HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-10/20/2021 Glenn Goldsmith,President ® of S®�,�®� Town Hall Annex
A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice President e` ® 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
John M. Bredemeyer III Southold,New York 11971
Michael J.Domino - Telephone(631) 765-1892
Greg Williams °® Fax(631) 765-6641
,y
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES a
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD L
A
NOV 1 7 202�i@aP .
-
Minutes C441ea a
S thold Town'Clerk
Wednesday, October 20, 2021
5:30 PM
Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President
Michael J. Domino, Trustee
John M. Bredemeyer, Trustee
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Greg Williams, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist
Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Good evening, and welcome to our Wednesday
October 20th, 2021 meeting. At this time I would like to call the meeting to
order and ask that you please rise for the pledge of allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll start off by announcing people the dais.
To my left we have Trustee Krupski, Trustee Domino, Trustee Bredemeyer
and Trustee Williams. To my right we have Assistant Town Attorney Damon
Hagan and Senior Clerk Typist Elizabeth Cantrell. We also have with us tonight
court stenographer Wayne Galante.
Agendas for tonight's meeting are posted on the Town's website and also
in the hallway out front.
We do have a number of postponements tonight. In the agenda, on page 11,
we have number 3, Michael Kimack on behalf of JOHN & CARRIE MULLINS requests
a Coastal Erosion Permit for the disturbance seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard
Area Line (CERA) of an area of 2,124 sq. ft. from the CEHA line to the silt
fence depicted on the site plan; the disturbed area is to accommodate construction
activities for the proposed dwelling and to provide an area for the placement of
in-ground sewage disposal pools (in-ground structures), made necessary to meet
the Department of Health's required 150 ft. separation from the well.
Upon completion, the disturbed area will be revegetated and the existing path to
beach narrowed from eight (8) feet to four (4) feet in width.
Located: 905 Stephenson Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-17-1-2.2, has been postponed.
On page 17, we have number 21, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
Board of Trustees 2 October 20, 2021
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, has been postponed.
On pages 18 and 19, we have the following:
Number 22, OLE JULE DREDGE COMPANY, LLC, c/o MARK DAVIS
requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to dredge a
navigable channel 20'x650' to -4 ALW; the resultant dredge spoil to be loaded by
barge to property of Davis for dewatering/testing and trucked to an approved landfill.
Located: Canal within James Creek, 1570, 1700, & 1780 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck.
SCTM# 1000-122-4-44.8, 1000-122-4-3, 1000-122-4-4, 1000-122-4-5
Number 23, Jennifer Wicks on behalf of JERRY IOVENO requests a Wetland Permit
to construct a proposed 5x10' porch; a proposed 4'10"x7'4" porch extension; a proposed
1'4 Y2" x ±25' first floor extension; and a proposed 19'x10'8" second story extension.
Located: 1320 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-14-19
Number 24, John D. Rosebery, Architect on behalf of ANDREA COURT PROPERTY
HOLDINGS, LLC, c/o JOHN ZENK requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing
one-story dwelling; construct new two-story (60'x45' irregular shape) dwelling with a
20'x54' deck to rear with a 10'x30', 4' depth swimming pool within; proposed
dwelling is a total of a 3,567sq.ft. Footprint with four(4) bedrooms; and to abandon
existing sanitary system and install a new IA/OWTS sanitary system.
Located: 280 Cedar Point Drive E., Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-2-14.1
Number 25, MARYELLEN DUGAN & DAVID WAGNER request a Wetland
Permit for the as-built addition of several yards of topsoil, elimination of eroded areas,
re-grading, and re-seeding of the existing lawn area on seaward side of property that
was poorly maintained and overrun with weeds and eroded areas; as-built
sitting area consisting of a three-sided timber wall with a maximum height of 18" on the
west side, backfilled with topsoil and covered in mulch; proposed to possibly remove
mulch and install coarse gravel into sitting area; propose to revegetate
with native species in an area approximately 20' from the landward edge of tidal
wetlands; maintain and cover it with gravel the 4' wide path through the native vegetation;
propose to construct a ±4'x±5' PVC outdoor shower with a 3' gate and be
7' in height with the floor of the outdoor shower to consist of coarse gravel added to a
depth of±2'; install proposer valves and drains for the piping for winter shut-off.
Located: 1400 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-110-1-4
Number 26, 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.
Board of Trustees 3 October 20, 2021
Located: 405 Williamsberg Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-17
Number 27, 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 28, 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 29, Michael Kimack on behalf of MARIA H. PILE requests a Wetland
'Permit to construct a 36.0'x34.7' (1,249.2 sq. ft.) two-story dwelling on foundation in
accordance with FEMA standards for a AE zone; and a pervious driveway.
Located: 420 Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-1-21.2
Those have all been postponed and won't be heard tonight.
Under Town Code Chapter 275-8(c) files officially closed seven days ago.
Submission of any paperwork after that date may result in a delay of the processing of
the application.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I will make a motion to hold our next field
inspection on Tuesday, November 9th, 2021, at 8:00 AM
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next Trustee meeting on
Wednesday, November 17, 2021, at 5:30 PM at the Town Hall main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
III. WORK SESSIONS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to hold our next work session Monday,
November 15th, 2021, at 5:00 PM, at the Town Hall annex, 2nd floor executive
conference room, and on Wednesday, November 17th, 2021, at 5:00 PM in the Town
Hall main meeting hall and via Zoom online platform.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 4 October 20, 2021
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I will make a motion to approve the Minutes
of the September 15th, 2021, meeting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral V, Monthly Reports, the
Trustees monthly report for September 2021, a check for$9,404.70 was forwarded
to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
VI. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin
board for review.
VII. RESOLUTIONS - OTHER:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VII, Resolutions Other, I'll make a
motion to approve as a group items one, two, three and four. 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 MIKHAIL RAKHMANINE & JENNIFER V. RAKHMANINE
REVOCABLE TRUST.
Located: 685 Bungalow Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-3-9
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 CONKLING ADVISORS, LLC.
Located: 1760 Sage Boulevard, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-57-1-38.3
Number 3, RESOLVED, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold, pursuant to
the State Environmental Quality Review Act, hereby declare itself Lead Agency in regards
to the application of DOUGLAS R. & LESLIE HIRSCH.
Located: 5028 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-10-2
Number 4, 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 PEQUOT POINT, LLC, c/o ERIK WALDIN.
Located: 2875 Castle Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-5-2-10.12
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Vlll. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VIII,
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, October 20, 2021 are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
Board of Trustees 5 October 20, 2021
SEQRA.
Pat J. lavarone SCTM# 1000-110-7-3
J. Geddes Parsons SCTM# 1000-10-9-3.1
Christine Carbia-Andriotis SCTM# 1000-79-1-4
L78, LLC, c/o Jonathan Lewis SCTM# 1000-104-7-9.1
Founders Landing Boatyard, LLC SCTM# 1000-64-3-10 & 1000-64-3-11
SHM Greenport, LLC, D/B/A Safe Harbor Stirling SCTM# 1000-36-1-1
SHM Greenport, LLC, D/B/A Safe Harbor Greenport SCTM# 1000-43-3-2
Brent Pelton &Alex Vinash SCTM# 1000-56-7-19
Lefkara Holdings, LLC, c/o Neofitos Stefanides SCTM# 1000-30-2-77
Lawrence Kaplan & Denise Blesi-Kaplan SCTM# 1000-70-4-45.3
Ronald J. & Mary Jane Sanchez SCTM# 1000-145-3-9.1
Douglas & Leslie Hirsch SCTM# 1000-115-10-2
Andres Zoitas SCTM# 1000-14-2-3.15
Ronald & Mary Sanchez SCTM# 1000-145-3-9.1
Henry Hintze, Lynn McMahon & Marie Basile SCTM# 1000-53-1-15
Neil Stronski 7 Patti Perez SCTM# 1000-111-15-10
Andrew Grover& Daniel Mazzarini SCTM# 1000-21-5-8
Mazi Holdings, LLC SCTM# 1000-99-3-13
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the
Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described
in Section XIII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday,
October 20, 2021, are classified as Unlisted Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and
Regulations.
Mikhail Rakhmanine & Jennifer V. Rakhmanine Revocable Trust
SCTM# 1000-123-3-9
Conkling Advisors, LLC SCTM# 1000-57-1-38.3
Douglas & Leslie Hirsch SCTM# 1000-115-10-2
Pequot Point, LLC, c/o Erik Waldin SCTM# 1000-5-2-10.12
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: 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, number 1:
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: 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
Board of Trustees 6 October 20, 2021
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
50lb/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 sitting, 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-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
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
John Minto, L.S. dated March 11, 2021, and having considered the plans for this
proposed project submitted by Nelson, Pope &Voorhis, LLC dated July 19, 2021 at the
Trustee's October 18, 2021 work session; and,
WHEREAS, on October 20, 2021 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself
Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, on October 20, 2021 the Southold Town Board of Trustees classified the
application as an unlisted action under S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, in reviewing project plans submitted by Nelson, Pope &Voorhis, LLC dated
July 19, 2021, it has been determined by the Board of Trustees that all potentially
significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein:
Vegetative, non-structural measures are not capable of stabilizing the erosion of
the bank alone.
Protection of the toe of bank using hardened structures including rock revetment
Board of Trustees 7 October 20, 2021
is necessary.
As time progresses, continued soil loss at the toe of the bank may lead to habitat
degradation and bank instability.
A site inspection by the Southold Town Board of Trustees recognized erosion on
this property and the need for a bank stabilization/erosion control plan.
THEREFORE, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees
Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to
SEQRA for the aforementioned project.
So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2,
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: 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 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
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
Kenneth M. Woychuk Land Surveying, PLLC dated May 6, 2021, and having considered
the plans for this proposed project submitted by En-Consultants last dated August 26, 2021,
at the Trustee's October 18, 2021, work session; and,
WHEREAS, on October 20, 2021 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself
Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, on October 20, 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 August 26, 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.
Board of Trustees 8 October 20, 2021
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. So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: J.M.O.
Environmental Consulting on behalf of PEQUOT POINT, LLC, c/o ERIK WALDIN
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to stabilize approximately
460' of slope by removing and storing existing boulders; excavating a 460'x15' area
by 3'; installing geotextile fabric; installing a crushed rock filter layer utilizing 3" diameter
stone; installing boulders (minimum diameter 2' on a 2:1 slope); install native material
fill and plant disturbed slope with native shrubs (rosa rugosa and bayberry), and grasses;
and at end of construction repair the existing path to beach and install steps in rock slope
to the beach.
Located: 2875 Castle Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-5-2-10.12
S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with this project having
visited the site on August 8, 2018, and having considered the survey of property by CME
Associates Engineering, Land Surveying &Architecture, PLLC dated August 24, 2018,
and having considered the plans for this proposed project submitted by CME Associates
Engineering, Land Surveying &Architecture, PLLC dated August 24, 2018 at the
Trustee's October 18, 2021 work session, and.
WHEREAS, on October 20, 2021 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself
Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and,
WHEREAS, on October 20, 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 CME Associates Engineering, Land
Surveying &Architecture, PLLC dated August 24, 2018 it has been determined by the
Board of Trustees that all potentially significant environmental concerns have been
addressed as noted herein:
Vegetative, non-structural measures are not capable of stabilizing the erosion of
the bluff alone.
Protection of the toe of bluff using hardened structures including rock revetment
is necessary.
No existing rocks or boulders are to be utilized, moved, or relocated-on the beach.
As time progresses, continued soil loss at the toe of the bluff may lead to habitat
degradation and bluff instability.
A site inspection by the Southold Town Board of Trustees recognized erosion on
this property and the need for a bluff stabilization/erosion control plan.
THEREFORE, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees
Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to
SEQRA for the aforementioned project. So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
Board of Trustees 9 October 20, 2021
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
X. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral X, Resolutions Administrative Permits,
the Trustees regularly groups items that are similar or minor in nature. As such, I make a
motion to approve as a group items 1 and 3 through 5. They are listed as follows:
Number 1, Isaac Clay Coffey on behalf of DAVID & ELAYNA KAPLAN requests
an Administrative Permit for an exterior renovation that will replace deteriorating parts of
the home, including exterior siding, windows and doors; a proposed addition of 410 sq. ft.
of wooden decking comprised of the following areas: 48 sq. ft. front entry deck on the
eastern side of house; 60 sq. ft. decking on the south side of house; and 266 sq. ft. deck
surrounding 40 sq. ft. hot tub, along with a 36 sq. ft. outdoor shower on the western side of
the house.
Located: 1700 Inlet Way, Southold. SCTM# 1000-92-1-7
Number 3, 2500 GRATHWOHL RD LLC requests a Ten (10) Year Maintenance
Permit to hand-cut Common Reed (Phragmites australis) to 12" in height by hand, as
needed and to remove poison ivy.
Located: 2455 Grathwohl Road, New Suffolk SCTM# 1000-117-1-3
Number 4, Sheri Winter Parker on behalf of N&L PROPERTIES LP requests an
Administrative Permit to clear an approximate 4'x225' walking path through right-of-way
to the Sound/Bluff without the removal of any trees.
Located: 8850 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-73-2-4
Number 5, GREGG FISHER requests an Administrative Permit for a Ten (10)
Year Maintenance Permit to hand-cut Common Reed (Phragmites australis) to 12" in
height by hand, as needed.
Located: 520 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-114-12-4.1.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, William Kelly on behalf of GERARD
MURTHA &`ROBIN MURTHA requests an Administrative Permit to construct a
42'x60' agricultural storage building, frost free water hydrant and water trough
for livestock, erect approximately 4'6" high livestock fencing and create a
110'x140' gravel parking area.
Located: 2662 Long Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-1-11.17
The Trustees conducted a field inspection. We are waiting for new plans
for this particular application that show movement of a fence, which we have not
received yet. Since we don't have the new plans, I will make a motion to table
this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 6, Robert Conway, R.A., on behalf of
HALIT SADIK LEGACY TRUST requests an Administrative Permit to
construct a 2,576 sq. ft. second-floor addition entirely above existing first floor
footprint, consisting of four (4) bedrooms; fireplace; five (5) baths, laundry, storage;
Board of Trustees 10 October 20, 2021
and a 844 sq. ft. rea terrace with spiral stair; and to construct a first floor
42 sq. ft. entry from existing porch with stairs.
Located: 2200 Sound Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-33-1-16
This particular application will result in a total of six bedrooms and eight baths
on this project. So we would like to condition an IA septic system with this permit.
So I will make a motion to approve this application with the condition that an
IA septic system be installed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 7, ENNO & HANNAH deBOER requests an
Administrative Permit to remove and replace (in-place) existing 205 sq. ft. 2nd
floor deck (to be equipped with drain and downspout and tiled into existing drainage
system); remove and replace existing 436 sq. ft. 1 st floor deck and 31 sq. ft.
attached shed/1 st floor roof overhang with new 649 sq. ft. 1 st floor deck and 2.6'x21'
steps to grade (deck to be elevated approx. 26" above grade and partially covered
by reconstructed 2nd floor deck on east side of house and 3' wide 1 st floor roof
overhang on north side of house); and remove and replace existing 7'x7' hot tub with
new 14'x8' swim spa located within footprint of proposed first floor deck (swim spa
backwash to be piped to existing drainage system; establish and perpetually
maintain a 5'wide non-turf buffer landward of top of bank.
Located: 1555 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-4-34
Trustee Krupski conducted a field inspection September 21st, 2021.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is that the
structures were constructed without the issuance of a Wetland permit.
I will make a motion to approve this application whereby granting a permit will
bring it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 8, James Maye on behalf of JENNIFER MAYE
requests an Administrative Permit for an as-built 9'x13'5" deck with 4' wide stairs to ground.
Located: 910 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-4-22
Again, this was found to be inconsistent by the LWRP, and the inconsistency is
that the structure was completed without obtaining a Board of Trustee review or
regulatory permit.
So I will make motion to approve this application as submitted whereby granting
a permit will bring it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
XI. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral XI, Application for Extensions,
Transfers and Administrative Amendments. Again, in order to
simplify our meeting, I will make a motion to approve as a group
items 1 through 7. They are listed as follows:
Board of Trustees 11 October 20, 2021
Number 1, Inter-Science on behalf of 40200 MAIN, LLC
(ORIENT BY THE SEA) c/o RWN MANAGEMENT, LLC requests a One (1)
Year Extension to Wetland Permit#9582 & Coastal Erosion Permit
#9582C, as issued on November 13, 2019.
