
reached a point where they are really ready at this point, Ms.
Pascucci, we were all ready to close when we finally got the
Health Department approval and realized that the, through COVID
and waiting for the Health Department, the Trustees approval was
expiring. So the application had to be re submitted, and the
closing was delayed once again.
Bruce has presented, really, we say it's the same
application. It's better. It's the IA system. It is a project
that you very thoroughly reviewed. It's not like you gave an
approval without any consideration, without looking at the
Board of Trustees 60 March 18, 2021
existing conditions. And you approved the project, and it's
been approved multiple times, as Bruce has pointed out. We are
really at the end now and it's just disheartening. Ms. Pascucci
is going to go crazy to think there is additional delay. We know
you have to review things carefully. We know you have been
reviewing everything carefully. But as I recall and Bruce will
remember the application, about two months ago an adjacent
property owner received an approval for whether it's an addition
or a new house, I don't recall, because our concern was that the
design of their sanitary system did not seem to take into
consideration the design of our sanitary stem. And we did share
it with them. And I think Rob Herrmann was his environmental
consultant on that, and the matter, as a matter of fact, I think
it was to be on this calendar and it was postponed, or they may
be on the Health Department dealing with ultimate placement of
the system.
It is very, clearly this property and the set of the
properties on this block, they are difficult properties, they
are very tightly, one next to the other. Sanitary systems, well
the locations, have to be very carefully analyzed. But this
property has surrounding homes on either side. And the Board has
just approved right next door. So I'm hoping that you will look
carefully, and Bruce is pointing out the conditions based on
your records in your file, of the conditions of the property.
Flooding, it seems, based on Mr. Bredemeyer's comments, are
occurring significantly through other homes and roads. So you
are getting freshwater runoff that is ending up on the lowest
point, which in this case is the undeveloped property. The other
homes have raised their grade or have changed their grade so
they can build.
I see, I guess you want to wrap this up, I know you do, but
I do want you to be aware Mrs. Pascucci is still the owner. The
Hansen's have our blessing and our support, and we have been all
together hand-in- hand trying to get this approval so the Hansen
family can finally put their dream house on this property.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
MS. CANTRELL: We have Chris Wedge who would like to speak.
MR. WEDGE: Hi. Sorry guys, I know it's late, but I am a
neighbor. I live on Harbor Road and we have been here about 20
years and, you know, regardless of whether or not the building
code or the Town allows building on that lot, it really is, to
confirm Trustee Bredemeyer's observations about the site, it's
just a terrible site to build on. And I know the Health
Department apparently has approved an IA septic system on it,
but I can't understand how on a lot where, if the groundwater is
six inches below the surface, I would be surprised on 50% of it
how you can put in, how you can set a septic system on top of
sand. The IA system is not going to put out less effluent. It's
just going to clean it a little better. But all of the houses
Board of Trustees 61 March 18, 2021
downstream of that septic system are going to be susceptible.
I just don't understand, all of our, the effluent, goes
into the same groundwater that we drink here. I just don't
understand. If that lot is something that the Town says you can
build on, I just think they should change the regulations.
That's all. Sorry to keep up guys up. - - - - ------
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No problem. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone
else here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MS. CANTRELL: There is a Nina Eshoo who wishes to talk.
MS. ESHOO: Thank you. I'm one of the neighbors as well. I don't
want to repeat although I agree with everything my neighbors
have said. I just wanted to raise three considerations for the
Board.
The first is of course the present is not the past, and
where we are in 2021 on that lot is much, much different than we
were. And I have been around our neighborhood about 25 years as
well and have watched that.
The groundwater, just to clarify, is not running off
others. I have groundwater on my property. It comes up through
my shed. It's just the way the property goes.
Second point, to Patricia Moore, I think you were
mentioning, I have not raid my property. I don't believe the
McLaughlin's have, I do not believe Abby Tennenbaum (sic) has. I
don't believe any properties have been raised except for the one
direct neighbor Cathy Matthews, which was years ago. So no we
have not all raised our properties. We are all sitting with a
lot of trouble right now. Putting in all that fill puts us all
at more risk. I think that's a very important point.
Thirdly, the property adjacent, and I did listen to that
approval, and I was supportive of it, that adjacent lot has some
higher ground. It is not under water. That house is a whole
different story from this. We don't see that lot get flooded. We
don't see that septic system being as much of a concern. It is
apples and oranges.
And just lastly I would point out the Hansen's had an
opportunity to pursue that site, but they chose to remain with
this one. So my apologies if they can't build their dream house,
but I think it's dangerous for our neighborhood in 2021.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, very much. Is there anyone else
here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MS. CANTRELL: Carolyn McLaughlin and Catherine Matthews wish to
both speak again. Is that okay with the Board?
MR. HAGAN:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Folks, if we can just limit, at least stay to
new topics. You know, bringing up additional points rather than
repeating the same ones. We certainly appreciate the input.
MS. CANTRELL: Okay, down to Catherine Matthews.
MS. MATTHEWS: Okay, I won't add anything more to what my
neighbors have said. I appreciate you listening to us and I hope
you consider this very seriously. And I wish you would have told
the first person that spoke that he should only speak for five
Board of Trustees 62 March 18, 2021
minutes. But, thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MS. CANTRELL: Carolyn McLaughlin would like to speak again.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN: A point that has not been mentioned is the idea
on Narrow River Road there to have a wall that will be four to
six feet tall, even though it will be a few feet back. I mean
that is really, I guess the retaining wall to hold the sand,
that holds the septic tank. But everything else is flat there
and to have this wall, it could be also, you know, dangerous for
traffic.
And I didn't think it was fair to bring the Hansen's in
because I personally reached out to them when the Town-owned lot
was for sale. And said you have an option, you have a buildable
lot. We want you to come here, but come here on land that is
buildable. So that's all.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All right, I don't see any more hands raised.
I think for me, I think it's indisputable that the conditions
have changed, especially since 2019 when the test hole was dug.
You know, anybody that has been around town can obviously see
the sea level is rising, conditions are getting worse, not
better, and I think this property,in particular is at the
forefront of that, being so close to the wetlands, as Trustee
Bredemeyer spoke about.
So because the conditions have changed, I think we need to
take a deeper look into this. I do believe that we need to go
for the long EAF form. I believe we need a new test hole before
we can make any considerations on this project.
So with that being said, I will make a motion to table this
application for the long form EAF as well as a new test hole.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And some discussion, in that if it's been
conceded by the applicant for the owner, Mr. Anderson, that that
is entirely wetlands, we would like a statement to that effect,
or a survey of all existing wetlands. There also may not be
strictly Baccharus on, I believe there might be certain other
vegetation and/or, you know, wetland plants that are not
strictly Baccharus. So we probably want an enumeration of the
vegetation other than Baccharus. I think there are some brushes
and sages in the middle of the property.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Do you want to restate your motion?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, I'll make a motion. We'll table this
application for a long-form EAF, for a new test hole and for a
wetland vegetation study/survey before we can move forward on
this application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 63 March 18, 2021
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And at this time we'll request a five-minute
recess.
(After a brief recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 16, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of
MARC TURKEL & NEENA BEBER requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 16'x18' roofed shade frame structure/building on locust
posts; existing 12.2'x29' frame boat house building on locust
posts with 5' high x 17' concrete retaining wall landward of
boat house; existing 3'6" wood deck/platform and 11 stair treads
(10" each), and 12 risers 6" each from grade to top of bank; to
repair and maintain existing structures/buildings
in-kind/in-place; and to bury±210' of overhead wires and remove
two utility poles in the front yard.
Located: 2221 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-5-11.2
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 10th of
March, and noted the boathouse repair seemed straightforward.
The old shaped frame is non-functional, to discuss, and the
buried electric lines seem okay.
The LWRP coordinator found this application to be exempt.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to
support the application.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not support the
application in questions the necessity of the structure. Any
improvements to legalize the structure should be done using best
management practice.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding the
application?
MS. CANTRELL: We have Patricia Moore.
