The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-07/15/2021 Glenn Goldsmith,President ��®f S®��® Town Hall Annex A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice President 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 John M. Bredemeyer III ED Southold,New York 11971 Michael J.Domino Telephone(631) 765-1892 Greg Williams Fax Fax(631) 765-6641 Cou T1 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED -� lea Qlo:I(A41 Minutes CT 2 1 5. nma Wednesday, September 15, 2021 Southold Town Clerk 5:30 PM Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President Michael J. Domino, Trustee John M. Bredemeyer, Trustee A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee Greg Williams, Trustee Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL MEETING TO ORDER TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Good evening, and welcome to Wednesday September 15th, 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). I'll start off by announcing people on the dais. To my left we have Trustee Krupski. We have Trustee Bredemeyer, Trustee Domino, Trustee Williams. To my right we have Assistant Town Attorney Damon Hagan, Senior Clerk Typist Elizabeth Cantrell. We have with us tonight court stenographer Wayne Galante. Also from the Conservation Advisory Council committee we have John Stein and Shannon Wright. Agendas for tonight's meeting are on the dais as well as on the Town website. We do have a number of postponements tonight in the agenda. On pages 13, we have number 23; on page 14, we have numbers 24 and 25; and on page 15, we have numbers 26 through 30. They are listed as follows: Number 23, En-Consultants on behalf of DOUGLAS R. & LESLIE HIRSCH requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place existing 3'x82' fixed timber catwalk with a 4'x90' fixed timber catwalk, including a 4'x8' seaward extension (catwalk to be reconstructed with open-grate decking and elevated 4' above marsh grade); relocate existing 3'x23' aluminum ramp 8' seaward; remove existing 6'x20' floating dock; install new, relocated 6'x20' floating dock situated in an "L" configuration, secured by one (1) 8" diameter piling to remain and one (1) relocated 8" diameter piling; install one (1) 10" diameter tie-off piling approximately 12' north of north end of proposed floating dock (no further seaward than east/seaward edge of proposed floating dock); connect dock to Board of Trustees 2 September 15, 2021 water and electricity; and install 70"x84" wood frame kayak rack adjacent to landward end of existing dock, landward of tidal wetland boundary. Located: 5028 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-10-2 Number 24, Clay Coffey & Margot Coffey on behalf of BRENT PELTON &ALEX VINASH request a Wetland Permit for the partial demolition, renovation and expansion of an existing 3,061 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with 67 sq. ft. existing second floor deck and 1,262 sq. ft. of ground floor terrace; an existing 500 sq. ft. of bulkhead deck to remain; construct a proposed 659 sq. ft. habitable addition across two floors, adding 374 sq. ft. to the second floor and 285 sq. ft. to the ground floor; the proposed gross ground floor square footage of the dwelling is 1,960 sq. ft.; there is a proposed second floor deck of 204 sq. ft. and a proposed roof deck of 1,146 sq. ft.; the existing 67 sq. ft. second floor deck to be reconfigured and renovated; the proposed landward ground floor terrace is 475 sq. ft. and proposed 775 sq. ft. ground floor terrace on the upland side of coastal wetlands; a proposed addition of a 8'x30' freshwater pool on the south side of the property along the dwelling; and to install an Innovative/Alternative septic system to be installed to replace the existing outdated septic system on the northwestern side of the property. Located: 50 Blue Marlin Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-7-19 Number 25, Brant Reiner of Nelson, Pope &Voorhis, LLC on behalf of CONKLING ADVISORS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to dredge ±1,226 cubic yards of sediment from the marina basin inlet (±14,250 square feet or±969 cubic yards) to a depth of-6.0' below Mean Low Water(MLW) and the southerly area of the marina basin (±3,475 sq. ft. or 257cubic yards) to a depth of-4.0' below MLW; these areas will be dredged with a long-reach excavator from stabilized areas of the shoreline along the west and north ends of the easterly peninsula, where possible; some barge work may be required for the dredging of the seaward areas of the inlet and the placement of dredge materials onto the westerly and/or easterly peninsula; construct±200 linear feet of "Doublewall" block retaining wall system to an elevation of 7.00' (NAVD 88) along the south shoreline of°easterly peninsula; removal of scattered concrete rip-rap along the southerly shoreline of the easterly peninsula and replacement with a ±2,300sq.ft. Revetment constructed of locally sourced stone with a 1.5 ton/stone top layer and 501b./stone base layer landward of MLW; construct±33 linear feet of Navy-style bulkhead with an 8' return to the south to an elevation of 7.00' (NAVD 88) along the western point of the easterly peninsula to restore the upland area and functionality of the peninsula; construct±233 linear feet of Navy-style bulkhead to an elevation of 7.00' (NAVD 88) along the northerly shoreline of the easterly peninsula; construct±237 linear feet of low-sill bulkhead to an elevation ±0.33' (NAVD 88) along the northerly shoreline of the easterly peninsula ±6' seaward of and parallel to the above mentioned new bulkhead to create ±1,375 sq. ft. of intertidal wetlands planted with Smooth Cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) along this shoreline; the created wetland area represents a 1:6 Mitigation ratio for±270 sq. ft. of vegetated intertidal marsh areas that will be disturbed along the western and northern shorelines of the easterly peninsula as part of this project; remove ±954 cubic yards of dredged material from the above referenced inlet and boat basin of this project to be placed between the "Doublewall" southerly block wall and the north and west bulkheads on the eastern peninsula; the filled/upland area will include ±4,500 sq. ft. of permeable (oyster shell) surface with an elevation of 8.00' (NAVD 88) to match the highest elevation of the existing peninsula grade with benches and low-profile bollard lighting (for sifting, education and viewing areas), and ±2,850 sq. ft. of variable width vegetative buffer areas (planted with native seaside vegetation), around the perimeter of the retained areas; removal and in-place replacement of±320 linear feet of steel bulkhead around the westerly peninsula with new vinyl (CMI) Navy- Board of Trustees 3 September 15, 2021 style bulkhead: The top of the existing bulkhead is at elevation 5.50' (NAVD 88); the top of the new bulkhead will be raised 18" to an elevation of 6.90' (NAVD 88); remove ±255 cubic yards of dredged material from the above referenced inlet dredging portion of this project to be placed on the western peninsula to match the elevation of the new bulkhead; permeable (oyster shell) surface siting areas and walkways will be constructed through the western peninsula; the remainder of the peninsula will be re-established with native seaside vegetation consistent with the plant species and quantities; and the osprey pole currently on the eastern peninsula will be relocated to the western peninsula. Located: 1760 Sage Boulevard, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-57-1-38.3 Number 26, AMP Architecture on behalf of ANDRES ZOITAS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a proposed 17'x40' (830 sq. ft.) pool with sun-shelf; a proposed 3,228 sq. ft. pervious patio at grade; a proposed 36" high stone counters by 24 linear F oot long outdoor kitchen; and install and perpetually maintain a 30' wide (4,220sq.ft.) Non-turf buffer. Located: 1470 Grandview Drive, Orient. SCTM# 1000-14-2-3.15 Number 27, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of JOSEPH & MARY ELLEN LOGIUDICE request a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x40' landward ramp onto a 4'x110'fixed dock with a 4'x40' "L" section at seaward end; construct a 4'x40' lower platform with a 5'x4' access platform and a 4'x16' ramp; install three (3) two-pile dolphins; and proved water and electrical service to dock. Located: 10995 North Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-79-5-20.14 Number 28, Michael Kimack on behalf of TIMOTHY J. & GINAMARIE STUMP requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 315 linear feet of hybrid low sill bulkhead; backfill with approximately 100 cubic yards of course clean sand just below lowered sheathings; maintain approximately 2 'h to 1 slope from top of sloughed bank and then flat to bulkhead; install approximately 3,200 sq. ft. of filter fabric over disturbed area and fasten with 8" galvanized pins; plant Spartina alterniflora to high water mark and then Spartina patens to undisturbed line @ one (1) foot on-center (±3,200 plants). Located: 2200 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-61 Number 29, Michael Kimack on behalf of JANICE HILLMAN SITYLES a/k/a JANICE HILLMAN REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x18' walkway with a staircase consisting of three (3) treads and four (4) risers with Thru-Flow decking (72 sq. ft.), connected to a 4'x24' fixed dock with Thru-Flow decking (96 sq. ft.), 168 sq. ft. Total; and to install 14 - 8" diameter pilings. Located: 8340 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-5-23.2 Number 30, 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 Those have all been postponed. Under Town Code Chapter 275-8(c), files were officially closed seven days ago. Submission any of paperwork after that date may result in the delay of processing of the application. I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to hold our next field inspection, on Wednesday, October 13, 2021, at 8:00 AM. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 4 September 15, 2021 II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next Trustee meeting Wednesday October 20, 2021, at 5:30 PM at the Southold Town Hall main meeting room. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Ill. WORK SESSIONS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to hold our next work sessions Monday, October 18th, 2021, at 5:00 PM at the Town Hall Annex 2nd floor Executive Conference Room; and on Wednesday, October 20th, 2021, at 5:00 PM in the Town Hall main meeting hall and via Zoom online platform. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). IV. MINUTES: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes August 18th, 2021 meeting. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for August 2021. A check for$8,078.46 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. VI. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. VII. RESOLUTIONS -OTHER: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VII, Resolutions - Other, I'll make a motion to approve as a group items 1 and 2. They are listed as follows: 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 GEORGE W. ROCKLEIN. Located: 875 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-63-7-31.1 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 ANTHONY & BEATRICE FALCONE. Board of Trustees 5 September 15, 2021 Located: 405 Williamsberg Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-17 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 XIII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, September 15, 2021 are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. As written: Charles Rosenbaum SCTM# 1000-59-8-6.2 Leonard Rosenbaum SCTM# 1000-35-5-34 D. Cannizzaro QRPT & B. Miltakis QRPT, c/o John Miltakis, Trustee SCTM# 1000-103-10-29.1 Neil Stronski & Patti Perez SCTM# 1000-111-15-10 Michael P. & Susan Cavounis SCTM# 1000-86-2-9 Old Salt Ventures, LLC SCTM# 1000-144-5-13 Daniel &Amy Leblond SCTM# 1000-128-6-22 Paul Yau & Melissa Hobley SCTM# 1000-128-6-21 Richard R. & Bernice F. Vanderbeek Trust, c/o Richard R. Vanderbeek, Jr., Paul B. Vanderbeek, & Bradford C. Vanderbeek, Trustees SCTM# 1000-52-2-35 Steven Guddat &Torrey Acri SCTM# 1000-68-4-23 Peter& Elaine Psyllos SCTM# 1000-105-2-1 Catherine Cahill SCTM# 1000-52-5-23 James D. &Vicky Vavas SCTM# 1000-53-6-7 Kathleen Foley SCTM# 1000-78-2-23 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: Under Roman numeral IX. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: En-Consultants on behalf of GEORGE W. ROCKLEIN, requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing dock and construct farther from westerly property line a new dock consisting of a 4'x69' fixed timber catwalk constructed with open-grate decking, rope handrails, and two sets of 4'x6' steps for beach access; a 3'x16' aluminum ramp; and a 6'x20' floating dock situated in an "L" shape configuration and secured by two (2) 10" diameter pilings; to be accessed by a 4'x34' fixed timber stairway with one (1) 4'x6' platform; and to connect water and electricity to the dock. Located: 875 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-63-7-31.1 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE: WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with this project having visited the site on September 8, 2021, and having considered the survey of property by Board of Trustees 6 September 15, 2021 Kenneth M. Woychuk Land Surveying, PLLC dated November 20, 2020, and having considered the plans for this proposed project submitted by En Consultants dated July 30, 2021 at the Trustee's September 13, 2021 work session; and, WHEREAS, on September 15, 2021 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and, WHEREAS, on September 15, 2021 the Southold Town Board of Trustees classified the application as an unlisted action pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and, WHEREAS, in reviewing project plans submitted by EN Consultants dated July 30, 2021 it has been determined by the Board of Trustees that all potentially significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein: Navigation: The proposed dock meets standards and does not extend beyond 1/3 across the water body. Depths for the dock terminus are within Town Trustees, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and United States Army Corps. Of Engineers guidelines and there is no recognized Federal/New York State/Town navigation channel in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure. Scope: The proposed dock is comparable to docks on neighboring properties in an area where docks historically are used for commercial and recreational purposes. Scope in relation to the riparian rights of shell fishers: The plan allows a standard fixed catwalk to float design that will not impede access for those seeking shellfish and crustacea in season. Environmental upkeep: The dock design projects a usual lifespan of 30 years with limited pile replacement so as to minimize disturbance of the bottom. THEREFORE, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA for the aforementioned project. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ANTHONY & BEATRICE FALCONE requests a Wetland Permit to install a proposed 4'x6' cantilevered platform off of bulkhead; a 30" wide by 14' long aluminum ramp; and a 6'x20' floating dock supported with two (2) 10" diameter CCA piles and situated parallel to the bulkhead. Located: 405 Williamsberg Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-17 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE: WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with this project having visited the site on September 8, 2021, and having considered the survey of property by Peconic Surveyors last dated May 11, 2021, and having considered the plans for this proposed project submitted by Jeffrey Patanjo last dated September 7, 2021 at the Trustee's September 13, 2021 work session; and, WHEREAS, on September 15, 2021 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and, WHEREAS, on September 15, 2021 the Southold Town Board of Trustees classified the application as an unlisted action under S.E.Q.R.A.; and, Board of Trustees 7 September 15, 2021 WHEREAS, in reviewing project plans submitted by Jeffrey Patanjo last dated September 7, 2021 it has been determined by the Board of Trustees that all potentially significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein: Scope: The proposed dock is comparable to docks on neighboring properties in an area where docks historically are used for commercial and recreational purposes. Scope in relation to the riparian rights of shell fishers: The plan allows a standard fixed catwalk to float design that will not impede access for those seeking shellfish and crustacea in season. Environmental upkeep: The dock design projects a usual lifespan of 30 years with limited pile replacement so as to minimize disturbance of the bottom. THEREFORE, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA for the aforementioned project. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). 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 5. They are listed as follows: Number 2, SV GREENPORT LLC requests an Administrative Permit to erect signs as follows: At Main Hotel: 58855 CR48 12'h x 6'w (72 sq. ft.); traffic Signs: 58775 CR48 Two (2) 2'hx1.2'w (2.4 sq. ft.) plus posts; Accessible Parking: 59725 CR 48 2'hx1'w (2 sq. ft.) Plus post. Located: 58855, 59670 & 59725 C.R. 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44-2-22 & 23 & 1000-44-4-5.1 Number 3, KERRIE-ANN & CHRISTOPHER COHEN request an Administrative Permit for the as-built removal of limbs and trimming of trees; and the as-built removal of five (5) trees. Located: 195 Albacore Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-7-13 Number 4, Alexsis Gordon on behalf of SUSAN ROGERS GRUN requests an Administrative Permit to abandon the existing sanitary system and install a new I/A sanitary system. Located: 54305 CR 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-52-1-6 Number 5, Michael A. Kimack on behalf of STEVEN EISMAN & VALERIE FEIGEN request an Administrative Permit to install a 36"x60" raised platform for a 15 sq. ft. generator; install a 4'x4' raised platform for existing 16 sq. ft. air conditioner. Located: 18603 Main Road, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-17-5-3.2 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? Board of-Trustees 8 September 15, 2021 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, NIKOS THEODOSOPOULOS &ANNA LOUKISSA request an Administrative Permit to replace the existing 64" on a side wood hexagon gazebo with a 3'11" (74 sq. ft.) vinyl octagon gazebo to be placed on a gravel/stone base. Located: 595 N Parish Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-1-6 Trustee Bredemeyer did an inspection on this on September 2nd, noting it was okay. The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is that the gazebo is proposed within FEMA Flood Zone VE, however there is no practical area to relocate it on the parcel outside of this zone. Accordingly, the gazebo is on the best location it can be on the property. There is no other way to move it. So thereby bringing it into permit or bringing it into consistency with the LWRP. Therefore, I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 6, ADRIENNE LANDAU requests an Administrative Permit for the as-built 11'x19' slate tiled patio set in sand (4yards) and blue stone dust (2 yards); and to eliminate the current poison ivy and plant native grasses. Located: 855 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-94-1-7 The Trustees conducted a field inspection on September 8th, noting that it was an elevated patio not on grade. It was too close to the property line and the bluff. The LWRP found this to be consistent, however since it's an elevated patio right on the property line and very close to the top of bluff, I make a motion to deny this application without prejudice. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). XI. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral XI, Applications for Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments, again, in order to simplify meeting, I make a motion on approve as a group items 1 through 7, and 9 through 1. They are listed as follows: Number 1, DANIEL FOX requests a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit#9566, as issued on October 16, 2019. Located: 470 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.28 Number 2, Michael A. Kimack on behalf of DONNA HOBSON CAMPBELL requests a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit #9542 and Coastal Erosion Permit#9542C, both issued on Board of Trustees 9 September 15, 2021 September 18, 2019; and for an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9542 and Coastal Erosion Permit#9542C for the as-built staircases and landings commencing at the exiting deck with a 7" riser to a landing (24 SF), then a 7" riser to the second landing (17.37 SF), then the first staircase consisting of 16 treads @ 91/4" and 17 risers @ 7" (37 SF), then the third landing (18.87 SF), then the second staircase consisting of 20 treads @ 91/4' and 21 risers @ 7" (46.2 SF), then the fourth landing (21.37 SF), then the third staircase consisting of 16 treads @ 9 1/4" and 17 risers @ 7" (37 SF), then the fifth landing (18 SF), then a 7" riser to the sixth landing (17.25 SF), then the fourth staircase consisting of 20 treads @ 9 1/4" and 21 risers . @ 7" (46.2 SF), then the seventh landing (18.87 SF ), then the fifth stair to the beach consisting of 16 treads @ 9 1/4" and 17 risers @ 7" (37SF). The total area of the "as built staircases and landings is 339.13 SF. Located: 63429 C.R. 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-40-1-19 Number 3, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of PAUL YAU & MELISSA D. HOBLEY requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#128-6-21, as issued on December 21, 1992 and Amended on February 25, 1993 from Ruby Keller to Paul Yau & Melissa D. Hobley. Located: 2826 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. SCTM# 1000-128-6-21. Number 4, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of DANIEL & AMY LEBLOND requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#128-6-22 as issued on December 21, 1992 and Amended on February 25, 1993 from Michael Mastropolo to Daniel &Amy Leblond. Located: 2828 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. SCTM# 1000-128-6-22 Number 5, BEN & CHRISTINE HANSEN request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#9894 as issued on May 19, 2021 from Mildred Pascucci to Ben & Christine Hansen. Located: 305 Narrow River Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-3-11 Number 6, PAUL FRADE requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #9800, as issued on January 20, 2021, from Jack Cipriano to Paul Frade. Located: 8150 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-5-23.6 Number 7, BUDD'S POND MARINA INC. requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#271 from Budd's Pond Marine to Budd's Pond Marina Inc., issued January 27, 1986. Located: 61500 Route 25, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-6-2.2 'Number 9, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of JOEL SINGER requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9832 & Coastal Erosion Permit#9832C to reduce the dimensions of the lower platform to 6'x10' in lieu of the originally permitted 6'x16' lower platform; and to install a kayak rack westward of the lower platform. Located: 20575 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-11 Number 10, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of KEVIN M. MURPHY requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9818 for(32) 6" timber piles installed @8.5' o/c in lieu of the (26) 6" piles originally proposed; the installation of rope handrails on either side of the fixed catwalk, stringed between the existing piles from the landward end to the seaward terminus of the fixed catwalk; to re-position Board of Trustees 10 September 15, 2021 the previously approved access stairs to the westerly side of the existing fixed catwalk; install a 3'x20' aluminum ramp connecting the fixed catwalk to the floating dock in lieu of the previously approved 18.5'x4' hinged wooden ramp; reposition the two (2) 9" timber piles securing dock float. Located: 3265 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM#: 1000-123-8-22.4 Number 11, Michael A. Kimack on behalf of JOSEPH & LINDA SCIOTTO requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8934 for proposed wire mesh 4-foot pool fence with three (3) gates in lieu of 125 ft. of 4 ft. high glass pool fencing approved in permit No. 8934, install approx. 234 linear feet of 1" x1" x 4 feet wire mesh fence attached to pressure treated 4"x 4" wooden posts O/E @ 4 feet O.0 with 1' x 5" top rail of Trex O/E. Install one (1) 6 ft. wide x 4 ft. high double gate as shown. Install one (1) 3 ft. wide x 4 ft. high single gate as shown. Install one (1) 3 ft. gate at bottom of staircase to beach . Install two (2) post brackets for 4" x 4" post on top cap of upper bulkhead at seaward side to have pool fence close any gap. Located: 8380 Great Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. SCTM#: 1000-126-11-20 TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 8, Brooke Epperson on behalf of ANNIE O'BRIEN &JENNIFER MARINO requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9701 for the removal of existing shed attached to house; removal and replacement of existing 5'11"x10'10" (64 sq. ft.) outdoor shower against dwelling; removal and replacement of(4) existing stairways: Stair"A": 11 treads; 30"x8'4" (255 sq. ft.) wood landing at top; with 2'8"x3"-0" (8 sq. ft.) concrete landing at bottom; "B": 8 treads; 3'0"x4'8" (155 sq. ft.) wood landing at top connected to existing porch; 3'x9"x4'8" (18 sq. ft.) concrete landing at bottom; Stair"C": (2) sets of 14 treads with 4'0"x8'0" (32 sq. ft.) landing at center; (2) 3'x8"x4.0" (15sq.ft) concrete landing at bottom; Stair (D): 14 treads; 4'1"x11'2" (47 sq. ft.) wood landing at top connected to existing porch; 4'x3.5"x4'4.5" (19 sq. ft.) concrete landing at bottom. Resurface over existing concrete patio 15'9"x20'8.5" (330 sq. ft.). Located: 11 Kimogener Point, New Suffolk. SCTM#: 1000-116-6-24.1 The Trustees conducted field inspection September 8th, 2021, noting the need for buffers. The LWRP found this to be consistent. Actually, excuse me, found this to be exempt. I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted with the condition that the entirety of the property be a non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). XII. WATERFOWL/DUCK BLINDS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral XII, Waterfowl and Duck Board of Trustees 11 September 15, 2021 blinds, Number 1, GEORGE BERRY requests a Waterfowl/Duck Blind permit to place a Waterfowl/Duck Blind in Cedar Beach Creek using public access. Located: Cedar Beach Creek, Southold. I'll make a motion to approve number 1. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and enter into our public hearings. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). X1111. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a public hearing in the matter of the following applications for permits under the Wetlands ordinance of the Town of Southold. I have an affidavit of publication from the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may be read prior to asking for comments from the public. Please keep your comments organized and brief, five minutes or less if possible. WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland Permits, Number 1, 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 The Trustees most recently conducted a field inspection on August 10th, 2021, noting that we need to see the C&R building envelope on the plans. The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is the pool structure is located outside of the building envelope approved on the filed subdivision plot known as the standard subdivision of John Scott. Locating structures outside the building envelope is not permissible. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MS. RAVN: Yes. Good evening. I'm Daniella Ravn, and we have submitted new plans with the relocation of the pool and all structures to be built to be consistent with the building envelope, and all the proposed structures will be within the building envelope now. Plans were submitted August of this year. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Did we get the new plans that showed the Board of Trustees 12 September 15, 2021 building envelope? I think this was the concern we had earlier. MS. RAVN: Yes. I mailed a copy of the plan. MS. CANTRELL: I don't think we got it. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The latest I see here is July 23rd. MS. RAVN: I don't have a copy with me here but I submitted everything via mail. And also a new letter describing the new proposed structures within the building envelope. I had a conversation about also relocating the pool equipment to also be within the building envelope, and I subsequently submitted that plan with building envelope also relocated. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think the problem is we do not have that latest plan that you are talking about. So with the LWRP's concerns about it being partially outside of that building envelope, without having a plan that shows what that actual building envelope is, we cannot make a determination. MS. RAVN: I mailed three sets in, and mailed it to the attention of the Trustees. MS. CANTRELL: Did you put it to the attention of the Trustees? MS. RAVN: Absolutely. It was definitely to your attention. I also E-mailed it. MS. CANTRELL: I didn't get an e-mail. MS. RAVN: No, it was E-mailed. The hardcopies were mailed as well, with the new letter describing the new dimensions of, you know, the fences that have to be reconfigured and all that. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is quite an extensive, older file, with different plans. The most recent that I see in this stack was July, which is when we went out to do our field inspection, and those plans from July did not have that building envelope on it. Um, so if you have new ones -- MS. RAVN: May I see the ones that you have, please? The July one? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: July 23rd. Here we go. This is the July 23rd one. If you want to come up and take a look. That doesn't have the designated building envelope. That's the most recent one that we have in our files. MS. RAVN: This section right here. The building envelope. Right there. The note was, the revision that I received was just to put a note saying this was the building envelope. But it is and the plan has been reconfigured. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That dash line right there? MS. RAVN: Yes, the black line. The very first one I submitted is different than this one. This one has the full reconfigured and all the structures within the building envelope. MS. CANTRELL: What is different from that and the one in August? MS. RAVN: This very dark line. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is the 20-foot side yard setback line. MS. RAVN: Correct. Which is also the setback and the building envelope. So on the plan that I mailed I clearly note the building envelope as per subdivision of John Scott III. And that's the plan that apparently you didn't get in the mail. And this was also moved next to the cabana. Everything was within the building envelope. Board of Trustees 13 September 15, 2021 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It sounds to me like the plans that you mailed that we didn't receive were exactly or at least what I was looking for. MS. RAVN: That's why I'm here tonight, otherwise I would not come to submit the same plans that were already not approved. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: If you do have them with you, we can take it, otherwise we have to wait until we get the new ones. MS. RAVN: I'll personally deliver it this time instead of mailing, to make sure. MS. CANTRELL: She has to come back to another meeting TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: She has the right to come back. New plans would address -- MS. RAVN: Yes, all the recommendations you made the last hearing were addressed on the new plans. I'm just surprised that, you know, I would have brought other sets if it was, you know. All right, thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to table this for submission of the new plans showing all the structures within that building envelope. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 2, Louis Caglianone on behalf of DARCY GAZZA requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing catwalk and construct a new 4'x138' catwalk; 3'x14' adjustable ramp; and 6'x20' floating dock. Located: 1500 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-3-4 The Trustees most recently reviewed this application on the 8th of September. Prior to that inspection was performed at the property on the 7th of July. Noted to look at the pier line and confirm through-flow decking. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with the recommendation of a handrail. The LWRP coordinator found the structure to be exempt and inconsistent. The place of permitted structure is exempt. To clarify what type of decking will be used. The seaward extension of the catwalk and dock into public waters is inconsistent with Policies 6 and 9. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. CAGLIANONE: Yes. Louis Caglianone, standing by, if there are any questions on this application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So after we reviewed this application in our work session, it appears that the extension would be slightly outside the pier line, which this Board does not allow. And furthermore, the inside as configured doesn't have enough water, regardless, so most likely the best course of action in this Board of Trustees 14 September 15, 2021 location would be a fixed pier that ends within the pier line of the neighboring docks. MR. CAGLIANONE: Just some clarification for me. The inside doesn't appear to have enough water, but I'm not sure what that means. What you mean by that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The inside edge of the dock has somewhere between 2.2 and 2.3. So you are already too shallow for what the Board allows. And it does look like, you know, as per these overview plans, that you are already slightly bumped out. So what the Board typically has done for the past several years now is we would allow for a fixed catwalk. If you want to apply for a lower elevated section with a ramp down to it or step down to it, for easier access, we would be open to something along those lines. MR. CAGLIANONE: Any guidance on the height of the lower area that you would like to see above the water line? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Nothing really -- MR. CAGLIANONE: Something that's still above water at high water would be ideal? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, to provide some utility -- MR. CAGLIANONE: Just a few notes, if I may, on the current configuration that you can see. The owners went through the expense of rehiring the surveyor to better locate it adjacent to the pier. The reason being, I sent a new letter along with it with revised drawings just to explain the situation. Although I understand that this Board may not have approved past piers on this creek, we are being, in order to -- I understand the concept of not being past the adjacent piers. And I understand the rule that it needs to be in two-and-a-half feet of water. And the way I understand that is that's for environmental reasons so the float doesn't sit on the bottom. The adjacent piers do not conform to current code, which, again, I know that this Board may not have had anything to do with those, but forcing this application to conform to nonconforming piers is only going to prove it to be inadequate. If the adjacent docks conformed and were useable to today's standards of two-and-a-half feet we could easily build this well within the conformance. If we push this pier out to where it's two-and-a-half feet deep and the adjacent piers, they would still be way out beyond us. They would still be way less than one-third the width of the creek. We made an attempt, we did stay within the line of the adjacent piers just beyond the substandard ones, and that still doesn't allow us to be in deep enough water. And the reason being, that those piers beyond with the exception of one to the north both are in one foot of water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I can certainly appreciate what you are saying but also, all those docks have been there a reasonable amount of time and certainly not approved by the current Board with the current environmental knowledge. And this is, I'll be very frank with you, this is something we encounter on a regular basis, whether it's nonconforming docks next to an applicant's dock, Board of Trustees 15 September 15, 2021 but when they come in, we'll make them fix theirs, too. So to that point, your dock can go out to the pier line, your applicant dock can go out to the pier line, it just can't exceed, and it would not be able to be a float with the code that We are bound to. And that has been the past practice of the Board for many years now. MR. CAGLIANONE: Thank you. So I'll resubmit this with a fixed pier to the best I can to the liking of the clients, and I guess we'll get put on the next agenda. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And just to clarify, is it through-flow decking you proposed? MR. CAGLIANONE: Yes. On the float as well as the fixed pier. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, thank you, very much. MR. CAGLIANONE: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? (Negative response). Hearing no comments, I make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 3, Eric Martz on behalf of MARY ANN HOWKINS requests a Wetland Permit to replant, revegetate and maintain the property post construction within preexisting established lawn area consisting of post construction soil remediation to a depth of 3"-6" in previous established lawn area; lay sod/grass seed in preexisting established lawn area; plant evergreen deciduous mix of plantings around home, deck and path; install irrigation for lawn and plantings; and to remove invasive plants (i.e. poison ivy, etc.), from bank between established lawn area and tidal wetland boundary, and revegetate with approved native plants. Located: 3245 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-7 The Board had inspected this property on August 10th, wherein the field inspection we requested that there would be a ten-foot, non-turf buffer established for the property that was landward of the top of the bank, and that seaward from the top of the bank to be a non-disturbance area. The Board was in receipt of new plans in conformity with the request that was submitted and stamped in the Trustee office on September 2nd, and that were reviewed by the Board on September 8th. The Town LWRP has deemed this project to be consistent. And the Conservation Advisory Council supports this project. The LWRP coordinator did specifically indicate that it suggested that native species occurring on the bank are not to be removed. So that's a reiteration of the need to protect native plants already on the site. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application? Board of Trustees 16 September 15, 2021 MS. CANTRELL: Eric Martz is on Zoom. If you want to un-mute yourself and speak to the Board. MR. MARTZ: Hello, Eric Martz here. Can you hear me? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can hear you, yes. MR. MARTZ: Great. I just wanted to make sure that I looked at the application that was on the microfiche and it did not have the revised project description that I gave yesterday post the work session, that just had an additional line that just said remove poison ivy from the non-disturbance area. We went back there and that's the only non-invasive we could find that seemed like something we wanted removed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, for that clarification. It's in the description. It's already in the existing description read into the record with the poison ivy. Thank you, for that additional information. That's the only invasive that is there at this time. MR. MARTZ: Okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe the Board felt it was straightforward. We appreciate that you submitted the new plans with the buffers. MR. MARTZ: Perfect, thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? Board members? (Negative response). Not hearing anyone else, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application in conformity with the plans stamped into the Trustee office of September 2nd, enumerating the non-turf and the non-disturbance buffers as shown on the plans. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. MARTZ: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 4, Quiet Man Studio on behalf of JAMES LUBIN requests a Wetland Permit for the existing dwelling with a 1,705 sq. ft. footprint, existing attached 678 sq. ft. garage, existing 21 sq. ft. front entry deck to be removed, and existing 325 sq. ft. rear deck to be removed for a total of 2,729 sq. ft. of existing structures; construct onto existing dwelling a 14'9"x38'2" (562 sq. ft.) ear screen porch; construct a 23'3"x7'8" (178 sq. ft.) rear covered porch/deck; construct a 10'0"x38'1" (380 sq. ft.) front covered porch; construct a 4'x6' (24 sq. ft.) outdoor shower; construct a 12'x7'5" (89 sq. ft.) second floor balcony for a total lot coverage of 3,572 sq. ft. Located: 2765 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-2 Board of Trustees 17 September 15, 2021 The Trustees conducted a field inspection on this site on August 10th. All were present. The notes read that suggest a 15-foot non-turf buffer landward of the high water mark. The subsequently received new plans, and on September 8th we did an in-house review of those plans again. All were present. The LWRP coordinator found this application to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved unanimously to support this application. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MS. WINGATE: Good evening. Eileen Wingate on behalf of Lames Lubin. Do you have any questions? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions from the Board? (Negative response). I have none. Seems to be straightforward, man MS. WINGATE: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else who wishes 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: Motion to approve this application as submitted, and in conjunction with the new plans, AMP Architectural plans dated 8/11/21, stamped received 8/16/21. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 5, Glynis Berry, AIA of studio a/b architects on behalf of CHARLES ROSENBAUM requests a Wetland Permit to install a new gravel driveway connecting to the existing one; delineate the landward edge of the 50' non-disturbance buffer with either a split-rail fence (using non-treated wood posts), a stone wall, or boulders with native plantings, all with sufficient elevation/spacing/penetrations in the wall or boulders to allow the natural flow/passage of water and small animals that inhabit this area; some clearing will be executed, with a lawn in front of the house; the installation of underground water and electric services; and the installation of silt fencing during construction to protect the wetlands. Located: 6710 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-8-6.2 The Trustees visited this site September 8th, 2021. All Trustees were present. Notes in the file that split-rail fence to denote the non-disturbance area buffer. The LWRP program coordinator found this proposed action to be consistent. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application? MS. MOORE: Good evening. Patricia Moore, covering for Glynis Berry, on behalf of Charles Rosenbaum. If have you any questions, I knowledge it's a pretty straightforward. Thank you. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So in the project description, Pat, that does say landward edge of 50-foot non-disturbance buffer with either Board of Trustees 18 September 15, 2021 split-rail fence or stone wall. So at this point would you like to stipulate a split-rail fence to use? MS. MOORE: Yes, that's fine. I mentioned that to the applicant and Glynis Berry, and everyone was fine with that. So we'll stipulate to split-rail. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Because on the plan it is denoted it is called out giving our choice. MS. MOORE: Yes. So that's fine. Split-rail is fine. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak to this application? (Negative response). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any questions from the Trustees? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to acknowledge the letter. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Which letter? MR. HAGAN: (Indicating). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: All right. For the record, I would like to acknowledge we have a letter in the file from (inaudible). At this point make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll make a motion to approve the project as submitted with the stipulation that the delineation for the non-turf non-disturbance area will be a split-rail fence. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 6, Ian Crowley on behalf of LEONARD ROSENBAUM requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 163' of bulkhead using vinyl sheathing and raise the elevation to be 6" higher than existing; following completion of the new vinyl bulkhead dredge the area 10' seaward to restore 4' depth of-4 ALW with all resulting spoils to remain on site and be used as backfill; existing 8'x10' cantilevered platform seaward of bulkhead to be removed and replaced with 4'x6' cantilevered platform. Located: 520 Snug Harbor Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-5-34 The Trustees conducted a field inspection September 8th, 2021, noting the need for a ten-foot non-turf buffer. We do have plans stamped received July 13th, 2021, that do show that ten-foot wide non-turf buffer. The LWRP found this to be consistent. Also requiring vegetated non-turf buffer. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with a ten-foot non-turf vegetated buffer. We also have a letter in the file here from the Cleaves Point Property Owners Association, noting that they have no objection to the proposed work planned. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MS. CANTRELL: Ian, if you would like to un-mute yourself and Board of Trustees 19 September 15, 2021 speak to the Board. MR. CROWLEY: Good evening. Ian Crowley, on behalf of Leonard Rosenbaum, just here to answer any questions you might have. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, very much. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak regarding this application? (No response). Hearing no further questions or comments, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 7, Jennifer Wicks on behalf of D. CANNIZZARO QRPT & B. MILTAKIS QRPT, c/o JOHN MILTAKIS, TRUSTEE requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built approval of the existing un-treated Trex decking along bulkhead and walkways to the house of various dimensions (5'2"x36'3", 12'x5', 157'x37, 5'5"x12', 45'4"x16'); as-built 16'x44' patio; as-built 3'x16' planter/bench; as-built 5'x10' stone steps; as-built 395.27 sq. ft. deck; construct a proposed first-floor 5.75 sq. ft. seaward side addition; a proposed 779.81 sq. ft. second-floor garage addition; a proposed 113.5 sq. ft. garage expansion; a proposed 120 sq. ft. front covered stoop; and a proposed first-floor 120 sq. ft. front entry addition. Located: 1460 Strohson Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-10-29.1 The Trustees most recently visited the property, or actually performed an in-house review on the property, having visited it several times recently. On the 8th of September, the LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The as-built structures were constructed without Board of Trustee review or permit. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application for the as-built structures and recommends a drainage plan which includes drywells for the decking area. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding the application? (Negative response). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The application presented before us lacks, as the Conservation Advisory Council noted, a serious drainage issue, lacks any form of drywells, gutters to leaders to drywells. All unpermitted, non-pervious structures. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a serious issue. I think. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Hearing no public comment, I make a motion close the hearing this application. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. Board of Trustees 20 September 15, 2021 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to deny this application without prejudice. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number 8, Michael Kimack on behalf of JAMES & NANCY CLOUS requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing 1,479.5 sq. ft. dwelling and foundation, and back fill with approximately 400 cubic yards of fill; construct a proposed new foundation and 1,971.3 sq. ft. two-story dwelling with a 113.5 sq. ft. front porch, a 20 sq. ft. south landing, and 15.7 sq. ft. north landing; install 35 sq. ft. Bilco door to basement; install an OWTS system; and install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff. Located: 3805 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-6-18 This project has been deemed to be consistent by the Town's LWRP program coordinator wherein the coordinator specifically suggests that the Board request clarification for the purpose of the placement of four-hundred cubic yards of fill. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application. Board of Trustees initially inspected this project August 10th, noting that the Board expressed the wish that the house be 50 feet from the bulkhead, which the current plans do indicate, and that the house should include an Innovative Alternative sanitary system to reduce nitrogen. In response to that request of the Board, the agent for the Clous', Mr. Kimack, had Mark Schwartz Architect submit a letter to the Board dated and received in the Trustees office August 24th, outlining purported needs to have a conventional sanitary system as opposed to an Innovative Alternative system. The Board again reviewed this project at our work session on September 8th, and at which time we were aware of the letter of Mr. Schwartz and decided to have additional discussion at work session, which we held on the evening on September 13th. At that time the Board entered into extensive discussion concerning this project and the fact that the Board has required at least two other IA systems on large, heavily constrained properties on Bayshore Road, and the position of the Board going forward is that we want to see IA systems on all projects within the Town, and specifically noting also that there is sanitary hookups to a garage here. So with the expanded home and its size going from the existing home of 1,479 square feet to 1,971 square feet, plus the addition of habitation in the existing garage, it becomes particularly important that the Board felt in discussion that we seek an IA system for this site. Is there anyone here wishing to speak to this application? MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. Board of Trustees 21 September 15, 2021 At last we met on this project, primarily, the question was raised that you would like to have an IA system there and I think you also talked about trying to move it back a little bit. I expressed the concern that there was not enough space to put an IA system in with the number of disposable space that is required relative to the depth of the water table and the size of the rings. The letter that architect Mark Schwartz basically did was fairly extensive and fairly detailed, and pretty much indicated that in that area, we simply cannot fit the IA system. And it's, yes, I mean the garage, basically, is for I think it's the one-bedroom in the area. They are adding four or five bedrooms to the, basically house, and the area that we have in order to get it back as far as we could from the bulkhead, essentially, like that, the area that is left is not conducive enough to put in a system that would take care of the six bedrooms for an IA system. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, if I may, as you said, six bedrooms, is six bedrooms and five-and-a-half baths that would be attached to this traditional septic system. Last month when you talked about it you said if it's a blank lot, no question IA. If it's a demolition, no question, IA. And the caveat if it's below five bedrooms. This one obviously is six bedrooms all together and you are incorporating the garage plus the new house. So that's by any measure above the threshold. And I'm firm that we need an IA in this. We do have applications on tonight's agenda for other properties a couple houses down that have the same constraints as this particular property and they were able to engineer an IA stem. Like I said, at least three other properties on this road that we have done in the last two years that have IA systems as well. MR. KIMACK: The IA system is site specific in terms of, I can't speak to the other properties in terms of what reasons they may or may not have, and in terms the setbacks are they able to manipulate an IA stem on those particular properties. When I was here last time, basically, you requested I do a letter or I get a letter from the architect indicating whether or whether or not we could fit it on. I thought the letter was rather specific indicating from the architect professionally that there was really no way that the space could be allocated to be able to get an IA system on the property. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Let me pose a question to you, having a little knowledge of this that might be getting lost as I get older. The fact that you have this very large, proposed a very large conventional sanitary system in the front yard, because the Board wishes to have an IA, what would preclude you and/or Mr. Schwartz on behalf of the applicant to approach the Suffolk County Health Department Board of Review to have them consider waiving a portion of the expansion pools because with the system so close to the street, the ability to maintain it and replace pools in place, in other words, we are up to five or six Board of Trustees 22 September 15, 2021 bedrooms. With an IA system where it's readily accessible in the front yard, they could have cast iron covers to grade and/or provide a right-of-way to provide maintenance to put an IA in. It would seem it would not be an unreasonable request to have you approach the County Health Department Board of Review to put an IA system in there, to see if they would consider some kind of relief from the expansion pools. MR. KIMACK: The application to the Health Department as you know from the last conversation had been submitted some months ago, and you also know that it has not yet been approved subject to the approval of the Trustees. They don't usually issue the permit. And essentially I think your position is since it had not been approved there was still an opportunity look at it in a different way. I can't answer that question in terms of, I do know that their requirement is 50-foot expansion pools and I don't think asking for a variance to remove those would be something that they would grant. It's simply it's within their code. They require 50% expansion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not trying in any way to engineer or propose anything. It was just a thought. I'm expressing what I know is a very strong sentiment of the entire Board as a discussion of the work session. MR. KIMACK: Well, I think I can't give you an answer for the Health Department, obviously, in terms of what they'll define, but the system was designed according to their standards in terms of number of pools required. The house as designed is a little larger. He has a large family, large kids. The question in terms of the number of bedrooms is not really an issue, that is really what he needs for his particular house, essentially, like that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think you and your client are focused on what you need and not as much as environmentally what you need to do. So -- MR. KIMACK: Are you suggesting to limit down the number of bedrooms? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: After reading through the engineer's report from Mark Schwartz, maybe you can't shoehorn an IA septic in because you are overbuilding the lot. But it's possible that with some other configuration of the house that is not even 50 feet back from the bulkhead as of now, maybe you can fit an IA in there. MR. KIMACK: Well, the last time we were here you wanted basically to move it back from basically 47 to 50. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That was one concern, but our primary concern was an IA. MR. KIMACK: The same reason we have the IA system in terms of the space, putting it back three feet because we need the very space for this particular disposable and that in there, so. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just one other question, is the garage a permitted structure? MR. KIMACK: Yes, the gazebo, the garage, it's got its own Health Board of Trustees 23 September 15, 2021 Department permit. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional questions or concerns? Anyone else wish to speak this application? MR. KIMACK: I'm not sure if my client is online. I thought he was going to listen in. But then again, he may or may not have been able to make the connection. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, so I believe we discussed this at length -- MS. CANTRELL: We have someone by the name of James A. MR. KIMACK: That's him. MS. CANTRELL: James A, if you would state and spell your name for the record, and un-mute yourself. MR. CLOUS: James A. Clous. I guess I would just echo what Mike said. As we prepared this and went to the Department of Health early on, well before the new regulations had cut in, and applied for this, to fit this system, we had a very difficult time fitting the system in the front yard because of the water table and the ten-foot pool requirements, and the ten-foot septic requirements. We finally managed to get a configuration that fit, it was over 100 feet from the water. So from an environmental consideration, it's at least minimized in that way. And we just went back to Mark and could not fit the added septic tank requirements to fit this, to fit the IA in here. Also, the way the septic tank would have to sit.because of the garage and house configuration, it would literally be right in between the front door of both of those systems with manhole covers and air venting right in between the two front doors of those systems. So it just would not fit. We could not figure out any other way to do it. That's why we applied with the regular system for the Department of Health. And they are all approved pending Trustee approval. MR. KIMACK: I may add, James, one of the issues we had was in order to bring the utility line in and that had to come in between the system and the -- and that also limited the amount of space we had. The only place, if you look at the drawing, is on that side. And we had to have a space ten feet from that line. So the water line also, not only the building but also the water line limiting the space that we have. Am I correct on that, Jim? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Are there any additional comments with respect to this application? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to deny this application without prejudice. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 24 September 15, 2021 TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 9, Michael Kimack on behalf of NEIL STRONSKI & PATTI PEREZ requests a Wetland Permit for the demolition of existing dwelling in order to reconstruct first floor to accommodate second floor addition; remove existing wood deck and stairs on the seaward side and existing wood steps and landing on the landward side; reconstruct first floor to be 48500.5' (1,479.25 sq. ft.), construct a 24.7'x40.3' (995.41 sq. ft.) second floor addition; a 13.6'x32.2' (437.92 sq. ft.) roofed over porch; an 8.8'x24.7' (217.36 sq. ft.) front foyer, a 5'x14' (70 sq. ft.) front landing, a 3'x10' (30 sq. ft.) seaward landing, and a 17.7'x24.7' (437.19 sq. ft) on grade stone patio; remove existing septic system and install an OWTS septic system to accommodate five (5) bedrooms; and install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff, in accordance with the Stormwater Management Plan. Located: 7025 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-15-10 The Trustees conducted a field inspection on this site on September 8th. All were present. Notes read as follows: House very close to bluff. Straightforward. But if foundation ends up not being used, the project should be moved landward. And suggesting a ten-foot non-turf buffer. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support the application and requested applicant specify how the stairs would be supported. The Conservation Advisory Council recommends the proposed patio be located further landward from the top of the bluff. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant Neil Stronski and Patti Perez. The existing foundation is going to be utilized in its entirety. As I understand it, the architect says it is in good condition. It was deemed being demolition simply because of capital expenditure simply because of repair of the first floor and the extension of the second floor. The foundation will not be moving anywhere closer than the one area of one foot which is basically the width of the deck, but that is not a foundation increase, that is simply a floor hangover of basically one foot. Essentially, like that. Going forward, the proposed deck is on grade. I'm sorry, the proposed patio is on grade. The slope itself is in good shape. It's fairly well vegetated. I'm not quite sure what the Conservation Advisory Council meant by the staircase that they were talking about. Perhaps the staircase going down -- TRUSTEE DOMINO: Perhaps Mr. Stein can clarify that. MR. STEIN: I believe this was with the other group, not ours. But I believe the concern was on the elevation on the staircase and how high up the whole vegetated bluff. MR. KIMACK: It has to be four feet. It had been approved by DEC and also the Trustees. The Trustee permit was extended for a Board of Trustees 25 September 15, 2021 year, their requirement is that it be a minimum of four feet from the existing grade to the other portion of the staircase. Under portion of the staircase. MR. STEIN: And the last six to 12 -- TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just address the Board. You can't have a back and forth. MR. STEIN: Did the Board address the last six to 12 feet on the pinion going up or down, is it retractable or-- MR. HAGAN: While it's understandable that the Board of Trustees had requested additional comments or invited comments from the members of the Conservation Advisory Council, the people at the podium are not supposed to engage in cross-communication and should limit all their comments and questions to counsel and to the Board. Thank you. MR. STEIN: I believe all three reviews were the same. That was the original concern. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. MR. KIMACK: I can address those quickly. I mean, I know it's not part because it's already been permitted, but it basically meets the requirements of the DEC and Trustees in terms of the size of each one of the landings 4x6, and it's four-feet above. Primarily. Basically it's replacing fairly much in kind the staircase that is there that was partially destroyed on the bottom. That I think you probably observed when you were on site, primarily. And you did ask for and I did submit a ten-foot non-disturbance plan. TRUSTEE DOMINO: If you could help me understand something. MR. KIMACK: Yes, Mike. TRUSTEE DOMINO: The project description reads there will be an OWTS septic system. We would like to see it say IA slash. But that's not the point. The question is this. The plans, the IA system is shown on the DiLandro Andrews Engineering plans dated March 20th, 2021, received August 14th, but not on the Nate Corwin plans received September 9th that shows the ten-foot non-turf buffer. MR. KIMACK: I know, because -- TRUSTEE DOMINO: Perhaps you can clarify that for me. MR. KIMACK: Basically, the architect basically hired a separate individual PE to do that, so her architectural drawings on there did not get back to Nate Corwin to put on his set of surveys. As you well know, trying to get a surveyor to come back and put something on is very, very difficult. Essentially, like that, but. TRUSTEE DOMINO: As you know we have to approve subject to the plans that show all those elements. MR. KIMACK: Well, you do have the architectural plans showing it. And the reason I use OWTS is because that's the designation given by the Health Department. If you look at the way they describe it, they don't use IA. They use OWTS. Which is fine if-- TRUSTEE DOMINO: I have a question for counsel. In crafting the resolution, can they reference both sets of plans? MR. HAGAN: Sorry, drafting the resolution you'll reference -- if Board of Trustees 26 September 15, 2021 both sets of plans are essentially the same. One is just a close up or-- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If one has a non-turf buffer on it and one as an IA on it, but the other is lacking the other. ' MR. HAGAN: It should be all on one plan. If you have a piece on one and piece on the other--this is the one with the sanitary system and this is the one with the buffer is listed as traditional sanitary system. It doesn't have the hookups, it doesn't have the traditional septic rings. It's not matching up. And the one that actually has the IA system, that doesn't have the buffer has the box system that runs off the house and then leads to the septic. You want it all on one set of plans. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Very good. MR. KIMACK: If that's the wishes of the Board, the easier thing for me to do is get it from the architect and have her put the non-turf buffer on there, because I would get it a lot quicker than I can going to Nate Corwin. He's overwhelmed at that point. Is that the only concern of the Board? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just one clerical thing, if everyone doesn't mind using that podium, because that one currently is not plugged in, so the microphone is not working. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mr. Kimack, nomenclature being what it is, we are seeing an awful lot of them coming in over our desk. I don't know what is going on in other agencies, but we do see the IA/OWTS stamped on a preponderance of our applications. Just as a point of information. MR. KIMACK: It's easy enough to add the IA/OWTS. I just basically assumed that the OWTS was familiar to you in terms of what is used to describe the innovative alternative. Of course I can say denitrification system, which further identifies it, primarily. But if I understand, basically, then, I would go back to the architect and on the same sheet that has the IA system, primarily put on the non-turf buffer. Is that the only thing you would be looking for on that one? I think everything else is there. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I think we need to ask if there are other questions or comments from the Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have a question. The current foundation, is that a block foundation or a poured foundation? MR. KIMACK: Poured foundation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's certainly better, but this Board has seen time and time again where it's a demolition but they are going to reuse the existing foundation and the engineer to the project says the foundation is fine and then midway through the project they are demoing the foundation and pouring a new foundation. So it is definitely a concern for me. It's a steep bluff there. It's well vegetated, but we all know that can change overnight in one large storm. MR. KIMACK: They have a bulkhead down below, which helps. It's a hard toe on that particular one. And it's at the VE line, so it does stop a lot of the water. They are using the foundation, Board of Trustees 27 September 15, 2021 as a matter of fact, there is an extensive amount of inclusions within that foundation going downstairs that they are adding to. So I would not think, it's not just going to be for storage, but it's also a recreation room, kids, and a bathroom I think is going down there, along with the garage. So in essence I have to believe the architect, whoever we are talking about, went through that to make sure that what your situation is would not occur. Because they fully intend to use that to the fullest extent, then redo the first floor above that and add to the second floor above that, then have the additional to the side of the house and add an addition landward of the house, basically to increase the foyer area. And that one-foot kickoff of an overhang is not the foundation, but simply the kickoff for the porch. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll just say I'll leave you with this, and this is just one Trustee's opinion, but I believe you are somewhere in the ballpark of 34, 36 feet from the edge of bluff now. This is a large project for sure. I mean, I would recommend, again, just my opinion, that the house be pulled back at least to the 50-foot line. It's a very deep lot. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You might want to double check. A portion is not over a foundation. The Board has already experienced a catastrophic bluff down on Nassau Point. MR. KIMACK: Well, if you do your averaging, basically, which the Board has used before, in terms of that, the houses on both sides are closer to the top of the bluff than this one. The average. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I recognize that and agree. It's just not where I would build a new million-dollar home. MR. KIMACK: Except that a lot of those in the line along Nassau Point basically are fairly close to the top of the bluff. We can go up and down, essentially, like that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. MR. KIMACK: I think what is favoring them is they do have a bulkhead to keep the toe relative. If it was not there, I think the concern would be greater. It's a greater concern simply without that bulkhead in place. But they have not experienced any catastrophic loss of that slope since the bulkhead had been put in place I think 25 years ago. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think from our perspective if you cannot reuse that existing foundation, we would require it to move back and resubmit the application with a new set of plans. MR. KIMACK: If it please the Board, what I'll do, basically, is I'm also getting the non-turf buffer, I'll ask the architect and the structural engineer to send in a letter in terms of the integrity of that foundation. Because I think that is what you are looking for. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would certainly like to, if the rest of the Board is okay, is move forward with this and stipulate -- MR. HAGAN: With regard to that issue, that was addressed over to us, that if for some reason there was a replacement of Board of Trustees 28 September 15, 2021 foundation, because your plans are calling for reusing of the existing foundation, if there was somehow a replacement of the foundation or swapping of the current foundation for a new one you would either have to amend the permit, or if the situation arose after the closing of the permit where you found you have to replace the foundation, lift the house and then replace the foundation, that too would require a new permit. So it would not necessarily be a condition but it would be required under 275 MR. KIMACK: I think it would help the Board understanding, with more understanding, if I get the letter from the architect talking about the structural integrity of the foundation. If you feel that is appropriate. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Does anyone else wish to speak to this application? MR. FTHENAKIS. Good evening. My name is Vasilis Fthenakis. I am immediate neighbor to the property, north-side owner with my wife Christina, 6935 Nassau Point Road. I'm an environmental engineer, a professor at Columbia University emeritus, and researcher at Brookhaven National Lab. And I know that the bluff is very safe. I have actually done my own assessment. I have two other people doing assessments of the bluff. We have a very strong --we share the same bluff with Mr. Stronski. We have a very strong bulkhead. A nine-foot bulkhead. And the bluff is very, winter or summer, always vegetated, and very stable. And I would welcome this construction. It's a new house. And they are going to have a new house. It's good for the market, it's good for the neighborhood. So I'm here to strongly support this application TRUSTEE DOMINO: Does anyone else wish to speak to this application? (No response). Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to table this application at the applicant's request, subject to new plans showing an IA and non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 10, En-Consultants on behalf of MICHAEL P. &SUSAN CAVOUNIS requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing 1.5-story dwelling and appurtenances, and construct 27' farther landward a new two-story, 1,757 sq. ft. (footprint) single-family dwelling with 725 sq. ft. attached garage/mudroom (with 60 sq. ft. attached storage), a 195 sq. ft. sunroom with 35 sq. ft. deck and steps, a 108 sq. ft. front porch and steps, a 118 sq. ft. rear deck and steps, and 4'x14' basement stairs; construct 16'x34' swimming pool with 12" coping (equipped with saltwater filtration system), and 1,005 sq. ft. grade-level masonry pool patio; install 4' high pool enclosure fencing; remove existing non-conforming septic system and install a new IA/OWTS sanitary system at least 114' from Richmond Creek; Board of Trustees 29 September 15, 2021 install a drainage system of drywells to collect and recharge roof runoff and pool backwash; and to remove 16" tree located immediately seaward of proposed pool patio. Located: 3475 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-9 The Trustees recently visited the site on September 8th. All Trustees present. We noted that there was an error with a survey provided at the time of inspection that showed trees that had been removed. Other field notes show the project was straightforward. The LWRP found the action to be consistent. And the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application. There is a letter in the file from a neighbor, citing concerns of the pool fence blocking the viewshed. Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann, En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. We did look at this together during field inspections. This is a demo and reconstruction where the proposed dwelling structure is going to be located approximately 27 feet farther back from Richmond Creek than the existing structure. Essentially the house leapfrogs the existing house, moves closer to the road. There is a pool that is proposed on the water side that will be no closer to Richmond Creek than the seaward edge of the existing house. The site will be upgraded with an IA/OWTS innovative alternative sanitary system located outside Chapter 275 jurisdiction, approximately 114 feet from Richmond Creek. There is a proposed stormwater drainage system to collect and recharge roof runoff, and also drywell for the swimming pool. And the pool will be equipped with a saltwater filtration system. And there is a covenanted ten-foot wide non-turf buffer that was associated with a prior bulkhead permit that will have to be established upon completion both of the bulkhead reconstruction and this project. If the Board has any questions, I'm happy to respond. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anybody else here to speak to this application? SUSAN: Good evening, my name is Susan (inaudible). I'm representing the 2008 (inaudible) Revocable Trust. You did receive a letter from us. Our concerns are the four-foot fence that is running along the property line all the way down to the bulkhead. Right now my dad has been living in the house for over 40 years. We have a panoramic view of about 150 degrees of the creek and then you can look out into the bay. That fence will impede the view from the house and from the sunroom. This fence will also affect our property values. The other concern that we have is I think it sets a very dangerous precedent to have a fence running along property lines crossing the bulkhead. It sets up kind of a fortress-type atmosphere, I believe. It really diminishes the beauty of that area. The creek is just gorgeous. And to have property now that will be able to have a fence walling themselves off I think is Board of Trustees 30 September 15, 2021 very problematic. So I would ask that the Trustees consider amending this application to take that fence and put it around the pool, because that is its purpose, I assume for the safety of the pool, and I would really appreciate if our concerns were taken into consideration. The other issue we have is that the pool and patio is currently not 50 feet from the bulkhead, and just because the current structure was not, I heard in discussion here, that people are trying to say, oh, I don't have to comply because previous construction didn't. This is a new code and I think this home should also adhere to that. Thank you TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Thank you. Is there anybody else here that wishes to speak to this application? MR. STEIN: Yes, just as a reiteration, we did support the application but just with the condition that the pool is located a minimum of 50 feet from the bulkhead TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Thank you. Is there anybody else that wishes to speak to the application? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the current distance to the bulkhead from the pool? MR. HERRMANN: Do you want me to respond to that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. MR. HERRMANN: So the existing house is located 45 feet from the bulkhead, and the swimming pool would maintain that same setback of 45 feet. Just to speak to the prior comments. There was another, you recall there was another member of the family, the ownership next door, who had questioned us during field inspections about the fencing, and as I indicated to the Board at the time, the applicants are agreeable to using one of these blackish, ring mesh fences. This is a four-foot fence. I don't know if the Board recalls, but there is already vegetation that is running along the property line that is taller than four feet. And in terms of the viewshed, you are taking a house that is situated adjacent to the speaker's, and moving that mass back almost 30 feet. So the viewshed from that adjacent property will actually be much greater as a result of this project, because the house will actually be set back farther landward than either of the two houses on either side of it. And one of the reasons that the house is being moved back, basically with the IA system in the front as far as it can be moved back, is to allow for a swimming pool. And so the swimming pool being set at 45 versus 50 feet took into consideration two things: One, maintaining the existing setback that the house maintains, and also the fact to not move the pool landward to the point where it would then be determined by the Building Department to be in a side yard. Because then that would take on a variance process for having a pool in a side yard. So we tried to be consistent in terms of maintaining the wetland setbacks of the existing site. And if you look at the totality of this project, it is offering really Board of Trustees 31 September 15, 2021 substantial mitigation in the form of its design and the mitigation measures in terms of landward relocation of the dwelling structure. So again, the pool fence is shown as four-foot high on the plan, and it can be stipulated for the record, it can be a condition of the permit if the Board is concerned about it in terms of the visibility of the fence, but again, the fencing that will be there is going to be lower than the height of some of the vegetation that is already there. And of course it would be, you know, nothing stopping the applicant from coming in and screening that property line with much taller native vegetation with a permit from the Board. Which they don't have any intention to do. So we are hoping this is really a reasonable proposal not only with respect to Chapter 275 but in response to the concerns about the viewshed. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Gentlemen, any discussion? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would tend to agree with the stipulation of one of those invisible-type fences we are seeing more and more now, because I think they are a very reasonable compromise between the neighbor's view and protecting the property and the property rights. MR. HERRMANN: That's not a problem. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Damon, how would you word that? MR. HAGAN: Stipulate that it's a -- MR. HERRMANN: Four-foot high, mesh-style open. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Four-foot high open-mesh fence. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Anybody else? You can speak. SUSAN: Another comment. Part of their application also, I know they applied to replace the bulkhead. And that's, the bulkhead has been an issue for quite a few years. So, if they do a bulkhead, isn't the stipulation there should be no vegetation ten feet from the bulkhead? TRUSTEE WILLIAMS- They have an existing bulkhead permit in place on this file, and I believe that bulkhead permit does have a ten-foot non-turf buffer in place. So they held off on the bulkhead project to do it all at once as to minimize disturbance to the neighborhood and the neighbors. So it will be one project instead of two. SUSAN: So if it's going to be done, the total project, then it will be a ten-foot buffer from the bulkhead, so the vegetation he is also talking about, will also, a lot of it won't be there if it has to be removed, right? TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Well, non-turf is no grass. You can still plant native vegetation such as eastern red cedar. Right? MR. HAGAN: Since the non-turf buffer was on a previous permit it does not go on the application before the Board. SUSAN: Okay, and the 50 foot setback is not an issue? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to go ahead? TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Go ahead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Board typically strives for a 50-foot setback for as many structures as possible. Every application Board of Trustees 32 September 15, 2021 has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. In this particular case it's within five feet. We do take into account the current existing setback. We take into account is there a bluff or a bank there. Is there a non-turf buffer there. To be quite frank with you, something lie a pool in this case, which is saltwater and non-chlorinated is going to be more environmentally friendly than a turf/sod irrigated, heavily fertilized and sprayed lawn. So the Board takes all those different things into account. SUSAN: There will also be a patio around the pool. That's not a concern? TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Again, that's non-turf. Less turf, less fertilizer, less runoff into the creek. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: With something like a patio, which is a non-pervious structure, the Board's main concern is runoff across said patio down into the wetland. With a reasonable buffer here, and a non-steep slope leading to the bulkhead, that, at least for my opinion, makes it a non-threat environmentally. SUSAN: Okay. You talk about runoff, but people can apply pesticide to their lawn. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not in the rear yard, as per state DEC. And if you see someone apply pesticides you can contact En-Con officers at New York state DEC because that is New York state law. SUSAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any other questions, comments from the Board? (Negative response). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Motion to approve the application as submitted with two notations: One being referencing the new plans dated received 9/13/2021, due an error of non-existing trees on the original survey. And also stipulating the pool fence be no higher than four-feet high, and be maximize the viewshed as much as reasonably possible. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 11, En-Consultants on behalf of GEORGE W. ROCKLEIN requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing dock and construct farther from westerly property line a new dock consisting of a 4'x69' fixed timber catwalk constructed with open-grate decking, rope handrails, and two sets of 4'x6' steps for beach access; a 3'x16' aluminum ramp; and a 6'x20' floating dock situated in an "L" shape configuration and secured by two (2) 10" diameter pilings; to be accessed by a 4'x34' fixed timber stairway with one (1) 4'x6' platform; and to connect water and electricity to the dock. Located: 875 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-63-7-31.1 Board of Trustees 33 September 15, 2021 The Trustees conducted a field inspection September 8th, noting the application was straightforward, and if you check previous permit regarding the buffer. The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is a wetland permit for a dock structure was issued in 1988 authorizing access to public waters. The applicant is seeking authorization of an expansion of an as-built expansion of an as-built rocker, bench and dock structure that extends further 20 foot into public waters. The extension was constructed without the benefit of a Board of Review or a wetland permit. The CAC resolved to support the application with the condition the docking facility is not extend further seaward than the existing location. We do have plans stamped received August 5th, 2021, that shows neighboring docks on either side of this proposed location. And both of those docks are further seaward than the proposed dock in this application. Is there anyone here wishing to speak to this application? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. I can't speak to the permitting, I don't think I could actually find any permitting history for this dock, but in any event it's located very close to the west property line. The Board saw during field inspection extremely close to the dock to the west, and the catamaran that is docked on the east side of the dock to the west. So this would more center the dock. It would the float in deeper water and still actually be set well inside the pier line of the adjoining docks of Town Creek. So it really is a straightforward application. It complies in all ways with the Town docks standards as set forth in Chapter 275. We hope the Board will find it approvable as proposed. One on the point, I did look per our discussion for prior permits and buffers. I didn't see any buffers on the prior permits but as we talked briefly about during field inspections there is a conceptual design in the works to try to do some kind of planting restoration, both in connection with the shoreline stabilization and with some of the invasives on the bank, so it might be more appropriate to save the buffer establishment for when we come in for that part of the work as opposed to in connection with the dock. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH- Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (No response). Any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I make a motion to approve this application as submitted, and thereby giving it a permit will bring it into consistency with Board of Trustees 34 September 15, 2021 the LWRP. That is my motion TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 12, En-Consultants on behalf of OLD SALT VENTURES, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place existing ±35' timber low-profile groin with a vinyl low-profile groin. Located: 670 Old Salt Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-144-5-13 The Trustees most recently visited this property on the 8th of September, and noted that they were going to, or we would like to wait to table for the DEC to come forward with their permit. I since have been informed there is a DEC permit for this application as written. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants. Nick, as you just noticed, a permit was issued by the New York state DEC on August 25th. This is a functional, low profile timber groin, and it will be replaced with the same design, same elevation below the top of the bulkhead as the existing groin, but with vinyl sheathing. Very straightforward. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anyone else here wish to speak regarding this application, or any comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 13, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of D. CANNIZZARO QRPT & B. MILTAKIS QRPT, c/o JOHN MILTAKIS, TRUSTEE requests a Wetland Permit to dredge a total of 40 cubic yards of spoils surrounding existing floating dock to a depth of 4' below mean low water and placement into sealed containers and delivered to an approved upland landfill. Located: 1460 Strohson Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-10-29.1 The Conservation Advisory Council has supported the application with a question about the existing walkway and the lack of proper drainage to the property. The Board did review the application on our inspection August 10th, and initially started discussion that we should Board of Trustees 35 September 15, 2021 probably wait for a DEC approval. And that the Board has great concerns concerning dredging water adjacent to the dock where almost all the water seaward of it are at essentially flat around two-and-a-half feet. So the benefit and utility of this was in question. The Board again reviewed the application on September 8th during field inspection, indicated we would discuss it further at work session. Again the discussion ensued on Monday night September 13th, considering the need and utility of this project where the marine survey submitted shows water depths seaward of the dock, you know, where the existing depths are two-and-three-quarter feet, 2.88 feet going four feet below mean low water barely gives a little more than a foot of depth, but then continuing seaward is a 2.53 and 2.50. The LWRP coordinator indicated that it is consistent. Is there anyone who wishes to speak to this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. We don't have a DEC permit yet for the project. Currently they had asked the same questions that you had asked; what the purpose of this is. And it's purely for the fact of docking the boat. A larger boat. If he does choose to get a sailboat, which he indicated he may do, with a keel which would extend down or even more of a docking depth during the extreme lows. As you saw on there, there is not sufficient water depth for a normal docking. It's say 2.7, 2.33, 2.88. It's still relatively shallow and on the extreme lows he's worried about his boat hitting bottom during extremely low tide. That's the sole purpose of this project. It's purely for docking. He is completely realistic to the fact that he's not going to be able to leave if it's dead low tide because if he gets larger boat he won't be able to get it out. If they are consistent across the board as indicated, 2.5, 2.6, 2.4, 2.5. So it's the knowledge that he knows that he'll have tidal times to come and go with his boat. But it's purely for the docking aspect. It's not to disrupt the bottom from his boat during extreme low tides and storms. End of story. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Understanding that this creek had a history of dredge operations. If this was a creek without a history of dredge operations it would not be consistent. The other concern I have is, I mean, you have been around, everybody on this Board has been around. They don't call it Mud Creek for nothing. It's very plastic and it flows an awful lot. If he's got a deep-keel sailboat, you know, granted it won't work good for him, given the right storm, he'll have mud set around his keel. He couldn't go anywhere. MR. PATANJO: And to avoid disruption with the mud, which creates all pollutants and captures all the runoff. You know the story. It's, the whole purpose of this is to, obviously docking so the boat is not bouncing off the bottom during those moon tides. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll be honest with you. I don't have a problem with this. I'm almost certain it's not going to work long-term. I Board of Trustees 36 September 15, 2021 mean it could be a month, it could be a year, but I probably would rather table for DEC, for me personally. MR. PATANJO: Sure. Table at the request of the applicant for the DEC. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If you are agreeable. MR. PATANJO: Sure. Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else wish to speak to this application? (No response). I apologize. There is a letter in the file. The Board is aware there is a letter in the file and we had reviewed it. I apologize. It doesn't come to my immediate attention right now, but we had seen the letter. Okay, seeing no further comments, I make a motion to table this application for the submission of Department of Environmental Conservation permit. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 14, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of DANIEL & AMY LEBLOND requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 59 linear feet of existing timber jetty with new vinyl jetty in same location as existing. Located: 2828 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-128-6-22 I'm in receipt of a September 13th letter from Mr. Patanjo with a revised project description, which I'll read right now into the record. The project includes removal and replacement of two existing timber jetties; one 36 linear feet and one 23 linear feet, with the new vinyl jetty in the same location as the existing. Total length of the jetty replacement is 59 linear feet and maximum height above existing sand bottom will be 18 inches. This is located at 2828 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard in Laurel, SCTM# 1000-28-6-21. Trustees did a field inspection on this site September 8th, 2:50 in the afternoon, all were present. The notes read: Wait for DEC. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. And the Conservation Advisory Council voted unanimously to support the application. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of the applicant, and I did forward you a copy of the DEC permit, which is approved as per the proposed plan which is submitted to the Board of Trustees. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you. I have a question for you, sir. MR. PATANJO: Yes. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can we infer that -- in the description you stated it would be in the same location. Can we infer that means the jetties will be at the same elevation from the top of the bulkhead? Board of Trustees 37 September 15, 2021 MR. PATANJO: No. They would be 18 inches above existing sand. That's the DEC's requirements that we've done in the past. So if you take the existing sand elevation, no more than 18 inches above that. So if the sand is lower than 18 inches on the existing jetty, we'll come up 18 inches. So if the bulkhead, say the bulkhead is at elevation five. The jetty, top of the jetty is elevation three. That is a two-foot spread. And I know it's deeper than that. If the sand is down at elevation one, we are going to actually lower the jetty to only go 18 inches above the sand. It depends where the sand is. And as you know, sand changes seasonally. So we'll go wherever seasonally it is at the time of installation to 18 inches above. That's a DEC requirement and that's one of their stipulations for the approval. So wherever it currently is at the time of installation, 18 inches taller. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Speaking for myself, that's problematic, usually we require a benchmark so we know it's being put back in the same position. MR. PATANJO: If you want to make a stipulation, we can absolutely put it back in the same location, which presumably could be higher than where it is now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You had me until the last statement. MR. PATANJO: Yes, me too. That makes three of us. The elevation right now, if I remember correctly, and I have photos so I could remember it a lot better. Right now it's sticking out of the ground at about, I would say 12 to 18 inches. So we can make a stipulation that, and this could have changed because these photos were taken probably 7/21 so it is two months ago. Absolutely, it's going to be no more than 18 inches or no more than the existing height of elevation based on the existing bulkhead height. We can absolutely, that's approvable, by me, obviously. But a condition to a permit. TRUSTEE DOMINO: So the answer to my question is yes. MR. PATANJO: Yes. MR. HAGAN: So the restriction of the DEC permit is you can't go higher than 18 inches. MR. PATANJO: 18 inches above existing grade. Or no higher than the existing elevation of the existing jetty. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right. Are there any other questions or comment from the Board? (Negative response). Anyone else wish to speak to this application? MR. LEBLOND: I do. I'm Dan Leblond. And the stipulation that it can't go higher than it currently exists, that's totally fine. That makes sense. We would not want it higher than it exists. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments? (No response). I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? Board of Trustees 38 September 15, 2021 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve the application according to the new project description and in concordance with Jeff Patanjo plans dated 7/5/21, stamped received July 12th, 2021, with the stipulation that the jetties be no higher than the elevation of the existing jetties. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 15, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of PAUL YAU & MELISSA HOBLEY requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 50 linear feet of existing timber jetty with new vinyl jetty in same location as existing Located: 2826 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-128-6-21 The Trustees visited the site September 8th, 2021. All Trustees were present. Field notes state wait for DEC. LWRP found this proposed action to be consistent. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. Our office received a new written project description on September 13th, 2021. The new description is: The project includes the removal and replacement of two existing 25-linear foot timber jetties with new vinyl jetty in same location as existing. Total length of jetty replacement is 50 linear foot, and maximum height above existing sand will be 18 inches. Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. Similar to the previous application of 2828 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, it is the same type of project, and we do have a DEC permit which is transmitted to the Board of Trustees. And we would like to indicate that the existing jetty, the proposed replacement jetties, will be placed no higher than the existing top elevation of the jetties. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Thank you. Any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Anybody else here that wishes to speak to this application? (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, noting the new written description which was received in our office on September 13th, 2021, and plans received in our office July 12th, 2021, with the stipulation that the new jetty be no higher in height than the jetty that is in place now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 39 September 15, 2021 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 16, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ANTHONY & BEATRICE FALCONE requests a Wetland Permit to install a proposed 4'x6' cantilevered platform off of bulkhead; a 30" wide by 14' long aluminum ramp; and a 6'x20' floating dock supported with two (2) 10" diameter CCA piles and situated parallel to the bulkhead. Located: 405 Williamsberg Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-17 The Trustees conducted a field inspection September 8th, noting concerns about impeding navigation of the channel, and about a possible bulkhead cutout. The LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. And we did receive new plans dated September 7th, 2021, stamped received September 13th, 2021, as well as a revised project description which I'll now read: Proposed project includes the installation of a 4'x5' platform; 30"wide by 14' long aluminum ramp and a 5'x20' floating dock supported with two 10" diameter CCA piles. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. And in front of you are revised plans based on comments presented by the New York DEC. They had a similar concern of the width of the waterway. Their rule is no more than 25% of the waterway, which we meet by .6 feet, based on the revised plan. I would like to gather any comments that you may have so I can address them, if you will, prior to me tabling, so I can gather-- because the DEC has not approved this project yet. Ultimately I'm going to table for revisions, if needed. But I would like to ask your comments prior to doing that so I can address everything at the same time. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So one question we have is the size of the vessel and beam that is proposed. MR. PATANJO: Okay. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And we had also discussed, and I think we have done it before on other applications, and this may be appropriate, and I think it happened right across the creek, of a cut out into that bulkhead. MR. PATANJO: Correct. I did that for 225, yes. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because it is right up on that third and there is some larger vessels further down the creek. So it may be more appropriate if you could corporate a cutout in there, for that boat, further landward, I guess. I believe that's all the comments I had. Because it is kind of a choke point in this channel. It does open up further down you get but right, unfortunately where you are proposing it, is probably the most narrow point. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is nowhere to go there, yes. MR. PATANJO: Now, the Trustees, as I understand, the Trustee requirement is no more than one-third of the width, correct? Board of Trustees 40 September 15, 2021 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Correct MR. PATANJO: So right now, and this is just for record stuff, I'm showing a 55' wide channel, I should say. I do understand from calls that I received from some neighbors who live right near there, it does tighten up considerably in this area. However, looking at what we are going to do with the eight-and-a-half, eight-foot beam boat with the separation of a 5' wide dock and separation from the existing bulkhead, we still meet that one-quarter rule, which is the DEC's rule, which goes from say high water to low water to low water, which is along the bulkhead face, and the low water of the other side of the canal. So in respect to Chapter 275 and your one-third rule, we meet the one-third rule. However the water depth, understandably, we didn't do --we did a water depth survey, we didn't go across the entire creek. We could go back if needed and do a water depth survey of additional area, but at this point, I would, I'm going to wait for- I'll request tabling this for the DEC's comments until we come back in front of the Board and I will transmit a DEC permit or make revisions based on the DEC comments at that time. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I dust two thoughts. One is personal observations covering that area for a number of years. I grew up as a kid down there. The opening of that cut faces southwest. That works really hard on southwest winds. So, I mean, it's within the owner's wherewithal to consider the cutout would be advisable. The other thing, depending on the beam of the boat, where we typically, the Board doesn't typically limit, as a practicality, limit the beam of a boat to a permit. The thought might be depending on what comes down and what the Board considers in the future, instead of large fenders, incorporate bumpers or fenders that are built right into the floating dock for the limiting, you know, the beaminess, if you will, and also because there is a commercial shellfishing operation immediately to the east that has to get a FLUPSY there. There is, obviously they are working hard and they want to get in and out for their operations, so -- MR. PATANJO: And that's one of the models that I did. I didn't present that to you, but the model that I did, which was from aerial photography shows this proposed five foot wide floating dock and eight and half foot beam boat which is up against the float, with the knowledge that it's going to be tucked up tight with bumpers on it and the gunnel swings down a little bit, obvious. It's no further projection into the channel or away from the bulkhead as the barge or barge or barge and the big 39-foot Sea Ray, whatever it is, it's in a straight line. So you have the bulkhead and you have a straight line. So it's no further projection out into the channel. Understood the choke point, but still no further projection than neighboring vessels. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: One of our concerns if you put a 39-foot boat Board of Trustees 41 September 15, 2021 this dock with bumpers on it, you would be over a third of the way. MR. PATANJO: No, that's not going to happen. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you have a couple of tuna balls and a spring line and someone who is not tying a boat up tight, it would get hairy. Especially if you have somebody across the creek decide to put a boat. You know, it could get hairy fast there. I think that's where we are coming from. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wish to speak to this application? (No response). Any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table the application at the applicant's request. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Can we take a brief recess? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sure. (After a brief recess, these proceedings continue as follows). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We are back on the record. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 17, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of RICHARD R. & BERNICE F. VANDERBEEK TRUST, c/o RICHARD R. VANDERBEEK, JR., PAUL B. VANDERBEEK, & BRADFORD C. VANDERBEEK, TRUSTEES requests a Wetland Permit for existing 50.0' long concrete seawall; 54 sq. ft. wood steps; and 107.1 sq. ft. wood/composite deck at the top of the existing bank. Located: 1150 Ruch Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-2-35 The Trustees most recently visited this property on the 8th of September and noted the project appeared straightforward. The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies are due to the as-built structures were constructed without Board of Trustees review or permit. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding the Application? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Robert Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, on behalf of the applicant, here to answer any questions the Board may have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there any anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). Any additional comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 42 September 15, 2021 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make motion to approve the application thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP coordinator. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 18, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of STEVEN GUDDAT & TORREY ACRI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 229 sq. ft. addition onto existing 2,118 sq. ft. two-story dwelling with attached garage; construct a 1,673 sq. ft. addition to existing deck; install a 744 sq. ft. swimming pool; install a 211 sq. ft. cabana/pool house; and to construct a 749 sq. ft. detached garage and parking areas thereon. Located: 36581 County Road 48, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-68-4-23 This application is supported by the Conservation Advisory Council with the request that best management practices be employed. The LWRP coordinator indicated this project is consistent with the LWRP, noting that the applicant and owner should be aware that because it's a kettle hole pond it might expand with rainfall. The Board did see a natural buffer there to which was added additional plans. The Board had requested on field inspection that a ten-foot non-turf buffer around the pond would be appropriate, and in accordance with our request Suffolk Environmental Consulting very nicely submitted a set of plans showing a ten-foot non-turf buffer stamped received in the Trustee office September 13th. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. ANDERSON: Robert Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of the applicant, here to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions from the Board? (Negative response). Anyone else wish to speak on this application? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted in accord with the plans submitted in the Trustee office September 13th, 2021. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 19, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of PETER & ELAINE PSYLLOS requests a Wetland Permit for an as-built 44.0 linear foot long southerly retaining wall and a 36.0 linear foot long easterly retaining wall along Board of Trustees 43 September 15, 2021 edges of pool patio; and for the as-built shed on a 7.5'x5.5' wood platform along the outside of the northeast corner of existing pool fence. Located: 2886 Ruth Road Extension, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-105-2-1 The Trustees conducted a field inspection on this site on September 8th, at 3:10 in the afternoon and noted that the project seemed to be straightforward. All were in attendance. The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency arises from the fact that the structures were constructed without Trustee review or permit. Wetland permit#9211 was issued for the pool and a 55-foot retaining wall in 2018. The Conservation Advisory Council voted unanimously to support this application. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Robert Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of the applicant, here to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, Robert. Any questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application? (No response). Hearing no questions or comments, 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 in accordance with Suffolk Environmental Consulting plans detailed July 30th, 2021, stamped received August 4th, 2021, thereby bringing it into compliance with the LWRP. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 20, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of CATHERINE CAHILL requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 1,824.8 sq. ft. two-story dwelling with existing 289.96 sq. ft. seaward side deck and a 54.0 sq. ft. second-floor deck, and to construct additions to the dwelling consisting of a 416.5 sq. ft. addition on the northerly corner; construct a 108.6 sq. ft. addition on the easterly corner; construct a 140.4 sq. ft. addition on southerly corner; construct a 194.0 sq. ft. porch along the landward side of the existing dwelling; partially replace ±960 sq. ft. of asphalt driveway with gravel; and install an IA/OWTS septic system. Located: 495 Bayview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-5-23 The Trustees visited the site on September 8th, 2021. All Trustees were present. Field notes, add gutters to leaders to drywells to the plan. Non-disturbance of existing vegetation and Board of Trustees 44 September 15, 2021 a ten-foot non-turf buffer. The LWRP program coordinator found this proposed action to be consistent. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with the note that the driveway is replaced with pervious materials. Is there anybody here that wishes to --there are new plans stamped received 9/9/2021, showing a ten-foot non-turf buffer, that we received. Anybody here wish to speak to this application? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Robert Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of the applicant. I'm here to answer any questions the Board may have. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I didn't see on the plans gutters to leaders to drywells. Would you be okay if I made a stipulation to the permit? MR. ANDERSON: More than okay, yes. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any other questions from the Board? (Negative response). Anyone else wish to speak to this application? (No response). I 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, referencing the new plans that were received in our office September 9th, 2021, with the stipulation that the proposed structure would have gutters to leaders to drywells. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 21, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of JAMES D. &VICKY VAVAS requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing dwelling and construct a new 1,400 sq. ft. two-story, single family dwelling further landward than the existing dwelling with a 15'x20' (300 sq. ft.) attached garage; construct a 200 sq. ft. landward porch; construct a 7.5'x22' (165.0 sq. ft.) seaward side deck; and to install a new IA/OWTS septic system. Located: 3165 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-6-7 The Trustees conducted field inspections September 8th, noting the need to delineate the non-turf'buffer on the plans. We did receive a survey stamped received September 9th, 2021, that do show the previously-conditioned eight-foot wide non-turf buffer. The LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application. Board of Trustees 45 September 15, 2021 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Robert Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of the applicant, here to answer any questions TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I just have one question for you, Robert. You guys were able to engineer an IA system on this property with the new house and garage located at 3165 Bayshore Road, Greenport? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, we were able to. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Any other questions, anybody else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (No response). Any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 22, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of KATHLEEN FOLEY requests a Wetland Permit for the existing approximately 1,623.5 sq. ft. one-story dwelling with attached garage; and to demolish/convert the existing three season room into a 240 sq. ft. single story addition on the seaward side of the dwelling Located: 500 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-23 The Trustees recently visited the property on the 8th of September and noted that hold for project plans. 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 the application? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Robert Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of the applicant, here to answer any questions the Board may have. I do believe we had submitted revised plans showing the full scope of the project. If there are any questions regarding those plans as far as the non-disturbance or anything related thereto, I'm happy to answer them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak regarding this application or any additional commentary from the Board? (Negative response). I believe aside from lacking official plans for the project that at the time of field inspection, that the Board found it to be a fairly straightforward application. Okay, hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close Board of Trustees 46 September 15, 2021 the hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you for your time this evening. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You too. Have a great evening, Robert. ACTION PENDING CLASSIFICATION: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Action Pending Classification, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of MIKHAIL RAKHMANINE & JENNIFER V. RAKHMANINE REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing timber bulkhead and replace with 131 linear feet of new vinyl bulkhead in same general location and raise the height an additional 18" above existing top cap elevation; a total of 45 cubic yards of clean sand fill will be placed landward of the proposed bulkhead and utilized as fill due to raised height of bulkhead; construct a proposed 4' wide by 48' long fixed pier utilizing Thru-Flow decking over wetlands and non-treated timber decking on remainder which will lead to a 30" wide by 14' long aluminum ramp and a 6' wide by 20' long floating dock with un-treated decking, supported with tow (2) 10" diameter CCA piles, situated in an "I" configuration; a 35'x24' dredging area surrounding the proposed floating dock will be dredged to a depth of 36" below mean low water removing a total of 65 cubic yards of spoils which will be removed from the site to an approved upland location; and for a proposed 10' wide non-turf buffer to be installed and perpetually maintained along the landward edge of the proposed bulkhead and consist of beach sand, mulch or pea gravel. Located: 685 Bungalow Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-3-9 The Trustees conducted a field inspection January 28th, 2021, noting the project was not staked; noting there was a history of dredging in the area, and a probable location for a fixed dock. The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies are the applicant has not demonstrated that the following dock standards pursuant to Chapter 275-11 construction operation standards have been met. Although the parcel has a previously-permitted dock, the shallow water depth in the area promotes bottom scarring and turbidity. Evidence of bottom scarring shown on the 2021 aerial photograph. Dredging a basin at the end of the dock will not address the shallow water depth to and from the dock. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support the application. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application to harden the shoreline and recommends coir logs and vegetated buffer and through-flow decking on ramp and dock. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? (No response). Any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). So we are waiting for lead agency status regarding this application. We will also request the long form EAF. So hearing no further comments, I make a motion to table Board of Trustees 47 September 15, 2021 this application for pending lead agency status as well as submission of the long form EAF. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH. All in favor? (ALL AYES). RESOLUTIONS - OTHER: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Resolutions - Other, number 1, RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees for the Town of Southold, being aware of the conditions at the crossing of Bay Avenue at Marion Lake in East Marion and the current environmental impacts of the same, hereby consents to the proposed drainage, revitalization and dredging project located on Bay Avenue at Marion Lake in East Marion, and authorizes and directs to any further applications be made to facilitate said proposed project. That is my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (Trustee Goldsmith, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Krupski, aye Trustee Williams, aye). (Trustee Domino, nay). TRUSTEE DOMINO: NAY TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees for the Town of Southold will hold a hearing pursuant to Section 275-3.1 F of the Town Code of the Town of Southold regarding the Coastal Contractor's License of Costello Marine based on a conviction for a violation of Section 275-5 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold at Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, on the 20th day of October, 2021 at 5:31 p.m. at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard That is my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER. Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? RECEIVED (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to adjourn. 6A Cv 10;Ilt�n� TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. CT 2 5 2(�1 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (� (ALL AYES). MS. CANTRELL: The meeting is over, have a good night. Sou old Town Clerk Xc tfullyubmitted by, 4A"x Glenn Goldsmith, President Board of Trustees