HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-11/17/2021 Glenn Goldsmith,President ��®� s®U,�® Town Hall Annex
A. Nicholas Krupski,Vice President ® �® 54375 Route 25
�2P.O. Box 1179
John M. Bredemeyer III `D Southold,New York 11971
Michael J.Domino o Telephone(631) 765-1892
Greg Williams a Fax(631) 765-6641
CouT1�
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED
Minutese�m�; i
Wednesday, November 17, 2021 Southold Town Clerk
5:30 PM
Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President
Michael J. Domino, Trustee
John M. Bredemeyer, Trustee
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Greg Williams, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist
Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Good evening and welcome to our Wednesday, November
17th, 2021 meeting. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order and ask that
you please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE).
We'll start off the meeting by announcing people on 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.
With us tonight court stenographer Wayne Galante. And from the Conservation
Advisory Council we have John Chandler. Agendas for tonight are posted out on the
podium as well as the town website.
We have a number of postponements tonight. In the agenda on page 14,
numbers 18 through 20, and on page 15, numbers 21 through 24 are all postponed.
They are listed as follows:
Number 18, AMP Architecture on behalf of DOUGLAS BRADFORD requests a
Wetland Permit for the existing 1,438.Osq. ft. two-story dwelling and to construct an
8.4'x36.2' (304sq.ft.) second floor extension; a proposed 1.8'x10.7' (19.26sq.ft.), and a
1.8'x11.9' (21.42sq.ft.) second floor dormer extensions; and a proposed 5'x12.5'
(62.5sq.ft.) front porch.
Located: 3705 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-6-16
Number 19, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of JOSEPH & MARY
ELLEN LOGIUDICE request a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x40' landward ramp
onto a 4'x110' fixed dock with a 4'x40' "L" section at seaward end; construct a
4'x40' lower platform with a 5'x4' access platform and a 4'x16' ramp; install
November 17, 2021 2 Board of Trustees
three (3) two-pile dolphins; and proved water and electrical service to dock.
Located: 10995 North Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-79-5-20.14
Number 20, 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 2,400sq.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.
Located: 2700 Hobart Road & 1000 Terry Lane, Southold;
SCTM#'s 1000-64-3-10 & 1000-64-3-11
Number 21, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of MIKHAIL RAKHMANINE
&JENNIFER V. RAKHMANINE REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland
Permit to remove existing timber bulkhead and replace with 131 linear feet
of new vinyl bulkhead in same general location and raise the height an additional
18" above existing top cap elevation; a total of 45 cubic yards of clean sand fill will be
placed landward of the proposed bulkhead and utilized as fill due to raised height
of bulkhead; construct a proposed 4'wide by 48' long fixed pier utilizing Thru-Flow
decking over wetlands and non-treated timber decking on remainder which will lead
to a 30" wide by 14' long aluminum ramp and a 6' wide by 20' long floating dock with
un-treated decking, supported with tow (2) 10" diameter CCA piles, situated in an
"I" configuration; a 35'x24' dredging area surrounding the proposed floating dock
will be dredged to a depth of 36" below mean low water removing a total of 65 cubic j
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
Number 22, 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 1/2 to 1 slope from top of
sloughed bank and then flat to bulkhead; install approximately 3,200sq.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 j
Number 23, 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 j
and four (4) risers with Thru-Flow decking (72sq.ft.), connected to a 4'x24' fixed
dock with Thru-Flow decking (96sq.ft.), 168sq.ft. total; and to install 14 - 8"
diameter pilings.
Located: 8340 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-5-23.2
Number 24, Michael Kimack on behalf of MARIA H. PILE requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a 36.0'x34.7' (1,249.2sq.ft.) two-story dwelling on foundation
in accordance with FEMA standards for an AE zone; and a pervious driveway.
Located: 420 Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-1-21.2
Those have all been postponed.
Under Town Code Chapter 275-8(c), files were officially closed seven days ago.
Submission of any paperwork after that date may result in a delay of the processing
of the applications.
November 17, 2021 3 Board of Trustees
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to hold our
next field inspection Wednesday, December 8th, 2021, at 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to hold our next Trustee meeting
Wednesday, December 15th, 2021, at 5:30 PM, at the Town Hall main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
III. WORK SESSIONS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH:Tll make a motion to hold our next work sessions
Monday, December 13th, 2021, at 5:00 PM at the Town Hall Annex, 2nd floor
Executive Conference Room; and on Wednesday, December 15th, 2021, at
5:00 PM in the Town Hall main meeting hall and via Zoom online platform.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor
(ALL AYES).
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral IV, Minutes, I make a
motion to approve the Minutes of the October 20th, 2021 meeting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral V, monthly report. The
Trustees monthly report for October 2021. A check for$7,466.29
was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
VI. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Under Roman numeral VI, 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 make a motion to approve as a group items 1 and 2.
They are listed as follows:
Number 1, RESOLVED, the Board of Trustees of the Town of
November 17, 2021 4 Board of Trustees
Southold, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review
Act, hereby declare itself Lead Agency in regards to the
application of KEVIN & ELIZABETH HUDSON.
Located: 680 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-12-9,
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 ROBERT & MARYBETH POLKE.
Located: 1325 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-11-9
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VIII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL,QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral VIII, State Environmental
Quality Reviews:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in
Section XIII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated
Wednesday, November 17, 2021 are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to
further review under.SEQRA:
John & Carrie Mullins SCTM# 1000-17-1-2.2
Maryellen Dugan & David Wagner SCTM# 1000-110-1-4
Andrea Court Property Holdings, LLC, c/o John Zenk
SCTM# 1000-90.-2-14.1
Salt Lake Association, Inc. SCTM# 1000-144-5-33 & 1000-122-8-1
David & Barbara'Hazard SCTM# 1000-103-2-1.1
Lynette & Robert Krueger SCTM# 1000-137-3-3.1
Roger D. Todebush SCTM# 1000-103-13-9
Gomb Beach, LLC SCTM# 1000-52-1-3
Jerry loveno SCTM# 1000-111-14-19
Krislen Management Corp., c/o Eddie Torres & Kristina Hosch
SCTM# 1000-44-1-15
Ole Jule Dredge Company, LLC, c/o Mark Davis SCTM#'s
1000-122-4-44.8, 1000-122-4-3, 1000-122-4-4 & 1000-122-4-5
Robert C. Ruocco SCTM#,1000-27-4-9.4
William A. Prydatko, Jane Marie Prydatko & Christine Marie
Prydatko SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.41
Kevin & Elizabeth Hudson SCTM# 1000-115-12-9
Robert & Marybeth Polke SCTM# 1000-115-11-9
Douglas Bradford SCTM# 1000-53=6-1,6
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the
Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications
more fully described in Section XIII Public Hearings Section of
November 17, 2021 5 Board of Trustees
the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, November 17, 2021, are
classified as Unlisted Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and
Regulations:
Kevin & Elizabeth Hudson SCTM# 1000-115-12-9
Robert & Marybeth Polke SCTM# 1000-115-11-9
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 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: Roman numeral IX, Number 1:
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of KEVIN &
ELIZABETH HUDSON requests a Wetland Permit to remove the
existing 45' long x 4' wide fixed pier, ramp and float and
construct approximately 2' to the north of existing a proposed
52' long x 4' wide fixed pier with Thru-Flow decking and
supported with 8" diameter CCA piles; a proposed 30" wide x 16'
long aluminum ramp; and a proposed 6' wide x 20' long floating
dock with un-treated timber decking situated in an "L"
configuration and supported by two (2) 10" diameter CCA piles.
Located: 680 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-12-9
S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with
this project having visited the site on November 9, 2021, and
having considered the survey of property by Heidecker Land
Surveying dated January 16, 2018, and having considered the
plans for this proposed project submitted by Jeffrey Patanjo
dated September 14, 2021 at the Trustee's November 15, 2021 work
session; and,
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2021 the Southold Town Board of
Trustees declared itself Lead Agency, pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.;
and,
WHEREAS, on November 17,2021 the Southold Town Board of
Trustees classified the application as an unlisted action under
S.E.Q.R.A., and
WHEREAS, in reviewing project plans submitted by Jeffrey Patanjo
dated April 21, 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
November 17, 2021 6 Board of Trustees
neighboring properties in an area where docks historically
are used for commercial and recreational purposes.
Scope in relation to the riparian rights of shell fishers:
The plan allows a standard fixed catwalk to float design
that will not impede access for those seeking shellfish and
crustacea in season.
Environmental upkeep: The dock design projects a usual
lifespan of 30 years with limited pile replacement so as to
minimize disturbance of the bottom.
THEREFORE, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town
Board of Trustees Approve and Authorize the preparation of a
Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA for the
aforementioned project.
So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Jeffrey
Patanjo on behalf of ROBERT & MARYBETH POLKE requests a Wetland
Permit for the continuation of previously permitted shoreline
stabilization consisting of 84 linear feet of triple row coir
logs; 40 linear feet of single row rip-rap with two rows of coir
logs; 62 linear feet of triple row of coir logs; 40 linear feet
of single row rip-rap with two rows of coir logs; and 130 linear
feet of triple row coir logs; areas between courses of coir logs
and rip-rap will be planted with Bearberry plantings and no
addition fill will be added.
Located: 1325 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-11-9
S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with
this project having visited the site on November 9, 2021, and
having considered the survey of property by Peconic Surveyors,
P.C. dated February 28, 2012, and having considered the plans
for this proposed project submitted by Jeffrey Patanjo dated
August 27, 2021 at the Trustee's November 15, 2021 work session,
and
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2021 the Southold Town Board of
Trustees declared itself Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A., and
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2021 the Southold Town Board of
Trustees classified the application as an unlisted action under
S.E.Q.R.A., and
WHEREAS, in reviewing project plans submitted by Jeffrey Patanjo
dated August 27, 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
November 17, 2021 7 Board of Trustees
including rip rap 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 DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
X. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral X, Resolutions -
Administrative Permits. In order to simplify our meeting, the
Trustees regularly group together items that are deemed minor or
similar in nature. As such, I will make a motion to approve
items 1, 3 and 4. They are listed as follows:
Number 1, THOMAS BYRNE &VERONICA KALISKI request an
Administrative Permit to install an 8' galvanized deer fence
approximately 100' along northeast property line; install cedar
lattice fencing & gate from deer fence to house; and install
cedar lattice fencing & gate on opposite side of house to
property line 6' in height.
Located: 2345 Bayview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-5-1
Number 3, MICHAEL JENSEN & DONNA LA MANQUE request an
Administrative Permit for an as-built installation of an I/A OWTS septic system.
Located: 440 Sunset Way, Southold. SCTM# 1000-91-1-8.
Number 4, 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
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, Robert I. Brown, Architect, P.C.,on
behalf of OLSON FAMILY 2020 TRUST requests an Administrative
Permit to clear an approximate 4'x465' path to the top of the bluff.
Located: 14995 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-73-1-2.2
Trustee Krupski visited the site on November 1st, 2021.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
I will make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, with the condition that no trees are removed in order
to make the path.
November 17, 2021 8 Board of Trustees
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
XI. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral XI, Applications for
Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments. Similarly,
I make a motion to approve as a group items 1 through 9. They
are listed as follows:
Number 1, Patricia McIntyre on behalf of NEW SUFFOLK
WATERFRONT FUND requests the each of their Two (2) available One
(1) Year Extensions to Wetland Permit#9593, as issued on
November 13, 2019, to be granted at this time; and requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9593 to install
temporary drip irrigation for the proposed native planting areas
and buffer; and to install five (5) educational panels, four (4)
of which are located in Trustee jurisdiction, which would be
affixed to existing pilings; and there will be no further
extensions.
Located: 650 First Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-8-18.1
Number 2, En-Consultants on behalf of TEAMC99A PROPERTIES,
LLC c/o CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH, MEMBER requests a One (1) Year
Extension to Wetland Permit#9642, as issued on February 12, 2020.
Located: 980 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-1-6
Number 3, LOIS J. & NICHOLAS M. CAMARANO request a One (1)
Year Extension to Wetland Permit#9585, as issued on November 13, 2019.
Located: 335 South Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-11-19
Number 4, Docko, Inc., on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND FERRY
DISTRICT c/o GEB COOK GENERAL MGR., requests a Last (1) One-Year
Extension to Wetland Permit#9339 and Coastal Erosion Permit
#9339C, as issued on November 14, 2018.
Located: Ferry Channel from Fishers Island Sound into Silver-Eel Cove, Fishers Island.
SCTM# ,1000-12-1-10
Number 5, JENNIFER MAYE requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#1836 from Lorraine Dunhuber to Jennifer Maye, as issued
on July 26, 1984.
Located: 910 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-1374-22
Number 6, SHEENA ACHARYA & ADRIAN SAPOLLNIK request a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#6505 and Coastal Erosion Permit
#6505C, as issued on December 13, 2006 from Antonio & Grazia
Vangi to Sheena Acharya &Adrian Sapollnik.
Located: 645 Glen Court, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-83-1-7
Number 7, Martin D. Finnegan on,behalf of LINDA FRANKENBACH
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#9549 from Andrew&
Katelyn Titus to Linda Frankenbach, as issued on September 18, 2019.
Located: 3140 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-40
Number 8, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ARTHUR & GWEN PIER
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9709 for
the as-built removal of the existing 4.5'x4' timber platform and
November 17, 2021 9 Board of Trustees
replacement with a 4'8"x5'4" timber platform in lieu of the
originally permitted 4'x14' platform, with un-treated timber decking.
Located: 25 East Side Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-3-18
Number 9, Patricia C. Moore on behalf of DANNY FISHER,'
BARBARA KENT, JACK FISHER & DIANA SEDENQUIST requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9904 to construct a
385sq.ft. Patio and turf steps to grade located 69' from edge of
wetland, in lieu of the originally proposed 758sq.ft. patio.
Located: 1652 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-1-4.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 10, LAUREN PRAUS & MARK SCHWARTZ
request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9816 to
remove 54' 6" of existing bulkhead at north-east property line,
remove 5' of existing grade and build new bulkhead 58' with a 45
degree return of 5'.
Located: 1360 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-9-5
Trustee Krupski did a field inspection November 9th.
The LWRP deemed this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
was aerial photos show an existing dock against the bulkhead and
a jet ski dock already occurring on the parcel. However this
application is not for a dock, therefore that should bring it
into consistency with the LWRP.
And I make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that no disturbance to the existing vegetation or Spartina.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
XII. RESOLUTIONS - OTHER:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral XII, Resolutions Other.
Number 1, RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees for the Town
of Southold adopts the findings and determination of the public
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 held on the 20th
day of October, 2021 at which time all interested persons were
given an opportunity to be heard.
The conclusion of that hearing is therefore in the interest
of justice and for the reasons set forth herein this Board takes
no action at this time against Costello Marine, however warns
that further actions in violation of Chapter 275 of the Town
Code taken without permits in direct contravention of issued ,
permits or exceeding the scope of issued permits can lead to
suspension or revocation of the coastal contractor's license.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
November 17, 2021 10 Board of Trustees
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, WHEREAS, there has been presented
to the Town Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold, Suffolk
County, New York, on the 17th day of November, 2021, a desire to
close certain waters within Mill Creek in the Hamlet of Southold
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED that the Town Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid resolution at
Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, on the
15th day of December, 2021 at 5:01 p.m. at which time all
interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard.
BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of Trustees of the Town of
Southold as follows:
I. Purpose
The purpose of this proposed closure is to preserve our natural
recourses and shell fisheries to allow for replenishment and
growth.
II. Amendment
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees in an effort
to preserve our natural recourses and shell fisheries hereby
designates the following waters a restricted area pursuant to
Chapter 219-16 (Shellfish) of the Code of the Town of Southold
where shell fishing shall not be permitted for the years 2022 and 2023:
The waters of Mill Creek in the Hamlet of Southold located
within the following boundary:
West of an imaginary line commencing from a point at a painted
yellow 4"x4" stake located at 410 57' North 72° 24' 48" West
running northward to a point at a painted yellow 4"x4" stake at
the foot of Beverly Rd. Located at 410 5' 18" North 72° 24' 45"
West; and North of an imaginary line commencing at a painted yellow 4"x4"
stake at the foot of Meadow Lane at a point located at 410 4'
58.62" North 72° 24' 55.37"West running westward to a painted
yellow 4"x4" stake in front of a large rock at a point located
at 41' 4' 58.9" North 72° 24' 46.00"West.
III. SEVERABILITY
If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this
resolution shall be adjudged by any court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not affect the
validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than
the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid.
IV. EFFECTIVE DATE
This shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Town
Clerk as provided by law.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
XIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
November 17, 2021 11 Board of Trustees
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral XIII, public hearings. At this
time I'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and
enter into public hearings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(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 your
comments organized and brief, five minutes or less if possible.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, Ural Talgat on behalf of MICHAEL
KATZ & MELISSA KATZ, AS TRUSTEES OF THE MELISSA KATZ REVOCABLE
TRUST requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#9969 for the full
demolition of existing 1,861sq.ft. dwelling and replace with new
reconstruction of the dwelling with new first floor additions
and a new second floor addition (total 3,799sq.ft.); portion of
the existing 1,015sq.ft. waterfront deck adjacent to dwelling to
be removed (132sq.ft. removed), 883sq.ft. of deck to remain;
existing 12sq.ft. portion of the dwelling on South side to be
demolished; a proposed 34sq.ft. addition to dwelling on South
side; proposed 24sq.ft. outdoor shower adjacent to North side of
dwelling; proposed new 16sq.ft. basement egress area way
adjacent to north side of dwelling; new underground propane tank
to be installed landward of the proposed dwelling; existing wood
steps between bottom of slope and top of slope (3'x25.6') to be
replaced and upper landing (3'x4') to be repaired (total 89sq.ft.).
Located: 8045 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-4-8
The Trustees did an inhouse review of this on November 9th.