MS. MOORE: Thank you. Yes.-I actually thank you for meeting with
me at the site. I did some investigating to see if I could go
back some period of time to identify what these structures may
have been used for. I went back to the Town's or the County's
1978 aerial, and I had sent it over today in case you wanted it
for your file. I pulled up through the GIS system of the County,
and what is not clear to me, I mean these are kind of, I want to
say cultural relics along the water. There are not that many of
them. There are definitely some old boathouses. But that other
structure could have been used as part of the farming operation,
because when you look at the aerials from 1978, it was pretty
much all, the area was surrounded by farmland. It's now the
Pontino farm but I don't know who the prior farmer was. You all
may know. But there was farmland surrounding this property all
the way to the headwaters of Indian Neck and the creek.
So this structure, when my clients purchased the property
they were enamored by the structures and wanted to maintain
them. Clearly the boathouse is in pretty good shape. I know that
was not an issue. This other structure, we call it a shade
structure, but it's, the posts are still in perfect condition.
It's the roof and the shingles that have deteriorated. And all
we would, all my client wants to do is just keep them in some,
Board of Trustees 64 March 18, 2021
you know, safe condition. Again, not having to do anything to
the cedar posts, really it's just keeping the roof from
deteriorating further. So by getting a permit for the
structures, because they are pre-existing and I gave you a CO
that shows they are all pre-existing, they were constructed
prior to the 50s, prior to zoning, and we just want to maintain
it. And, you know, they bought this property because it is so
uniquely original. And they want to keep it that way. So really
we are losing the cultural views that you see from the creek
with some of these old structures as they deteriorate and go
away. Or where we can't retain them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
MS. CANTRELL: Yes, one of the property owners would like to
speak. So, Pat, I'll put you on mute. And Mr. Turkel, if you
would un-mute yourself.
MR. TURKEL: Hi, this is Marc Turkel. I'm one of the property
owners. I just wanted to say that I'm also specializing in,
among other things, historical restoration, and we are only
interested in trying to maintain the existing beauty of the
property, and so we have, in the interest of the waterfront and
community apart, and we understand how to do this in a way that
is sensitive and consistent with the original structures. Thank
you, very much.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I'll start, then if anyone wants to echo in,
please come in. I actually tend to agree with you, Pat, about
the boathouse. I think it is fully functional. Obviously, we are
calling it a boathouse. It's not really a boathouse, it's
almost like a storage structure. You could not pull a boat into
it, beside maybe a kayak or Sunfish. However I think the, I take
bigger issue with I guess the cedar post framed, what was
probably some sort of storage shed, you know, maybe dating back
to shellfishing days, or ice boating days, possibly, but we
discussed with you and the client in the field how he would like
to regroup it, maybe use it for storage underneath. Both of
those structures, ultimately really are in the wetland. I mean
they are well within the wetland. Where both of them are should
be Spartina. It should definitely be a tidal area. And to put a
roof, I struggle with the idea of putting a roof back over that
because although at the time they didn't know, or maybe through
sea level rise it became tidal wetland, it's not really an
appropriate spot for any structure. Especially one that is
currently not really -- it's basically not there besides the
posts and some of the roof. But very little. I certainly would
not call it useable in any way.
One thought that someone threw around was possibly we would
be open to allowing you to move the structure landward slightly
and maintain it on the property, but not in the wetland. Because
I think through Chapter 275, that's what we would really
struggle with there, is permitting something like that in.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess a question I have is for Patricia
Board of Trustees 65 March 18, 2021
Moore, is have they made application to the DEC? In other words,
one structure appears to be totally non-functional. The more
storage shed-like structure which to my mind I think I would be
comfortable with that being moved on the site, and more
comfortable with --this is just one Trustee's opinion, more
comfortable moving it on the site where the fronting face simply
at or near where the bank is, through either alteration of
driveway or adjoining land, so visually it might be the same,
nearly the same from the creek, but then would not be over the
intertidal wetland. But, anyhow, the basic question is, I think
the concern going ahead with an approval or even a component of
this, that the DEC might have strong, their view of bureau of
marine tidal habitat protection and tidal wetlands people might
have very strong feelings about blessing structures over
intertidal wetlands.
MS. CANTRELL: Are you asking for Pat to reply to that?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If Pat wants to respond to that at this
point or apply to the DEC as well. I'm just throwing it out there.
MS. CANTRELL: Pat, you keep un-waving. I'm not sure if you want
to speak. Go ahead, Pat, un-mute yourself if you want to speak,
and then the two homeowners would like to speak. Neena Beber has
not yet had a chance to speak.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, if Pat doesn't un-mute, we might as well
let her speak first and maybe try Pat again.
MS. MOORE: Sorry. The un-mute button was not showing. I
apologize, I was looking it. I couldn't find it. I'm very sorry.
My late night inability to operate a computer.
I, with respect to the DEC, the boathouse storage building,
that is --well, let me start with structures that are clearly
in existence prior to October 1977 are permitted structures that
you can maintain. So the boathouse, really there is very little
that has to be done to the boathouse other than the actual
structure itself just may be re-shingling, cosmetics, mostly. So
we don't need a permit for that.
The other structure that, again, it would show up on the
aerial map in 1977 as clearly being there, I don't want to say
it's not functional. It's, we were willing to make it an open
roofed structure, like open, rather than shingles, leaving the
rafters so you can esthetically see it, and more like a
pergola-style without shingles. If it were left to its natural
state, that's pretty much what you would have because the beams
are there, just the shingles have deteriorated. So I don't think
we have to worry about the boathouse at all. And the other
structure, I didn't know if there was a suggestion, what was not
clear, was the suggestion to take that, let's call it a shade
structure for lack of a better description, and moving it
landward, so it's visually still part of the property and, you
know, maybe in such a way that it is not in the wetlands but it
remains very close or at the top of the bank. Is that one of the
suggestions I heard?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was my suggestion for the storage shed.
Board of Trustees 66 March 18, 2021
I'm looking at that other open-frame thing as finished,
non-functional and should have been cut flush with the creek and
removed. That's my personal take on it. And I'm certainly one
person, I don't know how the other Board members feel. Continue
the discussion on boathouse, what you call a boathouse.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I actually had that discussion for the shade
structure. Whether--that is certainly not functional, I
completely agree with you. But that structure could be recreated
at the top of the bank, and has a shade structure with no roof
and just cedar posts, I would not see something applied for in
that manner having an environmental, any environmental
negatives. So, you know, if you wanted to try to pull those
posts and recreate something like that in that area, just
outside of the wetlands, I certainly, one Trustee, would not be
against that. Just in its current configuration there is really
no appropriate use for it, because it literally is in the
wetlands.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I support the last two suggestions, that's the
suggestions of Bredemeyer and Krupski.
MS. CANTRELL: Moving on, Ms. Beber, if you would like to un-mute
yourself.
MS. BEBER: Thank you. I don't want to take too much more of your
time. I just wanted to say that you think the structure doesn't
have a use, it's four posts on the beach there. We would love,
it's just beautiful to see it from the creek, and we really just
wanted to, even if it's just fixing the cross patches, not even
putting on the shingles of the roof, so it would really retain a
very peaceful, tranquil beauty is all we are interested in
doing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
Is there anyone else that wishes to speak regarding the
application, or any additional comments from the Board?
(No response).