Located: 40200 Route 25, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-9-8.1
Number 2, ROSE L. MILAZZO REVOCABLE TRUST requests a One
(1) Year Extension to Administrative Permit#9579A, as issued on
November 13, 2019.
Located: 1165 Island View Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-57-2-20
Number 3, En-Consultants on behalf of SCOTT R. McDAVID &
MAEGEN C. HINTON requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#4770
from Barbara Thompson to Scott R. McDavid & Maegen C. Hinton, as
issued on August 4, 1997; and for an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit#4770 for the as-built 32"x14' ramp in lieu of
the permitted 4'x16' ramp; and to correct a scrivener's error on
Wetland Permit#4770 to reflect the permitted and as-built
6'x20' floating dock.
Located: 1250 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-11-12
Number 4, Docko, Inc. on behalf of WILLIAM J. DOTSON, JR.
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9719 &
Coastal Erosion Permit#9719C to construct 43±If of the 68±If of
the wood access walkway "in lieu of" the 15±If that is not being
built, construct a new 44±sf deck area on the north side of the
wood access walkway; and install two sets of steps to the beach
sediments from the pier: On the North: 3.5±ft wide by 8.5±ft ;
and on the South: 3±ft wide by 5±ft.
Located: 1478 Barlow Pond Lane (off East End Rd.), Fishers Island.
SCTM# 1000-7-1-3
Number 5, En-Consultants on behalf of ORIENTAL UNICORN, LLC
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9833 to
construct a 4'x6' platform and 4'x10' steps on the seaward side of
reconstructed bulkhead, with associated 4'wide path through non-turf buffer.
Located: 860 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-2-47
Number 6, En-Consultants on behalf of 1420 TRUMANS PATH,
LLC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9931
to situate the proposed dwelling approximately 18 feet north of
its currently approved location; and to remove one (1) oak tree.
Located: 1420 Truman's Path, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-12-12
Number 7, ANDREW FLINN requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit#9456 for an as-built 94"x 94"x39" hot tub and as-built 10'x18' shed.
Located: 1500 Bay Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-8-12.9
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
XII. RESOLUTIONS - OTHER:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral XII, Resolutions - Other, set 2021/2022
scallop season:
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees open the following dates to
scallop harvesting and pursuant to Chapter 219 (Shellfish) of the Code of the Town of
Board of Trustees 12 October 20, 2021
Southold: From Monday, November 1, 2021 from sunrise to sunset through Thursday,
March 31, 2022 inclusive, in all Town waters, as per Town Code.
So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
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.
So the purpose of this hearing, pursuant to Chapter 275-3.1
of the Southold Town code is regarding the coastal contractor
license of Costello Marine Contracting Corporation. I'm going to
direct the Town Attorney to provide a brief background on the
basis of this hearing.
MR. HAGAN: Thank you, Mr. President'. On or about September
19th, 2019, it was observed that work was being performed at
19995 Soundview Avenue, Southold, New York, a property owned by
the Purita's, by Costello Marine staff and employees outside the
scope of the permit previously issued on July 18th, 2018, under
permit#9276 and #9276C, and in response to the same, bay
constable issued violations of Town Code against John Costello
of Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on November 4th, 2019.
After subsequent court practice on December 15th, 2020,
John Costello pled guilty to a violation of 275-5 of the
Southold Town Code.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. The Board visited this site on
several occasions. We've held hearings to amend the permit
based on the work undertaken on the site, whereby Mr. Costello
appeared and detailed out his actions on January 15th, 2020.
The Board is in receipt of a memorandum from the law firm
of Burke & Sullivan in support of Costello Marine, which is in
the files. Also, a copy of the application and the Minutes are in
the Board's file as well.
At this time I would like to ask for comments from the
Board regarding the license.
MR. HAGAN: Are there any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think, for starters, the use of
concrete-supported structure as opposed to what was originally
applied for, which was wood retaining walls, is quite a
significant change and certainly not expected.
MR. HAGAN: Any other comments?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I think we are moving a little quickly on this.
I understand that the contractor is trying to comply with DEC.
He was issued a stop-work order, so, that's all I have to say.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other comments from the Board?
Board of Trustees 13 October 20, 2021
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, I guess just to follow-up with my
initial statements, Mr. Costello did state that it took months
for the block to be ordered and arrive. It was during that
entire time that he certainly could have contacted the Board and
discussed the use of the concrete bricks, which were installed
ultimately without Trustee review or approval, in a much greater
size and scope than the initial approved project.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, while we are in receipt of the brief
from counsel, is there anything that Mr. Costello would like to
add to the record for this board's consideration?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. My name is John A. Costello. I am the
president and owner of Costello Marine Contracting.
We did have a work session meeting with the Board of
Trustees where I tried to find out what the Board of Trustees
would like me to do to try to get in compliance. It was held
over the bank and we did have that meeting and I agreed, whether
I approved of it or not, but I agreed that I would remove a
portion of each of the two retaining concrete walls and I would
reduce them by six feet each. Two of them. There is only two.
The next door neighbor has five or six retaining walls. But I
put a larger one higher next door and I told the Board of
Trustees at that time, I had a stop-work order issued to me by
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and
we have been, ever since that time, reviewing and going to
court, hiring lawyers, trying to get that resolved.
As recent as the last week or so, the DEC did come down
and they said that they would accept a plea of guilty, a fine,
and they would send it to Albany to get reviewed. And then they
would send back a release and release me from the stop-work
order. As of now, I couldn't go to that site and work on it
under any circumstances because, number one, I'm sorry for the
consequences, there was a series of storms. There was a bulkhead
there and the series of storms, there was only a hole that was
probably 30-foot wide, the entire bulkhead disappeared. They
were losing fill and they were losing their land. They did
eventually, one of the succeeding storms, they lost a stairway.
The expenses, at that time I agreed with Mr. Frank Purita, who
came to my house and picked me up each Sunday morning to look at
the site and asked me to hustle it up and try to get there soon
because they were afraid of what the occurrence is going to be.
It's approaching the house. And they wanted me to do whatever I
could do as quickly as I could do it.
We made applications to the Southold Town Trustees, and
that process was not instantaneous, but it was reasonably quick,
and we tried to contact and buy materials that we proposed. They
were not forthcoming quickly. So I did the next best thing,
contacted a structural engineer and asked him how to get it done
quickly. And we reverted to concrete. Which we did not have a
permit. We are guilty of that fact. And I'm sorry for that fact,
because now I will remove them. As soon as the work order,
stop-work order from the Southold Town -- I mean the New York
Board of Trustees 14 October 20, 2021
State Department of Environmental Conservation is completed,
which I believe will be shortly. But shortly in politics means
nothing. The DEC was shutdown with COVID for several months. I
couldn't contact or talk with or send any information to them.
They didn't ask for any information. We couldn't even make
contact. That difficulty certainly prolonged. We are waiting
for weather conditions, I was waiting for good weather
conditions one year ago. And they are disappearing now,
unfortunately. And I'll tell you,'you could only work out there
in good weather conditions. Long Island Sound can be mean. And I
could show you and you probably saw it in the papers, some of
the waves go up and spray over top of the houses along that
stretch of beach. It was in Newsday last week. And it can get
nasty. And I'm surprised. Ultimately, I'm surprised, I thought
without the revetment being reenforced, there is some holes in
the revetment that has a small revetment there, it needs
additional rock to fill in the voids. I'm a little bit
dumbfounded that it has not started collapsing. There is a
little deflection in it but it has not collapsed. And I don't
wish it to collapse. The Purita's have probably their whole
livelihood tied up into that property. And I told Frank, before
he passed away, that I would do the best I could to restore and
save the integrity of the house and the property. And I did what
I said I was going to do.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Just for the record, we are not
talking about the removal. What this was is a hearing for the
initial violation. We had a permit for the retaining wall, the
timber retaining wall. You put the concrete. That permit for
the removal to bring it back to the six foot, that is still an
open permit. So this is for the initial violation. I just
wanted to clear that up.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
hearing?
MS. MOORE: I didn't intend to speak. I know Mr. Costello. I know
the Board takes their coastal licensing process very seriously,
and I think for many reasons it's good to have contractors that
have experience, have knowledge, and know the procedures that
have to be followed.
In this case, Mr. Costello has probably been building
bulkheads before most of you were born. Certainly he's a little
older than I am, but I remember 30 year's worth of permitting and
construction he's gone through, and the Board has over the years
respected his opinion. And I know the Purita property. I know it
very well. Because my clients, elderly couple, sold the house to
Purita, and in fact right before the closing, the bulkhead they
had collapsed, and that became an issue at the closing. There
had to be an adjustment because that was not the condition that
the Purita's went to contract on. Those things happen. It's like your
well dies before the closing, your seller still owns the property, you have
to fix it.
So there has been historic problems not only at the Purita property
Board of Trustees 15 October 20, 2021
but along that entire length of that area, and I know the Board
is very familiar that most of the, I think probably 80% of the
homes in that stretch of beach have had to have their bulkheads
replaced because of the tremendous storms that they are
experiencing.
The Board has dealt with those permits one at a time but,
quite frankly, Mr. Costello is not one that I would think of as
someone who flouts or disregards the Board's authority or
opinions or anything. I think in this case he was dealing with
really a life or death issue. The fact that the house was in
great jeopardy and I watched through the court, through the
permitting process, the pound of flesh that has been taken from
the owner and Mr. Costello and what the Board has asked him to
do. But I think that this process of threatening him with
removal of his license, which is essentially his livelihood, is
going way beyond what I think is reasonable. And I would hope
that for Mr. Costello's sake and really the Board consider very
carefully, before taking someone's license to work in this town.
Of all the contractors that are out there, I would say I would
probably call on Mr. Costello first and foremost on any
difficult project. Just from his experience.
So, I have no interest in this whatsoever. I just know
his work. And I know the years that he has been before this
Board. And you know the contractors that ignore you, that were
in fact kind of contrary to the law. You know who they are. And
Mr. Costello is not one of them. So, thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Thank you, Pat.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this hearing?
MR. COSTELLO: I would like to make one comment. I been doing
this for 62 years. 63 years. She is cutting me short. She is
making me younger than I am. I've spent 62 years in the marine
contracting business. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would just like to comment. The telephone
has been in existence for about 120 years, and the Board of
Trustees prides itself on communicating with individuals with
permits before the Board. We regularly issue emergency permits
during conditions where conditions warrant, particularly on the
Sound. I think I've sat through, oh, probably five or six major
storms starting in 1984 as a Trustee that year. So I just, you
know, when we talk about who we want to call in to do
contracting work, we also need to call the Trustees and get them
involved when there is a problem.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. It seems like we have someone on
Zoom who would like to speak.
(Mr. Hagan addressed the speaker and indicated her matter is
further along in tonight's agenda and now is not the time for it
to be addressed).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time are there any further comments
Board of Trustees 16 October 20, 2021
regarding the coastal contractor hearing?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to reserve decision and
table until our next meeting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
XIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral XIII, Public Hearings, I'll make a
motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and enter into the public hearings.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a public hearing in the matter of the following
applications for permits under the 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 on your comments organized and brief, five minutes or less if possible.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Amendments, number 1, Creative Environmental
Design on behalf of PAT J. IAVARONE requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit
#9802 to relocate proposed 20'x40' gunite swimming pool with 8'x8' spa and associated
1,400 sq. ft. pool patio/deck closer to the edge of wetlands: Install a drywell for pool
backwash; and install approximately 450 linear feet of pool enclosure fencing with gates.
Located: 995 West Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-110-7-3.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection October 13, 2021. At that time we
asked for the pool to be moved back as far as possible from the bulkhead/retaining wall.
We did receive new plans stamped received October 15th, 2021, that do show that pool
moved back 49 feet from the retaining wall, with the bulkhead about another eleven feet
seaward of that.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not support the change of location of the
proposed pool because of inadequate setbacks.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Yes. Dave Chicanowicz, Creative Environmental Design,
representing Mr. lavarone.
As we had discussed at the site visit about moving the seaward edge of the pool
back as far as we can and I noted in the plan here that, or the description, you have a
20x40 gunite pool. We downsized the pool to 20x38 to try to compensate as much as
we could. We downsized the residence side of the patio down by a few feet and now we
slipped everything back toward the house several feet. So we did considerable
alterations to accommodate the Trustees' request.
Board of Trustees 17 October 20, 2021
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here who
wishes to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted with the new plans stamped received October 15th
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland and Coastal Erosion permits,
number 1, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of PEQUOT
POINT, LLC, c/o ERIK WALDIN requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to stabilize approximately 460' of slope
by removing and storing existing boulders; excavating a 460'x15'
area by 3'; installing geotextile fabric; installing a crushed
rock filter layer utilizing 3" diameter stone; installing
boulders (minimum diameter 2' on a 2:1 slope); install native
material fill and plant disturbed slope with native shrubs (rosa
rugosa and bayberry), and grasses; and at end of construction
repair the existing path to beach and install steps in rock
slope to the beach.
Located: 2875 Castle Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-5-2-10.12
The Trustees did an inhouse review of this application on
October 18th, noting that it was straightforward. There was a
field inspection done on this one.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Possibly in May, with Mike and myself. I
don't recall.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Way back. May 11th. 2021, as well, where
Trustees Bredemeyer and Domino were onsite.
The LWRP coordinator found this project to be consistent,
noting that no rocks or boulders naturally occurring on the
beach are to be used during construction.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection, therefore no recommendation was made.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. JUST: Good evening. Glenn Just, agent for the applicant.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: One more, I forgot to mention, there is a
letter in the file here from a Mr. McElwreath, saying to request
more time on this application.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. CANTRELL: Again, on Zoom, (917) 529-3654, has raised their
Board of Trustees 18 October 20, 2021
hand. If you would like to speak to the Board, please un-mute
yourself and go ahead. And speak and spell your name for the
record, please.
MS. MCELWREATH: My name Leslie McElwreath. My husband is the
one who wrote the letter. We are the easterly neighbors to this
property.
In reviewing the application, I see this has all been going
on since 2018, however we were just made aware of it by letter
the other day. We have yet to be able to engage an engineer to
evaluate how this project will impact our property which is
immediately adjacent to the east. So we request a little more
time to do that investigation before this gets approved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could I just ask what your concerns are about
the application in question?
MS. MCELWREATH: Well, um, this particular topography, I don't
know if anyone in the room has visited this site. This is a
very high site. It is very elevated and basically has a cliff,
you know, off of it, which is obviously why everyone in this
part of Fishers Island is concerned about erosion. Now, I'm no
scientist but I'm concerned that when they take a big backhoe
and go down this cliff, it looks to me like they then want to
clean out the rocks that are there. All our beaches in this area
of Fishers Island are rocky beaches. They are not sandy
beaches. So my understanding from reading the application is
they want to clear out all the rocks that are there and replace
them with large boulders. So in my opinion that is going to
impact the way the water hits that part of the coastline,
because right now it comes in, and it's a rocky beach, and that
portion is going to be removed and it's going to be these big
boulders. So what I don't know and what I would like to hire a
professional to evaluate is what is this going to do to the
current flow of water and is it going to deter the water from
that location and send it to my property or perhaps the property
on the other side and create an erosion problem for me.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Mr. Just, what is the plan for the
existing boulders?
MR. JUST: It's actually not clearing the entire beach. It's
clearing a small trench between the toe of the bluff, I forget
what the width is, maybe eight to ten feet, temporarily
relocating the boulders, cutting in, putting a basic layer of
filter fabric in and then a basic layer of crushed stone, and
putting the boulders back in and replanting the bluff. There is
no idea about clearing off the beach, moving the boulders off
the beach, doing anything other than this one little patch right
at the toe of the bluff.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So basically a rock revetment design.
MR. JUST: Call it small protection --
MS. MCELWREATH: Well, they have to bring the boulders down the
bluff, don't they?
Board of Trustees 19 October 20, 2021
MR. JUST: No, they'll re-use the existing boulders. They'll be
relocated --
MR. HAGAN: The Board has a policy of directing your comments to the
Board itself and not having cross-conversation --
MS. MCELWREATH: Sorry. I apologize. May I speak?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: In other words, it's a repair of what is there.
MR. JUST: It's just an upgrading of what is there. The machinery
would have to come down through the applicant's property. It's
not going to go on any adjacent properties, and just replace any
damage that was done, for lack of a better term, as the machine
goes back up and down the beach until the job is complete. It's
just a trenching of the existing area at the toe of the bluff,
relocating the boulders and putting a space layer down in,
putting the boulders back in and keying them in, chocking them
in, for lack of a better term.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And I was remiss to mention that the Trustees
did do a field inspection on this on August 8th, 2018, and all
Trustees were present.