We reviewed the new plans, also reviewed them at work session.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
The•Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
of application due to close proximity of the bluff, and the
structure should be located no closer than 100 feet from the top
of the bluff.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. CANTRELL: We have Ural Talgat on Zoom.
MR. TALGAT: Hi, this is Ural Talgat on Zoom. Can you guys hear
me?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, sir.
MR. TALGAT: I'm here to answer any questions the Trustees or
anyone else may have regarding this project.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, thank you. Anyone else here wishing to
speak regarding this application?
(No response).
November 17, 2021 12 Board of Trustees
Any questions or comments from the Board?
MR. KATZ: Can I just ask one question?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: State your name for the record, please.
MR. KATZ: Michael Katz. I'm just wondering, are you asking us to
move the house back to 100 feet?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No, sir. No, sir. That was a CAC
recommendation. So, no. We take that under advisement, but we
are not saying that as of yet.
MR. KATZ: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Any other questions or comments?
(No response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that the applicants are on notice that any
replacement of the foundation will require amending this permit
prior to the work being undertaken. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits,
Number 4, Michael Kimack on behalf of JOHN & CARRIE MULLINS
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the
disturbance seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Line
(CEHA) of an area of 2,124sq.ft. from the CEHA line to the silt
fence; 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 150ft. 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;
construction of a proposed 2,328sq.ft. single-family two-story
dwelling; construct an approximately 115 linear foot long
retaining wall; install an I/A OWTS septic system; install
gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff; and to
install an approximately 1,430sq.ft. pervious driveway and
parking area.
Located: 905 Stephenson Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-17-1-2.2
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 9th of
November. It was, I believe, the third visit for this project.
They noted we reviewed the staking but had to review and discuss
further at work session.
November 17, 2021 13 Board of Trustees
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. He
noted that the location of a large septic system to support a
five-bedroom single-family residence within the CEHA on this
sensitive parcel is unsupported by policies 4 and 6.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
I also have a number of letters in the file from residents
that were reviewed by the Trustees. The most recent is on the
17th, all in opposition to the project from neighbors with
everything ranging from mitigating runoff on site; to removing
large buffers; septic system being on consolidated beach, which
was a concern of the Trustees; salt water intrusion from the
aquifer; environmental habitat; access for fire protection down
along the road there. I believe that is it.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicants, who are
present in the audience, along with the architect.
Thank you, for this time to address this. I'm going to
break it into two parts. I'm going to talk about Chapter 111
first and then I'll talk about 275 which is both under your jurisdiction.
This is a vacant lot, has been for some time. It's a vegetated lawn.
It runs down to the beach and along the shoreline. There is no bank or
bluff that is involved with it. The vegetation has been in-place and has
not been scoured. 'There is no erosion on the property. It has been subject,
obviously, to a number of storms over the period of time, and there has
been no overall effect on the property.
The reason we are here for the Chapter 111 is because the
requirement of the Health Department that the well be situated
150 feet away from the proposed disposal pools, and I would ask
you, if you can, for this particular presentation, to go into
the Young & Young sheet. It's pretty much going to be everything
I'm going to talk about tonight. The second sheet, not the first
one. That has the septic system on it, the CEHA line, et cetera.
You'll see the well can only be put up at that one point. There is an
existing well at the present time. We are requesting, we are into the
CEHA, it's a 38,286-square foot lot which is approved, same lot, it was
broken off originally from the lot next door. They were at one time one
complete lot. The disturbed area is seaward of the CEHA line is 2,124 square
feet. We basically are proposing not to involve any disturbance
or activity below the 12-foot elevation line. The significance
of this is that in 2005, this particular Board, not necessarily
all you gentlemen, were involved with a prior owner. And he had
basically put in an application originally for a house with the
septic area down at the beach, and you had denied that septic on
the beach, but you had approved his application above the 12
foot line, primarily, including the septic area, which is
essentially being in the same location as it is now. I used that
12-foot line when I went to DEC to be able to coordinate their
12-foot non-jurisdiction, which you have a copy of that letter
in your file. DEC's non-jurisdiction is at the 12-foot elevation
November 17, 2021 14 Board of Trustees
line so it coincides with what had been decided on in 2005. I'm
not going to dwell on that because it's 15 or 16 years past. But
at that particular time you dealt with 275, not Chapter 111, to
be fair. I'm not quite sure at that particular time whether or
not, you know, that's exactly the reasons why, but we are
dealing with Chapter 111 today.
There are two parts of that we are asking for. And
basically when you look at the definition, and I'll bring you to
the fact, is that we are here because we fall under the
definition of"structure," which is any object constructed,
installed or placed in, on or under land. So that the request to
put the septic system, it certainly does fall under that
particular definition. Essentially most of the time you
obviously are dealing with something above ground, essentially,
like that. But the first component is that we are proposing to
disturb a 2,124 square feet area in order to have a working area.
It's a temporary disturbance. It will be replanted in kind. You
have your planting plan that is in front of you. It is not from
what I can determine a regulated activity. Basically, because if
you look at the definition of a regulated activity, it calls the
construction modification, restoration or replacement of a
structure or major addition to a structure or any action or use
of land which materially alters the condition of the land,
including grading, excavating, digging, mining, dredging,
filling or other disturbances of soil. The temporary disturbance
of this simply to remove it in order to get access for
construction, which the overall disturbance is not occurring
except in that one location where the inground disposal pools
are going. So it doesn't fall under the regulated activity as a
disturbance in and of itself, even though it's within the CERA
line. What it does is the structure that is going inground which
is the disposal pool. Now, I know you probably have not dealt
with this one before but essentially your code essentially
allows 200-square feet. Generally it's for something above
ground but essentially if in fact we are making that extension
to something below ground, the three that are being put in,
three disposal pools being put in, which is 4.75x8.5, 3.3-square
foot each, which comes up to 117-square feet. If I even put the
expansion pools on there, it's 197 square feet. So even if I
extended that aspect to the allowance, we fail within the
permissible amount, even though it's below grade and not above
agree on that particular one.
Do you have any questions of me on Chapter 111?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not yet. I think we'll hold the questions for
the end of the presentation.
MR. KIMACK: Okay. The second part on the 275, essentially, I
think I covered all of the details. It's an I/A system,
gentlemen, obviously. There is not a question about that because
as of July 1st, any vacant lot, any vacant lot upon Health
Department regulations must be an I/A system, or as they
determine it, an I/A OWTS. Other Waste Treatment System, it
November 17, 2021 15 Board of Trustees
stands for. So in essence, that is what we are asking for. And
the issuance of a permit under 111-9, we believe we meet A and B
which is required for you to issue the permit, which is
reasonable and necessary considering reasonable alternatives of
the proposed activity due to the standards imposed of the
activity required at a shoreline location. We do require a
shoreline location. We are subject to Health Department
requirements, where we have to have the 150 feet and that
necessitates there are no other reasonable alternatives.
The one that in 2005 that you originally looked at, he put
it on the beach and that was denied, but you did allow it to
fall in that particular location. And we do meet B, not likely
to cause a measurable increase in erosion at the proposed site
and other locations. It's temporary, it's to be planted back,
everything in front of it stays below, seaward of the 12-foot
which is heavily vegetated, which for the most part non-land
type of plants. And basically the only other on that Chapter
111, primarily, is that you don't, we don't believe that we have
something that, in terms of the disturbance itself, that falls
within the regulated activity except for the inground structure
that is less than 200-square feet. And that we do meet the
requirements for the issuance of the permit. And that even under
111-20, variance from standards and restrictions, we do meet A,
we do meet B, we do meet C and we do meet D under those for
those for you to issue it.
Now, going to 275, which we fall under simply because of
the where you situated, where Trustee Bredemeyer went out and
set that chart in basically where we actually fall into it. The
proposed structure has been designed to meet the limitations
both naturally and governmentally of the particular site itself.
As I pointed out to you before, we are only dealing with 31% of
the overall lot, which is as you indicated it's 2,328-square
feet, roughly. Well, it's 1,181-square feet, just a little bit
more than that. But we can only go 20% of that number of 11,881
in order to avoid getting a zoning which they would not have
given us anyway. And because of the irregularity of the lot
itself we had to make sure that we met the 40 foot front set
back and side yard setbacks. And the building essentially on
there is a four-bedroom, not a five-bedroom. The septic system
is a five-bedroom but the building itself is four-bedroom. And
it's 2,328-square feet. It has 1,000-square foot inground, 2,000
square foot on the first floor, roughly, and about a
1,000-square foot up overall. It is not out of size with the
rest of the neighborhood. This particular one was also subject
to conditions by the seller, which is the big white house above
it, which is the most affected by this house. And the condition
was that it not exceed 28 feet to the ridge from grade level,
from natural grade level. And it was designed in accordance with
that. So that there would be no impediment to his particular
view looking down on this particular structure.
So obviously, and then also there was an inground electric
November 17, 2021 16 Board of Trustees
line that was coming in all the way to the property, I think you
saw the four stakes where the transformer was there.
I will discuss quickly some of the concerns of the
neighbors. As far as the well is concerned, the Health
Department regulations require that it give you five gallons a
minute. We have to get it approved and certified by the Health
Department, which is under their regulations, so whatever we have
to do for the well to get it potable and get certified would
certainly be subject to the Health Department. The erosion
issue, really there is not any. It's going to be temporary at
best in terms of the disturbance and everything in that area is
being planted back. I did want to point out to you that the
existing trail going down right now deviates from where the
original easement was set, which was 15 feet from the property
line. I think they did that primarily over the years simply
because it was more convenient to go that route rather than to
follow along the property line, which is a lot more up and down.
It's eight-foot wide now, and part of our proposal is to close
that to four, which is in keeping with your considerations and
knowing your past deliberations. And then also the easement is
intact and whoever wants to, the owners who have access to that
easement, will probably have to come before you and DEC in order
to get a permit for their four-foot wide pathway going to the
water. It's not part of this application. It's simply there. We
are not interdicting with the easement. They are perfectly
capable of using it and developing it with their own pathway.
The erosion is being controlled by the silt fence, by the
temporary disturbance and by the planting back, primarily. The
house is not out of character with the neighborhood and quite
frankly probably quite'a lot smaller than the houses around it.
And certainly sits down, because the,one that was most affected
by the view is the one that wanted the 28 feet, which is the big
white house right above it. -
Any questions of me on 275 or Chapter 111?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Before I start asking questions, is there
anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding the application?
MR. KIMACK: The applicant would like to say a few words.
MR. MULLINS: I'll speak quickly and be mindful of everyone's
time. I am John Mullins, and my wife Carrie. We are the owners
of the land. I think it's important to state the goal for a
major project like this, so I just wanted to do so. My wife
Carrie and I have two young kids, Henry and Oliver, age four and
two, and over the years we've fallen in love with the natural
beauty of Orient and we want to share that with our kids as they
grow up. So one key part of that goal is obviously preserving
the nature in Orient and the nature of the site. And that's a
key reason that you'll see we have a comprehensive landscaping
plan that is designed by Janice Leonti, which is actually
bringing native species back to the land.
Another aspect of preserving the nature, as you see we have
only 2,300 square feet of coverage. It's very important for us
November 17, 2021 17 Board of Trustees
for most of this lot to be the nature. Another key aspect of
preserving nature for us is hiring Peter Breese, a renowned
architect who is with us tonight, who has a significant amount
of his work has been designing and developing beach front
properties where the architecture blends into the nature.
Now, another aspect of our goal is that we want to preserve
the beauty that is in Orient itself. And so that's the reason
that the home that we designed is in traditional form of cedar
shake and looks like the other elements of architecture within
Orient itself. And that's part of the reason that we hired Mark
Beckman to be the general contractor on this project. I know
his reputation precedes him. He's done 15 homes in Orient and I
fully expect him to do a great job and be respectful to nature
and the neighbors and the area.
And the final thing I'll just say is we want to be part of
the community. I have respect for the neighbors, and I
understand that there have been some concerns. We want to be
good neighbors. We want to be friends with everyone, and I'm
sure that we will be. Over time. One of the things Mike
mentioned is when we purchased this land we signed an agreement
to limited the height to 28 feet, so it's a lot lower than the
maximum height restriction in Orient, and not only that, only
half of the house is actually two floors. The other part of it
is a floor-and-a-half. So we don't actually believe that
anyone's views will be obstructed except maybe for the
Sodongorn's (sic), and we have their full support in this
project. And so with that, I'll thank you for your consideration.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. MULLINS: And Peter Breese, the architect, is here, if you
guys would like to hear from him.
MR. BREESE: Peter Breese, architect, born in Greenport, raised
in Southold.
From the beginning we have been asked to keep this in a
very sensitive and very modest house overall. And I was
wondering if I could just approach you with a diagram of the
site.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sure.
MR. BREESE: It's a little easier to read than the survey. But it
is the survey. And the footprint is accurate. But the gray area
is the only part of the construction that is a conventional
full-height basement. And this clarifies that, I feel. And you
can sort of see the percentage of the property we are working
with, the setbacks, not only meet but exceed the property line
setbacks.
MR. HAGAN: That's for the Board, correct?
MR. BREESE: Yes. The only part of the house that is visible, if
you were to come down the existing driveway, we have a small
opening to access the parking area, and this is the look of that
portion of the house. It's a one-story part of the home and is
right here. (Indicating). So, in theory if you were to drive down
November 17, 2021 18 Board of Trustees
here and peek through. That's what you would see. Traditional in
nature, symmetrical balance, in keeping with some of the older
homes in Orient.
If there are any questions, I'm happy to field them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I don't think the concern, at least
for myself, is with the size of this house or with the location
of this house. It really comes down to approving a septic system
with leaching galleys on the seaward side of the CEHA line,
very, very close to, if not in unconsolidated soils. It
certainly doesn't seem like keeping in best practice what we are
trying to achieve. I understand it's an I/A system, which is a
requirement at this point, but it certainly is better than a
traditional settling tank and galleys, but I just I think other
options should be explored in terms of location. I know you are
limited by the well and possibly some of the neighboring issues,
but it seems like a pretty bad, a poor choice of a place to put that.
MR. KIMACK: I disagree strongly with your opinion, Nick. Even if
we moved it, if you've got unconsolidated soil on an /IA system,
that is treating less than 19 total nitrogen and also 12-foot of
nitrogen, if I moved it up 20 feet, it's not going to make any
difference in terms of what may or may not be getting down in
terms of treated elements. But you really, Nick, you are missing
the real point about this whole thing, is that look at the
drawing that I have done. Look at the site survey. 150 feet and
then 100 feet from the other well next door is a requirement of
the Health Department. We end up with a very, very tiny little
spot you cannot put a septic area on there. There is no other
alternative. There never has been another alternative. You say
that in 2005. You were not on the Board, when you approved this
above the 12 line. As long as it was above the 12 line, that
permit approval is in your application. You are asking for
something that is not reasonable, it isn't something that can be
matched because the Health Department sets the regulations.
There is not an alternative. You have to stay below that. You
have to stay at 150 feet, Nick. And whether I moved it up 20
feet, if I was able to, from the movement of the, from the
movement of unconsolidated soil on the basis of that particular
effluent, is not going to be make any difference. It might be a
matter of hours that you might add to it. So moving it up beyond
the CEHA line, even if I could, from a biological point of view,
you know, dealing with the NO2, NO3 that you are getting down
there, which is a component of the total nitrogen along with
organic nitrogen and ammonia which comprises the total nitrogen,
you are bringing down, this system is bringing down, your
standard, probably nitrogen on a regular basis is about 65
milligrams per liter, roughly. You are treating it down to 12.
It's a heck of a big difference. 20 feet, even if I was able to
move it in would not make any difference in terms of what may or
may not get to the beach, Nick.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mr. Kimack, this is a novel application for
me. I was not on the Board in 2005. Just as a point of
November 17, 2021 19 Board of Trustees
information, I had been on the Board prior to that when the CEHA
ordinance was developed.
The Board of Trustees is the administrator of permits and
the physiographic, the very zones, at least my reading of the
zones, are that construction within 100 feet or consolidated
material constitutes construction on a beach. Now, this is so
novel, with my experience, I never seen an I/A or even a
conventional sanitary proposed for what would be on the beach,
where I do know that the Trustees were subject to audit by the
State of New York under the Coastal Erosion Hazard program, that
the state has audited where swimming pools were put in the dune,
and this is a more strict classification as definitionally being
beach. So I'm having a problem seeing what's the difference
with at-grade swimming pool built in concrete elements that has,
you know, impacts on the environment, but also could be subject
to the erosional forces of wind and tide. The same as this. But
by the mere fact that the state has designated the area, the
Town Board has asked the Trustees to, you know, to be the
administrator, heavy wind-and tide concern is going to
conceivably expose elements of the sanitary system. And I'm a
little'concerned, if you will, that as an individual Trustee I
would be deeming and setting a precedent to allow a sanitary
system in the coastal erosion hazard area as an unregulated
activity.
MR. KIMACK: Mr. Bredemeyer, when you went out there, basically
we all went out there together, primarily, this particular
location is not on the beach.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It has to do with --the CEHA law sets out
what is allowed for activities within a beach, a primary dune
and secondary dune. It's baked in the ordinance. Now, an
individual Trustee like myself can misread it, I can be
certainly contentious and arguable, but that's my individual
reading of it. I mean obviously an I/A system is good.
MR. KIMACK: Let me ask you this, did you consider the location
in a secondary dune?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board has not discussed the dune --
MR. KIMACK: I understand. My question is when you laid out the
graph, when you stood there --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I did not see, when I laid out the graph, I
did not see a dune. My interpretation was right out of the CEHA
ordinance where it says there is no fronting dune or secondary
dune where you go from beach to directly. That was my take on it
MR. KIMACK: I mean essentially the line moved. Essentially. And
you determined where the beach ended, at least where the wetland
line ended and you measured up from there. And the septic area
above the 12 line is neither in a dune or a beach. It's within
the property itself, so it's not subject to that. I don't,know
how else to make the point. And as far as the placement is
concerned, it's permitted within the code, basically, it's in a
sense it defines regulated activity, it defines structure. It
talks about structures in the ground, which we are doing, and it
November 17, 2021 20 Board of Trustees
talks about making sure that we meet, when you issued the
permit, that you meet those criteria. And I believe we have met
those criteria. And I don't believe we have a regulated activity
with the disturbance of the cutting except we are talking only
about the structure right now.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess I respectively disagree. We are not
here obviously to entirely debate this but to have a discussion.