I think there is a little bit, the Board agrees on some things
and disagrees on others. I don't know if anyone wants to
clarify. I personally would be inclined to support the boathouse
because I view it as existing and functional. Again, calling it
a boathouse, not that you could ever pull a full-size boat into
it. The other structure, which I think is historically
attractive, should ultimately probably be pulled out, just for
the greater good and best practice, out of the wetland.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. I mean, I agree, and it seems like there
is a compromise to be had here. The people, the applicant likes
the beauty of the structures, you can maintain them further
landward and still, you know, redo them in some capacity, but
when we were there, the rack line was in the middle, three
quarters of the way up those two structures. So not only are
they in the wetlands, at times they are in the water. So I don't
know if it's appropriate in those locations to rebuild them.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm concerned that, to possibly ask the
applicants to re-work this and consider some of the Board's
Board of Trustees 67 March 18, 2021
comments that were made tonight. And there would be nothing
preventing both structures from being moved landward
significantly and, you know, coming up with a possible, you know
melding of some of the thoughts here, trying again, I don't
really want to do a negative vote on something where I feel it
might be an opportunity to work through this with an applicant.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think we talked about it on previous
applications where obviously the conditions have changed from
when these structures were built. I'm sure there was a point of
beach between them and the creek, and now it's not, so it's kind
of a coastal retreat with these structures if you want to
preserve them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, I guess, Pat, I would leave that up to you
if you want to possibly table the application to submit some
sort of an alternate set of plans or maybe meet in the field
with the Board again to sort of review some possibilities. Is
that something you would want to do?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Why don't we, either we could either do it at
work session or meet at the property with the clients. I don't
want to make a decision unilaterally. I would want the clients
to participate. I just want to remind the Board, I have a pre-CO
for these structures, and so far the one structure is completely
functioning. We were really dealing with one that was, you know,
whether or not it's more than 50% deteriorated or not, to make
it non-functioning, we would have to talk about that. But there
is always room for discussion. But, um, we don't, you know,
again, for the sake of the wetlands, I understand your policy,
but we have cultural history in Southold, the farming culture,
the waterfront cultural heritage, where it has equal importance
in this Town, and the LWRP and all our studies say we have to
preserve our cultural heritage, and here we are, I have clients
that want to preserve this, and are being pushed back.
So I think we do need to meet on site and we can talk about
it. But, you know, there is always compromise.
-TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Pat, can we have or do we have copies of
those pre-COs in our file?
MS. MOORE: Yes. I believe they were submitted with the permit.
But if not, I'll send it over to you tomorrow. Not a problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, thank you. So at this time you wish
to have --yes, I have the one here.
MS. MOORE: You have it. Okay, good.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So at this time you wish to table for a future
meeting in the field/and/or work session?
MS. MOORE: Yes
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, I make a motion to table this
application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 17, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of
Board of Trustees 68 March 18, 2021
KONSTANTINOS ZOITAS requests a Wetland Permit to construct bluff
stairs consisting of an 4'x8' landing/ramp to grade at top of
bluff to 4'x18' stairs to a 4'x4' landing to 4'x3' stairs to a
4'x4' landing to 4'x18' stairs to a 4'x6' landing to 4'x7'
stairs to a 4'x4' landing to 4'x8' stairs to a 4'x4' bottom
landing to 4'x12' stairs to ground; establish and perpetually
maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of
the bluff; and to landscape and grade for rear yard lawn within
the 100' area from top of bluff.
Located: 980 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-30-2-78
This project has been deemed to be inconsistent by the
LWRP, with a notation specifically to comply with the Trustee
statutory requirements, and to comply with regulations and
recommendations of the Trustees. And the applicant enjoys
access to Long Island Sound beach.
The Planning Board designed open space area E at Suffolk
tax map number 21-510 in Pebble Beach subdivision located east
of the property to provide access to the Long Island Sound, the
bathing beach, the parking area and path to the beach. Areas
maintained by a homeowners association as per covenants and
restrictions dated May 14th, 1975, therefore the proposed action
is not permissible under Chapter 275-11(b) which states
individual residential stairs were prohibited on bluffs if the
property is part of an association that maintains a common
stairway within a reasonable distance. And the proposal to
landscape and grade the rear yard within a hundred feet from the
top of the bluff is inconsistent with the LWRP policies numbers
four and six and all need to be clarified.
Additionally, the Board of Trustees, discussing this matter
at our work session, further discussed observations we made on
our field inspection on March 10th wherein we noticed a great
deal of ground disturbance and it appeared to be the cutting of
some vegetation and the area of the yard adjacent to the bluff,
and further did do a review of some aerials indicating there may
have been clearing on the property.
Just to your knowledge to know, to my knowledge, just
talking to the clerk this evening, this matter has been referred
to the Town bay constables for potential issuance of a violation
for alleged clearing close to the bluff, and therefore as far as
this application goes, with the concerns of the LWRP, and the
Board on their field inspection, we would probably need to have
more discussion and we would not necessarily be in a position to
proceed at this time.
Also for the record, the Conservation Advisory Council did
support the application with aluminum retractable stairs to the
beach. Is there anyone who wishes to speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: Thank you. Well, a lot of issues were raised. First
and foremost, my client purchased the property with the
condition that you saw. In fact, when we closed, we got a
statement from the seller, an affidavit, I think.my client
reminded me of this, that they acknowledge that they were the
Board of Trustees 69 March 18, 2021
ones or the prior owners had been the ones who touched closer
than a hundred feet to the bluff.
This property had been kind of a dumping ground by the
adjacent property owners with the fill that you saw. You saw
there were mounds of fill. Kind of an uneven surface. And that
was due to neighboring properties that when they were building
they kind of very casually placed their fill on this piece.
When my clients purchased, and they started the
construction, they put up the fence and silt fence, hay bale
line, we marked the hundred foot as an absolutely do not touch
zone. And they stayed with that throughout their whole
construction. You saw the house, the pool, the fence, everything
is 100 feet from the top of the bluff. They had been very
diligent and careful to make sure that nothing was done and in
fact left it to the very end of their process, when they were
done with their house and their pool, and they were then ready
to address the condition of the back of their property, that is
when we made the application. But I wish you would have
contacted me because I would have sent you the paperwork that
proves clearly that when they purchased, that was the condition.
Because I saw, when we were there, Greg was kind of kicking
around some of the, what looked like cuttings. But it was not
them and it's been the condition that it's been that way
throughout the time that they have been under construction. So
they absolutely did not touch and their contractors had nothing
to do with the property. They left it completely as it's been.
The material, what is in the backyard right now doesn't grow
very well because it's sitting on what is neighbors' fill. No
topsoil, no nothing.
Secondly, with respect to the Pebble Beach, the staircase,
the code does provide, and I know you granted in the past, and I
thought we did it in this one, but I guess it was maybe a house
over, we measured the distance to the public access, and it is
quite a distance away. So when it's not reasonable to expect
homeowners, which in many cases are older homeowners, this is
the Zoitas family, their grandparents, to expect them to get to
the public beach and then cross the property and get to their
property, their waterfront, without some form of access.
I think the Board in the past on Pebble Beach has granted
staircases. I know you have for me, staircases, because people
can't reach their beach by getting there through the Pebble
Beach access. It's quite a large subdivision with a lot of
waterfront, and this lot would be quite a ways away from the
public access. I know you could see it from the road because you
have to drive down and go down toward the water for the beach
access. So that has not been an impediment to getting stairs on
private homes on Pebble Beach.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That is true, actually, that has been
discussed and it was a discretionary decision by the Board
previously. It's sometimes predicated on various conditions but
I think we probably want to have an exact footage there from the
Board of Trustees 70 March 18, 2021
property to the community property. Also, if I might, the Board
in looking at the landscape plans submitted and dated March
12th, the Board initially on field inspection on the 10th also,
was concerned that a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer for a lot of
this caliber on the Sound was probably not what we were thinking
to be appropriate. We would be looking for a larger buffer. Of
course now in the matter before the constable, what you state
with respect to prior activities on the lot would have to be
discussed with the legal department, possibly the Town Justice
Court, depending on what is returned. I don't know if our
assistant town attorney here wants to speak to that. It seems
to me we have a pending legal, we couldn't really do much.
MR. BURKE: The pending tickets would not stop you from rendering
a decision.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. I know the Board, based upon the
consensus at the work session was that we are uncomfortable with
only a ten-foot wide buffer when we still have not addressed the
issue of more details of why the stairs would be needed where
there is a community set of stairs and what the LWRP has
cautioned us we would not, we would have to look at this further
to bring it into consistency.
MS. MOORE: Well, I mean we can talk about the buffer. What has
been designed by Briarcliff is actually quite an extensive
buffer. If you look over to the east, I think we were looking at
the easterly property, they had what appeared to be just a
non-turf sand, and then they had what appeared to be like a
privet, not a privet or evergreen, like hedge. It was not very
attractive. And we actually have planted an extensive non-turf
buffer, so it creates a more thick, meaningful buffer that
actually protects from stormwater and creates, I think achieves
your goals for the purpose of a buffer.