We do have new plans stamped received October 19th, 2021,
for this, and that also show a non-turf buffer at the top of the
bank as well.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a point of clarification there is also,
from my understanding from reviewing the plans and having been
there onsite, that the project is not involving the extension on
to neighboring lateral lands and there are no returns that would
reflect wave energy.
MR. JUST: It's actually not the entire property. It's three
different sections of the property.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, we reviewed it in 2018, but essentially
it's small amount of toe armor on a bank. It's not even a bluff.
There would be concern if it was some sort of a wall or straight
revetment, but this is just a, you know, almost just a toe armor
for storms.
MR. JUST: It's not by any means going all the way up the bluff.
Like Nicholas says, it's just along the toe.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions?
Ready to move forward?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HAGAN: Can we clarify on this resolution that there was a
non-turf buffer, the nature of the buffer that is on the new plans.
MR. JUST: We did include a non-turf buffer where there is lawn
Board of Trustees 20 October 20, 2021
area. A lot of top of the bluff had existing brush that won't be
disturbed. So the lawn did come to the top of the bluff as it
goes down to the buffer.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So it's small, that's a ten-foot buffer this,
right?
MR. JUST: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So the stamped plans received October 19,
2021, also include a ten-foot non-turf buffer at the top of the
bank. I'll make a motion to approve this application as
submitted with the new plans stamped received October 19th, 2021.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 2, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on
behalf of J. GEDDES PARSONS requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to demolish existing single-family
dwelling; pump out the existing sanitary system and remove all
material from site; construct a new single-family dwelling with
attached garage, three (3) drywells for roof runoff, decks and
steps for a footprint of 4,306 sq. ft.; install new water
service; install a new I/A OWTS sanitary system and regrade; to
repair the existing 132' seawall; to construct a new 132' block
retaining wall landward of existing seawall; to backfill the
structure with approximately 95 cubic yards of clean fill to
match existing elevation; and to mulch and seed the 2,630 sq. ft.
disturbed area.,
Located: 515 Sterling Street, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-9-3.1
The Trustees most recent discussion on this application was
an inhouse review on October 18th, 2021. The Trustees suggested
a ten-foot non-turf landward of the second wetland non-turf
between the two walls.
I am in receipt of plans dated October 19th, 2021, which do
depict a ten-foot non-turf buffer.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be both inconsistent and
consistent. The inconsistency stems from, number one, verify the
purpose of 95-plus cubic yards fill seaward of the coastal
erosion hazard line. Two, it is recommended that the Board
verify the FEMA VE velocity hazard flood zone located on the
parcel. 75-foot setback proposed located structure further
seaward than the existing structure.
Suffolk County aerials show that a portion of existing
structure is located within the VE zone. The increase in structure
size within the structural hazard areas is unsupported and not
consistent with Policy Four. The seawall work is recommended as
consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection and therefore no recommendation was made.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. JUST: Good evening. Glenn Just, agent of the applicant.
Board of Trustees 21 October 20, 2021
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you just speak to the LWRP's comments,
specifically verify the purpose of the fill seaward of the
coastal erosion hazard line?
MR. JUST: It's just to taper off with the runoff down on the
back lawn and bring it up to grade from the top of the proposed
retaining wall landward of that, and it's just going to sort of
go between the top of the wall and the existing lawn and just
level it off.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. And also I should clarify in
response to the LWRP coordinator's comments, after Trustee review
it became apparent that the structure does fall within the pier
line between the two neighboring houses, although it is a slight
amount closer seaward, and it's not impinging the pier line or
viewshed. Can you confirm that?
MR. JUST: Yes
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Or any additional comments from members of the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing in this
application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
noting that upon Trustee review this application does satisfy
the concerns and bring it into consistency of the LWRP
coordinator. And based off the plans for the buffer stamped
received in the office October 19th, 2021, and depicting as
written on the plans a ten-foot non-turf buffer.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number 1, 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
Board of Trustees 22 October 20, 2021
peninsula and replacement with a ±2,300 sq. 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 sitting,
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-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.
This application is occasioned by eight letters to the record received in the
Trustee office; one from Peter and Valerie Sakas, another from Machi Tantillo,
another from Martha Brooks, another from Stine Westergaard, another from Helen
Szarka, one from Naomi Mullman, one from Ido Mizrahy, one from Jason Schmidt.
We are also in possession in the Trustee office stamped and received October
15th, a two-page report and accompanying map identified with a covering letter from
Megan Baron, who is President of Breezy Shores Co-Op Board and a survey report of
Howard Young licensed Land Surveyor with a two-page report stamped wherein he
discusses issues of ownership of the underwater lands and accompanying map.
There is also a two-page, excuse me, sorry, a three-page letter in the file from
attorney Caryn Meyer, of Cohen, Warren, Meyer& Gitter, licensed attorneys.
The Trustees are in possession of a report from the Town's LWRP coordinator
which has determined that the project as proposed is consistent with the Town's
waterfront revitalization policies, but with specific questions that the Board should
consider in addressing this project, and they are: Seasonal limitations for dredging
impact to wildlife and fin fish are recommended to be stated within any permit.
Number two is to clarify the reasons to relocate the osprey pole.
And number three, clarify if the use of oyster shells on the peninsula is the best
substrate for wildlife habitat. And that the Board is to consider those items in developing
a report under the LWRP before enacting any discretionary decision.
Board of Trustees 23 October 20, 2021
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed the application, however it is their
position, they state that based on the sensitive nature of the shellfish areas and
migratory birds as referenced in the Nelson Pope Voorhees,narrative and the application
addendum to the Chapter 275 and the LWRP consistency review, and the reviews of
other environmental members, the Conservation Advisory Council does not have
a recommendation at this time.
With all the foregoing concerns already been added into the public record and a
project which is highly detailed, I would request that you try to keep your comments as
brief as possible and not overlap them, so the items of your concerns will remain cogent
in the Trustees' minds.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
,MR. HAGAN: You're with Nelson Pope &Voorhis, right?
MR. AYLWARD: I am Matthew Aylward with R&M Engineering, with --
MR. HAGAN: Okay, i just wanted to clarify. We have two
representatives for the applicant, Jeff Voorhis and Brant Reiner
are online right now on Zoom.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone who wishes to speak to this
application?
MS. CANTRELL: Mr. Voorhis, I'm going to ask,you to un-mute
yourself and speak to the Board.
MR. VOORHIS: Good evening. My name is Chick Voorhis, I'm going
to present remotely. I'll just double check again that you are
able to hear me adequately.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes.
MR. VOORHIS: Very good. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. President,
and members of the Town Trustees. For the record, my name is
chick Voorhis from Nelson Pope Voorhis, and our offices are in
Melville, New York.
I am a certified environmental professional with 43 years
of experience in coastal matters, permitting, environmental
protection and restoration. As you heard, I'm here tonight with
Brant Reiner of NPV, also Andrew Solomon and Peter Stein, who
are representatives of the applicant. And Matt Aylward who is
from R&M Engineering, and he's before you at the podium.
Our office was contracted by the applicant Conkling
Advisors LLC, to prepare applications for the dredging and
shoreline stabilization project at Brick Cove Marina, and that
is the subject of the hearing tonight.
I'm very familiar with the subject site and the surrounding
area and have visited the site on many occasions. The Brick
Cover Marina property supports a full-service marina with 138
boat slips, a travel lift, service slips, a pump-out station,
and a boat launch in the marina basin, as well as boat service
outbuildings in the upland areas.
This is a traditional and historic maritime use of the site
and is a water-dependent use that fulfills a substantial need in
the boating community. The area of the property associated with
proposed activity includes two peninsulas: The west peninsula
which is now protected with a steel bulkhead and vegetated
upland areas. And the east peninsula, which is now
deteriorated. It' s a concrete rip rap shoreline, and it has
Board of Trustees 24 October 20, 2021
heavily eroded banks and sparse vegetation, including some
wetland vegetation.
The proposed work includes dredging Sage basin inlet
channel, dredging a small area within the basin and the
restoration of the two peninsulas that flank the inlet.
We are here seeking approval from the Trustees pursuant to
Chapter 275, as well as the LWRP, which I heard you read into
the record tonight. The recommendations on that. I want to be
brief. I'll briefly describe the project and a couple of points
for justification of the project.
As was mentioned in the record for the hearing, this
involves dredging of 1,226 cubic yards of material from the
inlet and the marina, and this dredging is essential for the
safe navigation of the channel and the basin due to shoaling. It
also involves removal and replacement of scattered concrete rip
rap along the south shore of the east peninsula, with restoration
of rock revetment to provide safe and adequate protection of the
peninsula from wave energy.
The project also involves construction of a bulkhead on the
west tip of the east peninsula to protect the peninsula from
further erosion, and to discourage sediment deposition from the
peninsula into the inlet. And these are conditions that are
currently occurring. It also includes construction of a low sill
bulkhead along the north shore of the east peninsula, and this
was established an intertidal wetlands along the shoreline. It
also provides protection from shoreline that is depositing
sediment within the marina basin.
There will be construction of a block retaining wall on the
upland area of the east peninsula, and this will be used for
placement of dredge material from the inlet dredging.
On the west side we are proposing replacement of the steel
bulkhead with a vinyl bulkhead. And both peninsulas will be
established with extensive native plantings to stabilize soils
and provide habitat.
The project plans include the R&M Engineering dredge and
peninsula restoration plan that is dated June 24th, 2021, and
the NPV mitigation plan that is dated July 19th, 2021. And those
are,all included in the application materials.
We have also provided supporting information regarding
property ownership based on survey, and that depicts the
underwater holdings of Brick Cove and the adjoining properties.
Briefly, for justification, the following points I think
should be considered. The existing marina is a valuable resource
that is essential to the sustainability and preservation of
Southold's strong history and water-dependent recreational and
economic uses.
The dredging of the inlet has been permitted in the past as
recently as 2013 by state, federal and town agencies. The
shorelines that protect the marina are threatened by wave
energies that continue to erode the poorly protected areas of
east peninsula. And this proposal is needed to stop the erosion
Board of Trustees 25 October 20, 2021
that is causing loss of land and depositing sediment into the
marina basin, as well as the inlet, and to restore the
peninsulas on each side to provide long-term stability, and
restore safe navigation to the marina.
If you have reviewed, and I hope you have looked at
historic aerial photographs, they do clearly show this area has
been subject.to erosion for many years. The peninsula
improvements have been designed to include proposed natural
stone armament along the south shoreline of the east peninsula
as a more stable and esthetically appropriate protected feature
than the existing concrete rubble and rip rap and the current
eroding shoreline. And the extensive vegetation areas are
further included for esthetics as well as protection.
The proposed low sill retaining wall along the north
shoreline of the east peninsula is critical to the stabilization
of the eroded bank in that area, and it also creates 1,375
square feet of intertidal wetland. And this is a six-to-one
mitigation ratio for a small area of vegetated wetlands that
will be disturbed.
The proposed improvements are intended to protect the marina and
enhance the marine habitat on and around the site, and in
addition to wetland creation, will use eco-friendly materials,
such as e-concrete products, which will create tide pools within
the proposed revetment, as well as eco-seawalls that will be
attached to the new bulkhead sheathing to establish habitat
wherever possible.
Native vegetation will be used throughout the project area
to create naturalized areas on and around these structural
improvements, and this will help absorb and filter storm water
runoff and dissipate tidal inundation.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Excuse me, Mr. Voorhis, there's a lot of
people here wishing to speak regarding this application, so I
want to give them equal time, so if you could wrap up your
comments so we can give them the same opportunity, I would
appreciate it.
MR. VOORHIS: Absolutely. I'll wrap up with,,very quickly, we
will be using silt curtains to control suspended solids. I do
feel the project is necessary. I do want to mention very quickly
that the owners are mariculture operators and they are
supportive of local fishing fleets, and this will help them with
their facilities. Also we did meet with the Trustees in the
field on two occasions. The site is not in a significant coastal
habitat area: Applications have been submitted to all other
agencies, and I believe that our pending file information
addresses comments that you have received to date.
So that concludes my remarks. Our team is here to listen to
your comments and follow-up as needed. And thank you, for your
attention.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else wishing to speak to
this application?
Board of Trustees 26 October 20, 2021
MS. CANTRELL: Brant Reiner, on behalf of the applicant. Brant,
if you would like to un-mute yourself and speak to the Board.
MR. REINER: Good evening. Can you hear me?
(Affirmative response).
I'm only here to answer questions. The hand is raised just to
let you know I'm here on behalf of the applicant. If there is
anything I can offer, please feel free to call upon me. Thank you.
MS. CANTRELL: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe Brant or Mr. Voorhis can address, is
the application status before the DEC pending discussion with
departmental staff with the DEC? Where are you at with the
Department of Environmental Conservation?
MR. VOORHIS: I'll answer that quickly. We have met in the field
with the DEC Supervisor of Natural Resources. We did that prior
to making the application. We incorporated their comments. We
submitted an application simultaneous with the other agencies.
And that DEC application is currently pending.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would be a joint application that
includes the Army Corps application?
MR. VOORHIS: That is correct. As well as the DEC.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else here who wishes to
speak regarding this application?
MR. FLOTTERON: Good evening, my name is Steven Flotteron. My
address is 7 Sage Boulevard, Greenport. For full disclosure
also, I am a Suffolk County legislator, but I'm not here in that
capacity at all. I'm here just as a homeowner.
Just some concerns. Generally, some of them might seem like
they are coming away from this application, some of the questions,
but just some, if you have concerns in the future.
Again, in general, it's been a longtime history of this
marina running there, and we support it. We love it. It's a
nonconforming use property next to our property. The property,
as you go up into the Brick Cover Marina, is wetlands on all
different sides. The homeowners, which a lot are here from next
door, at Breezy Shores, we've done a lot in trying to improve
our own property to do things so much to fit into Peconic Bay
estuary. You know, we do seagrass plantings, etcetera.
But with that said, we have some concerns about looking at
the application, again, we did get a letter from the attorney
Caryn Meyer, which we all fully support, but some concerns about
property lines, there are some questions of that, so we just
want to make sure that the Town of Southold and Trustees really
double check, are they doing work as per the plans, on to other
people's properties. We believe so, from, I believe engineering
looking at from Young &Young. Other things, again, Peconic Bay
estuary, it seems like we don't want to have what's known
nowadays as hardening of the shorelines, it seems there is more
hardening of the shorelines. We want to make sure it's kept
natural as much as possible. It seems like some of the drawings
didn't make sense to us. I just wanted clarification as to what
is their ultimate plan in the long run? Because it seems like
Board of Trustees 27 October 20, 2021
there is hardening of the shoreline and you look at it, it looks
like, you know, excuse my joking around, but almost like the
Brooklyn navy yard where they are re-doing the waterfront.
There's pathways, and looks like a big area where cars can be
parked in the future, and boat storage. And that's not natural.
So I have concerns about that. Can it be used as a venue for
holding a lot of people? Again, it's not a natural state.
As a person coming out here for three generations, third
generation on the north fork coming out here, it just seems
like, how about piers? Hopefully the approval is to have safe
passage to the marina, the healthy marina, but wondering how
much they are pushing the envelope. Are they planning to do
tie-offs, there's a new pier, there's walkways. What does that
new walkway connect to? It seems like a half a drawing in some
sense that you really can't tell when you look at it, and none
of us are experts on looking at drawings, but you look at the
west side, where does that walkway connect to and what part of
that land do they own. And same thing on the east side, again
that looks like a large, graveled area, now, okay, maybe it's
oyster shells, but to me that's not the full natural state. I
would think the Town or Peconic Bay estuary would want to see
more all-natural planting there, not a possibility that it could
be used for boat storage, car parking, party venues, et cetera.
Other things, we came up, is also according to your Town's
Conservation Advisory Council, again, they wanted more time to
review this. It seems like they had some concern. We are
concerned, too. Again, a lot of it is surrounded by wetlands.
There's good clam beds in there. There's good clam beds on our
property, too. There's even steamers out there. Again,
environmentally, with this dredging, how will it affect this?
How will it affect bar clams and everything else? We're also
concerned with how, environmentally, when they dredge this, how
will it affect our property? How will it affect our marina? Is
that taken into account?
So those are just some of the concerns. And I know there
are other members in my community that have some others, but
it's really, we are concerned this is not just a simple dredging
like you normally do for a marina that needs it. And I know
myself, I'm very supportive of them being a healthy marina, it's
a non-conforming use property, I guess is probably the
terminology used for it, and we don't know if there is other
plans, looking at the drawings, I see walkways, potentially
maybe parking lots, I don't know. But just make sure we ask
those questions and make sure the Town and Board does their due
diligence.