But the CEHA ordinance is specific in that the near shore area
and beach area, the only thing that this Board, my experience is
with the Board, would administer a permit to would be coastal
erosion protected structures, so within the near shore area
which goes out to some 15 feet below mean low water, to the
beach area which goes 100 feet landward of the last consolidated
material and change in vegetation. That is an area, that zone
typically is restricted activity is for, would be typically a
revetment or gabion baskets.
MR. KIMACK: You know how much DEC loves gabion baskets.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, do others want to speak?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak?
MR. IRVING: Adam Irving. I live on Stephenson Road as well. I
have not met the applicant before and would prefer to have done
this off line rather than here. But a couple things jumped out
on this. Obviously it seems there's a lot of legal gymnastics
that are being discussed. To me it's pretty simple. I have been
walking that beach since the 80s. The rack line has gone up,
storms in the past two weeks have pushed things up considerably
compared to what I have seen in the past. And I'm concerned
about that CEHA line that is only going up, and as such, I think
we need to be very careful about any disturbance, even if it's
temporary. I just, you know, the way I look at it is the
beaches and the bluffs, that is our protection. That's
Stephenson Road's protection. And I just think we have to be
very, very careful about any proposal of this sort: And I also
would also like though point out that I do feel that this is
not, this is not a small house, it's a five-bathroom house. You
know, there's a couple houses to the north of this application,
I think one was built like in the '20s and '30s, one was built
in the '50s or'60s. They are pretty small-scale houses. They
don't have five bathrooms. You know, if this could be done on a
smaller scale, if everything could be above the CEHA line, I
think that would garner more support from the neighbors. But, I
don't know, this is definitely kind of, it's just surprising
given the lay of the land there, and I just think this really
needs to get a lot of attention.
The other thing I do pay attention to is we get our well
water tested every five years or so and saltwater intrusion in
terms of the chloride count has been going up, and I don't know
if this is your jurisdiction or purview but I do think it makes
sense to consider when you are putting in another straw into
essentially the shallow aquifer, do we have the capacity. I just
think that needs to be thought about as well. Thank you.
November 17, 2021 21 Board of Trustees
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, I'll be honest with you, Mr. Kimack,
I'm at a little bit of an impasse with the location of the
septic, I have to say. I don't know if it would benefit from
another meeting at the site or if everyone is --
MR. KIMACK: If you want to go and visit the site again exactly
where that will be located, I would be glad to do that.
MR. MULLINS: Just one more quick point, if I may.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Town Attorney is counseling with the
Chairman. So we are on hold for a minute.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you have you statement to make, sir?
MR. MULLINS: Just one more comment, gentlemen. One is to address
some concerns. If you can look at tax maps on this site going
back to 50's, which we did, it's important diligence as a buyer
of land, actually the tax map has expanded over time. It has not
eroded over time. It's an area where the beach has expanded.
It's an area that has not seen erosion. So that's just one area
to point out. I don't think that CEHA line will be moving up.
The other thing is with all respect to the rules and
regulations, I think that it's important to recognize this is
not a beach. That where the septic is being shown, this is a
wooded grassy area that is 13 feet above the sea level. So I
don't think that they are looking at any significant concern
because of things like erosion or because of storms, et cetera.
So I think practically it's important to remember that. And
there are plenty of photos of the site in the application.
Anyway, thank you, for your time and consideration.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments from the Board, or anyone
from the audience wish to speak?
(No response).
All right, at this point I think the Board would like to take
another look at the site, if that works for you, Mr. Kimack.
MR. KIMACK: Yes, I'll put my boots on, and I'll go out and flag
the location specifically where the septic is going. It will
give you a much better idea.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion
to table the application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 1, Michael Kimack on behalf of
KRISLEN MANAGEMENT CORP., c/o EDDIE TORRES & KRISTINA HOSCH
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 25' long return (13' north to south
and 12' east to west) situated in an "L" configuration as an extension to existing
bulkhead return.
Located: 55755 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44-1-15.
This application is deemed consistent under the Town's LWRP.
November 17, 2021 22 Board of Trustees
The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application.
The Board of Trustees reviewed this and members performed
an inspection subsequent to our work session and deemed this
project to be straightforward.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. I
appreciate that. It's simply an extension of the bulkhead in
order to protect the property from erosion that as you can see
had occurred. And the front of the property is right on the
property line, and it's at the same height as the property and
extends back, and it's a little, I think there is 25 feet of
bulkhead and that's it. It's just an "L"for protection.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak to
this application? Board members?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you, gentlemen.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 2, AMP Architecture on behalf of
RONALD & MARY SANCHEZ requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
1,640sq.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" (1,240sq.ft.) second floor and roof to be removed;
proposed new 32'0"x46'10" (1,350sq.ft.) second floor area; existing 36'9"x19'11"
(520sq.ft.) wood deck to be removed and replaced; existing 27'11
'/2"x17'10" (210sq.ft.) covered porch to be removed and replaced;
proposed 4610 Y2"x28'11" (865sq.ft.) roof covered wood deck
(over replaced open wood deck and covered porch) with outdoor
fireplace and outdoor kitchen; proposed 7'2"x167' (120sq.ft.) trellis over wood
deck; proposed new siding throughout existing exterior; proposed 6'5"x7'8"
(50sq.ft.) hot tub; and propose to remove existing asphalt driveway and replace
with new 2,700sq.ft. pervious driveway.
Located: 515 South Oakwood Drive, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-145-3-9.1
I have to read the new project description stamped received
December 15th, 2021.
Water side windows to be removed and replaced with four
larger units; existing second floor and roof to be removed,
26'6"x46'10" (1,240 square feet); proposed new second floor
area, 32'x46'10" (1,350 square feet); existing wood deck to be
removed and replaced, 36'9"x19'11" (520 square feet). Existing
covered porch to be removed and replaced, 27'11.5"x 17'10" (210
square feet); proposed roof covered over stone patio, replace
open wood deck and covered porch; outdoor fireplace and outdoor
November 17, 2021 23 Board of Trustees
kitchen 24'2"x28'11", 5'0"x52'0" (1,015 square feet); proposed
trellis over wood deck 7'2"x16'7" (120 square feet); proposed
new siding throughout existing exterior; hot tub, 6'5"x7'8" (50
square feet); detached garage landward of 100 foot setback from
top of bank; existing roof structure to remain with dormer
alterations/additions; proposed new siding throughout existing
exterior; proposed new roofing, new driveway, proposing to
remove existing asphalt drive and replace with new 2,700 square
foot pervious driveway, and a new accessory apartment septic
system, proposed new I/A system for accessory apartment within
existing detached garage.
Trustees on the most recent inspection of this was on
November 9th. It was inhouse. Notes read that all were present.
Notes read we'll review new plans at the work session. New plans
stamped November 15th, 2021, were reviewed at the work session.
Trustees noted that all the changes that had been suggested were
accomplished in that plan, including a six-foot non-turf buffer
and movement of the hot tub five feet further from the top of bank.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation`Advisory Council resolved to unanimously,
on October 13th, to support this application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
(No response).
Are there any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL- AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to make a motion to approve this
application as written, and in accordance with the AMP
Architecture plans dated November 12th, 2021, stamped received
November 15th, 2021.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 3, 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 t4'xt5' 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 t2'; install proposer valves
November 17, 2021 24 Board of Trustees
and drains for the piping for winter shut-off.
Located: 1400 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-110-1-4
The Trustees visited this site on November 9th, 2021, all
Trustees present. Field notes: Need more extensive description.
Species and spacing of plantings, and to remove shower on dock.
The LWRP found this to be both consistent and inconsistent,
noting the inconsistency being the constructed sitting area was
conducted without Board review and permits.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application.
In addition to the original application on November 11th we
received a new planting plan and a project description and
addendum which reads as follows: The attached drawing shows the
20-foot non-turf buffer zone proposed for the referenced
property. Native species to be planted within a 20-foot non-turf
buffer zone shall include, Baccharus, five-gallon, planted four
to five feet apart; Bayberry, three-gallon, planted three to
four feet apart; the shower located at the entrance of the dock
shall be removed; the garden hose shall stay in the same location.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application?
(No response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Anybody on Zoom?
(No response)
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted, including the addendum that I had read into the
record dated received November 11th, with the accompanying
planting plan and survey dated received November 11th, and in
doing so will address the inconsistency of the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4, 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
The Trustees conducted the most recent field inspection
November 9th, noting that the house this time is staked, adding
a ten-foot buffer along the upland water body.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent and consistent. The
inconsistency is the proposed larger dwelling and pool are
November 17, 2021 25 Board of Trustees
entirely located within FEMA X and AE elevation 6-foot flood
zone, increasing structures within these areas are unsupported
and the probability of damage and loss of kind due to storms
including hurricanes, the maximum setbacks practical to be
applied to mitigate storm impacts. Installation of an I/A OWTS
recommended as consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
and recommends every effort be made to build all proposed
structures in accordance with FEMA standards.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. ROSEBERY: Jack Rosebery, architect. John D. Rosebery. I'm
just here to answer any questions you may have. We had a field
inspection on November 9th, a nice visit on a nice day. The
photographs of the property on the site plan, we flagged the
area where the I/A OWTS system is to go. Pretty much discussed
what was going on in the area and I'm willing to answer any
questions you may have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Are the plans we have stamped received August
16th, 2021, the latest?
MR. ROSEBERY: I believe I e-mailed on the 12th, we talked about
a ten-foot buffer.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, that was my question. I don't have that
in the file here.
MR. ROSEBERY: All right. We e-mailed something right after the
meeting about a ten-foot buffer. So that's not an issue.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So on new plans that we receive, we'll need
the ten-foot buffer by that bulkhead and also the ten-foot
buffer on the wreckage.
MR. ROSEBERY: Right. The DEC requested us to have plants all
along that bulkhead as well as the freshwater wetlands.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And then on whatever plans you send, make
sure it's a clearly delineated line on the plans that show the
ten-foot buffer and are labeled as such.
MR. ROSEBERY: Okay. And just a quick thing, I just wanted to
point out that the ten-foot buffer will -- sorry, I should have
brought the bigger plan -- but the ten-foot buffer will go up,
this is a right-of-way right here. It's identified in the
liber. So the ten-foot buffer will go outside the right-of-way
here. That's how we'll have to do that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We are just going to need the line on a
mailed plan, e-mail plan.
MR. ROSEBERY: It will be in the mail tomorrow.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Anyone else here to speak to this
application?
(No response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response). .
Hearing no further comments, I make a-motionto table this
hearing until we received new plans with ten-foot buffers
clearly delineated on the new plans.
November 17, 2021 26 Board of Trustees
MR. ROSEBERY: Fair enough.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to take five
minute recess.
(After a five-minute recess, these proceedings continue as
follows).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 5, 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 (±3,475sq.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"Double-wall" block retaining wall system to
an elevation of 7.00' (NAVD 88) along the south shoreline of
easterly peninsula; removal of scattered concrete rip-rap along
the southerly shoreline of the easterly peninsula and
replacement with a ±2,300sq.ft. revetment constructed of locally
sourced stone with a 1.5 ton/stone top layer and 501b./stone
base layer landward of MLW; construct±33 linear feet of
Navy-style bulkhead with an 8' return to the south to an
elevation of 7.00' (NAVD 88) along the western point of the
easterly peninsula to restore the upland area and functionality
of the peninsula; construct ±233 linear feet of Navy-style
bulkhead to an elevation of 7.00' (NAVD 88) along the northerly
shoreline of the easterly peninsula; construct±237 linear feet
of low-sill bulkhead to an elevation ±0.33' (NAVD 88) along the
northerly shoreline of the easterly peninsula ±6' seaward of and
parallel to the above mentioned new bulkhead to create
±1,375sq.ft. of intertidal wetlands planted with Smooth
Cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) along this shoreline; the
created wetland area represents a 1:6 mitigation ratio for
±270sq.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 "Double-wall"
southerly block wall and the north and west bulkheads on the
eastern peninsula; the filled/upland area will include
±4,500sq.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
1
November 17, 2021 27 Board of Trustees
bollard lighting (for sitting, education and,viewing areas), and
±2,850sq.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
The Trustees most recently reviewed this application on the
11th of November after several site visits throughout the recent
months. They noted: Needed to discuss further at work session,
and possibly have a discussion of requesting a DEC review before
moving forward with the application.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent although
they wanted to clarify the reason to relocate the osprey pole
and clarify the use of oyster shells on the peninsula if that's
the best substrate for wildlife habitat.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed the application,
however based on the sensitive nature of the shellfish areas
noted and referenced in the Nelson Pope Voorhis narrative, and
application addendum Chapter 275 Wetland Permit LWRP consistency
review, the Conservation Advisory Council does not have a
recommendation at this time.
I am in receipt of several letters in opposition from
neighboring property owners to this property, which we have
reviewed both prior to this at public hearing and in work session.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding the application?
MR. REINER: If I may. I won't take up much of your time. Brant
Reiner, from Nelson Pope &Voorhis I'm here tonight to express
to the Board that we are willing to listen to comments and offer
any explanation that we can to help move this application along,
and in the interest of time I'll step back and let the rest of
the public speak.
If there are any questions to.me, please direct them, I'll
be here in the audience.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. MCALLISTER: Kevin McAllister, I'm founder and president of
Defend H2O. We are a Sag Harbor based, clean water advocacy
organization and coastal protection. By way of my background to
the issue at hand, I hold undergraduate degrees in biological
sciences, natural resources conservation, and a Masters in
November 17, 2021 28 Board of Trustees
coastal zone management. Principally the course of study was
coastal processes. Prior to returning to Long Island to assume
role as Peconic Bay Keeper in 1998, 1 was employed in south
Florida, roughly 12 years, much of that time in shoreline
protection in Palm Beach county. From the biological standpoint
I worked on virtually all sorts of shoreline stabilization
projects as well as restoration projects. My interest in this
project of course relates to my work in the 16 years of bay
keeper some of you may know my advocacy efforts to address the
protection of the active coastal zone. You know, I have seen
over time certainly the incremental changes the Board deals with
this day in and day out, with the applications that are before
you. We are seeing, I'll say, monumental transformations of our
shoreline. Ultimately if we encapsulate this system with
hardened revetments, bulkheads, geo-textiles; we'll erase
intertidal zone causing irreparable harm to estuary
functionality and water quality locations.
With respect to the actual application, I reviewed Suffolk
County's GIS library while looking at the aerial photos that
start at 1962, most current is 2020, roughly ten photographs in
that period. I can tell you looking at the '62 photo before the
inlet was stabilized, it was further to the east. When you look
at 1978, 1 think is the next aerial, all of a sudden the western
most jetty has been constructed with the sheet pile seawall
around the particular area. And the inlet was dredged to the
west, immediately adjacent to that jetty. Subsequent photo you
can see the disruption. So ultimately this structure itself, ,
the jetty is trapping sand moving from west to east. That is the
net flow of sand in this area. Further with the dredging that
occurred, and this is really a deficiency in our coastal
management approach at inlets. Ultimately the dredging cut has
created a bit of a jet where beach sediments are either lost
inside and in the basin itself or jetted offshore. So it is
disrupting sand flow through this area.
The photos again go on to really tell the picture there.
It's clearly recession but I think with respect to the impacts,
I should say the SEQRA review, a couple of points'that jumped
out at me and obviously the Board found the neg dec for this
project and, you know, I can appreciate that, I guess, with, you
know, looking at it in a myopic view of this project itself, but
in the large scheme of things as we encapsulate again the shore
lines with hardened structures, you know there is in fact
significant adverse impacts, and it behooves the point of a pos
dec to really do a full analysis.
Again, sediment impeding through the flow through this area
from west to east, to the west is bulkheaded shoreline, then you
have influence of the inlet itself. Obviously the application,
the applicant'is seeking to armor the peninsula, so I would like
to speak to the components, the western jetty itself which is
already rimmed with sheet piles of seawall, the proposal is for
an additional wall or higher wall to serve as a repository for
November 17, 2021 29 Board of Trustees
dredge spoil, and then further improvements to make this a
useable area. And I would submit this has been an attractive
nuisance, given the construction and.the elevation, you know,
this area should not be used at all and should not be improved
where it is in fact used for patrons of the facility itself.
On the peninsula obviously there is the stone barrier is
proposed, on the south side fronted with rock revetment. On the
back side is also or I should say three sides of the peninsula
rimmed with bulkhead and a sill bulkhead for a nominal amount of
wetland vegetation, where this was a six to one compensation for
wetland loss.
I want to tell you, I'll say with certainty, in my
professional opinion, these sill wetlands are inconsequential,
they do not replicate functionality of tidal wetlands, so the
notion that this is some kind of significant improvement with
the sill bulkhead and the tidal wetland vegetation that is being
planted, quite frankly, is a reach.
The subsequent impacts now as we address the dredging
itself and looking at the plans I saw cross-hatching, and unless
I'm mistaken it does not define real volumes and specificity on
the dredge cuts itself. So are we talking about maintenance dredging
or are we talking about new dredging? And the northern
bulkhead, you know, clearly that is intertidal shoal in there.
So, you know, we can argue, and certainly it's a natural
shoreline that will be lost again with the tradeoff of
perceived tidal wetland creation. But certainly there will be
subsequent dredging in the area, eliminating the intertidal
zone. The structure itself, so now we are talking a fronting
revetment, typical of revetments and bulkhead seawalls is the
end scour. So on the downdrift side, certainly to the east
there, it's highly likely that we are going to see end scour.