So when you compare the two, you looked at next door, well,
next door was a little wider but because they just had non-turf,
they had sand, and then they had some kind of a linear, I'm not
sure if it was evergreen or privet. I couldn't really tell from
where we were, we could --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Could it be broadened to 15 feet? Because
many times that is a very standard amount, we ask for 15 feet.
There is a very extensive plant list for ten foot that you
proposed. Beach plum, Chenille Prickly Pear, I don't know if
that is a native one; blue switchgrass, northern bayberry,
purple corn flower, white cornflower. That is a very nice
planting plan but normally ask for, typically with large lot
swings, we ask for a minimum 15-foot non-turf.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think you referenced the property to the
east, but if you reference the property to the west, that had an
extensive non-disturbance area.
MS. MOORE: No, I'm sorry, no. The property to the west, I think
had not, they had built, I remember this house, the owner has
been building his house for over ten years. He's been doing a
beautiful job in the end, but it's been under construction. I
C
Board of Trustees 71 March 18, 2021
think what he did is he built the house, also maintained the
100-foot setback so as not to have to deal with the Trustees,
and I could imagine that when his house is done he'll come back
and he'll come in with a plan for his backyard. Because it
looked like it had been left completely untouched.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. Undisturbed. But if he comes back,
hypothetically speaking, we would be looking at a lot more than
15-foot undisturbed on westerly property, if it's 100 feet
undisturbed as we speak right now.
MS. MOORE: Well, that will be between you and him to find out
because I think most people would want to be able to see the
water. It's a lovely place to be. If you don't see the water,
it's somewhat of a useless piece of property. Or, you might as
well have gotten a farm field, which is also beautiful.
But, I mean what we could do is rework this plan, we could
meet either on the property, if you prefer to do that. Because
maybe it would maybe sense to extend the 15 feet kind of a
little bit on the sides, rather than in the center, and do a
little more of a kind of customized plan.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You just said extend your 15 feet. You are
granting us 15 and you are going to extend on the sides?
MS. MOORE: Well, what I was thinking -- I don't want to
redesign. We paid Briarcliff to do this and I think in fairness
to Briarcliff and my clients, if they were to, rather than a
uniform 15 foot, maybe it would look nicer if it was more the,
you know, kind of coming around the sides, so it was capturing
the slopes and the grades that are there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If I might suggest that we hold on the
report from the bay constable's office, if you would be willing
to table this at your request so we see what report comes back
and then with what you.have heard this evening you can run that
past the owners and Briarcliff Landscaping so we can put
everything together maybe before we meet in the field again.
MS. MOORE: Okay, we could probably get the plan redone, I don't
want to do it, I mean I could keep remaking plans and you guys
can reject them. I don't want to do that. So that's why would
it make sense to come in at a work session? But I do want to
get you the paperwork. I think on proof there would not be a
violation, so we can move forward on this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think that will be for us to
determine. We have already referred this to the constable.
That's between you and the legal staff and the constable and the
courts. That's why I'm saying, why don't we wait on this until
you get some kind of a return or lack of a determination from
the constable and then route things through the President of the
Trustees so that he'll be in communication with Damon Hagan or
John Burke, whoever has the case, and then coordinate the matter
surrounding possible clearing and then satisfy, to satisfaction
of the legal department and courts and then may be time to talk
to Briarcliff.
MS. MOORE: Okay, well planting season is now here. I don't want
Board of Trustees 72 March 18, 2021
to wait too long. As we, we are pushing another month, and we
would want to plant in the spring to give Briarcliff the best
chance of growing something in season.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll be glad to offer up a no go, if you
want to close the hearing.
MS. MOORE: No, I'm not suggesting -- no, I'm certainly willing
to -- I don't want to postpone it so long. I've already told you
I have from the closing proof that the prior owner did whatever
they did and that we did not touch anything beyond the hundred
feet. I don't think we need a trial for that. I think, and John
will attest to this, usually you can resolve things on proof.
And that's what I would propose to do with either Mr. Hagan or
Mr. Burke, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sounds good.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Point of clarification, when did you say your
client purchased the property?
MS. MOORE: Yes. When?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Yes.
MS. MOORE: I don't think I have that on -- I would have it in a
different file. I can get that. I have my permit file, not my
real estate file.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: You can always forward it at a later date.
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I don't have that offhand. I don't want
to misstate the date.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Pat, is it fair to say we can table this at
your request?
MS. MOORE: Yes, I'm tabling it at my request, please.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. At this time I make a motion to
table this at the applicant's request for submission of
additional materials, distance to the community beach, statement
of when the property was purchased by the owner and the
potential settlement of matters legal to the legal department
and the constables.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 18, Michael Kimack on behalf of LONG
ISLAND ONE REAL ESTATE, INC. requests a Wetland Permit for the
as-built non-structural wood skirt (36' in length by 5' in
height: 18 sq. ft.) to cover cement pilings on seaward side.
Located: 58315 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44-2-12
The Trustees did the most recent field inspection on this
site on March 10th. All were present. The notes read there
were questions whether the minor addition to the house that has
no wetland permit or no coastal erosion hazard permit, and how
to proceed. And otherwise it's straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from the fact that this is as-built skirt
in a FEMA AE elevation 16-foot flood zone, constructed without
Southold Town Board of Trustees review or permits.
Board of Trustees 73 March 18, 2021
And lastly, the CAC resolved to support this application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. KIMACK: Mike Kimack on behalf of the applicant. Do you have
any questions of me? We were on the site. It's a non-structural
skirt, pretty much ties in to the rest of the house on the water
side, and there were 2x4s inside holding up the outside of the
skirt itself to simply hide the piers behind it, the concrete
block piers.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mike, speaking for myself, I have a problem with
use of the term non-structural, it tells of something that is secured
to the pilings, 2x4s.
MR. KIMACK: I can understand that, Mike. It doesn't carry
anything in the sense it does not, in and of itself, it is
really kind of suspended to the existing undercarriage of the
house itself and basically nailed down so it doesn't, it's not
carrying the house. It's un-supportive of anything other than
itself. What I use the term non-structural, that's how I use it,
in that particular format.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: "Not weight bearing"would have been more to my
liking
MR. KIMACK: That's an appropriate word, non-weight bearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The point I'm trying to make, when we look at
applications that do come before us, it has to follow the code,
and coastal erosion always requires that the water that gathers
or goes around such a structure has a way to exit. In other
words, you don't have hydrologic pressure. I would be a lot more
comfortable with this if there was portals or openings every so
often to allow that, to give you the integrity that you want,
structural integrity, hide the things in the back for the most
part, but be more in compliance with the code. That's my
personal view.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would agree with that. Just so we don't,
because realistically, if waves come up they could easily knock
this thing off, and if they got behind it they could really
knock it off. And that's something the Trustees do have to take
into account, you know.
MR. KIMACK: May I -- it's not an unreasonable request. I know
there is, Mike, that there is one opening on the side, the water
obviously will get around it anyway and probably get out of it.
But are you considering like the portals being every six feet,
four to six inches in diameter, in order to allow the drainage
to occur?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Maybe a little larger than that, but that's the
direction I would like to see you go in.
MR. KIMACK: Okay. I can make a calculation in terms of what the
volume of water will be behind it so the escape routes through
the bottom of the skirt would allow that at a reasonable rate.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That would be helpful because it would allow us
to comply with the spirit of the code.
MR. KIMACK: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are there any other comments, questions from the
Board of Trustees 74 March 18, 2021
Board, anyone else wish to comment?
MR. KIMACK: On that basis, I'll make a request that we table it
for me to be able to redraw the drawings in order to do a portal
situation for you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's helpful.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do have one further question. Is the house
itself permitted?And if not, should that have been included in
the application?
MR. KIMACK: The house -- you mean does the house have a C of O?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And a Trustee permit.
MR. KIMACK: When I did the record, I didn't see a Trustee permit
for the house, basically, where it was. The permit for the house
itself._
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a little weird.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It doesn't make too much sense to me that we
are trying to permit a skirt on a house that doesn't have a
permit. You know, so the only structure --
MR.'KIMACK: If we are going to table it, let me do some more
research into that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that's really my point. I'm not really
looking for an answer on that, but maybe for you to look into
that and maybe in the meantime, in the next month, we can get an
interpretation from legal on that. Because it's a little odd,
permitting literally as Trustee Goldsmith said, we are
permitting a four-foot wide piece of plywood, when it's
surrounded by a house.