There are rumors in the community about other nefarious
long-term plans. That's what we just want to make sure. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
MS. DOWD: Good evening, Board of Trustees, my name is Mary Dowd.
And my family have been residents of Southold Town since the
1920s, and I'm a homeowner at Breezy Shores in Cottage#28.
Board of Trustees 28 October 20, 2021
Over the past 20 years, Breezy Shores and the previous
owners of Brick Cove marina, our adjacent neighbors, have
maintained a friendly relationship. And I wish the new owners
of Brick Cove marina success in their marina business and hope
it continues to thrive. I'do not wish to impede their current
M-2 marine zone commerce and understand from time to time
routine maintenance dredging is necessary. However, I'm becoming
increasingly concerned about the sequence of events initiated by
the new owners of Brick Cove marina began this summer leading up
to the latest pending application submitted by Conkling Advisors
LLC. The current 150-page pending application submitted by Brick
Cove marina is a big project that needs time and should not be
rushed. Questions regarding littoral drift issues, erosion of
our western bulkhead, the environmental impact that proposed
plans will have on Breezy Shores, the surrounding community at
large, and the immediate physical impact on adjacent homeowners'
properties all remain unanswered.
Furthermore, the October 7th, 2021, survey and report
prepared by Young & Young surveyors, page 21 of the pending
application, indicates that the boundary line shown on the plans
and surveys prepared for Brick Cove marina and included in their
pending application may indeed be incorrect. The extensive
proposed changes in this complex pending application go well
beyond routine maintenance, and calls into question the true and
long-term motives behind the owners of Brick Cove marina. For
instance, the diagrams on pages 30, 31 and 32 of the application
prepared by R&M Engineering and Nelson Pope Voorhis raise the
following questions: What is the reason for raising the
elevation of the existing western peninsula to seven feet?
And what are the implications for altering land that does not
belong to Brick Cove marina? The reasoning behind attaching a
ladder and the ability to tie up boats to a newly constructed
western bulkhead at the commercial marina entrance, the reason
or need to transform the current natural vegetation of uplands
on the western bulkheaded peninsula to a proposed unnatural and
altered by man landscape upland complete with pathways and
seating areas? Who would use this proposed and transformed
western peninsula? It's not accessible to Brick Cove marina as
it is separated by the dredged inlet.
The reasoning behind creating for the first time ever a
seven-foot high newly constructed bulkhead on the north side of
the eastern peninsula. Marina businesses at this property
location have functioned for over 70 years without a bulkhead
there. So why now? Altering the current existing natural
shoreline with a seven-foot high barrier will harden the -
shoreline; the antithesis for what New York state environmental
agencies recommend. Why?
I respectively request that the Board of Trustees consider
the pending application from Brick Cove marina subject to
obtaining the required DEC permits, the Suffolk County Planning
Commission, and Southold Town Planning Department.
Board of Trustees 29 October 20, 2021
I'm concerned that the new owners of Brick Cove marina are
attempting to segment their unrevealed long-term plans by
breaking it into phases, and it should not proceed in this
manner as per SEQRA, the New York State Environmental Quality
Review.
I endorse and support all the points presented in the
Breezy Shores community letter from our attorney Caryn Meyer,
and I request that the Trustees not approve this pending
application.
Thank you, for your consideration, and thank you for your
service on the Board of Trustees.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. If I could ask Mr. Voorhis one
question. Because the question will probably come up.
What is --
MR. VOORHIS: Yes, I'm here.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: With the western peninsula, can you answer
that question as far as access and what the intention is of that
particular section?
MR. VOORHIS: Well, the real intent is to stabilize the shoreline
with the replaced bulkhead. Raising it like we have just, and I
think it's 1.4 feet that we are raising it, is really just
prudent, you know, based on conditions and sea level rise. And
of course as we do that, we have an extensive environmental
restoration plan of the peninsula.
As far as access and use, I will defer to my client, but as
was observed, it is not directly accessible to the marina, so
activity there would be passive, and I don't know if Andrew or
Peter want to add anything to that. But that would be my answer
at this point.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think I'm just going to again ask the same
question. I believe the question was, you know, access and
usage. I believe the Board understands that you are trying to
protect the entrance to the marina. And to that point I just
want to clarify for the record, it is going from roughly 7.48
feet to eight feet. So it is only a change of 1.5 feet which,
you know, would probably be in response to sea level rise, if I
had to guess. But again, I reiterate the question of access and
intended usage.
MR. REINER: Members of the Board, this is Brant Reiner from
Nelson Pope &Voorhis. So just to expand upon Chick's comments
regarding the western peninsula the idea is that access would be
taken by boat. Access is required for the maintenance of the
flag pole. We have had discussions with the Southold Shores
association who owns the property immediately to the west of the
western peninsula point, and have an understanding, a mutual
understanding, that there is a flagpole on the property that
needs to be maintained, and that access is required to do so.
There is also pathways being shown on the plans within the
intention of people, members of the Brick Cove marina, that
could, would be accessing the peninsula by boat, could stop and
Board of Trustees 30 October 20, 2021
do so and enjoy a sandwich, sit by the flagpole and take in the
view. That is the access. The ladder is intended to allow safe,
it's a safety issue. They allow anybody who would be on the
peninsula to be able to access the dry land if they happen to
fall into the water. Also it would be able to access the
peninsula by boat if they were to tie up a kayak or a small
dinghy to it.
Navigation abilities would prevent any kind of large
vessels, of course, from being pulled up to it. That is not the
intention. As Chick mentioned, it's merely a passive type of
setting for people to enjoy quickly and then move on about their way.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to
this application?
MS. BARON: Good evening, Trustees. Thank you, for the job you
do. My name is Megan Baron and I've lived here for over 15
years.
I would like to focus on the plan of the Conkling LLC
application, eastern peninsula cross section AA. This involves
constructing a revetment, double-wall system, a seven-foot high
bulkhead to surround the entire land mass, and then another
seven-foot high bulkhead that NPV is calling low sill. In the
right corner of the plan the applicants have provided a long
list of coastal plantings that are meant to mitigate the damage
they know their proposed bulkhead would cause and to appear
responsible. But the return or marina side of the eastern
peninsula receives no wave energy and therefore has absolutely
no need for hardening of the existing intertidal shoreline there.
The applicants present themselves as concerned, stewards
even, of the environment, however if they did truly care they
would spend their money on preserving and augmenting this
natural shoreline instead. Their plan to enclose the entire
peninsula with vertical walling that they want to landfill is an
attempt to increase their acreage but would come at the expense
of the marine life they purport to care about.
If we look at the specs in the cross-section planning, we
see the following: Proposed bollard lighting for the length the
planes where there is zero artificial lighting now. This would
go against the Dark Skies initiative to reduce light pollution,
which many of us on the north fork are involved in. My own
community of Breezy Shores has a rule against all outdoor lights
on and around our homes. The current width of the path and
plants on the eastern peninsula is approximately ten feet with
drop offs to the water on each side, while the proposed width
achieved by filling these vertical walls is 33'9"with an
additional six feet on the marina side taken up by two bulkheads
between which the applicant proposes planting Spartina grass. It
is likely that the entire purpose of this proposed dredging is
to be able to create this large landfill and it is not actually
crucial to the operation of the marina. The existing underwater
mud line on the marine side of the eastern peninsula naturally
slopes upward to the land, whereas the applicant's proposed mud
Board of Trustees 31 October 20, 2021
line is completely flat and contacts the proposed bulkhead at a
harsh 90 degree angle, which is the opposite of a natural
shoreline. In fact all their proposed coastal plantings are
either fully enclosed within a rectangular box of hard, vertical
bulkhead walls, or placed on top of landfill'and not interacting
with or contributing to the health of the marine life around
them. This is mitigation as most superficial and not valid
environmentally.
Thank you, Board of Trustees, for listening and considering
these matters, and I also want to thank two members in
particular, Mr. Bredemeyer and Mr. Domino, who are retiring soon
and have dedicated many years of service to this town. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else to speak to this
application?
MS. LOFRESE: Hi, my name is Kathy Lofrese, I live at 940
Tarpon Drive, directly across from Sage's basin. On Sage's basin
from the Brick Cove marina.
I would like to say that I'm obviously opposed to this deep
water dredging and bulkheading. The Brick Cove marina has been
in operation for many, many years. They are a fully functioning
marina. Their slips are full. I see their members sitting on the
beach enjoying their views. I sit in my yard and I watch the
boats come in and out throughout channel to the bay. There are
no problems. I'm happy, the slip owners are happy. The ospreys
are happy. Life is good. This is why I'm so confused as to why
they need to do deep water dredging and bulkheading. We all know
that bulkheads are a detriment to the environment. Again and
again, people have been denied bulkheads, including the previous
owner of my own home who wanted to extend the bulkhead to his
property to keep it from falling into the canal.
Currently, there is a living shoreline on the east side of
this inlet that accesses Sage's basin. The natural vegetation
found on the shoreline strengthens its structural integrity and
prevents the land from falling apart. The gradual slope of this
natural shoreline also absorbs the energy of waves. A steep
bulkhead allows waves to crash into the shore, drastically
increasing erosion and causing that wave energy to cause damage
on adjacent and opposite shorelines, which by the way would be
my shoreline.
From an environmental standpoint, bulkheads are by far the
most destructive method of stabilization. Please keep in mind
that a shoreline's natural vegetation acts also as a filter,
preventing sediments and unnecessary nutrients from entering the
water body. This runoff leads to poor water quality and upsets
the balance needed for a healthy shoreline habitat.
With bulkheading, the vegetated area that would normally
provide shelter, places to feed, breeding and nesting areas is
cleared and built over quickly and completely, destroying that
ecosystem. There is an abundance of clams and oysters in the
basin that would be harmed by this, and deep water dredging of
Board of Trustees 32 October 20, 2021
the channel would most certainly cause harm to the shellfish.
And also, moving Oscar the Osprey's nest. Yes, we have
named him because we watch him all summer long, to the other
side of the channel, when he and his family have happily lived
there fore years is, I just find very sad and selfish.
As for dredging this location, normal maintenance to
maintain the existing channel is fine. I have no problem with
that. The boats located in the Brick Cove marina have navigated
in and out of that channel all summer long.
Deep water dredging would only be needed to allow larger
boats in and out of this basin. Do we want larger boats in this
small, little basin? As it is, the marina has had several
spills this summer of oil and diesel, which I have pictures of
right here. Even bigger boats would certainly have a negative
environmental impact on our little basin. So I would like to
know why we need to deep water dredge and bulkhead this channel
when it is functioning just fine as it is. I think we all know
why, and it's the elephant in the room tonight. It is the future
development of Brick Cove marina.
So I thank you all for listening to my concerns. I don't
know if you would like to see these pictures, but I have them
here if you would like it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to
this application?
MS. CANTRELL: Naomi is waiting on Zoom to speak.
MR. REINER: After the speakers are done, I would like to respond
to a couple of items.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
MS. CANTRELL: If you don't mind we are going to Zoom so she can
speak quickly. There is a Naomi Mullman who wishes to speak. If
you would like to un-mute yourself and speak to the Board, and
please just spell your name for the record. Thank you.
MS. MULLMAN: I'll keep my comments brief because my neighbors
have done such an excellent job. My name is Naomi Mullman.
Together with my husband I own the cottage at 11 Sage Boulevard
in Breezy Shores. Breezy Shores as you know is just to the east
of the Brick Cove marina, and without, you know, conjecturing
about intentions or anything else, I just wanted to say that I
am particularly concerned about the construction that is
proposed on the two peninsulas.
First of all, it seems contrary to public policy because as
others have mentioned there is a hardening of the shorelines on
the eastern peninsula. They are taking a natural shoreline and
hardening it. The whole of Long Island is real and hardening of
the shorelines all the way into New York City where hardened
shorelines have had a really terrible affect in terms of
flooding, and I think it's odd to now turn to hardening of the
shorelines here. But also what is really disturbing to me is I
don't know if the Trustees have had a chance to review the Young
&Young survey yet, but based on the Young &Young survey, it
Board of Trustees 33 October 20, 2021
appears that New York State is actually the owner of a good
portion of that western peninsula, and the Brick Cove marina
proposal would involve building up and bulkheading part of that
peninsula that actually we believe belongs to New York state.
You know, I'm not going to tell you how to do your job, you
always know how to do your job, but I don't think it's within
the Trustees bailiwick to approve construction on New York state
property, and so I would just urge you to look at this issue and
I don't think that this construction is right for a Trustee
decision, so I would ask you not to approve it at this time.
And I will give back the rest of my five minutes. Thank
you, very much, for listening and considering all these issues.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MS. NELSON: Good evening, Board of Trustees, my name is Diane Nelson.
My husband and I own cottage#24 at Breezy Shores, Sage Boulevard.
My comment pertains to natural shoreline and the building
of the bulkhead. In a recent New Yorker article, August 9th,
2021, Kate Orff, a Columbia University landscape architect and
winner of the MacArthur Genius Grant noted: The approach to
climate resilience should be to go with nature, not erect"gray
infrastructure" like seawalls and bulkheads.
Natural shorelines that revitalize the land should be
maintained to reduce threat from catastrophic flooding and
coastal erosion instead of an over-reliance on seawalls and
bulkheads, that are often insufficient and sometimes destructive.
Natural shorelines are better habitats for wetlands,
nesting birds, juvenile fish-and shellfish. The Peconic Estuary
Program in partnership with the Town of Southold is trying to
limit the hardening of the shoreline in our area. This contrasts
with the proposal of the Brick Cove marina to replace the
natural shoreline on the eastern peninsula with a bulkhead and
double wall. It's important to consider the potential
environmental impact of this proposal. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else wish to speak to this
application?
MR. WEHRMANN: I'm Richard Wehrmann. I'm also a shareholder at
Breezy Shores. I'll be very short. Thank you, for your time.
Thank you for your work that you do.
So, I would like to understand who owns Brick Cove marina.
And my goal is not to pry into personal financial matters, but I
would like to understand who our neighbors are and what are
their goals. Is it a business owned by north fork residents or
is it a vehicle for outside investors and, um, if it is a
vehicle for outside investors, it would be good to know as their
neighbors. And it would be nice to know how many outside
investors there are, if there are any what percentage do they own?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sir, we cannot comment on the ownership of
this. We are talking about the merits of the application before
Board of Trustees 34 October 20, 2021
us, not who owns the corporation. So please keep your comments
to that--
MR. WEHRMANN: I'm just expressing my concern about their
long-term goals and whether or not they are merely investors or
whether they respect the peace and tranquility of Sage
Boulevard, and, you know, whether they are committed to Southold
and the north fork and the people who live there. Thank you
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I understand Trustee Domino has a question.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would like to direct my question to Brant,
and I believe I asked this question when we were in the field,
but I would like a further clarification.
On the eastern peninsula cross-section AA, it shows the top
of proposed bulkhead at elevation seven feet. And it appears
from this cross-section that it is contiguous. I'm confused as
to how the low sill bulkhead which is in back of that, could
function. If you could answer that.
MR. REINER: I'm here. I can hear you. I would also like to
direct you to Matt Aylward who is sitting in the audience right
now. He's the engineer for the project. He can speak more
directly to the engineering aspects of the design. But just for
clarity, I'm looking at the plan as we speak to make sure we are
on the same page. What sheet did you say you were on, Mr.
Domino?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Cross-section sheet, the lower left-hand corner,
eastern peninsula cross-section, says AA. Scale 1 HH.
MR. REINER: Yes, so the top of the typical bulkhead, which is
immediately adjacent, the filled area, will be at elevation 7.
Just so there is clarity on this, the top of the elevation of
the peninsula right now is elevation 8. That at its highest
point, the eastern peninsula is at elevation 8. So the idea was
not to raise the height of the peninsula but rather level it off
and then decelerate it or decline it as we move seaward away
from the middle of the peninsula, so the elevation of seven
worked in terms of slope so there was not a significant runoff
from the peninsula. Natural vegetation would help buffer that.
So I think to speak to your direct question, the low sill
bulkhead was designed in the intertidal range to make sure that
the intertidal flows would allow the wetland areas to flourish.