That shoreline as I can tell is in a natural state and into the
actual boatyard area. So from the inlet to the jetty that is
adjacent to the little boat basin for the neighboring community,
you know, this is a reach of natural shoreline that should be
managed as such.
The survey itself, in looking at the Young & Young survey,
and I tried to, you know, obviously you can see the super
imposed property boundaries on the board, and I can tell you
from my experience in permitting, and I'm sure the Board is
aware of this, what is fundamental of course is property
ownership, for any work. So if there is any questions in your
mind as to where the dredging is occurring, whether or not that
is within, you know, this property's ownership or is outside
needs to be determined before I think this Board moves forward.
Recommendations: The concrete slabs that are out there, I
would suspect this was done without benefit of a permit. In
looking at the aerial photo, you can pick up the presence that
has been here for years. But there is no really engineering
stability to this, you know, to the strewn material. I would
submit that this material should be removed from the site and I
November 17, 2021 30 Board of Trustees
would urge the Board really to take a more passive sand
approach, perhaps a sand trap can be employed at the inlet
itself, where periodically this material is transported or
dredged and placed on that fronting beach. Sand bypassing is a
methodology that is utilized everywhere but Long Island,
unfortunately, and now we are seeing the ramifications of
deficiency in sand management at these inlets.
There are real ramifications to the adjacent property and
to the Breezy Shores property as a result certainly of sand
starvation, and again with placement of this structure you are
going to have to follow suit, or the property owner will, with
additional structure.
I urge stabilization and increase buffer on the undeveloped
boatyard portion of this to the east for further stabilization.
I would view this area a bit sacrificial, if you will, just
almost as a feeder beach, but maintaining some volume of sand
that will run to the east, stabilizing shoreline in that area.
Revegetation is appropriate, of course, with the
appropriate selection of plant species. We are not talking
wetland here. Upland plant species for stabilization of this
area. Again, to the dredge cuts itself, you know, let's be clear
about this. Dredging has serious implications with respect to
the, you know, biota on the bottom. These can become depositional
areas and dead zones. And again, without specificity to the cuts
themselves and where the actual footprints are, I mean there is,
the application identified volumes and placement but doesn't
really define exactly where this material is coming from. So I'm
presuming there is a DEC permit for past dredging, that maybe
Trustee permit as well, so again let's define whether or not
this is new dredging which, you know, has a whole different
complexion of environmental review versus maintenance dredging.
And I know this is, I'll say, very difficult for the Board but,
you know, we've got to get a grip on the level of armoring that
is happening.
Again, is this the end all in the estuary, of course not.
But I think it behooves the Board to show real support for I'll
say the movement that is afoot, certainly with Peconic Estuary
program, I know Mr. Krupski, I believe you are on the meeting
today, where there is renewed effort to try to again protect the
integrity of shorelines and to really arrest further armoring.
So I think in the immediacy of providing more sand and, you
know, again, having better definition of the dredging. But this
has implications, you know, again, the SEQRA process that may
have significant adverse impacts, it's not a high threshold.
Again, I think your reference in the SEQRA findings are that
habitat degradation would occur from soil loss I would say is
misplaced. In fact if the Board allows for the armoring around
this peninsula, we are losing important intertidal habitat as a
result of that. And subsequently, again, the dredge cuts, if
there are a new bottom, we are talking about impacts there.
So again, with conveyance to the application itself, I urge
November 17, 2021 31 Board of Trustees
the Board to say no. Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
MS. DOWD: Good evening, Board of Trustees, my name is Mary Dowd,
and I'm the homeowner of cottage#28 at Breezy Shores. Some
background information first. When the Trustees notice was
posted for the Brick Cove marina public hearing, the Breezy
Shores board members and I began researching the lengthy
Conkling LLC application. The Southold Town aerial tax map
photo alerted us right away of possible property boundary
issues. So we contacted Young & Young surveyors and submitted
the October 7th, 2021, survey map, with two-page survey report
to the Trustees. This survey map confirmed that indeed New York
state owns a large section of land on the western peninsula
where the applicant proposed to make extensive alterations.
Furthermore, we contacted the Office of General Services for New
York state on this matter. On November 15th, 2021, we received a
letter from Richard Scott, senior land surveyor, with New York
state in Albany. After reviewing their New York state records,
the October 7th Young & Young survey map and survey report,
Richard Scott stated the following: It appears that the 1903
shoreline reflected on the Young & Young map best reflects the
last known shoreline prior to the placement of fill. Any
previously ungranted lands now or formally underwater, southerly
and southeasterly of this line are held in trust for the People
of the State of New York.
In addition, ownership of the eastern peninsula is in
dispute, where the Brick Cove marina applicants propose to
harden the shoreline. The Young &Young survey and Southold Town
aerial tax map delineate Breezy Shores ownership of the land
underwater directly east of the channel. The upper inner corners
of each peninsula within the Sage basin, the most northwestern
segment of the western peninsula and the most northeastern
segment of the toe of the eastern peninsula fall within Breezy
Shores property boundaries.
The Young & Young survey, Southold Town aerial tax map and
aerial photos with imposed property lines make clear the
dredging of the Sage basin constitutes encroachment. The access
channel appears to cut through Breezy Shores owned bottom land,
and Brick Cove's dock configuration juts right up against Breezy
Shore's property.
Therefore, it is imperative that the applicant and their
hired professionals provide detailed dredging plans on a survey
memorialized with clear dredging limits to prevent unlawful
dredging of property that does not belong to Brick Cove marina.
As adjacent property owners who co-share the entrance to the
Sage basin it is every bit in our interest to know exactly where
the proposed dredging cuts will be in relation to Breezy Shores
property.
In summary, due to the fact that New York state now has
confirmed property ownership of land within the scope of this
application, along with the issues regarding encroachment on
November 17, 2021 32 Board of Trustees
property owned by Breezy Shores, I respectfully request that the
Board of Trustees deny this pending application. I see no reason
for the Trustees to prolong considering this pending application
due to the fact that significant inaccurate information was
submitted by the applicants. Kicking it down the road by taking
a second seat to the DEC is not justified as New York State
property ownership overrides the DEC when it comes to this
specific application.
The owners of Brick Cove marina have no authority to use
New York state or Breezy Shores property. The application should
be denied as the owners of Brick Cove marina are attempting to
usurp taxpayer property they clearly do not own.
I endorse and support all of the points presented in the
November 16th community letter from our attorney Karen Meyer and
the important points made previously by Kevin McAllister.
Thank you, for your consideration, and thank you for your
service on the Board of Trustees.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just before we get into anymore, the
Trustees do have concerns on this project and I will try to
articulate them, to kind of try to head off if we are going to
be repetitive on certain things.
We do have an issue with the western peninsula and the
proposed construction paths, ladders, benches, all of that on
that western peninsula. The dredging, whether it is a
maintenance dredging and/or new dredging, that is one thing that
the DEC will determine. If it is considered new dredging there
is a lot more stringent regulations imposed on that. It did have
a maintenance permit at one,point in time, so we don't know, so
we'll wait for the DEC on that.
We do have some issues with the construction on the eastern
peninsula, including the height, the width; some of the
construction on the northern side by the marina side which is
vegetated now. Currently on the plans I know it says it's a low
sill, but it almost looks like there is two seven-foot vinyl
bulkheads going in. Even if it is a low sill we have a concern
with the height of those proposed pilings, which I believe is
currently seven feet. I do believe that the DEC is going to find
a lot of issues with this potential project, and dial it back
considerably. The intertidal vegetation that would be one
consideration as well, based on the amount of fill they propose,
this would change it from an intertidal vegetation to a high
marsh vegetation. So we do share that.
As far as the low sill and the vegetation replacement, the
DEC usually requires a three to one replacement. So for, you
know, every vegetation you are getting rid of they require three
times the amount to be replaced.
The armoring issue, I don't know if it necessarily plays a
factor in this. This whole area, basically from east to west, is
armored already with bulkheads. All the property to Southold
November 17, 2021 33 Board of Trustees
Shore, I believe have bulkheads. Breezy Shores, they have a
bulkhead. So this particular section of the property is one of
the few sections between Peconic Yacht Club and Conkling Point
that is not armored. So we do see heavy erosion on those areas
that are not armored.
We have a 15-foot, we have concerns with the lighting on
the path. We didn't think that was appropriate. We don't think a
15-foot wide path is appropriate. But the 15-foot wide path I
believe will be addressed by the DEC in the amount of fill or
lack thereof that they will approve for that particular section.
So we do have a number of concerns, so just, you know, we
share some of your concerns with it, so in case anybody was
going to be voicing that, I just want to put it on the record
beforehand.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm just going to piggyback off what Trustee
Goldsmith said. On both the eastern and western, it seems to be
a sense of the Board it would not be appropriate for passive or
any other use on either peninsula. Certainly protecting ones
property and protecting a marina are one thing but using
something for any other use other than that protection and that
habitat, is a totally different subject.
The Trustees also have issue with the depth of dredging
along the inside of the eastern peninsula. That should
certainly, that is a habitat currently and should certainly
remain that way and should not be turned into an additional
location to dock vessels.
And then I would just reiterate the statement that, it's a
far stretch to say that armoring that small section when all the
properties on both sides including many people who wrote in are
armored, that's a little bit of a difficult point to make. But
beside that, those are definitely our issues, so if people agree
with that, please let's not keep stating the same thing over and
over again. Thank you.
MS. CHU: Hello, my name is Minnie Chu. I want to thank you for
letting us speak today. I'll try not to replicate what you just
said.
We are here to ask you all as the Trustees to consider the
extent of the proposed project, in particular really the
expansive degree of dredging both in depth and also the width,
and its impact on the area directly north of the channel. The
basin, most of which is land underwater that belongs to Breezy
Shores. Again I would like to reiterate, we all want Brick Cove
marina to succeed as a marina, and we understand that marinas
need to be maintained. My question is, is such an extensive
project necessary for maintaining a marina, especially one that
is already protected by an armored jetty on one side and another
man-made jetty on the other.
Conkling proposes dredging a depth six feet below mean low
water, 55 feet in width, and over 200 feet in length. Why?
While current depths are not necessarily ideal, the channel can
and does accommodate the traffic of boats in the marina. Is
November 17, 2021 34 Board of Trustees
Conkling preparing for much larger boats? Or do they expect
two-way traffic that will congest the waterway right in front
Breezy Shores? Is the 55-foot wide channel needed to allow for
yacht parking along either peninsula while boats either enter or
and exit the marina? Is the intense dredging in area B and
bulkheading of eastern peninsula in front of it a means for
Conkling to move the eastern peninsula further into the bay and
literally create more space for docks in the marine while
simultaneously increasing the surface area for event space on
the peninsula.
Given the submitted survey that grabs land that never
belonged though them, this possibility sadly seems disgracefully
plausible. While many of us are truly concerned about the
health of the bay, one of our main concerns is our property. Two
thirds of the basin belongs to Breezy Shores, consisting of
flats and shoals, it's a tidal wetland that will be impacted by
the proposed changes. Tidal wetlands are vital for marine food
production, wildlife habitat, cleansing of ecosystems and
absorption of silt and organic material. Under New York state's
Uniform Procedures Act, any new dredging, construction of
bulkheads and construction of open-pile docks or catwalks
greater than four-feet in width constitute a major project which
warrants a higher level of scrutiny.
As Kevin McAllister just noted, dredging really creates
depressions where seaweed builds up and produces dead zones that
profoundly impacts organisms living in that system.
How will over 200 feet of dredging impact the bay? Our
property borders the areas they intend to dredge. How will
littoral drift impact our wetland habitat.
In addition, wetlands are a means to blunt the effects of
hurricanes and major storms. Dredging deeper and wider in
conjunction with armoring of even taller eastern and western
peninsula bulkheads protects Conkling LLC's property but in
doing so it increases our exposure. Specifically exposure of our
basin to storm surge and flooding of the uplands behind it. The
combination of bulkheads and dredging increases the volume of
water entering the basin directly from the bay and increases
wave action from different angles produced by water refracting
and ricocheting off the vinyl bulkheads into different parts of
our basin. This is particularly a problem during storm surging
or dramatic weather conditions. This will make it difficult
Breezy Shores to mitigate flooding around the basin at a time
that we are increasingly mindful of the sudden and dramatic
effect of climate change.
Flooding created by increased water volume and velocity can
seriously compromise our road which is no higher than ten feet
in elevation and in some places a mere 20 meters from Sage
Boulevard. Flooding that accompanies major storms in the near
future might be inevitable and we can't control the effects of
existing climate change. We can however lessen the negative
impacts that will be generated artificially by harden shorelines
t
November 17, 2021 35 Board of Trustees
and the unnecessary dredging. It is in all our interest,
including Conkling,LLC to ensure that the upland strip of land
does not flood because it is the only piece of land with which
we access our cottages at Breezy Shores and Conkling LLC can
access Brick Cove marina.
What still remains unclear is whether or not this is new
dredging or maintenance dredging, and in their application they
didn't present any real information about that. What was the
scope and location of past dredge cuts in relation to Breezy
Shores property? I respectfully ask the Trustees to require the
applicant to provide us with a dredging history over the last 25
years.
We request the Trustees not approve this application and
equally as important we respectfully ask that you rescind the
negative declaration that you on SEQRA. ,
Thank you, to the Board, for your time and consideration.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Just one thing before we go. The
six-foot below mean low water is typical of a dredge permit
through DEC and through the Trustees. Every navigable creek
within Southold Town I believe is to that six-foot depth, as
well as every marina in Southold town,.especially when they have
some fixed-keel sailboats like they do in Brick Cove. I don't
necessarily think it's for expansion, more let's say maintenance
of what there is, which is a typical dredge project. Whether
it's for maintenance dredging and/or new dredging, that would be
determined by the DEC and there again if it's considered new
there is some more stringent regulations included water samples,
soil samples and things like that. But that is a DEC determination.
MR. NELSON: Hi, my name is Dave Nelson, cottage#24, Breezy
Shores. I want to thank the Board for expressing some of the
reservations you have about this project earlier, it did speak
to a lot of my points. I do want to argue with the eastern
peninsula. While it's true that a lot of shorelines are
hardened already, from Peconic Yacht Club, through to Breezy
Shores, there is still that stretch along the eastern peninsula
that is wild, as well as the very eastern end of Breezy Shores
property and all the way to Conkling Point. So any additional
bulkhead is going to threaten what is left of the natural
shoreline there. And so I really want to argue against taking
any steps that will degrade what little is left there.
And then as a personal note I kayak those areas, I have a
kayak and I kayak Southold bay all the time. Bulkheads reflect
wave energy, making boating and kayaking even more difficult to
do in the bay. It also keeps it further from the shoreline. I
like to kayak along wherever there are natural shorelines.
Shorelines are places of great beauty. No one has ever said
that about bulkheads and rock revetments. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
MS. BARON: I'll be very brief. My name is Megan Baron. I would
just like to quickly bring up two points regarding the eastern
peninsula.
November 17, 2021 36 Board of Trustees
In the Conkling application, the stated justification for
the hardening of that peninsula is severe erosion however aerial
maps spanning 60 years shows the peninsula maintained its shape
and the vegetation on the marina side has greatly improved over
that time period which is why we see a thriving shoreline there,
now. It is doubtful that within the very year the owners
purchase this property it suddenly becomes necessary for such
drastic measures as proposed in this application.
Also, a lot of the applicant's focus on the erosion is
concerning the toe of the eastern peninsula. But as others have
already stated this area belongs to Breezy Shores and not Brick
Cove marina. And as for the broken concrete to the bay side of
the eastern peninsula, that was dumped there in 1994 and does
not have the benefit of a permit from the Trustees or the DEC.
This quasi-armoring of the shoreline does not dissipate wave
energy or allow for native plants to take hold there. The
applicant is using this illegal debris as a means to obtain a
substantial rock revetment and double wall system, however this
would soon lead to erosion of their own natural shoreline in
front of Brick Cove marina's boat storage area and possibly
affect the others as well. Therefore I ask you to consider
saying no to the proposed plans. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MS. CANTRELL: We have Lynn Stack via Zoom. If you would like to
un-mute yourself and speak to the Board.
MS. STACK: Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to
express my reservations regardingthe proposed shoreline
armoring at Brick Cove marina.
As a cottage owner at Breezy Shores and a member of the
organizations Environmental Committee and Shoreline Erosion
committee, I care deeply about the vitality and sustainability
of the land and waterways that comprise this town.
As a community, Breezy Shores is committed to fostering a
vibrant, resilient and sustainable future for all. Working
together we strive to protect and preserve the health of the
property, bay and tributaries around us by practicing
sustainable land management and shoreline preservation.
We take environmental stewardship seriously, respecting the
habitats of the diverse insect, marine, wildlife and bird
population with whom we share this beautiful place. Conkling
Point is located a short distance to the east from Brick Cove
marina, an important habitat for wildlife and a nesting site for
Least terns, a threatened species in New York state, and Piping
Plovers, an endangered species in New York state that is also
protected by the federal endangered species act. The area
consists of a sand island, a small, protected bay, a salt marsh
and tidal flats. Deemed as an important as a habitat for
wildlife by New York state, the tidal wetlands at Conkling Point
serve as feeding areas for a diversity of fish and waterfowl and
food resource.
November 17, 2021 37 Board of Trustees
Shorelines such as Conkling Point represent an important
ecological zone that is facing heightened pressure under coastal
development. Loss of the salt marsh habitat at Conkling Point
would result in a direct reduction of valuable habitat and
diminished value as a food resource for many bird, wildlife and
aquatic species, the American horseshoe grab among them. We've
kept a watch on the horseshoe crab population in our area over
the past few years. Since horseshoe crabs rely on beaches and
shallow intertidal environment to produce their young, their
abundance is an indicator of the health and productivity of this
transitional environment.