MR. KIMACK: It's a good point. Let me do the research on that.
But the thing about it is, unfortunately, I think the only thing
is, is because it happens to be in the flood zone, but primarily
when you've got an existing structure, the Board generally
allows,construction within the perimeter of the existing house
to occur. Now, the only difference on this one is this happens
to be in an area. So let me do a little research on that and
I'll request to table and come back to you next month on that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing that, I make a motion to table this at
the applicant's request.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 19,'Michael Kimack on behalf of STEVEN
EISMAN &VALERIE FEIGEN requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten (10)
Year maintenance permit for future removal of driftwood and/or
debris as necessary; to remove approximately 200-250 cubic yards
of driftwood debris from an approximate area of one (1) acre;
and to install a 3' high chain link fence (o/e) 110' in length
with one double set of 3' doors (6' opening)with one 3' door
primarily surrounding the existing deck and walkway.
Located: 18603 Route 25, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-17-5-3.2
The Trustees visited this site on March 10th, 2021, with
note that would like to see no disturbance of vegetation.
Board of Trustees 75 March 18, 2021
The LWRP coordinator found this proposed fence to be
consistent, and removal of driftwood to be exempt.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. I think
we visited the site. Are there any questions of me? I know it's
late and I don't want to extend it any longer that we have to.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Yes. We have a couple of things I would like
to address. One is there is some concern for the scope of work,
and we would be more than inclined to do a one-year permit and
kind of see what it looks like at the end of that one year, then
we could extend the permit.
The other issue is there are a couple of letters in the
file. One letter is addressing native birds, both Piping Plover
and Tern. The letter is from Adam Irving who lives in the area
and who walks on the beach and has, he support the moving of the
debris but he's concerned about any disturbance during the
nesting season, which is, according to the New York DEC, pretty
much starts March 1st and goes through the end of August.
And the other letter, I just want to the bring up is from
another a neighbor Beverly Greene about a C&R restriction. That
does really fall out of the purview of the Trustees and is more
of civil matter. But I just wanted to bring it to your
attention. If you have any questions about it, you can view it
in the file.
MR. KIMACK: Okay, I appreciate that.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So the one year--
MR. KIMACK: I would not be opposed to the one-year permit. It's
not an unreasonable request, to see what it looks like. What you
are basically saying is the nesting period is from March 1 st
through August 1st--
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Well, August 31st.
MR. KIMACK: So basically they would not be able to commence
until September 1st, the clearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'm just one of five Trustees. That was a
concern I had with the letter. Other Trustees would be welcome
to weigh in.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sounds reasonable.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would agree.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Probably clearing might enhance shore bird
nesting for sure because it's a lot of area that they would not
nest for fear of predators.
MR. KIMACK: Okay, the one-year permit would run apparently
September 1 st to September 1 st, I would imagine, correct?
September 1st, 2021, to September 1st, 2022.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Unfortunately you would be exempt from doing
it, so you would really want to do that work during winter,
September 1 st to March 1 st. Because if you don't do the work
prior to March 1st you would be back into the nesting season.
Board of Trustees 76 March 18, 2021
MR. KIMACK: Okay, we'll get it done September 1st of this year
then.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: When we met in the field as well, Mike, we
just want to condition that none of the vegetation is to be
touched. It's,all for the driftwood and debris.
MR. KIMACK: Correct. I laid it out. The line is pretty much
from the high water mark inward about 60 feet. And where all of
that wood was, for the most part, the vegetation was more
landward of that, and that would not be touched. There was a lot
of wood, I'll put it that way.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Okay, is there anybody else here that wishes
to speak to this application?
MS. CANTRELL: There doesn't appear to be anyone.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any other questions or comments from the
Trustees?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: One more for me. For access. Through the
Truman's Beach Association. We don't want any access over the
wetlands.
MR. KIMACK: Yes, I discussed that with the landscaper who is
going to do it, and he's going to approach the Truman's Beach
Association and get access to the gate and maybe shimmy it in
that way, the front end loader.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any other questions?
(No response).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Hearing none, I make a motion to close the
public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I would like to approve the application with.a
change of ten-year permit to a one-year maintenance permit for
removal of driftwood, making a note that none of the vegetation
is to be disturbed, and that no work is to be done during the
Piping Plover nesting season as per the New York State DEC,
which is March 1st through August 31st, and that access is not
to be through the wetland, and is to be through Truman's Beach.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 20, Michael Kimack on behalf of
PATRICK & EVA FLANAGAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
4'x80' fixed catwalk with Thru-Flow decking and staircase
(320 sq. ft.); construct a 4'x20'fixed dock (80 sq. ft.) with
Thru-Flow decking (400 sq. ft. total).
Located: 325 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-75-6-3.2
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The proposed action
is located within the New York State Department of State
Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area, New York State
Board of Trustees 77 March 18, 2021
Critical Environmental Area, Richmond Creek and Beach, the
Peconic Estuary Critical Natural Resource Area, Wells Road, and
provides adequate public access to Richmond Creek for launch of
kayaks and other small vessels. Access to a dock structure on
the parcel cannot be achieved through the 50-foot wide
non-disturbance buffer. Upper reach of Richmond Creek has
extremely shallow water conditions that cannot support the dock
structure for mooring and use of vessels that would require one.
The proposed action is located within the New York State
Critical Environmental area. The need to construct a dock into
an ecologically sensitive New York State Critical Environmental
Area with no, to highly restricted'navigability during tidal
change is unsupported and inconsistent with this policy.
There is little to no ability to control the operation of a
vessel in this area, and repetitive adverse impacts from the
operation of a vessel is expected. Impact to finfish, shellfish
and crustacea and their habitats is also expected from
construction and use of a dock structure. Net loss of public use
of waterways is expected as a result of a dock in and on public
waterways. Waterfront access is available to the landowner.
Wells Road end provides adequate waterfront access to Richmond
Creek to launch kayaks and other small vessels. Potential
cumulative, moderate environmental impacts to the
significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat area, New York
State DEC critical environmental area, and high-value tidal
wetlands over short and long duration are expected due to
adverse impacts to water quality, with an increase in turbidity
and introduction of pollutants; adverse impacts to marine
species and habitats due to inadequate and extreme shallow water
depths; construction of the dock and potential repetitive bottom
scarring from the operation of a vessel. The interruption of
tidal flow from the introduction of structures in the narrow
upper reach of this creek. Impacts to high quality tidal
wetlands, low and high marsh due to construction of the dock and
potentially accessing the dock; adverse impacts hindering and
limiting public recreational user groups in public trust waters
by locating a private structure in such waters.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with the condition the length of the catwalk is
shortened by half.
The Trustees conducted the most recent inhouse review on
March 10th. We reviewed the long environmental form.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. CANTRELL: Michael Kimack is present. Go ahead, Mike.
MR. KIMACK: Yes. Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. Let
me see if I can make this short, because it's been a long night
for all of us. I'm aware of the inconsistencies that were
written by the LWRP. Actually, I did not find that it was a
state critical environmental area. I did find it was a
significant wetland area. So I think the concerns certainly for
Board of Trustees 78 March 18, 2021
that particular area are not unfounded. Primarily there is about
a foot-and-a-half of water. The amount of the dock area is not
that large, but it is going to be only intended, and I talked to
the owner about this because I had assumed this was going to be
a concern, because a lot of what the inconsistencies were is the
expectation that there would be motorized vessels would be used.
In this case this is only to be used by canoes, kayaks and
rowboats. And we would welcome the condition in there that that
basically would be prohibited, which there is no intention on
the part of the owners to have any motorized vessels off of
that. It is simply a means with which to launch a kayak, launch
a canoe and perhaps a rowboat. I do want to point out to you
that even though it may or may not be in the critical
environmental area and the significant wetland area, it has
received a DEC permit and the DEC I would assume would have
looked at the same things that the LWRP, and they have decided
that the particular dock is not going to be any impairment or
impediment to the area or to the water lands or to any type of
fish or any type of habitat that may be there.