So the top of the low sill bulkhead is around elevation, I think
it's 0.33. We have mean high water at elevation 0.12. Mean low
water at elevation -1. So the idea is to make sure the wetland
takes on waters during periods of high tide and allows the
waters to recede during periods of low tide, to act as an
intertidal marsh would, to allow it to flourish to its fullest
extent. It acts as a natural buffering system from any potential
runoff from the filled peninsula.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: If I can rephrase my question, because I'm still
confused. Before I do that, the elevation shown is 7.48 and you
are proposing to raise it to 8. The bulkhead which would be
Board of Trustees 35 October 20, 2021
shown here would be the furthest north bulkhead on this
peninsula, and you are correct in that the plans show that the
top of the low sill is at 0.33. But my question is how is water
going to get there if you have a proposed bulkhead at elevation
7 around the entire low sill?
MR. AYLWARD: The elevation 7 bulkhead is behind the low sill
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is that just a piling or--
MR. AYLWARD: What you see in this diagram is the piling
extending up. The top of the bulkhead stops.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Then you need to correct the plans. Because it
says top of proposed bulkhead. It does not say --
MR. AYLWARD: Which is supposed to carry across to the bulkhead
behind it. You can see just below the top of low sill bulkhead
says 0.33. So that leader does point to that but it's to carry
across to the bulkhead behind it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: You need to clarify that. The top of low sill is
clearly labeled as 0.33. This top of proposed bulkhead at 7.00.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It looks like you have a seven-foot bulkhead
seaward of a low sill bulkhead, then you have another 7-foot
bulkhead landward of that.
MR. AYLWARD: Correct. Yes. The leader does point to the top of
the piling, however, graphically it does show the bulkhead at
0.33. If you see the details just below.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: There is another bulkhead seaward of the
proposed low sill bulkhead.
MR. AYLWARD: Correct. The low sill bulkhead at 0.33 is the seaward
most structure in that area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Regardless of intent, and I did see what you
are speaking to, it would have to be corrected on the plan, and
clarified.
MR. AYLWARD: Sure.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Does anyone else wish to speak to this
application?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Was there at any point in time a permit for
that dredge channel that maybe expired or anything?
MR. AYLWARD: Yes, I believe as recent as 2013, which I mentioned,
2013 was the last time -- I believe Brant, do you want speak to
that?
MR. REINER: Yes, sorry. We do have records that the Trustees and
the DEC issued permits for the dredging of this channel, I
believe, in 2013 was the last time. And the Corps of Engineers
had issued a maintenance dredging permit in I believe it was
2008 or 2009. There is a history of permitting for the
maintenance dredging of this channel to a depth of six feet,
which is consistent with what we are really proposing to do
at this time. So we are continuing forward with the history of
the dredging for this inlet channel, which benefits all
homeowners that utilize Sage basin.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Am I correct in saying this is a maintenance
dredge? Because looking at the hydrographic survey dated August
Board of Trustees 36 October 20, 2021
2nd, 2021, it looks like you are getting some shoaling from the
west, so you have depths of like 1.5, two feet, so you are going
to bring that all back to six feet with potentially a ten-year
maintenance permit to maintain that depth?
MR. AYLWARD: Correct. We are only a 55-foot width in that channel.
So we are not going up to the bulkhead.
MR. REINER: So, just for clarity, the hydrographic survey that
was submitted with the original application, needs
clarification. That was submitted without the understanding
there was additional dredging shown on it. There is no intention
to dredge the basin whatsoever within Breezy Shores Association
ownership. All of the dredging activity is to be completely
within Brick Cove marina ownership, or joint ownership between
Brick Cove marina and the New York state underwater lands
through a lease agreement that has been in place for I believe
as far back as the '60s. And that is documented. We can provide
documentation for that. But, again, there was some confusion
with regard to the hydrographic survey. We did correct that by
submitting an actual survey of the property and the underwater
lands prepared by Minto. So I apologize for any confusion that
may have caused with regard to the hydrographic survey.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to
this application?
MR. MEYER: I'm Michael Meyer, nothing to do with the movie. I
live in cottage 30 at Breezy Shores, and I had the honor with my
wife to purchase Breezy Shores from the Sage family, so we have
some history there. And just to clear one thing up. Everybody's
covered most everything, but Bill Everidge (sic) put the flag pole in
after 9/11 and he put a light on it so it would light up at
night and they would not have to do anything to service it. It
doesn't need to be serviced. To say that the flagpole is the
reason they need that piece of land is wrong.
Anyway, at Breezy Shores we have our little private 15-foot
road that goes back there and we share it with Brick Cove
marina. We own the road itself, and we share it with Brick Cove
marina. And we are just kind of concerned about the
development. I won't go on and on about it because that will be
another time. And that is basically all I have to say. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak?And
please keep your comments brief. I do believe it's a very
comprehensive list of the concerns you have given the Board.
MS. CHU: Hi, good evening, Board of Trustees. I first visited Southold
over ten years ago to visit a family member who lived in Southold since the 70s.
I was really struck by how calm, peaceful and beautiful Southold was.
That day I participated in a family tradition that started long
ago, and I watched them go clamming off Conkling's Point. Soon my
partner and I purchased a small cottage of our own at Breezy
Shores and we appreciated how much Breezy Shores saw itself as a
steward of the natural habitat and wildlife in the area.
Something that is so quickly disappearing in Southold.
Board of Trustees 37 October 20, 2021
A couple of times each summer I go clamming. I eat some but
generally it's for fun and I throw most of them back. When I go
it's usually off Conkling Point. While in the water I think
about the family and how grateful I am to be a part of it and to
continue tradition. I have been concerned about the health of
the bay generally, and my own experience tells me shellfish are
not as plentiful as before, even within the last few years. I'm
alarmed by the collapse of the Peconic Bay scallop fishery these
past few years and perhaps these scallops will rebound, and I
really hope so. But perhaps we are standing at a precipice of
something much worse. The collapse of one fishery could just as
easily signal the imminent decline of other fisheries. My
concerns about active marinas is not new. There is always oil
and other spills in every marina every year that surely
contaminate the waters and sediments below, which is undoubtedly
in the channel that Conkling LLC seeks to dredge. I understand
that every marina needs to maintain itself, however we must also
seek to minimize the damage that dredging can produce in
surrounding waters, adjacent properties and ecology of the
system.
Brick Cove marina has dredged at least twice in the last
ten years, which according to New York state guidelines on
dredging no longer qualifies as minor maintenance dredging but
is major dredging. This degree of dredging should warrant a
higher standard of approval, especially in Southold where so
many of us are concerned about the health of the bay.
State guidelines also state that maintenance dredging does
not include horizontal or vertical expansion into previously
undisturbed areas, and it's unclear whether the scope and depth
and width of the channel meets or exceeds these parameters.
Conkling LLC has named itself after Conkling's Point, a
specific place that is geographically situated east of Brick
Cove marina and is entirely outside their property line.
Conkling's Point is the habitat of the Least Tern and Piping
Plover, both protected and are endangered species. Ironically
the proposed project endangers Brick Cove's neighbors Breezy
Shores and Conkling's Point itself with an even greater degree
of erosion. I ask the Trustees to consider whether these
projects are necessary at this time or at all.
I acknowledge that marinas are necessarily part of a
vibrant coastal community, but disrupting important ecosystems
should be done only when necessary, with care and a measured
approach that will minimize destruction to the ecology of the
bay and the organisms that live in it.
Conkling LLC as has best displayed a lack of precision that
clearly illustrates the ways in which these high paid
professionals can and do make very big mistakes.
Please consider the long-term consequences of the proposals
outlined in their current application. Our bay and our future
might really depend on this. Thank you, to the Board of Trustees
for this opportunity to speak.
Board of Trustees 38 October 20, 2021
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak?
MS. CANTRELL: We have someone on Zoom by the name of Mike. If
you would like to speak, please un-mute yourself and state and
spell your name for the Board.
MR. PETSKY: Hi. Mike Petsky. I reside at#10 Sage Boulevard.
I'll make this brief. Thank you, you guys, for taking the time
today to take all the input here. A couple of things here. I'm
not an engineer, I'm not a big environmentalist. I want to talk
about the fact that I have two questions that need to be
answered here. One, does the Brick Cove marina actually own the
property that they want to dredge. That's the first question.
And number two, the reality is why raise the peninsula? Why
raise it up, unless there is some long-term plans to do so. So I
think in the long-term we need to understand what Brick Cove
wants to do. I think it's more than just dredging to bring in
some big boats, and obviously I think there is a longer-term
plan there. So that's all I have to say, and questions I have to
ask. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. If there is no one else to speak
at this time, I'll make a motion to table this.
MS. CANTRELL: We have two other people on Zoom.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And Chick Voorhis wanted to respond.
MS. CANTRELL: Somebody named Lorraine wishes to speak. If you
would un-mute yourself and state and spell your name for the
record.
MS. TEDESCO: My name is Lorraine Tedesco, cottage#2 at Breezy
Shores. What we are concerned about is Brick Cove marina's
long-term plans. We would really like them to be clear about
their intentions. Sage Boulevard is not a road that can handle
a lot of traffic. If an event space and wedding venue were
added as proposed on your Facebook page, we are really concerned
about the possible consequences of the safety of those who use
the roads.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Ma'am, I hate to interrupt you but we need to
keep the comments to the application that is before us and not
speculation about something we do not have in front of this
Board at this time. So with regard to the dredging or the
shoreline stabilization project, we are accepting comments on
that.
MS. TEDESCO: Okay, thank you for what you have done here for us
tonight and it's a pleasure to be here. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MS. CANTRELL: We have somebody by the name of Machi. Again, as I
stated to the previous people, please state your name and spell
your name for the record.
MS. TANTILLO: Hi. Thank you so much for your service, Trustees.
My name is Machi Tantillo. I am a resident of Breezy Shores. I
am a resident of the north fork for 50 years. My father is a
civil engineer, so I love everything about seawalls and
Board of Trustees 39 October 20, 2021
protecting shorelines and rocks and rip rap. But in this case,
I'm concerned about what Conkling Advisors are proposing, and my
question is specific to the dredge spoil that is being proposed
to be used as backfill. Given that the dredge spoil will be
taken from the marina bottom and we've discussed several times
here, the spills the gasoline, et cetera, the residue from the
marina, to be used as backfill, what kinds of precautions will
be taken to, committed to examining, testing and remediating the
dredge spoils and sediments prior to dredging and prior to being
used as backfill. Thank you, very much. I appreciate your time
so much, and have a good evening.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, very much.
Mr. Voorhis?
MR. VOORHIS: All right, very briefly. There were a number of
comments. I just wanted to sum up with a few points. I want you
all to be very much aware that the site is currently subject to
existing erosion. The site has been subject to loss of land,
particularly the peninsula. I mentioned we have photographs and
the observed conditions onsite provide evidence of that.
There is existing rip rap on the south side of the east
peninsula, but it's broken concrete material, and it's really
scattered over the beach. You might call it hazardous or
dangerous. It's certainly not natural, and that's an existing
condition that I don't want you to overlook.
Also the roots or vegetation on that peninsula are exposed,
and many of the upland areas continue to erode in that east
peninsula. The vegetated community is not a healthy shoreline
community. It's experiencing stress due to those conditions. I
know the Trustees have visited the site and so you are aware of
the existing conditions. But when I hear comments about this
being an existing, living shoreline, I don't feel those comments
are accurate.
I do agree with the concept of soft solutions and living
shorelines in the correct place. I want to be clear, that this
east peninsula provides protection for the entire Brick Cove
marina. It is a necessary protection component for the existing
marina, and it is actively eroding.
This project seeks to remedy that situation, really put the
land where it should be and stop the erosion that is now
impacting wetlands and causing siltation and shoaling in the
marina.
The proposed shoreline that we have present on the plans
provides natural rock on the south side that will dissipate wave
energy and provide habitat. The creation of intertidal wetland
on the north side of the east peninsula will have direct
environmental benefits. It's a substantial area of tidal marsh.
And we know the benefits of Spartina Alterniflora and
stabilization of shorelines and processing of nutrients as well
as pollutants. This is a necessary component that will have
tremendous benefit.
The upland supporting natural vegetation is provided
Board of Trustees 40 October 20, 2021
throughout the site and it will actually be a significant
improvement over the current conditions. And dredging is
absolutely necessary for navigation for existing boats that
utilize Brick Cove marina. The creation of a stabilized
shoreline is necessary. The applicants are clearly stated in
the submission materials, I don't think we need to go into that.
The ownership of the property is clearly indicated in our
application materials, and we responded to questions and
provided survey information. It really is a relatively small
dredging project. It's in areas with coarse material that have
been dredged before. The small area that is going to four-foot
depth in the north basin, north of the peninsula, is less than
300 cubic yards, and the total channel dredging is about 900
cubic yards. So we are talking about a modest project that
stabilizes the shoreline and protects the marina long-term,
reduces the erosion and establishes a natural plant communities.
So I just wanted to summarize and provide those points. And I
thank you for your attention.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, Mr. Voorhis. No further
questions, there has been a very voluminous and very detailed
record in the process and I'm sure the Board will wish to review
the Minutes and go over what you have asked of us and the
concerns that you have given us.
Accordingly, so that the Board can do its due diligence, I
make a motion we table this application for further
consideration of all those concerns brought up.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just ask that if anyone is leaving after this
application, please do not congregate in the lobby, we have 19
more applications to go over tonight. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We'll take a quick five-minute recess.
(After a recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, back on the record.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 2, the application of 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 LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency was written on January 19th, 2021, and the
inconsistency arises from the fact that the pool is partially
located outside of the building envelope approved on the filed
subdivision plat.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
Board of Trustees 41 October 20, 2021
unanimously on December 9th, 2020.
The Trustees have been to this site several times, the most
recent physical inspection was conducted August 8th of 2020, at
which time noted that need to see the C&R building envelope on
the plans. Subsequently, the new plans were drawn and submitted
stamped approved September 19th, 2021, showing the pool entirely
within the building envelope.
Is there anyone here to speak though this application?
MS. CANTRELL: Daniel Ravn is on Zoom. Ms. Ravn, if you want to
un-mute yourself.
MS. RAVN: Good evening, members of the Board, and ladies and
gentlemen of the public, I'm here to answer any questions. I'm
Danielle Ravn. I am the property owner. I'm here to answer any
other questions you may have. I believe we submitted the plan
addressing all the previous comments, which was on the pool,
design the pool within the building envelope, as well as the
pool equipment and the cabana.
If is there anything else, any comments, I'm here to listen
and to address them.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, very much. Anyone else wish to speak
to this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, and in accordance with New Habitat Architecture and
design plans dated January 20th, 2021, stamped received
September 17th, 2021, which will bring this application into
consistency.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 3, 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 visited this site July 7th, 2021. All
Trustees were present, with notes to confirm through-flow
decking, concerns of the pier line. Since then and since the
last public hearing, new plans have been submitted received
stamped October 13th, 2021, with a new written description,
received stamped October 19th, 2021.
The LWRP program coordinator found this application to be
both exempt and inconsistent. He did ask to clarify what type of
decking. The new project description has that clarification.
Board of Trustees 42 October 20, 2021
The inconsistency had to do with the extension of the catwalk
into public waters. And the new plans have shortened the
catwalk to address that inconsistency.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed the application
and supports the application with the recommendation of a
handrail.
At this point,just to remove any questions, I'll read very
quickly the new project description:
Construction of 138-foot long overall fixed pier, the pier
will consist of four-foot by eight-foot ramp, up from grade to a
four-foot wide by 110-foot long fixed catwalk leading to a
four-foot by 14-foot ramp down to a 6x20 foot fixed T-dock. The
decking on all components will be through-flow decking.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board of Trustees?
(Negative response).
Nobody on Zoom?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with the new written description as: The removal of the existing
fixed pier and the construction of a new 138-foot long overall
fixed pier. The pier will consist of a four-foot by eight-foot
ramp up from grade to a four-foot by 110-foot fixed catwalk,
leading out to a four-foot by 14-foot ramp, down to a six-foot
by 20-foot fixed T-dock. The decking on all components will be
through-flow decking, and this goes along with the plan that is
stamped dated received October 13th, 2021.
My motion is to approve.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number four, East End Pool King on behalf of
CHRISTINE CARBIA-ANDRIOTIS requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 16'x32' gunite swimming pool with a proposed
approximately 980 sq. ft. at-grade pool patio; install a drywell
for pool backwash; and to install 4' high pool enclosure fencing
with gates.
Located: 500 Goose Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-79-1-4
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on October 13th,
2021. Notes say was not staked. Subsequently, Trustees
Bredemeyer and Domino revisited the site. It was then staked.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
Board of Trustees 43 October 20, 2021
application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. CANTRELL: Jennifer from East End Pool. Please state and
spell your name for the record.