Recent years show declining trends due to various stressors
including loss of habitat. Horseshoe crabs play an important
ecological role in the food web and a decline in their number
will impact other species, particularly shore birds, which I'm
concerned about. Construction of shoreline structures such as
bulkheads or revetments are known to cause erosion and alter
water flows elsewhere, adversely affecting aquatic vegetation,
fish, birds and wildlife population. Thus it is vital that we
understand the potential impact dredging and shoreline armoring
at Brick Cove marina may have on the natural habitats and the
overall ecosystem at Conkling Point and other adjacent areas. I
believe the littoral drift resulting from the proposed
bulkheading at Brick Cove marina will adversely impact
neighboring shoreline, vulnerable species and the Peconic Bay
estuary at large.
As you consider this application, please remember that we
are not separate and distinct from the environment, but rather a
significant part of the biodiversity of this planet. We have the
ability to alter the air, the land, the water, in ways that
other species cannot. And with that, the responsibility to
safeguard the environment and its diverse inhabitants.
Therefore, I respectfully request the Trustees endorse the
comments made by Kevin McAllister from Defend H2O, regarding the
need for higher levels of the State Environmental Quality Review
Act. I'm concerned by the ramifications of the negative SEQRA
declaration by the Trustees and I request a greater level of
review. Thank you, so much, for your time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
MS. CANTRELL: Jenn Hartnagel wishes to speak. If you want to
un-mute yourself and speak to the Board, feel free.
MS. HARTNAGEL: Thank you. Good evening, my name is Jenn
Hartnagel and I'm speaking on behalf of the Group for the East
End.
For those of you not familiar, the group is based here in
Southold, and we are an environmental non-profit organization
surveying the five east towns. I'm glad to hear the Trustees
have a number of concerns tonight and therefore I hope you
support the suggestion for tabling the application, given the
complexity of the application, particularly considering the
November 17, 2021 38 Board of Trustees
outstanding property line points that were addressed tonight and
that were detailed in the file, it would be premature to act
given this unresolved issue. I don't want to rehash the very
substantive comments that are in the file and that have been
discussed here tonight regarding the environmental impact but I
do want to focus on the SEQRA issue.
The action is an unlisted action and a short form
environmental assessment was completed. The short form
concluded no or minimal impact, and as a result of the proposed
action, not a single box was checked on that form. And that is
in the files suggesting any potential impact. I mean clearly
given everything we have heard tonight and at the previous
meeting, in addition to Kevin, a coastal expert, there is
substantive comments in the file, we would strongly recommend
that the Trustees rescind the negative declaration that you
adopted at the last hearing. In our view there is in fact
potential for environmental impacts surrounding a variety_ of the
activities proposed in this application,
You know, it bears repeating, the short form didn't even
acknowledge the conflict with the recommendations of a number of
planning policies including the Southold Town Comprehensive
Plan, the Southold's Waterfront Revitalization Plan and the
Peconic Estuary's management plan that all call attention to the
negative impacts of shoreline hardening and recommends
alternatives to their use especially in the areas where there is
natural shoreline. So in the very least we would suggest that
pursuant to SEQRA guidelines that a long form environmental
assessment be completed, and that's in the very least. Again,
this is an unlisted action, it's very reasonable given what is
proposed to have a closer look.
Lastly, I just want to add two additional things. Whether
this application moves forward as is, and we sincerely hope it
does not, we would like to call attention to the rest of the
existing site development. We strongly suggest that the
Trustees recommend that the applicant comes into compliance with
the most up-to-date version of the Town's Dark Skies lighting code.
Additionally importantly, as you all are aware, nitrogen
pollution emanating from septic waste is one of the most
significant problems plaguing the estuary. The site plan notes
two standard septic systems. If it is the intention to continue
to hold events at the site, increase the use of the site, and
then create recreational areas on both sides of the channel,
which I see you have concerns with, whereby inviting additional
use, would you give consideration to upgrading these systems to
the innovative alternative systems that treat nitrogen.
So we ask you please consider this in your role and review
of the application. Again, we would like to submit written
comments to the record. And we respectfully ask that you
rescind the negative declaration. At the very least,,complete a
long-form environmental assessment so that the impact are
examined and then you can come up with alternatives. Thank you
November 17, 2021 39 Board of Trustees
for the opportunity to speak tonight. If you do close the
hearing, please again keep it open for written record.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
MR. MASNYJ: Hello and good evening, my name is Victor Masnyj.
I'm a cottage owner at Breezy Shores and I currently serve on
the board there. Thank you, Trustees, for your time and
consideration and all your hard work.
I would just like to take a few minutes to talk about Sage
Boulevard, our short, narrow, approximately half-mile road
coming off of 25, servicing four private homes, then shortly
after Brick Cove marina, and just beyond that our community,
Breezy Shores.
Sage Boulevard is a sub-standard private road, owned and
maintained by Breezy Shores, in some places it's only 14 feet
wide. It's a very scenic road with the basin on one side and the
other side is fresh water wetlands. It also has been a quiet
little road where people enjoy taking walks, some with dogs,
some of our neighbors have pets that walk along the road, there
are geese that often feed along the road, as well as other
wildlife. Turtles of various kinds often cross that road and we
and some of our neighbors have put up "turtle crossing" signs in
an effort to protect them from getting run over. So for these
reasons, a lot of caution should be used when driving on Sage
Boulevard. The owners of Brick Cove marina have a right of
easement to and come and go from their property. That is clearly
defined in the March 21, 1950, deed as access strictly to a
marina, not a hospitality business or an event space. Up until
recently it has not been a problem, however in the spring and
summer with new ownership of Brick Cove marina we have
increasingly seen more traffic on Sage, particularly when Brick
Cove marina is hosting its family fun events. On these days we
see substantially more vehicle traffic on Sage and it is often
observed that vehicles are driving too fast. There has been a
noticeable increase in roadkill and it just generally feels
like there is a higher possibility that a more serious incident
could take place there. Sage Boulevard is not designed for it,
it is not wide enough for this amount much traffic and the added
wear and tear is also a concern to us.
Additionally, when Brick Cove marina hosts these events,
they use our property to display signs directing cars where to
park; which those signs send them to the second entrance of
Brick Cove marina, which lies beyond what the easement permits.
So looking toward next year we anticipate Brick Cove marina
hosting even more events with potentially larger crowds making
the situation even worse.
So we are also concerned that if a large scale renovation
or construction projects should --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, sir, we have to speak to the
application at hand, so in term of any events or road use, it
November 17, 2021 40 Board of Trustees
really doesn't apply to here.
MR. MASNYJ: Okay I'll just go ahead and get into some of the
construction activity taking place there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That has nothing to do with what is in front of
us, unless you are speaking to the construction of any bulkheads
and/or revetments.
MR. MASNYJ: I am. And I'm wrapping up here in 30 seconds. So we
are concerned if a large scale renovation or construction
project should get underway at Brick Cove marina we'll see large
trucks bringing in heavy equipment and materials, possibly
damaging our road and creating congestion along the only access
path for emergency vehicles to get to our community in the event
they are needed. So that's a big concern for us as well. And we
just want to go down on the record, you know, as having these
concerns. Brick Cove marina has not approached us with any,
asking us for permission or even making us aware of what they
are planning to do. So we just want it to be known we are
worried about these things.
So, thank you, for your time, and I would just like to
respectively ask the Trustees not to approve the application.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing to
speak regarding this application, or any additional comments
from members of the Board?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would just like to reinforce without
reiterating the earlier comments by Trustees Goldsmith and
Krupski regarding our concerns about the eastern and western
peninsula and further clarify that there be no lighting on
eastern peninsula or western peninsula, and the western
peninsula be sterilized of any use status and remain further
natural.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other additional comments?
MR. REINER: Brant Reiner of Nelson, Pope &Voorhis. I just
wanted to sort of take the opportunity to address the Board's
comments and maybe some,of the public comments very quickly.
I know that we are short on time here, but I do feel as
though some things need to'be addressed tonight.
First of all, as for the ownership of the property I
believe we did address that by submitting a survey of the title
work that shows Brick Cove marina does own the property in which
we are looking to do the work. We did have John Minto look at
the Young &Young survey analysis and John Minto is standing by
the survey he prepared demonstrating ownership of the property
on which we are doing all of the work. We can submit a letter to
the Board to that effect by Mr. Minto.
I also do want to take an opportunity to review the letter
that one of the public commenters had spoken to tonight. I will
do that before the next meeting.
Two, some of the points that were made by the Trustees,
just really quickly, the western peninsula, we understand your
comments and I think I heard them clearly, I'll take them back
November 17, 2021 41 Board of Trustees
to the property owners and see if there is any concessions that
we can make in regard to addressing the use of the western
peninsula, the paths and ladders. Again that was just intended
to give the ownership and their members the opportunity to enjoy
the land that they own. But we do recognize the comments and we
will address them at or before the next hearing on this.
Maintenance versus new dredging. The dredging of the inlet has
been a longstanding agreement between Brick Cove marina
ownership and the New York state. We have documentation that
there is an easement or agreement or contract that was given to
the Brick Cove marina by the state that allows them to dredge
that inlet. So we would suggest that this is a continual
maintenance dredging of the inlet, that serves not just the
Brick Cove marina members, it serves everybody coming in and out
of Sage basin, and it's necessary to ensure safe navigation in
and out of the basin. There is no question about that
whatsoever. And the six-foot depth, as Trustee Goldsmith had
said, that is standard. There is nothing we are looking to do
here that would be necessitating for big boats or anything like
that. It's just standard dredging practices. We believe that the
volumes, the cross sections, all of the calculations that were
on the engineering plans, speak to the dredging activity in
detail. So again if there are any further questions about that
from the Board, I'll be happy to further go into that and
discuss that with you.
The comments made about the eastern peninsula, in terms of
the height, we are trying to demonstrate in the plans that were
submitted to you that the height of the eastern peninsula is not
going to change. It is roughly eight feet right now. It's tough
to tell because of all the erosion, but the survey information
that is on the map shows an eight-foot elevation. We are
looking to maintain that height. Which I think we had discussed
with the Trustees during the site inspection. We hope the plans
speak to that. If there is any more clarity required we can make
those adjustments to the plan to add additional cross sections
or elevations just to bring home that point.
The width of the peninsula, we are intending to try to stay
within the width of the peninsula that is existed there. It's
again tough to tell because of the all the erosion that has
taken place. I believe of the Trustees were all there on site
with us. They saw all the escarpment. The vegetation is falling
away from the bank. The osprey pole itself is barely standing,
hanging on. We are trying to maintain the width that was there,
and we believe that the historic imagery will help demonstrate
that.
Again, if further demonstration pieces are required of us
to help demonstrate that, we are happy to provide that.
The low sill bulkhead versus the navy style bulkhead, we
understand there was confusion about that at the last hearing.
We are submitting plans to address that. The engineer has made
some adjustments, but I want it to be known there is a low sill
November 17, 2021 42 Board of Trustees
bulkhead being designed, roughly, I believe it's six feet into or
would be to the north of the navy style bulkhead. The navy style
bulkhead is intended to hold back the fill. Yes, that will be
dredge material from the inlet. Um, but it is intended to hold
back the fill. And then the low sill bulkhead which has an
elevation that allows intertidal flow throughout the day. So it
will act as a true tidal wetland. We've seen these flourish.
They do provide habitat, they provide water quality improvement.
And I believe, I would respectfully disagree with Mr. McAllister,
that they are necessary in situations such as this
when you have eroded shorelines and you are trying to protect
the shoreline while enhancing habitat and water quality improvements.
Speaking to the mitigation, I believe Trustee Goldsmith was
talking mitigations in terms of impacts to the intertidal areas.
That in fact was the point being made. Our plans show we are
proposing a roughly six to one mitigation in terms of whatever
will be impacted of the intertidal areas will be put back in the
newly-created tidal wetland areas which will provide a function
that will benefit the entire eco-system of the basin.
The depth of the dredging inside the marina, I would like
to call attention'to the fact that there are slips that are very
close to the northern shoreline of the eastern peninsula. And
with the continual erosion of that normal shoreline there is
material that is being deposited toward those slips. So that
four foot of depth that we are looking to get, to gain back
there, is just a product of what the erosion has done to that
portion of the basin, so we would ask the Trustees to allow or
reconsider the positioning on that, because it is making it
difficult for even the smallest of vessels to get into that. It
would be the southeastern most slip. The one closest to the
northern shoreline. It's becoming almost unusable. When I was
there at low tide you can't even get in and out of that slip.
And also the one that is adjacent to it is also very difficult
as well. So it is a product of the navigation, continual
navigation safety for the vessels using those southernmost slips.
Speaking to the lighting, I will take that back to the
project sponsor, we understand the concerns and we will address
that.
And then finally, I believe, to the 15-foot width of the
path on top of the eastern peninsula, that, oyster shell path on
top of the peninsula serves two purposes. One, it allows for a
continual access for future dredging of the inlet by Long Beach
excavator. The property owners have spoken with Mr. Costello
about this action. So it is intended to serve a function of
future dredging possibilities for the inlet.
The second is it just allows the membership to have a place
to enjoy the property for views as they see fit.
With that being said, I just want to the Trustees to
recognize this is an area that has been disturbed for a very
long time. We are all familiar with the history, going back to
the actual brick kiln and this marina has been occupied and
November 17, 2021 43 Board of Trustees
operational for a very long time.
In order for us to maintain the functionality of this
marina, the shoreline improvements are necessary, and we ask the
Board to strongly consider that in their deliberations.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: A couple questions. Do you have a DEC or
Army Corps permit for dredging yet?
MR. REINER: No, we have been in communication with the DEC. They
asked some questions, we have responded. We don't have that. The
Army Corps is under review. We have no response from them as
well.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just for the folks from Breezy Shores, those
permits will have fixed GPS locations for the channel, for the
depth, for the width, for all that. So it will be plotted on
the permit from those two agencies.
MR. REINER: Absolutely. Those permits come with stamped plans,
so whatever is in writing, it's intended to match the depictions
of the plans.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: A couple other things. The four foot depth
behind the low sill bulkhead is pretty standard. If I'm not
mistaken, the'hydrographic survey showed one to two feet in some
of those areas. So I don't think the low sill is necessarily an
issue, and/or the dredging, however I think having a fixed vinyl
bulkhead landward of that low sill will be an issue, not only
for us but for the DEC.
And speaking from experience with the DEC, which is why I'm
coming up with a lot of these, because we are in a similar
position now, as far as the height of the eastern peninsula, I
don't necessarily think that is so much the issue as the width.
The DEC, I don't believe is going to let you take that fill and
expand the width of what is already eroded. And it has already
eroded. We all saw that. We went down there. You do have an
erosion issue on that point. However what is lost, for the most
part, is lost. You won't be able to build it back. To try to
build it back up to a width to allow a long-reach dredge is not
a good idea, in my opinion. Where that dredging can be
accomplished via barge. So I don't think we need to make a
peninsula 15-foot wide just to dredge the entrance. Yes, and
again, the amount of fill to be brought in is a little
excessive, in my opinion, and I do believe that the DEC is going
to have those same concerns. Again, I don't personally have a
problem with you trying to maintain your property. But I think
this particular project can be engineered better so that we get
a better product, better for the environment, better for all.
A rock revetment does have less, somewhat less of an impact
than a vertical bulkhead. You don't necessarily get that, quite
the same reflective energy as you to off a vertical bulkhead. So
again, to maintain a navigable channel for a pre-existing
marina, I don't see any issue with. It's been there forever.
The channel has been there forever. Maintaining a navigable
channel for a marina as well as for Southold Shore and all Sage
Basin is pretty standard. And there was a history of dredging in
November 17, 2021 44 Board of Trustees
this area. And the fact of trying to prevent further erosion of
that point which could jeopardize the interior of the marina if
allowed to further erode, I just think that we need to dot the
is and go back to the drawing board a little bit and everybody
sharpen their pencils. But a lot of those issues will be
addressed by the DEC.
And we as a Board do not like to get into a back and forth
with the DEC. We can be more restrictive than the DEC but we
cannot be less restrictive than the DEC. So I think, in the
interest of everyone, it would behoove us to wait and see what
the DEC says comes back with before we move forward, is my opinion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to re-enforce Trustee Goldsmith's
cogent remarks.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would echo those sentiments, and my
recommendation to the applicant would be to take our remarks
into consideration when applying to the DEC because these are
certainly things that we are looking for to the point a finished
product comes back from the DEC. Including obviously New York
state land ownership, which I think New York state DEC will
clarify.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application?
(No response)
Hearing none, I make a motion to table the application for
receipt of a DEC permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. REINER: Thank you, everyone.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 6, En-Consultants
on behalf of SALT LAKE ASSOCIATION, INC. requests a Wetland
Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to dredge an
irregularly shaped area within existing boat basin to a maximum
depth of-5' MLW, and place approximately 700 cubic yards of
resultant sand spoil on Association Beach located approximately
450 feet to south.
Located: Salt Lake Association Boat Basin and Extending into
James Creek, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-144.-5-33 & 1000-122-8-1
This project is deemed consistent under the Town's LWRP.
The CAC is in support of this application.
The Board has reviewed this application at both field
inspections and during the course of our work session.
This is a reoccurring deposition of sand due to littoral
drift on Peconic Bay sweeping into the mouth of James Creek.
The Board understands that this is a continuing, ongoing
project. This is a maintenance dredging with beach nourishment .
to keep the material in the littoral zone.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MS. CANTRELL: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants is Zooming in.,
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, Liz. Jay, your characterization of the
November 17, 2021 45 Board of Trustees
project is correct. Basically we are looking to replace Wetland
Permits 7674, whose ten-year life just expired in October, and
this would match an existing DEC permit that is currently valid
through 2027.