The permit was issued and it's part of your record. One
other inconsistency that was in the LWRP was that there is a
floating dock there that had landed. The DEC did pick that up,
and in their particular application it will be removed. It was
not something that was built or constructed. I think he pointed
it out as being new. Which it is not new. It just floated in.
We are not too sure where the storm brought it in from. It's
been there probably four, five, six years, I would imagine. But
that's, the intent is to remove it as part of the DEC application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: One of the other concerns, which I don't know
how we get around, is there will not be any access to this
particular dock from the applicant's property. The C&Rs strictly
forbid anything within that 50-foot non-disturbance. The only
access to the water in the subdivision is from a separate lot,
which would mean to access this dock the applicant would have to
go down a couple lots, enter the wetlands, and then walk down
the wetlands back to get to this dock, which would impact and
destroy the wetlands. Basically you would be making a foot path
between the right-of-way and this dock.
MR. KIMACK: Basically the non-disturbance area, you are
basically talking about that had been established, basically
indicated that there is going to be nothing, no structures
within it, and that it was supposed be naturally maintained. And
it is naturally maintained. How they get there, there is a
natural pathway which we all walked down. That natural pathway
has been there prior to the issuance of the non-disturbance
area. It has not been altered. It has not been maintained. It
is simply a natural path. And it is not part of the disturbance
area. It's not part of this application because we are not
within the disturbance area with the dock that we are proposing
to construct. And if there is an issue, then it's a legal issue
with the Planning Board, that if they wish to pursue any action,
Board of Trustees 79 March 18, 2021
they are more than welcome to it. But that, the disturbance area
is not before this Board. Only the dock itself. The dock is
outside the disturbance area.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would echo what you have been saying about
traversing through the wetlands for access and lack of being
able to utilize a boat there, after reviewing the long
environmental form. It's a heavy lift.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It was designated as a positive declaration
under SEQRA, and the LWRP, the long list of inconsistencies, not
the least which it would be impact to the environment by
traversing the wetlands to access this dock. I don't see how we
can overcome that. So 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 deny this application
without prejudice.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustee Goldsmith, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee
Krupski, aye. Trustee Williams, aye). (Trustee Domino, nay).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 21, Michael Kimack on behalf of ANTHONY
& LISA CALUORI requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing
dwelling, decks, walkways, patios, staircases, wood retaining
walls, abandon existing septic system, and remove eleven (11)
existing trees ranging in size from 6" to 24" calipers;
construct a proposed two-story, six bedroom dwelling with
partial full basement and two car garage with a 2,977.30 sq. ft.
footprint; construct a proposed 603.72 sq. ft. second floor deck;
a proposed 18'x38' with 1' stone surround (800 sq. ft.) in-ground
gunite swimming pool; a proposed 64 sq. ft. spa; a proposed
100 sq. ft. gazebo; a proposed 992 sq. ft pervious patio; proposed
pervious crushed blue stone O/E walkways (160 linear feet by
3.5' in width for a total of 560 sq. ft.); proposed ±405 linear
feet of concrete block retaining walls of varying heights;
construct new pervious 1,454 sq. ft. of driveway and parking area
for garage; install new I/A septic system for new dwelling;
install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff;
remove existing on grade staircase and cover disturbed area with
two (2) layers of burlap (fastened) over the disturbed area and
plant with American beach grass 18" on-center and/or indigenous
vegetation; install new staircase approximately 20' north of
existing staircase consisting of 2.75'x4' (11 sq. ft.) top 3 tread
staircase, a 4'x6' (24 sq. ft.) top landing, a main 4'x18.3'
(73.2 sq. ft.) 20 tread staircase, and a removable 3'x8.3'
Board of Trustees 80 March 18, 2021
(24.9 sq. ft.) wood or aluminum staircase to beach with the total
of landings and staircases to be 157.1 sq. ft.; and to cover
disturbed areas with two (2) layers of burlap (fastened), and
plant American beach grass 18" on-center and/or indigenous
vegetation.
Located: 4800 Paradise Point Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-3-3
The Trustees most recently visited this site on the 10th of
March and noted that the application needed to be discussed at
length at work session. At the time they discussed the proximity
and closeness to the beach.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be both inconsistent and
consistent. I'll start with the consistencies because that would
be for housekeeping purposes.
To cover disturbed areas with two layers of burlap bags,
plant American beach grass on 18-inches center, and indigenous
vegetation is recommended as consistent, noting that the
staircase was approved under Wetland Permit#6413 in 2006.
In terms of the inconsistencies, the inconsistencies are
based off, number one, the ZBA Board of Appeals denied the
request for a variance for a pool in their 2017 decisions. Then
continuing on, storm surge zone. The parcel is expected to be
adversely impacted during category one through four hurricanes.
The new structure/pool is susceptible to damage and loss from
hurricanes and storms. This area has suffered damage from
Tropical Storm Sandy. The subject lots run risk of category one,
two, three and four hurricanes in area of new structure/pool or
proposed/model. Move existing development and structures as far
away from flooding and erosion hazard as practicable. Maintain
existing development of structures in hazard areas may be
warranted for structures which functionally require a location
on the coast or in coastal waters. The single-family residence
and pool proposed does not require a location on the coast or in
coastal waters.
Water dependent uses which cannot avoid exposure to hazards:
The single-family residence and pool will be exposed to hazards.
Policy Six, protect and restore the quality and function of the
Town of Southold ecosystem. Comply with statutory and regulatory
requirements of Southold Town Board of Trustees laws and
regulations for all Andros Patents and other lands under their
jurisdiction. The protected pool feature site is a bluff. The
minimum setbacks for bluffs is 100-feet, except for the pool,
which is 50 feet. Select structures already have a permit from
the Board. Are there any other as-builts on site.
To locate structures within 100-feet of the bluff is inconsistent
with this policy and is not supported. Any new construction
proposed seaward of the existing dwelling is not supported.
The proposal to locate the pool 13.9 feet is inconsistent with this
policy and is also not supported. The weight of filling said
pool in the proximity of the bluff and potential hurricane and
storm impacts could result in moderate to large impacts to the
bluff soil impaction, salt failure, damage and loss.
Board of Trustees 81 March 18, 2021
Pool equipment location and de-watering drywell are not
found on the submitted plans. Wetland permit to demolish
existing dwelling, decks, walkways, patios, staircases, wood
retaining walls, abandon existing septic system, construct and
propose two-story, six-bedroom dwelling with partial full
basement and two-car garage with 2,977 plus or minus square foot
further landward than the existing dwelling, construct proposed
six-hundred square foot second floor deck, bluestone, O/E
walkways, et cetera, et cetera, as written. Install new IA
system. Essentially finding the rest of that inconsistent due to
proximity.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to
support the application. The Conservation Advisory Council does
not support the application, has serious concern with the
construction of a pool so close to the top of the bluff and not
maintaining proper setbacks. There is also concerns with the
removal of the eleven trees.
The Conservation Advisory Council recommends aluminum
retractable stairs parallel to the shoreline and an IA sanitary
system.
I would like to point out that initially we had a letter in
the file stating that this is not in fact a bluff as defined in
Chapter 275, based on the 20% slope. That was from the surveyor.
Most recently I have a new letter, for point of,clarification,
for the record, noting that the surveyor is no longer calling
this a bluff. He noted that after sending that first
correspondence, although the slope is greater than 20%, the
height in total of the slope is not greater then 20 feet, which .
is the definition under.our code.
But I would like to state for the record that essentially
under the definition of a bluff, we miss the mark by 1.7 feet,
being the difference from a bluff to a bank. So we were very,
very close to being a bluff. With that being said, I would
maintain that the LWRP coordinator's comments and the
Conservation Advisory Council comments would still hold up to
that statement.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. Yes, the
house is proposed to be demolished, and the existing house has
probably existed perhaps about 20-25 feet away from the top of
the bank, basically. They have a bulkhead at the bottom. And the
slope between the top of the bank and the bulkhead is well
vegetated. There is little or no erosion on it. It has basically
been able to sustain itself through a number of storms.