MS. DELVAGLIO: Jennifer DelVaglio, East End Pool King
representing Christine Carbia for a pool application.
I apologize that the stakes were not still up when you came
for the first field inspection. They have been up for so long I
think they came down during the summer. But I'm glad you were
able to revisit the property, and I'm here to answer any
questions you might have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anybody else here wishing to speak regarding
this application?
(Negative response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(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 5, Denise Bradley, RA on behalf of L78,
LLC, c/o JONATHAN LEWIS requests a Wetland Permit to demolish
existing single-story bungalow and construct a new two and
one-half story dwelling with a basement (±6,675 sq. ft.) that
includes a 345 sq. ft. front entrance, a 138 sq. ft. balcony off
master suite, and a 333 sq. ft. second balcony off guest suite;
install 660 sq. ft. of proposed patios and walkway at the rear and
side of the proposed dwelling; a proposed 8'x8' hot tub; a
proposed 10'x11' outdoor shower enclosure that includes a 6'x10'
shower and a 5'x10' changing area connected to a drywell, and
the shower is open below and above; a 17'x17' octagonal shaped
gazebo; and to abandon existing sanitary system and install a
new I/A onsite wastewater system.
Located: 1500 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-7-9.1
The Trustees most recently visited this property on the
13th of October, 2021, and noted that the non-disturbance should
be clarified on the plans as contiguous. Many hardwood trees are
being taken down, should be replaced at a minimum of one per
one, with native species. Identify the pier line on seaward
side, and confirm the hot tub location from the Wetland line.
The LWRP found this to be consistent, just noted that the
entire lot is within a FEMA flood zone with a moderate flooding
area, risk of flooding area.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
Board of Trustees 44 October 20, 2021
the application. The Conservation Advisory Council does not
support the application because the proposed dwelling does not
meet the required setbacks in accordance with Chapter 275.
Is there anyone that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. LEWIS: Jonathan Lewis, the homeowner, and also Jeff Patanjo
on Zoom.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you or Jeff speak to sort of what was
mentioned from our field inspections: What is the distance from
the hot tub to the Wetland line? Is that buffer, the
non-disturbance buffer, contiguous across the entire length of
the property along the dash line. And I think that question
stems from one of the sets of plans, I think both sets of plans,
when you look at them, it says non-disturbance buffer, but then
over to the side it says zone area elevation six. So I just want
to make sure that buffer is contiguous across the whole length
of the property. And then please talk to the native tree
replacement.
MR. LEWIS: I guess it is contiguous, according to the plans, all
the way across. Are you speaking to replacement of trees, or--
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you would, yes, or Jeff. If you want to
speak to it, you can.
MR. LEWIS: I would prefer Jeff.
MR. PATANJO: Good evening, everybody, I hope everybody is good,
aside from being on Zoom. I know it's a little bit confusing.
As far as the trees, the site plan does not include any
specific trees in it. We will absolutely provide a one-to-one tree
replanting, if that is amenable to Jonathan, I believe he'd be
okay with replanting trees. If we take down a certain amount
we'll go ahead and plant new trees, native varieties.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Jeff, what was the distance of the hot
tub to the tidal wetland line?
MR. PATANJO: If you are looking at, in that area it's a
bulkhead. So it's, you know, since the location is on the east
side of the property, the separation distance would be to the
bulkhead, and based on my hand scale, it's about 60 feet or so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak regarding this application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a question. Do we want to have trees
marked up in a count or some kind of photo document of what is
there leaving to get a tree count for the one-on-one replacement?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any way to condition, I mean that's
probably my main, I mean I like that idea, that's probably, just
speaking for one Trustee at this point, it's probably my only
concern with the application. Is there any way to --
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I would be comfortable with conditioning that
six trees be planted. I'm thinking one-to-one tree replanting,
we are estimating plus or,minus six trees.
MR. PATANJO: Obviously over a certain caliper, I mean, obviously
anything over say 15 caliper, we'll replant those along the
Board of Trustees 45 October 20, 2021
property line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, just to be clear, we are looking for
ideally native hardwood but, you know, if you want to include
cedars in that, I don't think that would be an issue. They are
both beneficial trees. But we are removing multiple mature
native hardwood. So I think that was the main concern.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Most of the trees in that area were oaks.
MR. PATANJO: Can it be conditioned just on caliper size, say if
it's over 12-inch caliper or 15-inch caliper would it be
replaced with a native hardwood or, you know, eastern cedar
obviously is a native variety. I don't know if you would like to
use those. Maybe their landscaper can help out with the actual
tree replacement.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I think the environment calls for oak trees.
That's all that is there. So I would prefer to stay in that category.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, I would say, I mean I didn't get my
tape measure out while we were there, Jeff. I would say, you
know, at least at a minimum of six, I guess I would agree with
Trustee Domino, you know, probably oak trees or, you know,
native hardwoods.
MR. PATANJO: Okay, we could condition on planting trees, is six.
Is there a certain size you want planted, like three-inch
caliper, three-and-a-half inch caliper at the time of planting?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We could do three.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: They don't-- hardiness doesn't guarantee
survivability. Two-inch is fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. And minimum. Would you say
specifically oak or any native hardwood.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Native hard wood is fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what the whole area calls for.
All right, anyone else wish to speak to the application or any
additional comment?
(Negative response).
Hearing no additional comments, I make a motion to close the
hearing on the application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the stipulation that any trees removed are replaced with
native hardwood trees at a minimum of six with a two-inch
minimum caliper.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 6, 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'
Board of Trustees 46 October 20, 2021
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
This application has been deemed to be inconsistent under
the Town's LWRP. The LWRP report is an eleven-page report
outlining in detail the following policies which are found to be
inconsistent, and I'll just very quickly list the policy without
the detail which is incorporated in the report. Policies 3.1,
policy 4.1, policy 5.3, policy 6.1, policy 8.3, policy 9.1,
policy 9.2, policy 9.3, policy 9.4. That is the summary of the
policies.
The report further enumerates the Trustees denied, there
was a denial by the Board of Town Trustees in 2005 for a dock on
the property which subsequently was subject to an Article 78
proceeding for which the appellate division affirmed the
judgment of the lower court which had sustained the Trustees
denial of the dock in this location.
Also, the Conservation Advisory Council in their report
from their meeting of July 7th, indicated they do not support
the application because there is a concern with public lateral
access. The proximity to the adjacent shellfishery operation and
concerns with the overall size of the docking facility and
bottom coverage.
The board of Town Trustees did inspect the site of this
application on October 13th, inspected the staking and met with
Mr. Jack Costello of Costello Marine Contracting Corporation to
review the project and then subsequently we discussed it at our
work session.
Additionally, the Board at our work session discussed our
intention of following the requirements of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and to seek lead agency status
for this application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak to this application?
MS. CANTRELL: Jack Costello on Zoom would like to speak. Jack,
if you would like to un-mute yourself and speak to the Board.
MR. COSTELLO: Good evening, guys. Jack Costello from Costello
Marine representing the applicant. Can you hear me okay?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, we can.
MR. COSTELLO: Okay, guys, I would like to make a quick point
about this. This application is very similar to four recently
approved applications between the next vistas southeast between
Cedar Beach and Paradise Point. The four applicants were Notias,
DeVito, Sciarrino and Sanford. All these
applications were approved. I don't want to say by this exact
Board, but I believe most of you guys sat on the Board when
those approvals went through.
These open-pile docks have had no negative affects to the
stability of that shoreline. Hopefully you guys get the
opportunity to, you know, walk that beach. This particular vista
is between Paradise Point and Brady Shores and has a dock, a
large fish trap and several large fill jetties at the basin
Board of Trustees 47 October 20, 2021
entrances, so there are other large marine structures in this
area so it would not be considered a pristine vista.
When I staked the dock I noticed that all the kayakers
stayed seaward of the dock line, which is only 130 seaward at
mean high tide. I don't believe this dock at all impedes
navigation. Since the Trustees have, back in 2005, had a problem
with this application, things have changed in the way that you
guys approved other docks very similar and in very close
proximity, and considering the major marine structures that are
in this vista between Brady Shores and Paradise Point, there is
no reason to call this area a pristine vista. And as far as
lateral beach access, we would certainly add access stairs to
this application, as we discussed on site during the field
inspection. And that really, I want to make my statements quick,
I know you guys have a long night. I'll just stay here if there
are ariy other questions, if you have them.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, Jack. Also as a point of further
clarification, coming from the report of the LWRP coordinator, I
wanted to quote a section for the benefit of the Board. He does
indicate that the, following the adoption of LWRP program in the
Town, three docks on the east side of the peninsula were
constructed. These are the ones that Jack just mentioned. In
2016 it was Sag was approved for a 140-foot dock. In 2016 Devito
was approved for a 190-foot dock. In 2016 Sanford was approved
for a 190-foot dock. On the southside of the peninsula there are
no docks. On the north side there is one small dock that
predates the adoption of the LWRP, and there are no other docks
along the shoreline. The proposed dock is located on the north
side. So if that can create a bit of a work picture.
In fact we are all familiar with those aforementioned docks
that Jack mentioned, I just read off here, and have a different
environmental setting and also there are other docks constructed
prior.
Are there any additional questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Not seeing any, I would make a motion to table this application
for the Board to meet the requirements of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and seek lead agency status.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. COSTELLO: Thanks, guys.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 7, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on
behalf of FOUNDERS LANDING BOATYARD, LLC requests a Wetland
Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Dredge Permit to dredge a
2,400 sq. ft. area to -7.0' below mean low water, removing
approximately 240 cubic yards of spoil; dredge spoils to be
trucked off site to an approved disposal site.
Board of Trustees 48 October 20, 2021
Located: 2700 Hobart Road & 1000 Terry Lane, Southold;
SCTM#'s 1000-64-3-10 & 1000-64-3-11
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. And the
determination was done on October 21 st, 2021.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted unanimously on
October 13th to support this application without conditions:
The Trustees most recent inspection October 13th, all were
present. Notes read as follows: Unauthorized, unpermitted
bulkhead adjacent to potentially unnecessary and proposed
dredging. Discuss referral and/or hold for New York State DEC
permit.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
MS. CANTRELL: We have Jane Costello from Costello Marine Corp.
who would like to speak. Jane, if you want to un-mute yourself,
go ahead and speak to the Board.
MR. COSTELLO: Good evening. Jane Costello, Costello Marine.
I'm here to answer any questions. I think the application is
pretty simple concept-wise. I know you are bringing up other
issues that you saw on site, but right now I'm looking just to
dredge a very small area that had previously been allowed to be
dredged in 2015 during the initial permit that we received from
the Trustees when we were doing basically general maintenance to
the structures and then off that permit we did a few
modifications. We also have a DEC permit that is, it was a
ten-year maintenance permit that included dredging. I'm
modifying that just because the scope of the dredging is a
little bit different than what was previously allowed. Only
because we reconfigured the slips.
If the Board has any questions for me, please let me know.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Jane, do you have of a DEC permit for this
particular dredging?
MS. COSTELLO: No, I submitted a modification to the original
permit that was issued in,2015. It's still good to 2025. It was
a ten-year permit so they are still reviewing that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay. And I believe it's the feeling of the
Board we should wait for that.
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no comments, I would like to make a motion to table this
application for awaiting DEC approval.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 8, John Hocker of Latham Sand & Gravel,
Inc. on behalf of SHM GREENPORT, LLC, D/B/A SAFE HARBOR STIRLING
requests a Wetland Permit to replace approximately 1,025' of
existing bulkheading in-kind/in-place using vinyl sheathing and
raise bulkhead height an additional 18" maximum in elevation;
Board of Trustees 49 October 20, 2021
reclaim lost material by incidental dredging within 10' of new
structure; temporarily move and re-install existing frame
irregularly shaped building after construction; replacement of
building support pilings as necessary; and to install and
perpetually maintain a 10'wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of bulkhead.
Located: 1410 Manhasset Avenue, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-36-1-1
The Trustees visited the site on October 13th, 2021. All
Trustees present. Field notes, the project was straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator found this action to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. HOCKER: John Hocker, Latham Sand & Gravel, here to answer
any questions you might have.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Greg, I have the next one and I don't know if
yours has the same thing about turbidity controls during construction.
MR. HOCKER: Absolutely. That's what we'll do.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Okay, would you guys suggest making that a
stipulation of the permit?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sound good to me.
MR. HOCKER: Not a problem.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Anybody else in the audience or on Zoom that
wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
At this point I make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll make a motion to approve the application
as submitted with the stipulation of employing best practice
turbidity controls during construction.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 9, John Hocker-of Latham Sand &
Gravel, Inc. on behalf of SHM GREENPORT, LLC, D/B/A SAFE HARBOR
GREENPORT requests a Wetland Permit to replace approximately
234' of existing bulkheading in-kind/in-place using vinyl
sheathing; extend the larger travel lift well 10' landward and
conduct incidental dredging with 10' of new structure as
necessary; re-sheath the landward side of approximately 540' of
existing bulkheading, and replace fender piles and backing
system as needed.
Located: 2530 Manhasset Avenue, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-43-3-2
The Trustees conducted a field inspection October 13th,
2021, noting the project is basically straightforward.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent with notes to
require turbidity controls during construction.
Board of Trustees 50 October 20, 2021
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. HOCKER: John Hocker, Latham Sand & Gravel here for any
questions.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding
this application?
(No response).
Similar to the other one, turbidity controls.
MR. HOCKER: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing no further questions, I make a motion
to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make motion to approve the application
with the conditions that turbidity controls are used during
construction.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 10, 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 1,262sq.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
The Trustees initially inspected this site on the 8th of
September and noted that the applicant should establish a
20-foot non-turf behind bulkhead and its return. A five-foot
non-turf on rest of retaining wall.
The following inspection October 13th was still waiting on
plans for that. It was an inhouse review about the buffer. Since
that time I have received, the office has received plans stamped
received October 15th, 2021, which depicts a 20-foot non-turf
buffer, contiguous throughout the property.
Board of Trustees 51 October 20, 2021
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application but wanted to see the pool put on the site plan,
which is included on the current plan that is submitted.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. CANTRELL: We have Clay Coffey on Zoom wanted to speak.
MR. COFFEY: Hello, Trustees, thank you for taking your time
tonight, and I'm here to answer any questions you might have.
Please let us know what we can do.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like
to speak regarding this application or any additional comments
from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close the hearing
on the application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
based off the plans stamped received by the office October 15th,
2021, which depicts a 20-foot non-turf buffer throughout the
entire property.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 11, Patricia Moore on behalf of
LEFKARA HOLDINGS, LLC, c/o NEOFITOS STEFANIDES requests a
Wetland Permit to install and perpetually maintain a 30' wide
vegetated non-turf buffer area along the landward edge of top of
bluff with approximately 438 plants of specified sizes and
species; install and maintain a 4' wide path to top of bluff
through the non-turf buffer; and to perpetually maintain a
non-disturbance buffer from top of bluff seaward.
Located: 1070 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-30-2-77
This project, the LWRP drew some confusion that the Board
did not want activities to take place near the bluff during that
home construction, and so the Board during the course of field
inspection on the 13th reviewed the proposed planting plan for
this 30-foot planted vegetated non-turf buffer and found it to
be straightforward.
The Conservation Advisory Council proposed to support the
application with the concerns that the pool have a permit.
Which it does.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of Lefkara Holdings. I'm
here to answer any questions. It sounds like it's pretty
straightforward, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are there any questions from the Board,
anyone on Zoom have any questions?
Board of Trustees 52 October 20, 2021
(Negative response).
Hearing no questions, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in
this matter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application as submitted noting that the planting plan will
address the inconsistency drawing from the fact that setting
aside the area while the house was constructed was to effectuate
said plans which is in this permit. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 12, Patricia Moore on behalf of LAWRENCE
KAPLAN & DENISE BLESI-KAPLAN requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 3,142 sq. ft. one-story dwelling; construct a 21'x23'10"
addition to existing dwelling with a 6'x15' wood deck; new stone
walkway to replace existing walkway to stone patio terrace
(1,294 sq. ft.) on grade with a 16'x32' in-ground pool; new
444 sq. ft. wood deck landward of patio; replace existing outdoor
shower with new 34 sq. ft. outdoor shower; and to install a new
113 sq. ft. stone walkway to replace existing concrete walk to dock.
The existing 3,142-square foot westerly dwelling, construct
a 21 x23'1 0" addition.