If the board has any questions, I'm happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Seeing none, hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 7, DAVID & BARBARA HAZARD request a
Wetland Permit to demolish the existing single-family dwelling
and reconstruct a new two-story, single-family dwelling with a
footprint of 1,522sq.ft. and a 1.388sq.ft. second floor;
existing seaward side 576sq.ft. deck and stairs to remain;
install a 60sq.ft. outside basement entrance; construct
122sq.ft. of covered porches; install two drywells to contain
roof runoff; construct a proposed 38'x18' (684sq.ft.) built in
pool surrounded by 186sq.ft. of 4' high pool enclosure fencing
with gates; install a pool drywell for backwash; install a
proposed 1,806sq.ft. patio around pool; construct a proposed
1,044sq.ft. detached garage with an attached covered patio.
Located: 1465 Harbor Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-2-1.1
The Trustees most recent field inspection at this site was
November 9th. The notes read this is a straightforward
second-story addition.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council on November 10th, 2021
voted unanimously to support the application with no disturbance
of the existing buffer and installations of gutters, leaders and
drywells.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. HAZARD: David Hazard, owner, just if you have any questions.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, Mr. Hazard, when we were on the site we
did discuss the drywells and you agreed at that time that you
would install the drywells to handle the runoff.
MR. HAZARD: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I just wanted to clarify that. Are there any
questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
November 17, 2021 46 Board of Trustees
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(No response).
'No one on Zoom?
MS. CANTRELL: No.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further questions or comments, I make
a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted and in accordance with the Nancy Dwyer plans dated
5/15/21 and the Nate Corwin survey last reviewed July 23rd,
2018.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HAZARD: Thank you.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 8, Bill Gorman on behalf of LYNETTE &
ROBERT KRUEGER requests a Wetland Permit for the existing one
and one-half story dwelling with an existing 734sq.ft. footprint
and existing 525sq.ft. second story; existing first floor deck
is 416sq.ft. with additional 100sq.ft. partially covered front
entry porch; propose to construct a 576sq.ft. first floor
addition on the north side with a 576sq.ft. second story
addition; existing first and second floors will be renovated to
include new windows and siding; 78sq.ft. of existing deck on
north-east corner will be replaced with new deck; new deck on
north side will total 202sq.ft. including-the 78sq.ft. of
existing; the remaining 338sq.ft. of existing deck on east and
south side will be re-surfaced; existing front entry deck will
be re-surfaced; existing cellar entry on north side will be
removed; new Bilco entry will be added on south side of
dwelling.
Located: 4375 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-3-3.1
The Trustees visited the site November 9th. Field notes:
Sign was not posted. Trustee Krupski did pass by afterwards and
said it was posted. Need updated top-down survey and should
depict a non-turf buffer on any plans on the site.
The LWRP found this action to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application.
We are in receipt of a letter drafted November 16th,
stamped received November 17th, to whom it may concern, I
reviewed and approved the notes on the subject plan and all
notes on the plan prior to my stamp and signature. If you have
any questions feel free to call me. Louis Schwartz, who is a New
York state licensed professional engineer.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. GORMAN: Bill Gorman here on behalf of the Krueger family. I
just want to note that•we do have a DEC permit for the proposed
project. I'm here to answer any questions.
November 17, 2021 47 Board of Trustees
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Anybody else here that wishes to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Is the Board satisfied with the survey received November 12th,
depicting the non-turf buffer and the letter stating that the
licensed engineer did make those notes?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted, depicting the plan that was received in our office
November 12th, 2021, showing the 15-foot non-turf buffer on the
plan.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 9, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc. on behalf of ROGER D. TODEBUSH requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a two-story, single-family dwelling (1,180sq.ft. footprint) with
attached 192.Osq.ft. seaward screened in porch; construct an outdoor
shower; install a 240.0sq.ft. at grade seaward patio; install an I/A OWTS
septic system; and install a pervious gravel driveway.
Located: 1130 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-13-9
The Trustees conducted a field inspection November 9th,
noting the patio is too close to the bank. Also a non-turf
buffer was needed on the plans.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency is the trimming of vegetation to three-foot
height, that functions as important habitat adjacent to the
tidal marsh is unsupported and would result in the functional
loss of ecological components. Fringe habitat serve vital
functions value wetland systems. The proposed action will make
the buffer less effective. A wetland permit#9830(a) issued to a
parcel to the south required the applicant not disturb the
eastern red cedar, northern bayberry, marsh elder and groundsel
bush. The decision preserved the function of a wetland buffer.
The Conservation Advisory Council was unable to make a fair
assessment, therefore no recommendation at this time.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Robert Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
on behalf of the applicant. I would like to address some of the
concerns set forth by the LWRP.
As the Board recognizes from their site visit, the planting
portion of vegetation consists predominantly of red maples with
the occasional juvenile locust. The disturbance of which should
November 17, 2021 48 Board of Trustees
not cause any further impact to the adjacent tidal wetlands and
any other clearance done to the area. If it would make it a
little more agreeable to the Board, we would be happy to agree
to a vegetated buffer consisting of wetland vegetation.
I'm here to answer any other questions the Board may have
regarding this project.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: There is currently a deck on the property,
with I guess we'll call it bank leading down to the water. I
think we would like to see that as a non-disturbance area, what
is currently there, with a 15-foot non-turf, vegetated non-turf
landward of that. And we would need new plans depicting both.
MR. ANDERSON: Vegetated and non-turf.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And non-disturbance, yes.
MR. ANDERSON: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I believe we discussed in the field removal of
the patio also on the new plans.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, we were attempting to get those in,
unfortunately due to some unforeseen issues.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wish to speak regarding this
application?
MS. GROOCOCK: Hi, my name is Gwen Groocock. We own the
property adjacent to the lot to the north. Our family and a few
of the neighbors are concerned about this plan and I'm here to
ask you to consider the impact on our neighborhood, our creek
and the precedent this project sets for the waterfront
throughout Southold Town.
The applicant Roger Todebush is a real estate professional
who lives in Chicago. His mother lives across the street from
the lot in question, and he proposes to build a narrow,
six-bedroom two-story house on less than a quarter acre on their
dock lot. This small piece of land that provide their waterfront
access. In, I believe, the 1970's Tom and Nancy Wickham whose
property adjoins to the south, sold this sliver of land to Mr.
Todebush's parents, specifically so he could access the water
and build a dock. Historically these dock lots all over Southold
Town have never been considered residential building lots.
Density is usually purely a zoning issue but in case it's
relevant to the Trustees because in the absence of the need for
a ZBA variance for pre-existing non-conforming lots,-this Board
is the only thing that stands against the development of these
small waterfront dock lots. This proposal, for example, intruded
fully 49 feet into the 100-foot buffer. The project is also
totally out of character for Fleet's Neck which is a quiet R-40
zoned neighborhood with lot sizes that are half acre minimum and
usually larger. Our quality of life and property values will
likely be negatively impacted by this up-island style
development. This type of development is not meant to happen
outside of our hamlet zone. It is totally opposite of the
recommendations of every adopted Southold town policy of the
past few decades. I notice any mention that Mark Terry, the LWRP
November 17, 2021 49 Board of Trustees
coordinator, has given an opinion that this proposal is not
consistent with the LWRP, I feel at this point it is not
consistent for a lot of more reasons than just what he stated.
But I also see the Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
assessment, they were not given information, so presumably that
will be provided to them and they'll make some kind of
assessment.
On the septic system, a six-bedroom house can easily hold
12 or more people. That is potentially a lot of human waste
right next to our property line. We just don't really know how
our property will be impacted. Because the small size of the lot
and the large size of the house, the septic system is unusually
close to our property line. This vacant lot has been an issue
for a while now. The Todebush's use a local tree company for
ground maintenance, and about two years ago they directed the
tree company to cut down two trees that were clearly on the bank
of the Wickham property. They claimed that a Trustee letter of
non-interest in these two trees was in fact permission to cut
the trees. I had to call the police to get them to desist and
speak to thb Wickham's. The same tree company also sprays
glyphosate all over the,whole lot every year well into the
100-foot buffer. If this application is approved, it will help
set a dangerous precedent in the development of undersized dock
lots on the waterfront. Potentially any dock lot with a few
thousand square feet of dry land can be developed with narrow,
two-story houses as long as they adhere to the pre-existing
non-conforming boat schedule and the Trustees let them build
within the 100-foot buffer. We all know how valuable real estate
is out here and how opportunistic people can be, and we feel
this application is the thin edge of the wedge.
I urge the Trustees to think seriously what happen to our
waterfront if this application is approved. Thank you, for your time.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
MR. WICKHAM: Tom Wickham is my name. My wife and I own the
property immediately south of the subject parcel, and I would
like to speak to the proposal before you.
First of all, it's not clear to me that this is a buildable
lot. Have you all seen a separate, single and separate analysis
of it? I haven't. And I would think that before the Trustees act
that it ought to be out there and available, and available to
the public. Not just to you all. Last winter the applicant met
with me, and we had a cordial meeting. He proposed three things,
that I recall, that are still important to me. One was a
relatively small house, one-and-one-half stories, that would be
set not on a line with our house and the Groocock's house, but
closer to West Creek Avehue. And there is a third item about it,
a relatively modest parking area in the front. These were all
understandable to me, and if I were to retire out there, which I
November 17, 2021 50 Board of Trustees
hope to do some day right next door. To my mind, I would not be
here tonight. But that is not the application that is before the
Trustees tonight. What we have is a six-bedroom home, with
bathrooms to match. Not specified in the plans, taking up the
entire width of the lot short of the setbacks. And a tall house.
It means that people just looking down other windows directly
into the bedrooms of the houses next door. There is a tendency
to think that well this is just a Building Department issue or a
planning issue. This is not really an environmental issue. But
when houses get larger and larger on a small lot, it does impact
the environment. It impacts the animals, the birds, all of the
different parts that make an environment a comfortable
environment for the natural space.
I think the Board ought to consider possible constraints or
limitations if you want to act on this application, and
specifically, constraints on size and placement of the house. It
can make a big difference to the environment as well as to the
community.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak to this application?
MR.TODEBUSH: Yes. I am Roger Todebush. I own the property.
These are my neighbors. I can understand why somebody who has
been living next door to a vacant lot for, since 1975, would not
like to see a house b6ilt there. But there are a couple of
confusing things that are inaccurate. It's not a six-bedroom
house, it's a three-bedroom house. But Joe Fischetfi is the guy
who designed the nitrogen-free septic system said that in his
description he would have a living room, dining room and
kitchen. And any other rooms would be described as bedrooms.
There are three bedrooms. There is a den, and there is a room in
the basement that is just a room. But there are not six
bedrooms. There are three bedrooms, three bathrooms and a house
as planned now is just a touch over 2,000 square feet..Anyway,
Robert will speak to you'but I just wanted to clarify that.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. The plan that we do have and
probably what'everybody has seen says six-bedroom dwelling.
MR. TODEBUSH: I saw that and was confused by that, too.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is what is in the public file, just so
you know.
MR. ANDERSON: And we do understand that. Due to certain Health
Department definitions, certain rooms have to be considered as
bedrooms, as I'm sure you are aware. So those were counted into
the overall by our design professional.
I would like to address the comment regarding an up-island
design. As far,as I can tell we are using all local people and
Mr. Schwartz is an architect from Cutchogue, Mr. Fischetti is
from Southold. Myself, I'm a local person. We are trying to
design this in a character fitting of the town. As far as the
setback of the house, in relation to the neighboring properties
north and south, we have designed it so that the house is as far
November 17, 2021 51 Board of Trustees
back as possible. If you draw a direct line for the northerly
property to the southerly corner of the house, to the
northwesterly corner of the property to the south you'll find
that the dwelling comes behind that line. And since we removed
the patio there is no proposed improvements at this time beyond
that line.
With regard to the concern as to privacy we are more than
willing to install privacy hedging or some sort of vegetated
screening to address those concerns. As far as single and
separate, I'm sure we can provide that to the Board if that is
needed as well. Part of the tax map, the property does appear on
tax map booklets. We have been told it's a buildable lot. We
comply in all aspects as far as zoning is concerned. I believe
this is also a very modest proposal for considering the size of
the lot and considering what we have to work with.
As far as mitigation goes, of course we are going to
provide buffer space, we have gutters to leaders to drywells
proposed as well. So, I do believe that we are designing this
house with all due concern to the environment as well.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And it is a proposed I/A septic system as
well?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, it is.
MS. WICKHAM: Good evening. My name is Gail Wickham and I live
not far from this property at 465 Old Pasture Road. I am at the
end of the creek and so I'm at a right angle along the creek and
can see directly from my property to this property. And I just
want to point out a number of things. I wrote a letter that I
submitted this evening. I hope you received it and will read
it, but I just want to highlight it rather than reading every
word of it, if that's acceptable. Did you receive the letter?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No, if it came after four o'clock, we did not
get it. And it's not in the file here. So, no.
MS. WICKHAM: If you read it before you make a decision then I
won't read it now, if that's okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. As we mentioned earlier, we do have
some, at minimum, concerns with the plans that need to be
updated, so until we get that final set for plans we will not be
able to make a determination until that point. So this will
more than likely be held open and tabled until we receive those.
MS. WICKHAM: Okay, thank you. If can I then just highlight what
my concerns are, briefly. This is really an application, more
than an application that you are accustomed to seeing building
house within your jurisdiction on a waterfront lot, because is a
grossly undersized lot. It's been historically used as a
waterfront access strip for the families on the upland property
on the east side of the West Creek Avenue.
I did submit a photo that shows a concern I have about
lighting, which is pretty extreme in this area all of a sudden.
And I just want to point out to you that while the waterfront
along the east side of the creek is fairly completely developed,
entire west side of the creek is completely preserved. So it
November 17, 2021 52 Board of Trustees
does have a big impact when new houses are built and they put a
lot of lighting that goes not only vertically and horizontally,
but on this creek which is very shallow, it also goes down into
the bottom land of the creek. So there is really not much
protection for the habitat.
I also, I question the survey. It's very small print. It's
hard to read. I would like the applicant to provide a larger
one. One that also illustrates the distance from the top of the
bank to the house, and I would ask that if a lot is, if the
Trustees would entertain this application for approval, that
they require a setback much greater from the back of the creek.
They should not be piggy-backing off a non-conformity in setback
of a much older home, which the Town Code frowns upon retaining
those deficiencies in newer construction and ask that they be
mitigated. So I would like to see also on the survey the area of
the lot. I didn't see that as well. So I think that should be
added.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Thank you.
MS. WICKHAM: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Lookirig at the survey and the proposed house,
it does look like it's further landward than both of the
neighboring properties. It is within the pier line. It's
actually behind both of the pre-existing houses on either side.
And I do see 52.1 feet from the edge of the wetlands to I
believe it's the edge of the deck, ifl'm not mistaken. But we
could go, we could use a line that goes from top of the bank to
the deck and the top of the bank to the proposed house, as well,
for a little more clarity.
MR. ANDERSON: We would be more than happy to add that to the
plan.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wishing to speak to this
application?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would say the Trustees often grapple with
applications that may be unsettling to the neighbors or to the
community at large, however we are compelled to follow the code.
And if the code stipulates that the elevation of a proposed
structure be less than 35 feet and the plans show 34'11" and it
generally follows the remaining environmental codes and building
codes, there is no compelling reason to deny the application.
And it's somewhat ironic this town has wrestled with a pyramid
law for 20-something years and has not seen fit to enact it.
And yet we are asked here to deny something that so far as I can
see meets the setbacks and lot coverage. So, just a comment from
me.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
MS. GROOCOCK: So on the septic system, if this is a
three-bedroom house then I'm not sure why Mr. Fischetti wanted
to create a system that would accommodate six bedrooms. But I
feel like a septic system should be scaled down to something more
for six people rather twelve. My concern is, you know, various
concerns, but I am not entirely comfortable with the way they
November 17, 2021 53 Board of Trustees
propose what the use is going to be for this house, because we
have heard so many different things. My concern is that we end
up with those rooms turning into bedrooms and it's a rental and
there is 12 people and there is a roof deck and it becomes very
heavily populated in that small little place there. So I think
the septic system, I have no idea why it should be for six
bedrooms if it's a six-bedroom house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll briefly speak to that. As someone who has
applied to the Suffolk Health Department for a septic system
before, any room that is not, and don't quote me here, but
kitchen, I think living room, as Mr. Anderson said, kitchen,
living room, maybe dining room, but everything besides that is
considered a bedroom. I think they give you one concession of an
additional with a bonus room that they don't count toward a
bedroom. But that is Suffolk setting that. So regardless of
what they intend to do with those rooms, we would have no say
over something like that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And again, the Suffolk Health Department does
regulate the septic systems, location of the setbacks, that kind
of stuff, so.
MS. GROOCOCK: Can we find out a little bit more about the septic
vent pipe that is right next to our property? I'm a little
concerned about that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I don't know if we are able to address that
particular concern. Again, that is regulated by the Suffolk
County Health Department. It is an I/A system. I don't know if
we'll be able to address that particular concern. Again, that is
regulated by the Suffolk County Health Department. It is a
hydro-action system. So that is kind of in the design of the
system itself. And again, that's the Suffolk Health Department.
MS. GROOCOCK: All right. So, okay, those are my questions. I'm
just, speaking of nitrogen, if the whole point of this is to
mitigate nitrogen, obviously ending up in the creek, I would
also hope that going forward there is a bit more environmental
sensitivity with this lot and if a lawn is put in, that that is
taken into consideration with its maintenance. Because we are
just taking out nitrogen from human waste and dumping it
straight on the lawn for fertilizer.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, ma'am. And that's why we requested a
non-disturbance buffer and a vegetated non-turf buffer to
mitigate against that.
MS. GROOCOCK: And we'll take the offer of the giant hedges.
Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: I have nothing further to say. Thank you for your
time.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions for comment?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion to table this
hearing for submission of new plans that is showing those
non-disturbance and non-turf buffer, and removal of the patio.
MR. ANDERSON: Absolutely. Thank you, for your time.
November 17, 2021 54 Board of Trustees
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And potentially some native tree planting for
the neighboring properties. So I make a motion to table this hearing for
submission of new plans that show a non-disturbance buffer from the
top of the bank seaward, as well as a 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer
landward of that, and removal of the patio and some sort of screening
plantings, on either side of the property, of a native species.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And including elaboration on the same single
and separate status.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 10, Young & Young on behalf of GOMB
BEACH, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new
two-story dwelling and garage with a 1,532sq.ft. footprint;
proposed 51 sq.ft. front porch; proposed 435sq.ft. rear deck and
50sq.ft. of stairs; a proposed 120sq.ft. side porch and 30sq.ft.
of stairs; a proposed 123sq.ft. rear porch; proposed 216sq.ft.
pool; proposed 2,001sq.ft. driveway; install public water
service connection; install new sanitary system (i.e. one (1)
1,250 gal. septic tank and two (2) 8' diameter by 8' effect.
Depth sanitary leaching pools); and install new storm water
control structure (i.e. LF 1 - (1) 8' diameter by 8' effect.
Depth drainage leaching pool).
Located: 54205 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-52-1-3
The Trustees most recently visited the property on the 9th
of November. All were present. They noted request a pool
location in proximity to CEHA line and bluff. Suggested buffer
at least ten-foot landward of bluff.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
natural feature of the bluff line may be incorrect. The top of
slope appears to be at the 20-foot contour line. The pool
setback of 27.6 to top of bluff is inconsistent with policies
four and six. It is recommended the Board relocate the pool to
meet required setbacks. The two-story frame house and garage are
close to the top of the bluff, less than 43 feet and coastal
erosion hazard line, structures located within these areas are
subject to damage and erosive forces of Long Island Sound and
storms including hurricanes. The location of structure is not
consistent with Policy 4.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application and recommends an I/A sanitary system.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. WOLPERT: Yes. Thomas Wolpert, engineer, with Young &Young,
on behalf of the applicant, and I believe the applicant may be
in the wings Zooming in to add his comments to the record.
So as stated, the plan is for construction of new two-story
frame house and related improvements. We did in fact submit
revised plans to the Trustees office on Monday of this week,
November 17, 2021 55 Board of Trustees
which incorporates most of the changes or revisions that were
suggested at the Trustees field inspection last Tuesday on the 9th.
The property is currently vacant with the exception of an
existing functional timber bulkhead, which is greater than 100
feet in length, and was constructed prior to August 20th, 1977.
We do have a DEC letter of no jurisdiction, because of that
pre-existing bulkhead. And we did stake the proposed structures
prior to the Trustees inspection on November 9th, and we believe
that the plan that we prepared, as revised and submitted on
Monday of this week represents an approvable plan.
I'll be happy to answer any questions that the Board may have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think my issue which, speaking for myself,
that house is already somewhere in the realm of 43 feet from the
top. It is awfully close to try to shoehorn a pool in there.
And most cases we try to push pools out to 50 feet themselves.
So the house already being within that, granted every
application is different, I understand the pier line is
established with neighboring structures, but it just seems a
touch inappropriate in this case to put a pool in this site.
It's a beautiful site. I think the owners can enjoy a beautiful
viewshed. I just don't think a pool fits in there and --
MR. WOLPERT: I just would like to comment on that, if I may.
It's a modest-sized pool, and the depth of the pool that is
proposed is only three feet at one end to four feet at the other
end. It's 216 square feet of area. It represents about 28 cubic
yards of excavation in total. So I appreciate your concerns but
I would ask that the Board consider the plan as proposed.
-TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have a jurisdictional question. Do we have a
check off in the file that the matter was reviewed by the
Building Department for possible need for a Zoning Board approval?
MS. CANTRELL: They haven't done reviews in months. They don't
review--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is a swimming pool and a house behind a
bulkhead, within 100 feet. This is way out of my wheelhouse but
it seems to me I recall something about needing, potentially
needing Zoning Board approval for a structure within 100 feet of
the bulkhead.
MS. CANTRELL: They surveyor would have to put in writing and
determine whether, on the angle and the height of the bluff,
before the Building Department can make•that determination, and
the Building Department at this time is not reviewing their applications.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. I have to agree, obviously there
may be additional assessment needed. It's not forme to say,
but a pool in this location is a non-starter for me.
It does call for a 50-foot setback, and the Board will
generally try to be reasonable. But this is an unreasonable request.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: [ have to reiterate and reinforce what Trustee
Krupski and Trustee Bredemeyer's concerns about the pool. If it
were not on this plan, I think it's straightforward. With it on
the plan, it complicates the issue greatly for me.
MR. WOLPERT: I would want to speak with my client before
November 17, 2021 56 Board of Trustees
committing to taking the pool off the plan.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Greg, do you have any additional comments?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Nope.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you wish us to table the application, then?
MR. WOLPERT: I would say yes, unless the applicant is on Zoom
room waiting.
(No response).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anybody else wish to speak regarding this
application?
(No response).
Hearing no further comments, I'll move to table this application
at the applicant's request.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. WOLPERT: Thank you, for your time.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Next application, number 11, Jennifer Wicks on
behalf of JERRY IOVENO requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing two-story dwelling with a 1,120sq.ft footprint, and an
existing 457.7sq.ft:second floor; construct a proposed
454.1 sq.ft. first floor addition; construct a proposed
159.8sq.ft second floor addition; construct a proposed 50sq.ft.
covered porch; construct a proposed 42.3sq.ft. Covered porch
extension; and for the existing 870sq.ft. deck.
Located: 1320 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-14-19
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This application has been deemed to be
consistent'with the LWRP coordinator with a specific reference
to that the Board of Trustees consider retaining the ten-foot
wide non-turf buffer that was required in Wetland permit 1701(c)
in order to further policy number six.
The Conservation Advisory Council had voted to support this
application.
The Trustees in performing our field inspection on November_
9th, was questioned of a concern of a clarification concerning
the parking area, possibly moving it, and also clarification
whether there are plans to bring additional fill underneath the
deck area. Otherwise the Board felt it was a fairly .
straightforward request for submission. Anyone here to speak to
this application?
MS. WICK: Jennifer Wick, for the applicant. I'm not sure, so are
there any issues regarding -- I looked online and I saw that
they were speaking of something regarding the fill under the
deck. There will be no'fill under the deck. I know there may
have been an issue with where they were putting the topsoil, I
believe. It's just a temporary stock pile for where everything
will be going. After everything is done it will be returned and
restored to as it was.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. I know Trustee Krupski was the
one who carried the file in the field. There was a question here
needing clarification of the parking area. Was that the fill issue?
November 17, 2021 57 Board of Trustees
MS. WICKS: Yes, I believe it was that area.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I was not party to that discussion. I was on
the other side of the property at time that discussion took place.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I guess one of the issues we have in looking at
the plans almost looks like your client is intending to fill in
under the deck with boards. I mean this shows much of that deck
is up on piles and this is not what it looks like in the field at all.
MS. WICKS: Sorry -- um --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If we can clarify that, that would be one
thing. But that is not what the structure looks like.
MS. WICKS: There will not be any fill under deck.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Will there be any change to the deck?
MS. WICKS: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What this represents to me, at least, it's
showing no piles, it's a solid structure. It almost looks like
the client is intending to close in the area under the deck.
MS. WICKS: No. It may be an error on the drawing but he does
not plan on enclosing the area at all.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is an odd circle in the driveway, is that
where you are referencing --
MS. WICKS: Where the topsoil location is. It's on the site plan.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a top-down plan.
MS. WICKHAM: It's just a temporary area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, I think we addressed the issue of
concern for the soil and the deck. Anyone else wish to speak to
this application?
(Negative response).
Anyone?
(Negative response).
Seeing no one on Zoom, no comments here, I make a motion to
close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted, noting that with the stipulation that the ten-foot
non-turf buffer previously in the permit 1701(c) is maintained
on in project. That's my resolution.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. WICKS: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 12, 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
November 17, 2021 58 Board of Trustees
Lane, Mattituck. SCTM#'s: 1000-122-4-44.8, 1000-122-4-3,
1000-122-4-4, 1000-122-4-5
The Trustees did a field inspection on November 9th. All
were present. The notes read straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council on October 13th, voted
unanimously to support the application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MS. CANTRELL: On Zoom. Dennis Cole.
MR. COLE: Dennis Cole. We previously had a Trustee permit for
the initial dredging and DEC and Army Corps and at this point we
are just applying for a maintenance dredge permit to continue
,this as sediments accumulate.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to this
application?
(No response).
Further questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else on Zoom?
(No response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted and in accordance with the CES plans dated 7/20/17,
and revised 3/1/18, and stamped received August 31, 2021.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number 13, Patricia Moore, Esq., on behalf of
ROBERT C. RUOCCO, requests a Wetland Permit to install pool
enclosure fencing 50' from edge of wetlands; and to maintain the
height of existing vegetation landward of the edge of wetlands
to a height of three feet by periodically trimming.
Located: 880 Narrow River Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-27-4-9.4
The Trustees visited this site on November 9th, 2021. All
Trustees were present. Field notes call for more information on
the plan.
The LWRP found this action to be consistent, noting the
trimming on the vegetation to three-foot height that functions
as a important habitat would result in functional loss of
ecological components. Also, a wetland permit issued to the
parcel on the south, require that the applicant not disturb the
eastern red cedar, northern bayberry and groundsel bush.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
Is there anybody here that wishes to speak to this application?
MS MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of Robert Ruocco. I did
submit revised plans on the survey based on the field
November 17, 2021 59 Board of Trustees
inspections. We identified the area seaward of the proposed pool
fence to be an area of non-disturbance that any removal or
cutting in that area would require a permit, and you explained
that some of the material that is there, the bayberry and I
think other plants, are heavily regulated by the DEC so it's not
within the Board's purview to be able to even grant that permit.
So that is really a moot point then, I guess, as far as
trimming. We made the area a non-disturbance area.
On the landward side of the proposed pool fence it's going
to be natural. Right now it's wintertime so there is not really
a lot of opportunity to replant any kind of landscape plan or
any vegetation, so it will stay natural until my client gets to
a position where he maybe has some vegetation. But it's pretty
natural out there and the deer eat pretty hardily. So I'm not
sure what will survive, if any, planting.
So aside from that we are keeping everything pretty
natural. The permit is really focused on the proposed pool fence.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: The plan I'm looking at, is that the plan we
received on November 12th?
MS. MOORE: Yes, November 12th.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: It came in with this letter here.
MS. MOORE: Yes. I have it stamped.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: And then, with this plan is there --there is
no change in the position of the pool fence, there is just
simply an addition of the non-disturbance area.
MS. MOORE: Right, right. We just added notations to the survey,
which is what the Board had asked.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Sounds good. Is there anybody else here that
wishes to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
I believe there has been, the Board has some issues they would
like to discuss?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: After reviewing the property and looking at
some aerial views and where the fence is proposed I believe
Trustee Williams that suggested that we move in, which I agree
with, the pool fence, a significant amount, to give an adequate
buffer. It's a rather large property. It's a rather large
structure and I think we need a little bit more of a buffer. So
I believe the suggestion was move the pool fence a little
further landward and note non-disturbance on the seaward side of
in and allow the applicant to do what they please with the
landward side of it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I do believe some of the concern was where
the proposed fence is or is going to be, had some Baccharus and
some wetland plants there already. And as you stated, landward
is kind of non-turf as is, due to the deer and everything like
that, so if we can move that proposed fence more in that area
and away from the established wetland, I think that would go a
long way to address the concerns.
MS. MOORE: Did you have a suggestion, ten feet or so or?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The hay bale line would be more or less --
November 17, 2021 60 Board of Trustees
MS. MOORE: The hay bale line is at 100 feet, so -- oh, that was
a joke, sorry.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board had a reasoned discussion
somewhere in the, you know, in the middle. A reasonable -- you
would talk with your applicant, what they might consider. I
don't think we have exacting term. The other question is, too,
would they want to have a four-foot wide path to view the
wetlands, the typical --
MS. MOORE: To go out to the wetlands? Yes, that's a state DEC
land so, yeah, we could get a kayak out.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They could go out to the DEC land. I'm not
sure --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we were discussing splitting the
difference kind of thing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Somewhere around 20, 25 feet landward to get
it out of that natural vegetation as noted on the survey.
MS. MOORE: Okay. I'm just looking at a line that runs, so if
take a look at the line that shows the CEH line it seems to run,
it's not quite, it seems to be close to halfway. In some areas
it's a little less, in some areas it's a little more. But there
seem to be a line there that I could follow. It comes along,
goes up to King Street.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, the see -- I mean if we are looking at thee
same plans.
MS. MOORE: Yes, we are looking at the same plans. Here's the
plans. I'm trying to follow a line. So you see this, here is the
fence. Here is the 50 foot. This line seems to be --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are looking to move it this way. So we are
trying to move this pool fence this way.
MS. MOORE: Sorry. My mistake. Yes, sorry. All right. We want to
move it between 20 and 30 from where it is proposed and then --
MS. MOORE: 20 to 25, essentially halfway.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 20 to 30. If we end up 25 from there.
MS. MOORE: I'll have to give this to my surveyor. It takes a
lot to get these surveys to you guys. So I'll have my client
take a look with the contractor. The contractor is very kind and
put that yellow line in. I could have him, you know, move it and
see what the impact is. So. I understand what you are trying to
get at.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And then everything seaward should be noted as
non-disturbance.
MS. MOORE: That's what I have here already, yes. And then just
landward it's whatever, whatever. I have it vegetated but--
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would agree to do that. As one Trustee.
MS. MOORE: All right. It's a long night. You could have done
this for me earlier.
Okay. All right, so I guess we'll postpone to, do you guys
want to go back out, if I have it moved, and they tell me what
the line is, do you want to look at it again or are you pretty
comfortable with what you saw before?
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I would reach out to the office and possibly,
November 17, 2021 61 Board of Trustees
you know, the area Trustee would be Mr. Bredemeyer or another
Trustee might want to lay eyes on it.
MS. MOORE: All right, just get back to me so I'm not moving the
line an inch back and forth to try to get it so this project
moves forward.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Understood. I make a motion to table the
application at the applicant's request.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 14, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of
WILLIAM A. PRYDATKO, JANE MARIE PRYDATKO & CHRISTINE MARIE
PRYDATKO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story
(46.8'x54:3') with 12'x54.3' permeable pavers along seaward side
of dwelling; construct a 16'x32' pool with eco-permeable pavers
on grade; install an I/A sanitary system; install gutters to
leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff; install a gravel
driveway; install pool enclosure fencing with gates; and to
install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer
along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 230 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.41
The Trustees conducted a field inspection November 9th.
Notes say suggest pool enclosure sound protection, to check pier
line.
The LWRP found this to be consistent, with the
recommendation that a non-turf buffer be installed.
The CAC does not support the application because the
proposed structure does not meet the setbacks in accordance with
Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shorelines of the Town Code.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application? -
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore, on behalf of the Prydatko family. I'm
here to, I did have the surveyor provide the sound deadening for
protection around the pool equipment that should Showing on the
survey now. And I think you could see from out in the field that
most of the homes here on Fordham Canal are actually very close
to the water. They have all, many of them have been built before
the regulations, so they have bulkheads that go way out. You can
actually see on this survey both sides of the property have
bulkheads that go out further into the Fordham Canal, and the
placement of the house is, it's not really, there is no pier
line on houses but it's in line with the other homes. So.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. I failed to mention, we do have
new plans stamped received November 15th, 2021, that do show the
ten-foot non-turf buffer as well as the screening for the pool
equipment.
Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
November 17, 2021 62 Board of Trustees
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I make a motion to approve this application as submitted with
the new plans stamped received November 15th, 2021.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 15, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
ANTHONY & BEATRICE FALCONE requests a Wetland Permit to install
a proposed 4'x6' cantilevered platform off of bulkhead; a 30"
wide by 14' long aluminum ramp; and a 6.'x20'floating dock
supported with two (2) 10" diameter CCA piles and situated
parallel to the bulkhead.
Located: 405 Williamsberg Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-17
The Trustees most recently visited the property on the 9th
of November and noted that they reviewed the DEC permit. Prior
to that they had visited the prbperty a month earlier and had
noted concerns on impeding navigation to channel. Possible
bulkhead cut out recommended.
'The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. As you
see on the re-submitted plans and the DEC permit, the original
project scope was cut down to lessen the intrusion into the
canal for the-proposed vessel as well as the proposed floating
dock. And the DEC permit meets all the conditions on the DEC
regulations as well as the conditions on the waterway width
requirement by the Board of-Trustees. Any other questions, I
would be happy to answer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: At least from my observation and again we have
reviewed the new stamped plans, in almost any other case, a
small platform to a ramp and float along the bulkhead would be a
straightforward application, but in this case, you know, looking
at this application on paper, where it looks even fairly
straightforward versus looking at it in the field, which we did
during field inspections, I mean this is a severe pinch point in
this creek and it certainly would create a navigational hazard
for anyone using the creek further up in terms of the slope of
the bank across the creek, and I strongly recommend putting a
cut out in. I understand if they want to have a float, I do,
and I want them to have a float, it's just for me this is too
tight,of a location when you actually go and look at the spot
and get in a boat and cruise through there. I don't know if the
rest of the Board has any thoughts on that.
1
November 17, 2021 63 Board of Trustees
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think--we don't have a hydrographic
survey for the entire width of the creek but by field
inspections and aerials it does look like the channel veers
toward the bulkhead, where on the other side it's shoaled in.
So the only water depth is closest to that bulkhead, which will
force any boat traffic closer to this proposed dock. Which is a
concern. I know the gentleman across the creek on a previous
action did a cut out. And it worked out really well. I believe
you proposed some other cut outs on some previous applications
that worked well. So our recommendation would be for something
like that and/or potentially mooring whips just right off the
bulkhead, if he doesn't want to do a cutout and basically
achieve the same goal here.
MR. PATANJO: Understood. I think we should probably table the
application. I would recommend doing a field inspection and I'll
provide some additional hydrographic survey of the creek bottom.
One of the things I would like to point out is this doesn't
project any further out with the total of the four to five foot
wide float, eight-and-a-half foot wide boat projection which
actually is when the dock stands about eight-foot out further,
so it's about 12 foot wide. No further protection into the canal
that the barge that's docked directly adjacent to this location.
So I wanted to point that out on the record.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I completely understand that point. And again
when you look at it on the plans and even the aerials, it should
be straightforward but it's just severe pinch point whereas when
you go across from the barge it opens up and even further up,
that canal does open up there. So I have no issues with somebody
having a float there. It's just an issue for other occupants of
the creek. So I mean, definitely I would consider tabling it.
MR. PATANJO: At the request of the applicant, let's table it. I
would like to do another field inspection upon additional
hydrographic survey, and we could further discuss the
application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any additional comments?Anyone else wish to
speak to this application?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table the application at the
applicant's request.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 16, Jeffrey Patanjo
on behalf of KEVIN & ELIZABETH HUDSON requests a Wetland Permit
to remove the existing 45' long x 4' wide fixed pier, ramp and
float and construct approximately 2' to the north of existing a
proposed 52' long x 4' wide fixed pier with Thru-Flow decking
and supported with 8" diameter CCA piles; a proposed 30" wide x
16' long aluminum ramp; and a proposed 6' wide x 20' long
floating dock with un-treated timber decking situated in an "L"
November 17, 2021 64 Board of Trustees
configuration and supported by two (2) 10" diameter CCA piles.
Located: 680 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-12-9
This application has been deemed to be consistent by the
LWRP coordinator. And has gained the support of the Conservation
Advisory Council.
The Trustees performed a field inspection on November 9th.
The Board agrees with the new proposed dock construction as
being straightforward and in the new location is acceptable. But
there were some other problems that accrued with the inspection
including substantial removal of trees. The Board would like to
see 20-foot non-turf buffer that would basically be seaward of a
fence that was constructed without a permit, noted there were
new fences that were on both sides of the property and going
across the property adjacent to the area where trees were
removed.
The Board further discussing this on work session, felt
that to deal with the large amount of trees removed that at
least, at least six hardwood trees of stated caliper and species
and with a survivability should be included on the plan that
would, you know, amended plans, and request for an amendment to
include fences.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant.
The tree removals, I did talk to Mr. Hudson regarding-this
about the tree removal when I was at the site to post the dock
and hang the sign. And he said he actually contacted the
Trustees and I don't know whose jurisdiction, maybe he said he
spoke with you about it, and you had no problem with removing
trees? It was approved?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We approved removal of the trees, I believe
that is where the proposed septic system was. However we also
conditioned replanting of at least three,trees for the ones he
removed. And that has not been done.
MR. PATANJO: Understood. We have no problem doing a 20-foot
non-turf buffer from the mean high watermark line back, which
would probably be about ten foot back behind the recently
installed post rail fence. So we would do ten-foot wide
non-turf buffer from that area back and replant three two-inch
caliper native trees.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional concerns from the Board
members? I was mostly familiar with this.
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
MS. GARVEY: Yes. My name is Patricia Garvey, I'm representing my
family at 600 Deep Hole Drive, which is directly next door. I do
want to speak to the trees. Also my family has been at 600 Deep
Hole Drive for last 63 years.
It was not just three trees. It was a clearcut of the
backyard. There are no.trees there now. We didn't know anything
about the septic, or we didn't get any permit, you know, we
didn't see anything posted with regard to the clearcut, but it
was a clearcut.
November 17, 2021 65 Board of Trustees
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Speaking to that, when we got the tree
request letter, it was to remove three. And if I'm not mistaken
off the top of my head it was because the roots or something
were interfering with the septic system. So the only permission
they got was to remove three trees, and with the condition that
they replace those three trees. If there was additional
clearing, which there they have been, I can't recall off the top
of my head, you know, I think we should, we would condition more
replanting.
MS. GARVEY: If you did a Google Earth search you can see how many
trees were in the backyard before the clearcut. It was more than
three. Way more than three.
According to the proposed plans submitted, it doesn't
really reflect the current property to date. These in fact were
the plans submitted to the Board on April 8th, 2018, by Mr.
Patanjo, by the prior owner, and the Board decided on April 8th,
or they advised Mr. Patanjo, to reduce the height of the dock
and resubmit. Which was not done. And it is not reflected in
these current plans. So I do want to address the major dock
modification in the plan that we received via mail. But, there
is no resubmission and there has been no reduction in the height
of the dock or the pier. Our dock is two feet above grade. I
have no idea how many feet above grade this dock will be.
MR. PATANJO: The Army Corps of Engineers requirement of the New
York State DEC requirement is the docks are placed 4.5 feet
above the tidal wetland elevation. So any of the requirements
for the height of the dock would be actually, apply by the other
two agencies. DEC and Army Corps of Engineers.
MS. GARVEY: I'm sorry, so what is the height of the dock
required for the plan?
MR. PATANJO: 4.5 feet above the wetland vegetation.
MS. GARVEY: So as per the proposed dock plans, scope of the new
dock length will be 14 feet longer than any other docks in the
neighboring area. In total, the length from where it begins on
the shore, to the end of the float is 74 feet. Our dock from
beginning to end of the float is 60 feet. So are the
surrounding docks. So the difference is 14 feet:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I don't have the plans in front of me but we
always consider the pier line to make sure that a new dock does
not project any further seaward than the neighboring docks on
either side. And if I'm not mistaken, I believe this proposed,
even at the extension, meets that requirement. Because it is, if
you draw a line between the dock to the north and the dock to
the south, this is proposed dock does not extend any further
seaward than those two.
MS. GARVEY: So the drawing is incorrect.
MR. PATANJO: The drawing is based off of Google imagery, which
has been accurate in the past for our applications.
MS: GARVEY: It's 14 feet beyond our float.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Can you approach the dais please, ma'am?
MS. GARVEY: Sure.
November 17, 2021 66 Board of Trustees
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is this your dock or is that your dock?
MS. GARVEY: This. So this, it's 14 feet beyond.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is the neighboring dock to the south.
That dash line there
MS. GARVEY: Its inaccurate.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: If I'm not mistaken, was this dock staked as
well? I can't recall.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So when applicants apply for a dock, we take
their plans and review their, you know, they have plans that are
received by our office, stamped received. On this plan it shows
the dock not protruding past either of the neighboring docks.
MS. GARVEY: I'm telling you it's inaccurate.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It would have to be built to that standard or
we'll have them pull the dock in. They legally would not be able
to build past that pier line
MS. GARVEY: So according to the proposal that we reviewed, it
extends 14 feet beyond our dock and the neighboring dock.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's not what both the rendition on Google
Earth and maps that we can view right here as well as on the
plan.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And the length of the dock does not
necessarily dictate the extension into the creek.
MS. GARVEY: Well, that plank has been extended as well as the
float.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Williams will show you top-down, it's
a derivative Google Earth.
(Trustee Williams approaches Ms. Garvey at her podium).
MS. GARVEY: If you draw a line 74 feet from the landward
outward, it extends 14 feet beyond our dock. Our dock is 60 feet
from beginning to end.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Just keep in mind sometimes when you take the
74 feet that goes from the dock terminus and that does sometimes
expand over wetlands. That 74 feet doesn't always start right
where the water starts.
MS. GARVEY: So I can actually share with you the distance from
the end of our float to the beach across the way. It's 101 feet.
According to our hydro-survey. What is the distance from their
float to the beach directly across from them?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Roughly 101 feet. It would be the same. They
are not extending past your dock. They legally can't do that. I
don't know how else to --
MS. GARVEY: It can't be 101 feet because in the prior plan they
submitted it was something like 84.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: My point is that they can't extend past your
dock. They legally can't do that. And they won't do that.
MS. GARVEY: So according to the proposal, that is not reflected
in the current proposal.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, it is. The 75 feet includes the catwalk,
which can go up on to land. So if I'm not mistaken, their
catwalk is going to be going closer to their house than it is to
November 17, 2021 67 Board of Trustees
your house. If you understand what I'm saying.
MR. PATANJO: I would agree with that.
MS. GARVEY: Well, they are proposing to move the actual dock two
or six feet, I wasn't sure, according to the plan, closer to our
property.
MR. PATANJO: Six feet.
MS. GARVEY: Six feet--what is the distance from our property line?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The dock will not go past your dock. If they
want to make their dock go all the way to their back door, they
can apply for that. That might make their dock 120 feet but that
doesn't mean they can ever extend past your dock.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And as a point of fact, once this is
completed, we do go back out to inspect it to make sure it was
built in accordance with the permit. If they do not have it,
they do not get a C of C and there will be potential violations
and/or remediation for anything that was built not in accordance
with the permit and the plans.
MS. GARVEY: So if they don't have to build it according to what
they submitted, and they can't go beyond our dock --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No, they have to build in accordance with the
plans.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They have to build it in accordance with the
plans which shows it not going further than the neighboring
docks, which is what we call a pier line, which is in the code.
MS. GARVEY: So we still think it's 14 feet beyond our dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's incorrect.
MS. GARVEY: Which puts it in the navigable channel.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Again, it's not. Again, it's not 14 feet past
your dock. It's not. I'm telling you right now.
MS. GARVEY: So in terms of-moving the dock six feet toward us,
toward the property line, what is the purpose of that?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Again, I don't have the plans in front of me,
but as long as it's 15 feet off the property line, that is the
requirement.
MS. GARVEY: How many feet?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 15 feet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 15 feet.
MR. PATANJO: It meets all the requirements for offset. If you
note on the plans, that the reason we did this is the "L" of the
proposed floating dock will be going to the south. So the boat
will be in the same exact position as it currently is but we
Actually projected it out to the south of the float for the
current coming in.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It also means the float is not within 15
feet of an extension of the southern property line.
MR. PATANJO: Correct. And when we extend the northern property
line, it's more than 15 feet away from the northern property
line. Which meets current code.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Currently the dock sits very close to the
southern property line, so you are centering it up on the
property.
November 17, 2021 68 Board of Trustees
MR. PATANJO: Centering it on the property line.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Your neighboring property, the Garvey
property, their dock is very close to the southern property
line.
MR. PATANJO: So we actually centralized this in the center of
the projected property lines, so we meet the 15 feet on the
north and 15 foot on the south. And again, if you want to
condition this, it's conditioned on the plan inherently, but if
you want to add a specific condition to the permit, that there
be no further seaward projection from the northern and southern
pier line, we would be amenable to that.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: There is no need for such a stipulation.
MS. GARVEY: So if they move it six feet towards us, that would
put the distance between our dock and their dock 29 feet, and to
the south, the distance between their dock and their neighbor's
dock is 83 feet.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: There is a vacant piece of land in there
currently owned by Wolfgang Hack (sic).
MS. GARVEY: There is no vacant land.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'm looking at tax map --
MS. GARVEY: There is no vacant land.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: There is a piece of property between them
with a boat sitting that does not-have a dock.
MS. GARVEY: That is the current applicant's boat.
MR. PATANJO: That's incorrect. There is no boat on this
property.
' TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I'm looking at a tax map, that shows you have
the property formerly owned by Braun, which is now owned by this
gentleman ••-
MS. GARVEY: There's a boat there.
r TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Then the next is -- Hack or Mack. My eyesight
is not what it once was. Wolfgang Hack. Then after that you
have the Burke property. And it does not look the Hack property
is currently improved
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, there is a house there but there is no
dock. That's what-- no, there-is a house, not a dock. It's not
a vacant lot.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: You are telling me I can't read a map. I
appreciate that. Thank you.,
MR. PATANJO: And the boat on the Hack property.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: The boat is clearly on the Hack property.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, do we have any further comments, I
would like to maybe summarize for the interest of the Board in
this, which would be a revised application showing the fence,
trees of certain caliper and survivability and the 20-foot
non-turf buffer. And are there any additional items that I
might have missed? I think I covered everything, from my notes
here.
MR. PATANJO: I just want to interject here. We were going to
say it's 20.foot from the mean high tide line or ten foot from
the existing fence?
i
I
f
I
I
November 17, 2021 69 Board of Trustees
i
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We don't have a plan with a fence.
j TRUSTEE DOMINO: The fence is split rail but it has wire
reinforcement so it changes it so it's habitat fragmentation.
That has to be removed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The fence has wire mesh in it. That would
have to be removed because of habitat fragmentation.
TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Can you raise it up?
MR. PATANJO: We would be amenable to raising it up four to six
j inches just because the purpose of that is to contain the dog.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have done that in the past.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As long as it's 25 away.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think it's more than 25 feet now, because
we are talking --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How far is the fence --
MS. GARVEY: 15 feet.
MR. PATANJO: It's about 15 or 20 feet. We can, obviously I'll do
some survey of that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: New plans with the requested items and
subsequent field inspection.
MR. PATANJO: Sure.
MS. GARVEY: So what is the code with regard to installation of a
stockade fence?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ma'am, we are not reciting code for you
i here.
MR. HAGAN: The Town Code is available online. It's section 275
of the Town Code, Wetlands. It's available by going to Southold
Town website, which is SoutholdTownNY.gov. There is a series of
six buttons on the bottom of the webpage. The center button will
take you directly to the Town Code.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So I move that we table this application at
the applicant's request for new plans, depicting the things we
just discussed. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
i
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 17, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ROBERT &
MARYBETH POLKE requests a Wetland Permit for the continuation of
previously permitted shoreline stabilization consisting of 84
linear feet of triple row coir logs; 40 linear feet of single
row rip-rap with two rows of coir logs; 62 linear feet of triple
row of coir logs; 40 linear feet of single row rip-rap with two
rows of coir logs; and 130 linear feet of triple row coir logs;
areas between courses of coir logs and rip-rap will be planted
i with Bearberry plantings and no addition fill will be added.
Located: 1325 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-11-9
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Trustees did a field inspection most recently on
11/9/21, at 1:35 in the afternoon. All were present. The notes
j read as follows: Violation, with a question mark. Fill has been
brought in. Stabilization project seems okay. Meaning the
I
I
j November 17, 2021 70 Board of Trustees
application as submitted seem to be okay. Needs hay bales and
silt fence.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application, and on November 10th, 2021, unanimously supported
the application. I would like to read the comments.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
and commends the project for its thoughtful use of environmental
practices.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant.
The project has been around for a little while. They
started construction. There was some issues with not having a
permit before starting construction, apparently. We have a DEC
permit for the proposed plan in front of you. The DEC cut us
back tremendously, which was previously approved. I thought we
talked about it. This is going back several years, actually. The
DEC rejected a lot of the rock in this location. We wanted the
rip rap stabilization at the lower course. DEC kicked it back,
no, you can't do that. You have to put coir logs. Amended the
application for coir logs. Contractor inadvertently, not
knowing, started the job, as you know, you were out there. He
installed silt fence around the lower level, around the
perimeter in an effort to stop any sedimentation of the waters.
We had then subsequently obtained DEC permits, which are exactly
copying what you have. And I believe I forwarded permits to the
Board for their review. It includes some rip rap stabilization
around the corner, also includes rip rap stabilization at the
40-foot wide, I believe at the dock area, 80 foot at the dock
area, where it projects out to the existing dock. And the rest
! P 1 9
is going to be solely coir logs stabilization with planting of
native plants: I think I have Turski is there and bayberry. So
it is nothing more than a stabilization project. No additional
fill is brought into the site. It was very, it was a wooded
site, which has been in existence previously. The wooded was
1 removed and now it's going to be replanted with native
vegetation to stabilize the bank, which has been eroded over
time.
j TRUSTEE DOMINO: Let's not go back and forth with how much fill
was brought in. I'll tell you there was fill brought in.
However, moving forward, the Trustees have a quick suggestion.
We want to know if there are hay bales and a silt fence --we
would like to see hay bales and silt fence at both the top and
bottom of the bank as labeled on the plans that were submitted,
as soon as possible.
MR. PATANJO: Okay. Understood.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Like tomorrow.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: In addition, there is a suggestion on the
plantings that it includes native grasses for stabilization purposes.
MR. PATANJO: What kind of native grasses would you like?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the issue is, not even necessarily
grasses,.you're calling for bayberry plantings. I don't know,
November 17, 2021 71 Board of Trustees
are they going to hold on that? It's pretty steep.
MR. PATANJO: It's a pretty steep slope. We can do bayberry, we
can go with -- I'm looking at Jay to point me in the right
direction here. Sort of, I love Cape American beach grass, it
has a great root structure. It's good for stabilization of
banks. We can plant some of those.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we were thinking. Because I just
don't know what is going to hold there.
MR. PATANJO: Like we do on bluffs, on the Sound. Cape American
beach grass. Were we can integrate multiple different levels,
different rows, which would be fine, unless you have other
alternatives.
And in an effort to proceed with this project, the
contractor is anxious to get in there, as well as the homeowner,
it's been in this situation for quite some time, we would love
to condition the permit approval to reference installing hay
bales at the top, hay bales at the bottom and modify the plant
list to include Cape American beach grass in addition to the bayberry.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We appreciate that. Any other questions or
comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, and in accordance with the Jeff Patanjo plan dated
8/7/21, stamped received 9/15/21, with the hay bales and silt
fence to be installed at both the top and bottom of the bank as
delineated on those plans, and the addition of Cape American
beach grass in the plantings for stabilization purposes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second, all in favor? RECEIVED
(ALL AYES). rr c
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, very much. *i IfA
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Make a motion for adjournment. DEC 1 7 2021 e 12: Z Pal
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? 1'ovvn C�ler�k�
(ALL AYES). So hold
espectfull submitted by,
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees
i
i