The top of the bank at one area is approximately 18-foot
high, and it's about 15-foot high from the bottom of the
bulkhead to the area of where the, there is a brick patio at the
present time. And that brick patio does go to the end of the
bank itself. And yes, the pool is proposed to be-about 13 feet
back from that. But the displacement factor between taking out
Board of Trustees 82 March 18, 2021
the soil, which is about 100-pounds per cubic foot, and
replacing it with water at 63.4 pounds per cubic foot, is not
going to cause any additional problems from a weight point of
view into that bluff and not going to cause any problems with
the bluff.
They have moved it back, and we, basically in order to
maintain the variance in the front, which is 40 feet from the
front property line. There is an IA system being designed for
it, for the property itself. And I know there was a comment
about a former ZBA hearing on that particular one. I'm not quite
sure how it got before the ZBA. I'm assuming they took a look
bluff, took a look at the bank, I should say, and assumed it was
a bluff, and they denied a side yard pool under that situation.
But we don't have a ZBA situation. We don't have a bluff
with which for that consideration. So it really comes down to
the criteria in terms of the location of the pool being in front
of the house, basically, which is the only place it really can
go. But for the most part half the pool replaces the weight and
structural weight of the existing foundation. Because half the
pool is in the existing foundation perimeter of the existing
house. So whatever weight structure that might have been coming
down is simply going to be displaced by something that is going
to be a lighter footprint on the soils. And there will not be
any impact on the existing slope itself which has maintained its
integrity through a number storms, I would imagine.
And as far as the staircase is concerned, I thought I had
put in a retractable on the bottom. But I could be mistaken. I
have to take a look at the drawings on that one.
I did also, you have, you should have in your presence,
when we were on site, basically, I proposed, I put together a
non-turf design, basically that there would be a non-turf,
actually crushed stone buffer, the full 50-length in front of
the pool, which is the patio area itself, and the crushed stone
would work pretty much as a means with which to take any runoff,
so there would be no runoff coming down the slope, as there is
now from the brick, because there is nothing stopping it. So it
would be a greater enhancement to make sure that none of the
water runs down over, to further protect it. And then on both
sides, where there is grass, we are proposing a crushed stone, a
non-turf buffer which would be ten-foot wide, which is more
appropriate in that situation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
I for one would open discussion to the Board. I think Mr.
Kimack has done a good job pulling this house back and providing
an IA septic system. However, I did a quick measurement
somewhere, I think just north of 40 feet, the house is from this
bank, which is almost a bluff by 1.7 feet. For me that would be
the closest structure I would want to see. And there is a small
deck coming off it. That would not particularly bother me. But
Board of Trustees 83 March 18, 2021
for me, personally, that would be the closest structure I would
want to see to this bluff--this bank almost bluff.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: What's the proposed distance between the pool
and the top of the bank?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 13.9 feet. Whereas if you go back to the house,
and Mr. Kimack can correct me on this, but I think it's just, to
the liveable structure, I think it's just over 40 feet, and just
under it if you include the deck. Which I think is a more
appropriate distance given the reality of this lot, essentially.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I agree. It would seem if there was one of
these small, compact little wave pools, or something that could
be tucked in right next to the house, very limited. But
otherwise it seems foolhardy to have a pool between that house
and the landform of a bank, which is almost a bluff, and subject
to flooding.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I agree. I think 14 feet away from the top of
a bank/bluff, whatever you want to call it, is way too close.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It seems the pool is an area of major concern.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree.
MR. KIMACK: Gentlemen, I think that house from a point of view
of the house right now, the structure of the house is pulled
back.about 55 feet from the edge of the bank, and obviously the
deck is an overhang deck, but it's a second-floor deck so it's
not a footprint on the ground per se. And there's
approximately 20 to 22 feet from,the house to the front of that
pool area.
Was I getting a feeling that it was not necessarily that
you were against the pool but that you were against the
magnitude of the way the pool is and the closeness upon which it
is presented against the bank itself?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's a'fair question for me. I'm probably
against any structures seaward of the house. But that's just
one opinion. So I'm certainly not speaking for the Board on that.
MR. KIMACK: Well, they would like an inground pool, and the only
actual place to put it is right between the house and the bank.
And that whole area right now is all bricked anyway. I mean, the
house is at least 20 feet closer than it is, than the original
one was, actually almost 25 to 30 feet closer. And it's all
brick, and except for the pool being there, that whole area is
pretty much, you put a pool in the middle of the brick and that
would be the only change of it right now. And I can get a
structural engineer's report indicating that the pool would have
no effect on the integrity of the slope, which I think would be
one of your concerns.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think you have done a phenomenal job in
pulling the house back, like I said, and relieving some of that
structure from the bluff/blank area, and intending to install an
IA system, but for me, my comment stands. I don't know if some
of the rest of the Board wants to echo an opinion for you to
move forward or not, but.
Board of Trustees 84 March 18, 2021
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there any more room for you to move that
house further landward to maybe potentially get a pool between
the house and the bank/bluff?
MR. KIMACK: I would have to talk to the owner, but it looks, it
would appear, I mean if you walk out of the house you would want
at least maybe 12, 15 feet so you don't fall into the pool if
you are having a bad night, which we probably all having at this
particular point. A little sleepy anyway.
We can pull it back a little bit and perhaps, I'll talk to
the owner about perhaps decreasing the width of it so that we
may be able to pick up about seven or eight feet away from the
bluff, basically. If we reduced it-- I can only make a
suggestion and talk to the owner, but if we reduced it to 15
feet wide and we pulled it back five feet, that would add 13.9
plus eight. We would be about 20 feet then.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think you can tell from the feelings of the
Board that our major concern with this is the pool. I think from
the house standpoint, as the others have stated, it's a
positive. Obviously moving the house further away from the bank
and the wetlands is definitely heading in the right direction.
So our only major sticking point now is that pool.
MR. KIMACK: Well, I will talking to the owner about perhaps,
obviously it's not perhaps, primarily, I think your directions
to me are fairly clear, that you are in between not having a
pool or at least having a pool that is much more landward of
where it is now and perhaps a little bit on a smaller scale, and
a little bit closer to reduce the overall footprint of the pool
and certainly increase the distance from the top of the bank to
the edge of the pool.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can answer that, because my opinion is
obviously--
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. I think that may go a way towards
addressing some of our concerns. I don't know if it will address
all of them, you know, but I think in its current configuration
it is just a no go across the Board.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I agree. You know, it's not appropriate.
And if I was looking at something else coming in I would not
even want to specify to try to design it from here or give an
amount, but I'm thinking of something on the order of not much
bigger than a hot tub stuck in as close to the house as you could.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
MR. KIMACK: Well, there are hot tubs and there are hot tubs,
Jay, depending on where you are going to buy them.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: My 1980s version of a hot tub.
MR. KIMACK: I mean I could put the pool up to 103 degrees and it
could be a hot tub. But obviously the owner would like some
semblance of a pool. But may I suggest this, when is your
workshop coming up, and may I perhaps I can make a presentation
at it for the pool, for whatever alterations we can do.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Our next field inspections are April 7th and
our next work session is April 12th.
Board of Trustees 85 March 18, 2021
MR. KIMACK: Okay. Then I would like to be able to be on that
work session and we can come up with a revised plan on the pool
__that w_ill hopefully be more amenable to you. Or whatever we can
- T___ -- - - - - - - --- - - - -
do in that area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sounds good.
Is there anyone else who wish to speak regarding this application?
(No response).
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to table this
hearing until next month.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number 22, 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
The Board received a new set of plans, which it reviewed in
the field on March 10th, with Mr. Kimack present, and indicated
that it would be further discussed at our work session.
Since the last time the Board met, during the course of the
public hearing, the Board has received additional written
communications, one dated, e-mail dated, from Yanni1309@AOL
indicating his displeasure with the proposal saying he's lived
here for 40 years. This is incorporated into our record.
Another one from Mr. Kenneth Richter on March 14th,
specifically detailing concerns he has about the quality of the
plans submitted.
Additionally, another e-mail received from shoeguru1@optonline.net
(sic).