Located: 2225 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-45.3
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on this site on
October 17th, at 12:00 in the afternoon. Notes all were present,
hold for amended project description. Straightforward.
The reason for that is on the LWRP coordinator wrote a
decision on October 15th, 2021, showing that the project was
inconsistent and consistent. The consistency deals with the
proposed IA system. The inconsistency is stated as follows.
Most•of the structure is located within the FEMA VE velocity
wave action flood zone and the pool would be entirely located
within the FEMA. Subsequently, the pool was withdrawn from this
application. And this is reflected in the plans stamped received
October 12th, 2021. Ken Woychuk plans.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore on behalf of the Kaplan's. I'll
just do a little clarification here so it's on the record.
The project-- ultimately they want to do the pool and all
the other improvements however when they applied to the Health
Department, first step, for the new IA system, when the Health
Department pulled out their 1981 map, it showed that this
property, the house was only three quarters of the property. The
land to the west, it's an extra portion of land that the client
owns now, this is two owners ago, there was a lot between the
Anderson property on the west and the Kaplan property here on
the east. That parcel was split by the two owners and
Board of Trustees 53 October 20, 2021
extinguished as a building lot. But because it was split and
the land was then each owner, adjacent owner got half the lot,
the Health Department considered that to be a subdivision. So
it threw this whole plan into kind of a stall because we have to
go to the Health Department for a subdivision application in
order to merge what was eliminating a lot and making two lots
larger and more conforming. That is just the Health Department
regs and you just have to deal with them.
So with that in mind, my client is doing this addition.
It's not, does not need a sanitary system for this addition. I
will include and I apologize, my project description didn't
include the original house, because that is existing, but when
you do issue the permit just include the 3,142-square foot,
one-story dwelling which is the existing house, as well as what
I described as the addition to the existing dwelling and the
wood deck. So I just want to be sure the existing house is
included as a permitted structure. Just for sake of permitting.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Just as I read it.
MS. MOORE: Yes, just as you read it, but not as I wrote it. Yes.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Does anyone else wish to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion to approve this application in accordance
with the revised project description, which is the existing
3,142-square foot one-story dwelling, and in accordance with the
Ken Woychuk plans dated December 7th, 2012, stamped received
October 12th, 2021.
MS. MOORE: I think he did a typo there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's my motion. The inconsistency is addressed
by the fact the pool is withdrawn.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 13, En-Consultants on behalf of RONALD
J. & MARY JANE SANCHEZ requests a Wetland permit to remove and
replace in-place approximately 177 linear feet of existing
timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead (including 131 linear feet
on subject property, 40 linear feet on adjacent westerly
property (S. Oakwood Dr.; SCTM# 1000-145-3-7.1), and 6 linear
feet on adjacent easterly property (Grillo; SCTM#
1000-145-4-12.1), and backfill as needed with up to 25 cubic
yards of clean sand/loam to be trucked in from an approved
upland source; reconstruct 9'x10' deck approximately 2'
landward; construct 3'x±11' stair in place of 3'x9' stair, and
remove and replace in-kind/in-place 5'x7' landing, 4'x±12'
Board of Trustees 54 October 20, 2021
walkway, and 3'x8' steps; remove and replace in-kind/in-place
4'x6' platform and 2.5'x12' steps on adjacent westerly property;
remove and replace in-kind/in-place 4'x5' landing, 4'x18' stair,
3'x4' platform, and 3'x10' steps on adjacent easterly property;
and revegetate ±19' wide embankment with native plantings (e.g.,
Cape American beach grass, Northern bayberry), upon completion
of construction.
Located: 515 South Oakwood Drive, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-145-3-9.1
The Trustees visited the site October 13th, 2021. Field
notes were height of bulkhead, question mark. Is it too high to
maintain the bank. And removal of steps to beach.
The LWRP coordinator found this action to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with retractable stairs on the last landing. And the
existing vegetation on the slope is to be maintained.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants behalf of the
applicant. Just in a little way of history on this bulkhead. In
1984, the New York state DEC issued a permit for the
construction at the same stretch of bulkheading which runs from
the west side of South Oakwood Road to the east side of the
applicant's property where it abuts the Grillo property, which
is just west of the Eschmann property.
Then in 2015, the Board issued a wetland permit to legalize this
bulkhead in its current location.
So at this point we are proposing an in-place replacement of
the same stretch of bulkheading, which includes the bulkheading
on the Sanchez property, a small section of the bulkhead on the
Grillo property to the east, and about a 40-foot section of
bulkhead across what is known as South Oakwood Road, which the
Town can't actually identify any taxpayer or owner of record.
There is a realty corporation that originally owned it, at the
time the lots were developed, and that entity seems to be
defunct. And there is, to our understanding, no legally
associated to the homeowners here. So basically what is
happening with this section of South Oakwood Road is the
Sanchez' and then the owners on the next developed property to
the west of the road which is shown on the plan as owned by
Laurel Property Trust, these two owners are working to basically
replace this section of bulkhead to keep the whole area intact.
I'm sure when the Board went down, you see that's a popular, has
a communal access point to get to the bay. So these two owners
are taking, you know, sort of the financial responsibility and
permitting responsibility to get the entire stretch of bulkhead
replaced.
To your question about the height, we are not proposing to
replace it. There is one place, J don't know if this is what
inspired your question, but on the Sanchez landing there is a
section of the bank that flattens a little bit where the walkway
comes back from the stairs. I'll just show you a couple of
Board of Trustees 55 October 20, 2021
pictures. This is where the stairway is. It's a little bit of a
flattened section of embankment. Most of the embankment across
all of the properties slopes down nicely from the top of the
bank to the top of the existing bulkhead. So we certainly would
not want to lower it. And we are not proposing to raise it. Just
so that we are clear.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'm just going by the field notes. But what I
recall in the field, I guess the concern was from the beach, you
know, from the, I don't know how many feet it was, what's it,
about 12 feet from the top to the bottom of bulkhead, somewhere
in that neighborhood. I guess there was just concern that it was
holding back a lot of, you know.
MR. HERRMANN: Oh, in terms of the support of the bank?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, it seemed like it was a lot of load for
that height bulkhead. You know, the space between the bulkhead
and the bay. If I'm not mistaken, I think the top may be bowed
out a little bit toward the water.
MR. HERRMANN: I'm sure at this point, yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So we didn't know if replacement at that same
height with that engineering wise if that was going to be enough
to withstand the load.
MR. HERRMANN: No, the contractor looked at it. In that section
they are proposing 18-foot sheathing and-20-foot piles, and
probably about, I don't know if it notes it on the survey, I
think it's about a ten-foot height between the top of the
bulkhead and the grade of the bay. So it would be, you know,
pretty typical one to one above and below. So that should not be
an issue.
Just speaking of the question of the stairs, as I
mentioned, there is an effort here by these homeowners on the
other side of the road to undertake the financial responsibility
for all this, and we had talked about retractable stairs that
obviously adds cost to the project, and then multiply that by
three because they are replacing the different decks and stairs.
So they had asked if the Board could make that as a
recommendation that they be removable stairs as opposed to a
specifically-imposed permit condition. So I would pass along
that request from the applicants.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I mean, thinking outside of the box, what if
we just went where the design is, the stairs could be removed in
the event of a Superstorm Sandy event.
MR. HERRMANN: Like where they are bolted. Yes, I think that
would be fine.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So we don't have to do retractable. We could
make it a removable type of situation.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, I think that would be fair enough. So if
they knew a storm was coming, I mean obviously it's not in their
financial interest to lose all the stairs either.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is that okay with the members of the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Works for me.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Okay, any other questions or comments?
Board of Trustees 56 October 20, 2021
MR. HERRMANN: Not from me.
MS. CANTRELL: Somebody in the chat room, Ken Childes (sic) owns
of the western property, says he fully supports this in-kind
replacement.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any other questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'll make a motion to approve the application
as submitted with the stipulation that the stairs be constructed
in a fashion where they can be removed in the event of a major
storm situation.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. Number 14, 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 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
The Trustees most recently conducted an inhouse review
October 13th. We had been in the field to this location back on
September 8th, 2021, due to a noticing problem this got tabled
to this month.
The LWRP found the project to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
We do have a letter in the file from a Mr. Edward Hanus
who had some concerns regarding the dock, noting that he does
not want the boat to stick out in southerly direction. That may
hinder his navigation to his dock. He's also talking about a
requirement to chock the float. However the float is in 36
inches of water to 42 inches of water. So chocking would not be
necessary. He does have sufficient water depth. That's pretty
much it, as far as his letter.
We did have a work session conversation with Mr. Herrmann
Board of Trustees 57 October 20, 2021
previously, from our field notes from the last month, they
talked about potentially moving the dock further to the north.
After discussion and water depth issues, it was decided that
this location has the most sufficient water depth for the dock.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, Glenn. It's good summary of the
application. So I just want, for the record,just add some
very, very, very brief historical context to the application.
That originally 2004 a permit had been issued for this original
dock construction. Because of the fact that there is a dock to
the south that encroaches in front of the applicant's property,
there had been some navigational concerns at that time which
came up again as Glenn had mentioned presently and there was
some discussion about whether the dock could have been
originally constructed farther to the north. And I'll just take
Nick back a little bit to when his dad was on the Board, back in
2004, there was some comments from Al Krupski where they talked
about the fact the Board had visited the site at low water and
determined that despite the fact that they had wanted to try and
move it, they really couldn't move it any further to the north.
So what ended up happening is this permit was issued with
the condition that there could be no dockage of a boat on the
south side of the dock, basically limiting the dockage here to
one boat, even though the code allows two. And there are
several docks with two boats docked immediately to the south. So
the applicants proposed a solution here that would allow them to
add a second boat to the dock without creating any new
encroachment to the south was to extend the dock by eight feet,
which would achieve sufficient water depth, then turning the
float to the north in an "L" configuration where you could then
have a boat docked on the inside and outside of the "L" float.
The dock remains within the pier line and we even included a tie
off pile on the north side of the dock just to make it clear how
the boat was to going to be docked in case there was any fear
the dock would be jutting out to the south.
So we have addressed the applicant's needs without really
changing the spirit of the original Board's permit. And that's
really all I have on it. We looked at this in the field. We
discussed it a couple of times. It certainly seems to be a good
solution. And if the Board has any further questions or
comments, I can answer them.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I would just like to note, too, that even
though you say the dock is being extended eight feet, being it's
turning in an "L" it won't go any further seaward than what is
existing.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. To be clear, again, the length of the
catwalk is extended by eight feet but the seaward edge of the
rotated float stays exactly the same as the existing seaward
edge, or I should say existing edge. The edge of the existing
float. That's correct.
Board of Trustees 58 October 20, 2021
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And with the "L" configuration it basically
ensures that the boat will be docked to the north with that tie
off pile so the stern of the boat would be on the float, the bow
of the boat would be tied off on that northerly tie off pile, so
in essence there is no way to dock a boat on the southerly at
this location. It can either be on the outside of the float,
with the bow facing to the north and/or to the landward side of
the float, again, bow facing north. But either way, they are
both to the north end of the dock.
MR. HERRMANN: And I'm glad you raised that point because with
the dock going straight out there is still an available slip on
the south side, so it's more of a compliance issue, whereas here
the configuration of the dock is designed to dock the other way.
So really we believe that the neighbor, the concerns that the
neighbor states in their letter are actually addressed by the
design itself.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: 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 BREDEMEYER: Number 15, AMP Architecture on behalf of
ANDRES ZOITAS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a proposed
17'x40' (850 sq. ft.) pool with sun-shelf; a proposed 2,760 sq. ft.
pervious-patio at grade; a proposed 36" high stone counters by
24 linear foot long (63 sq. ft.) outdoor kitchen; install new pool
enclosure fencing surrounding pool/rear yard with self-closing
gate; and install and perpetually maintain a 30'wide
(4,220 sq. ft.) non-turf buffer along the landward edge of top of bluff.
Located: 1470 Grandview Drive, Orient. SCTM# 1000-14-2-3.15
Trustee Bredemeyer most recently visited this application
and noted that it was a straightforward project. The initial
site visit had some concerns about distance to the bluff having
on grade patio and suggested pulling it away. Since that time
the office is in receipt of new plans stamped received September
10th, 2021, showing pool and patio pulled away as requested.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not support the
application based on the following: The proposed swimming pool
should be no larger than 20x40. The rear setback should be 100
feet. And the ZBA decision for the variance is not included with
Board of Trustees 59 October 20, 2021
the application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MS. CANTRELL: Anthony Portillo is present on Zoom.
MR. PORTILLO: Good evening, Board, Anthony Portillo, AMP
Architecture. Thanks for your time tonight.
Just quickly, to respond, we did receive the zoning
approval. If we have not presented it to your office, we can do
that. We were requested by the Zoning Board to move the pool
closer to the home and be 80 feet from the bluff line, and
that's what the amendment it provided. Also with the 30-foot wide
buffer at the bluff.
Just in regard to that, that ten foot what we are
calling a sun shelf, it's not really part of the pool. I mean
it's really just a ten-inch sort of place to put a chair in the
water. So I just wanted to point that out. It's not really a
part where you would be swimming in or sitting in. That's it. If
you have any questions, I'm here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think my only issue with the application is
in your description you call the patio around the pool
"pervious." Can you speak to that?
Because "pervious" means, basically that rain is going to go
right through it. So no RCA or cement.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure. So the intention would be to, you know, be
like an 80% or pervious paver more of 10% pervious paver, just
sand base, um, not going to be concreted down on concrete base.
So it would be more like Nicolock.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So we can basically strike "pervious" from
the description.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure, in that sense, the plan was not to have any
concrete or, but yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to clarify for future reference, if you
want to go pervious, that's a defined term with the Town
Engineer. So, and I don't have it memorized, but you have to be
able to dump five gallons and it has to basically take the
water. So we have been through this before on a couple other
applications where it caused several months of delay and some
issues by calling the patios pervious, whereas the Trustees and
the Town would not recognize Nicolock interlocking pavers as
pervious. Or the State or anyone.
MR. PORTILLO: Understood. I'll make sure it doesn't happen again.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any other additional 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 this application
based on the new plans stamped received by the office September
Board of Trustees 60 October 20, 2021
10th, 2021, and striking "pervious"from the description of
application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 16, AMP Architecture on behalf of
RONALD & MARY SANCHEZ requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
1,640 sq. ft. two-story dwelling with existing first floor
footprint to remain; waterside windows to be removed and replace
with four(4) larger units; existing 26'6"x46'10" (1,240 sq. ft.)
second floor and roof to be removed; proposed new 32'0"x46'10"
(1,350 sq. ft.) second floor area; existing 36'9"x19'11"
(520 sq. ft.) wood deck to be removed and replaced; existing 27'11
1/2"x17'10" (210 sq. ft.) covered porch to be removed and replaced;
proposed 46'10 '/2"x28'11" (865 sq. ft.) roof covered wood deck
(over replaced open wood deck and covered porch) with outdoor
fireplace and outdoor kitchen; proposed 7'2"x167' (120 sq. ft.)
trellis over wood deck; proposed new siding throughout existing
exterior; proposed 6'5"x7'8" (50 sq. ft.) hot tub; and propose to
remove existing asphalt driveway and replace with new
2,700 sq. ft. pervious driveway.
Located: 515 South Oakwood Drive, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-145-3-9.1
The Trustees inspected site on October 13th, the report
made by Glenn Goldsmith. At that time we noted there was a
corrugated black drain pipe that was leading to and down the
bluff. The Board in the field inspection and subsequently at the
work session, indicated that sediments were fairly universal;
that the hot tub was too close to the bluff, and that the Board
would want to have a discussion with the applicant concerning an
additional non-turf buffer.
The LWRP coordinator made a note that while the project is
consistent, there is a discrepancy on the plans dated received
in the Trustee office August 23rd in that the plans that were
submitted did not reflect the Zoning Board of Appeals decision
in the Zoning Board's condition #1 in Decision #7534. Without
going into great length on that, it had to do with the fact that
the proposed second-floor alteration to an existing garage was
to be stricken from the plans.
The Conservation Advisory Council supported the application
with an IA wastewater system, and they indicated the subject
property may require a variance, apparently they were unaware
that a variance by the Zoning Board had already been granted.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
MS. CANTRELL: Anthony Portillo is present on Zoom.
MR. PORTILLO: So in regard to the second floor on the garage,
that should have been removed after our Zoning hearing. We are
going back to Zoning for that as separate application to
basically request for the, they are requesting for an accessory
apartment. So I apologize if that was still on there.
Um, in regard to the hot tub and the non-turf buffer, you
Board of Trustees 61 October 20, 2021
know, I'm open to discussion there and to meet your requirements.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board did not discuss numbers at the
works session. The current plan shows the proposed hot tub
within ten feet of the bluff, and the landward,just for the
Board's edification, the landward from the house to the hot tub
is 17 feet. So I don't know if the Board, 15 feet, it would
definitely concerned about the hot tub being a little bit on the
close side. I don't know what the Board sentiment of the members
of the Board is. So we'll need to amend plans to conform with
the ZBA. And there again, I don't know if, you know, it's fairly
close to the bluff. I don't know if the Board wants to entertain
an additional eight to ten-foot buffer.
MR. PORTILLO: If I could just make one comment there. So this
site is a little bit, I guess odd, in the sense that the
bulkhead is not at the top of the bank and then the top of the
bank sort of, you know, angles down towards where the bulkhead
is located. And, you know, so, where I understand the distance
from the top of the bank being maybe a concern, there is
vegetation on that slope down to where the ball pit is. And also
just like the way the site itself sort of angles, so there is
like, you know, that side of the site, that eastern side of the
site, that part is sort of closer to, the property line is
closer to the top of the bank and then the part toward the west,
you know, comes closer to the bulkhead there. So my thought on
that was that not being necessarily right at the bulkhead that
we were not really disturbing, since they had that, you know,
that angled grass area. And we are proposing just a small hot
tub on a pad, so not really excavating much there. And that
would be above ground.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So would it be possible to move the hot tub
five feet landward it to be 15 feet from the top of the bluff?
MR. PORTILLO: I don't think that's a problem.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And correct me if I'm wrong, because of the
existing vegetation from the top of the bank down to where the
bulkhead is you are asking for maybe a smaller non-turf buffer
at that edge?
MR. PORTILLO: Yes, basically that's what I'm suggesting since
that is, you know, vegetation there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We did see it and we also have a bulkhead
application. Are there any thoughts, comments from the Board as
far as maybe a little less than ten feet. We've approved some
six foot. I don't know if the Board has any thoughts.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: While they are discussing, the question as
far as the black drainpipes that lead out to the bluff,
obviously we want those removed, and wherever that is coming
from to be relocated to appropriate drywells
MR. PORTILLO: Sure. We'll be providing drywells per Building
requirements. And we are way over the thousand square foot of
roof coverage, so we'll be calculating rainwater and we'll be
collecting it from the new structure.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I saw heads bobbing up and down,
Board of Trustees 62 October 20, 2021
affirmative, that a six-foot non-turf buffer adjacent to the
bluff would seem to be acceptable here, and the moving of the
hot tub 15 feet away of that in the non-turf buffer, and the
correction on the proposed second-floor elevation for the plans
would have to go on a new set of plans.
Additionally, Counsel has advised me that obviously the
Board will have to take this under consideration with a new set
the plans, but moving the hot tub you may require a de minimis
letter from the Zoning Board of Appeals because it changed their
prior approval.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure, I mean, on the approval from Zoning was
putting the hot tub in a side yard, so we would not really be
changing that. I'll go back to the Zoning Board and speak to
them, but we would still be in the side yard. So I'll go to them
and discuss that. Sure.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, so, Anthony, can we table this
application at your request for submission of new plans showing
the six-foot non-turf buffer, hot tub move, and correction to
the request of the LWRP and Zoning Board?
MR. PORTILLO: Yes, sir. And I'll also put in a note saying we'll
remove the black drainpipes coming out to the bluff currently.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right. Accordingly, I move to table this
application for submission of new plans as just discussed.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(All ayes).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 17, AMP Architects on behalf of HENRY
HINTZE, LYNN McMAHON & MARIE BASILE requests a Wetland Permit
for the existing 1,282 sq. ft. first floor of dwelling; existing
183 sq. ft. screened in sunroom at front of dwelling; existing
437 sq. ft. wood deck and steps at rear of dwelling; existing
51 sq. ft. seaward steps; proposed 577 sq. ft. addition to existing
second floor within first floor footprint; a proposed 200 sq. ft.
new second story balcony over existing deck; remove existing
sanitary system and install new Innovative &Alternative
Wastewater Treatment system; for the as-built (damaged &
re-built) 44'8" long wood bulkhead with two 8'3" wood returns;
and to install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide (437 sq, ft.)
non-turf buffer area located along the landward edge of the
bulkhead.
Located: 590 Brooks Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-1-15
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. That
determination was done received by this office on October 14th, 2021.
The Conservation Advisory Council on October 13th voted
unanimously to support this application.
The Trustees did a field inspection on October 13th. All
were present. Notes read: Move the fire pit and loose gear and
debris and boat from the Wetland and below the mean high water.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. PORTILLO: I'm just going to say that this was a previous
Board of Trustees 63 October 20, 2021
application and the owner, you know, let it lapse or let it go
too long, and we are just re-applying, so all the work was
already done under that previous application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Well, Anthony, can you address the field notes,
which are pretty specific. There was a fire pit, a lot of loose
gear, a boat that had drifted into the wetlands, and debris. All
of that below the rack line, the mean highwater line. So can we
--we are not making a condition but we would like to see all
that removed as part of this application.
MR. PORTILLO: I believe, yes, that's for sure. Understanding
that is not a problem. There were other things as well in the
first application that were removed, like there was a detached
deck that was there. And obviously some of these things. And he
did remove those. And I'm not sure about the fire pit but I can,
obviously I would recommend that being one of the requirements
and I'm sure Mr. Hintze will take care of that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, are there any other questions or comments
from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. Just a brief clarification. There
appears to be a dock section there as well. I was running the
camera as well as taking field notes, so there is a longer boat
actually in wetland grass on the easterly side of the property.
There is another boat that is on a small, portable carrier that
is below mean high water, that fire pit, and there is also, like
I said, looks like either a floating dock section or broken
piece of dock section. So visually it's cluttered. It's also
impacting the wetlands. It's way too much structure on it.
MR. PORTILLO: And I understand, and all I can say is that must
have been something they did over the summer. I'll definitely
speak with the owner about that. I mean we were just re-applying
for him. I have not actually been to the site in a little while.
I just, we were asked to basically re-apply, and I'll speak to him
and obviously make sure that he cleans that up from top to bottom.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this
application?
(No response).
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close this
hearing
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application in
accordance with Michael K. Wicks Land Surveying plans dated
February 21st, 2019, with plans added August 13th, 2018, stamped
received August 18th, 2021. And with the condition that all
structure, fire pits, loose gear, debris and boats be removed,
that are presently in the wetland, be removed from the wetland
and below the mean high water.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 64 October 20, 2021
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 18, 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
48.5'x30.5' (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 most recently visited this site on September
8th of 2021. Field notes: House very close to bluff. Otherwise
straightforward but a foundation ends up not being in the
project. Should be moved landward. Not being used in project.
Sorry. And ten-foot buffer on plans.
The LWRP did review the application and they found it to be
consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the
application or requests the applicant specify how the proposed
stairs will be supported. The Conservation Advisory Council
recommends proposed patio is relocated further landward from the
top of the bluff.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. This is a
continuation of a prior hearing. And at that particular hearing,
the two concerns that the Board raised, one was whether or not
that existing foundation was in a, has structural integrity to
the point sufficient that during construction and such it would
not have to be replaced. And I believe you should have in your
file the engineer's report on that foundation.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Correct. Stamped received October 13th, 2021.
We have a report from DiLandro Andrews Engineering with the
conclusion that the CMU foundation is in good working order.
Signs of continued settlement were not apparent, however a single
heli-coil pile with an underpinning bracket may be installed to
ensure future settlement on the northwestern portion of the
foundation does not occur. It goes on a little more, I'm happy
to read it if it pleases the Board. No? Sound good. It's in
the file that we have it, the gist is that the foundation is there.
MR. KIMACK: The other thing you requested also was to provide
you with a site plan that had the IA system on it. You wanted
to see both the ten-foot non-turf buffer along with the IA
system, and that had been submitted to you also.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Yes. We have a set of plans stamped received
October 13th, 2021, that does display a split-rail fence, and
Board of Trustees 65 October 20, 2021
behind the split-rail fence is a proposed ten-foot non-turf
buffer, landward top of bluff. In addition, I am seeing a Fuji
Clean Gen 7 septic system, which is an IA septic system.
I just want to state that during construction and the
course of construction, if the foundation that is there does
fail, that you would be back before the Board to discuss that.
MR. KIMACK: Understood.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anybody else here that wishes to
speak to this project?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One thing that seems to have slipped past us, I
think we were so concerned about the proximity of the house and
the foundation, at least speaking for myself, the patio is
awfully close to the bluff edge. I mean, I think at minimum, I
would like to see a trench drain on the seaward side. I don't
know if the other Trustees feel strongly about that or not.
MR. KIMACK: Well, the patio is on-grade, Nick. It's not, in a
sense, when you are talking about being close to the bluff,
essentially, like that, it doesn't really represent any kind of
weight factor to the bluff, which is well vegetated and it's got
a bulkhead down below there. Something like. And you are asking
for a ten-foot buffer. And it's replacing a deck that had been
already there above ground. So we are taking that away.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I don't believe the concern is the weight of
the patio, I believe the concern is the possible runoff of a
heavy rain, so --
MR. KIMACK: That's why you have the non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, I think obviously if you are redoing the
house you'll be re-doing the drainage and gutters to leaders to
drywells.
MR. KIMACK: Everything is going to drywells.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So our concern is any runoff from that patio,
obviously is going, angled toward the bluff and not toward the
house. So we may get some additional runoff. So how to account
for that additional runoff that is heading toward the bluff. So
if it's a French drain or something that could be incorporated
into the drywell.
MR. KIMACK: Without having to submit another plan to you guys,
what we can do is we can add a French drain in the front of-the
patio and run it to a drywell. As a matter fact, we can do a
"U" on three sides.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The concern is we were not dumping a lot of
water down and also saturating the soils ahead of the bluff with
a two or three-inch rain fall, having a mess, you know, large
gallonage of water going right into the soils, you know.
MR. KIMACK: I've used that before, basically, the trench drain
approach.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Just to clarify, I think I would prefer to see
French drains on the sides, not in the front.
MR. KIMACK: Not in front?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: No. Because that may saturate the slope there.
MR. KIMACK: I'm saying the front of the patio.
Board of Trustees 66 October 20, 2021
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Do you understand what I'm saying?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you do them on all three sides and then
divert the water back to the drywell as opposed to having it leach?
MR. KIMACK: That's what I was basically recommending. I mean, if
you are going to do it, if it's really going to be a heavy rain,
you are not quite sure which way the water will plane off so you
really capture it on all three sides. And it goes into a drywell.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Just so we are all clear on. All three sides are
directing the water to a drywell that is landward of the patio?
MR. KIMACK: Yes.
MR. HAGAN: And the drywell wall is already on the plan.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: This would be an option that I would be
willing to consider is if you would be open to the idea of
stipulating the conditional permit that the drainage for the
patio be tied into an existing drywell that would be installed
toward the front. Is that reasonable?
MR. KIMACK: Sure.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And mess up the engineer's calculations though.
MR. KIMACK: But it's not going to be that much in terms of the
.067 calculation on that, it would not be that much square footage.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Plus, if the depth to groundwater is enough,
you can put another ring in.
MR. KIMACK: That's exactly right, we have plenty of depth for
the drywell, to put rings around there --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You have plenty of depth, so you can put,
the location of the drywell --
MR. KIMACK: That will probably be by itself when we take maybe a
3x4 drywell. Roughly. In terms of face footage of the drywell.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Does that satisfy--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sure.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anybody else here wanting to speak or
address this?Any other questions or discussion from the Board?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Motion to approve the application as
submitted, referencing the updated site plan received in our
office on October 13th, 2021, displaying both the IA septic and
the ten-foot non-turf buffer landward of the top of bluff. I
also want to note for the record or note from the permit that we
have received an engineering report noting the stability of the
foundation and a stipulation of the permit would be that a
French drain surrounding three sides of the proposed patio
seaward of the house be installed and tied into one of the
existing drywells on the property.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 67 October 20, 2021
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 19, Michael Kimack on behalf of ANDREW
GROVER & DANIEL MAZZARINI requests a Wetland Permit to demolish
existing dwelling and reconstruct a new single-family dwelling
(1,456.58 sq. ft.), new foundation for proposed addition (654
SF), addition to first floor bedroom (31.9 sq. ft.), new second
floor(1,365 sq.ft.), new decks (784 sq. ft.), new covered porch
(342 sq. ft.); new 16' x 32' in-ground pool with one (1) foot
surround (512 sq. ft.), with pool enclosure fencing and pool
drywell; proposed gutters and leaders to drywells; and new I/A
OWTS septic system; proposed new dwelling footprint will be
2,484.48 sq. ft.
Located: 90 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-5-8
The Trustees conducted a field inspection October 13th,
2021, discussing the buffer as well as location of the
neighboring houses, and noting cutting and dumping on the bluff.
The LWRP found the project to be consistent, noting the
30-foot wide non-disturbance buffer is required.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
however all proposed structures should be setback 100 feet from
top of bluff.
We do have new plans stamped received October 18th, 2021,
that do show a 30-foot non-disturbance buffer.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. When we
did meet onsite you also asked me to provide you an aerial
photography because we wanted to show that the adjacent pool of
the property next door would be as much landward of this
particular one. I think you wanted. That is something for the
record. Which was provided for you.
The new survey that was provided on the 18th not only has
the 30-foot non-disturbance buffer, but it also has the proposed
pool fence around the pool. It has the utility area and it has
the new septic area, the new IA septic area which is labeled
proposed IA septic area in front of the house, which was
required. You wanted that all on one plan. Along with the
drywells down below.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just looking at the plan, the seaward end of
that proposed four-foot pool fence, was that right at the top of
the bluff?
MR. KIMACK: No, no. It cuts across where it says lot 138.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, got you. Okay. Thank you. Is there
anyone else who wishes to speak regarding this application
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
Board of Trustees 68 October 20, 2021
application with the condition of a 30-foot non-disturbance
buffer that is shown on the new stamped received plans October
18th, 2021.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 20. Michael Kimack on behalf of MAZI
HOLDINGS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for the disturbance of
an area fifteen (15') seaward of the 100-foot setback line at
approximately 210 linear feet (3,150 sq. ft.) during the
construction phase of a new dwelling, pool, staircase, and
terrace landward of the jurisdiction line; upon completion the
disturbed area will be backfilled with 26.4 cubic feet and
reseeded with native grass; and for a ten (10') foot wide
non-turf buffer to be established and perpetually maintained
along the landward edge of the top of the bluff.
Located: 1900 Bailie Beach Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-3-13
The Trustees visited the property on the 13th of October,
noted would like to see a planting plan seaward of the house,
large non-turf or non-disturbance buffer from CEHA line 30 foot
top of bluff. Buffer remain along Bailie Beach Road and a
comprehensive planting plan.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with no disturbance to existing buffer.
It should also be noted that I'm in receipt of new plans
dated October 18th, showing a 30-foot buffer in the center of
the property, with the buffer of all the existing vegetation to
remain on either side of that, including the area along Bailie
Beach Road.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant who is
also present. He lasted. But if you can recall when we looked at
it, when you are looking up the hill, all that vegetation on the
left-hand side will stay. The only, a little bit of a cut out
basically for the pool, there is no trees in there, it's mostly
brush, in that particular area. Essentially like that. So that
will be all maintained. There will be a 30-foot across, about
150 across the top which will be planted with blueberries and
bayberries, and then regraded, and down below will be all grass
from there back to the house. And then I also noted the trees,
we are removing two dead cedars on one side. We'll have a
12-inch diameter red cedar we are leaving in place. It's a good
and healthy one above the pool, and there is a double container
of black cherry we are just removing the dead branches, that's
by the pool side. On the other side we are removing a 12-inch
diameter double black cherry which I think is dead wood, and
there is a red cedar. So very, very little cutting at all in
Board of Trustees 69 October 20, 2021
this particular one. But I did know you wanted a more specific
plan in terms of what was happening with the property, and I
hope this answers your question.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to
speak regarding this application or any additional comments from
the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing no additional comments I make a motion to close the
hearing on the application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Motion to approve this application based on the
new plans dated stamped received October 18th, 2021, depicting a
30-foot non-turf buffer in the center of the property, with two
large adjacent vegetated tree and brush-filled area to remain undisturbed.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
espectfully submitted by,
x pe&_14y
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
A
Np ! 1 7 2021 �� Pm
So hold Town Clerk