Another more detailed letter with a few points that'I would
like to repeat from Mr. Richter, specific points with respect to
the latest drawings, he draws questions specifically related to
the proposed septic system is the same on the first plan. Scale
has not been changed as the Trustees requested to show greater
details. There were no side elevations. There is no indication
of how much or what kind of fill. There are no plans to protect
steep slopes to be created. The proposal is only 18 feet from
the lot line, and as indicated, lot line 20. I'm sorry, I
mis-spoke. This is Rick--this was not Mr. Richter. This is
Richard, Mr. Richard Byrd. He's the neighbor to the north. And
also he points out the survey we are working with is 36-years
old, and claiming this house is historically in the middle of a
flood zone. Hard copies are provided by adjacent owners. And Mr.
Kenneth Richter also had provided another letter that I just
referenced.
The Board discussed this project at length at our Monday
evening work session, and after initial discussions that we had
before going on field inspection, but definitely that we had
Board of Trustees 86 March 18, 2021
Monday evening on our work session that the Board feels that
this house, much like another project, you are familiar with the
Southold Sunset, should be built on pilings to deal with the
flood zone issues, and not consider a garage. And a chief
concern of ours, which we previously previewed with you, to have
this application go before the Department of Environmental
Conservation is because it's not only subject to our code that
we can compel other administrative agencies to review projects
first, but the Department of Environmental Conservation
typically, of course we can't speak for them, but they typically
take a different view towards wetland setbacks, particularly the
size of wetland, freshwater wetland setbacks. This Board
typically also adds many more land use requirements on a project.
The project plan that was dated in on March 3rd still shows
a conventional sanitary system, and of course is somewhat
smaller and a different design as the original. So the project
description eventually would have to be amended to reflect that.
But the current project plan we have doesn't show an IA on it.
So the amount of land commitment necessary for either
infiltrators or pressure mat system might measurably affect the
size of the house that can be built vis-a-vis what kind of
setback the Department of Environmental Conservation may require
of you.
We already have reviewed the inconsistency, which we
reviewed on our December 21 st meeting, so we don't need to
repeat that, but many of the same issues remain concerning AE
flood zone.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. I'll
make this easy. As our discussion the last time, I would
probably make the offer to take this to DEC to see if I can get
a resolve out of DEC before I come back to you, with the
understanding, I think, that in order for me to come back you
would be looking for pilings with no garage on the house, at the
very least, within the envelope.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
MR. KIMACK: And I'll note to put an IA system on the plans.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And it would behoove you to have the IA
system planned, so to make sure you have sufficient room. And
I'm speaking for myself now, but the current plan, I don't
believe we had a detailed discussion in the field. But I don't
believe the Board is looking for non-turf areas. I think the
Board would be, looking down the road, the Board would look to
any construction here would stock pile the native sand material,
and that's one of the reasons we are not keen on having a
foundation construction because we don't want additional
materials brought in that would not match the graining size or
the beach sand that is in place. And that non-turf, areas
designated non-turf, I believe the Board has already discussed
at work session that we would prefer to have the entirety of the
property left in native sand and native vegetation, not any
Board of Trustees 87 March 18, 2021
non-turf areas that could be otherwise, other than, we would not
want to see woodchips, we would not want to see pebbles or
gravel. We would probably just simply want to see an impervious
driveway of the most minimalist size, house on pilings, IA and a
setback that might be determined by the DEC.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll concur with what Trustee Bredemeyer
said. To perhaps keep it even, in my opinion. The piles will
negate the need to grade. It will keep that in a more natural
state than it is. I would like to see it further landward. As
well as 100% even, an IA system, as well as non-disturbance
throughout. I do like the concept of having that natural buffer
in front as well, as you proposed. But the entirety of the
property, minus a potential house, I think needs to stay in its
natural state. And being on piles keeps it more in a natural
state. And the IA system is 100% a must.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to
this application?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just briefly I would echo both of those
sentiments, and just to add on or sort of piggyback on that
concept that the, you know, I don't think we want to see fill
brought in. Period. Unless absolutely necessary for a small
parking area.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I see a hand. I don't know if anyone--
MS. CANTRELL: I was waiting to see. Somebody named Rick, if you
would like to speak.
MR. BYRD: I JUST want to make one statement. The applicant has
been asked three times for THE IA system. And as of last plans,
they are not there. I don't quite understand what is going on.
He's also, the Board had asked for the plans to be a larger
scale. That has not happened. That's all I have to say.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wish to speak to
this?
MS. CANTRELL: Mike would like to speak again.
MR. KIMACK: Very quickly, the question of why the IA system, we
know there will be an IA system, I just want to move that system
to a location as to protect the front vegetation area that has
been raised to be very sensitive, but more important, in terms
of the distance away from the wetland area, and I was trying to
get a read out of the Board in terms of where that was.
Ultimately once that was done, certainly you would direct me to
put, and you would condition it to be an IA system, primarily,
which generally doesn't have to show on the plans as such, but
that would be one of the conditions, anyway, which I knew was
forthcoming.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Also, Mr. Kimack, the fact is that,
depending on the size of house, and the DEC required setback,
you may have to reduce bedrooms to have this land surface area
necessary to have leaching and keeping the leaching field far
enough away from the wetlands as well. There again, the Board is
Board of Trustees 88 March 18, 2021
not in a position to design for you but there are still
remaining problems here that the placement of conventional
sanitary system with conventional leaching may on your plans you
submit may take up much less space. So, and, you know, I'm
speaking to the limit of my former knowledge in this. But this
is still problematic until you come up with something and get it
to the DEC. Another hand? A couple of hands.
MS. CANTRELL: If the Board is ready, there is a Lynne Normandia
who would like to speak.
MS. NORMANDIA: Yes. Lynne Normandia here. A quick reality check.
The proposed plan is a two-story four-bedroom 1,300-square foot
house. Nowadays no one builds houses that small. The old beach
cottages that used to dot this area were small. I live in one of
them. My three bedrooms are tiny. By today's standard,
unacceptable. Two work sessions ago there was hey glitch in the
recording, so you probably can't have the Minutes of it, but Mr.
Kimack noted that the new owners might change the plan. I wonder
where they are going to put their decks. Everyone has decks now.
The proposed plan is either incomplete or a spec house just to
get your approval. What is going to happen? What McMansion will
come out of this if you do approve it? It is going to throw
shadows on this wetland. Please do the right thing. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
MS. CANTRELL: Ken Richter would also like to speak.
MR. RICHTER: Yes, I believe there is one major consideration
which has not been discussed, and that has to do with the 100
foot requirement. This is not even five or ten feet into that
100 feet. It's more like 55 feet in. This is not even close. So
it seems to be some puzzle as to why this is even being
considered. And I'll make my comment that brief for you. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mr. Richter, it's unfortunate that there is
somewhat of a misunderstanding with respect to this. The Board has a
jurisdictional setback with stated wetland of 100 feet. But the
Board is compelled to look at all the environmental impacts to a
wetland, and all the regulatory agencies are similarly charged,
although they have slightly different codes, and it doesn't
mean it's an obligatory 100 feet. It's a permitting
environmental regulatory zone, and it's unfortunate that it
seems that this has been a continued practice since the
evolution of the Town's wetland ordinance going back to when the
Trustees were first given or granted that responsibility from
the Town Board.
Also, since the adoption by the state Article 24 and
Article 25 of the Freshwater and Tidal Wetlands Act. It is
simply not fair to say that it's a fixed immutable hundred-foot zone.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think I would venture to guess every house
in this neighborhood is within 100 feet of wetlands, whether
Board of Trustees 89 March 18, 2021
it's Gray Pond, whether it's the freshwater wetlands in the
middle, and/or Long Island Sound.
MS. CANTRELL: Michael Kimack would like to speak again.
MR. KIMACK: No, I apologize. I really have said what I needed
to say. I think basically if everyone else has actually ended
it, I would make the request that we table to give me the
opportunity to revisit to the DEC, at least to get their comment
and then be able to bring that back to you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. At this time I make a motion --
there are no more hands. At this time I make a motion to table
this application at the applicant's request.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And just as a caveat to that, the plans that
get submitted to the DEC need to be plans that we would see,
including the IA system, including the non-disturbance,
including piles and including as far away from the wetlands as
possible.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So it has been said.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
espectfully submitted by,
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees