HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-02/16/2022 Glenn Goldsmith,President so Town Hall Annex
V� 0
A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice President �� l0 54375 Route 25P.O. Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski l l Southold, New York 11971
Liz Gillooly G Telephone(631) 765-1892
Elizabeth Peeples • �� Fax(631) 765-6641
cou
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, February 16, 2022 RECEi EO
5:30 PM
Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President 2
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee_
Eric Sepenoski, Trustee
Liz Gillooly, Trustee
Elizabeth Peeples, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist
Lori Hulse, Board Counsel
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Good evening, and welcome to our February
16th, 2022 meeting. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order
and ask that you please stand for the pledge of allegiance.
(PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We'll start off tonight's meeting by announcing
the people on the dais. To my left we have Trustee Krupski,
Trustee Sepenoski, Trustee Gillooly and Trustee Peeples. To my right
we have the attorney to the Trustees, Lori Hulse, Senior Clerk Typist
Elizabeth Cantrell and Court Stenographer Wayne Galante.
From the Conservation Advisory Council we have Caroline Burghardt.
Agendas for tonight's meeting are posted on the Town's website as well
as on the podiums out front.
We do have a number of postponements for tonight. On the
agenda, on page 17, numbers 26 through 29; on page 18, numbers
30 through 35. And on page 19, number 36 and 37 are postponed.
They are listed as follows:
Number 26, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of SADIK HALIT LEGACY TRUST
requests a Wetland Permit for the-as-built bluff stairs consisting of the
following: 4'x4' at-grade top landing to an 8,2'x9.5' upper platform to 18'x4'
steps down to an 8'x3.8' middle platform to 16'x4' steps down to a 19.4'x10'
lower platform to 14.5'x4' steps down to beach; all decking on structure
is of untreated lumber.
Located: 2200 Sound Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-33-1-16
Board of Trustees 2 February 16, 2022
Number 27, Sea Tech, LLC on behalf of BARBARA BODKIN requests a
Wetland Permit to reconstruct in place 125 linear feet of timber/concrete
bulkhead with new Navy style vinyl bulkhead; construct two (2) 8' returns;
remove and replace existing landward 4.5' wide wood boardwalk, 70sq.ft.
over-water wood platform, and retaining walls as required; and to install
30 cubic yards of clean fill form an approved upland source.
Located: 610 Bayview Drive, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-37-5-2
Number 28, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of
SCOTT & LEA VITRANO requests a Wetland Permit to remove
existing pier and float; construct a proposed 4'x14' landward ramp
leading to a 4'x35' fixed pier with Thru-Flow decking a minimum of
4' above wetlands; a proposed 3'x12' metal ramp; and a 4'x20'.
floating dock situated in a "T" configuration and secured by two (2) 8"
diameter piles.
Located: 3875 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-15.1
Number 29, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of
JUSTIN & ALLISON SCHWARTZ requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a proposed 4'x165' fixed pier with open grate decking a
minimum of 4' above tidal vegetative grade; a 3'x16' aluminum ramp;
a 6'x20' floating dock situated in an "T" configuration; and to
install a natural path leading from upland to fixed pier using
permeable material.
Located: 2793 Cox Neck Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-8-7.6
Number 30, Jennifer Wicks on behalf of D. CANNIZZARO QRPT &
B. MILTAKIS QRPT, c/o JOHN MILTAKIS, TRUSTEE requests a Wetland
Permit for the as-built un-treated Trex decking along bulkhead,
walkways to the house of various dimensions consisting of
5'2"x36'3", 12'x5', 15'2"x3'7", 5'5"x12', and 45'4"x16';
as-built 16'x44' patio; as-built 3'x16' planter/bench; as-built
5'x10' stone steps; to maintain the walkway in 10' buffer with
'/Z" spacing between boards to allow adequate drainage; for the
as-built 395.27sq.ft. deck; for a proposed first floor rear
addition of 5.75sq.ft.; a proposed second floor garage addition
of 779.81 sq.ft.; a proposed garage expansion of 113.5sq.ft.; a
proposed 120sq.ft. Front covered stoop; and a proposed 120sq.ft.
first floor front entry addition.
Located: 1460 Strohson Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-10-29.1
Number 31, Michael Kimack on behalf of VASILIS & CHRISTINE
FTHENAKIS requests a Wetland Permit to demolish and remove
existing cottage, foundation, wood deck, and walkway at bluff;
demolish and remove existing two-story frame house, foundation
and associated structures near Nassau Point Road; construct a
new foundation, new one-story dwelling with a 2,476sq.ft.
footprint; install an on-grade 684sgf.t. stone and/or brick
patio; and to remove six (6) trees of varying calipers.
Located: 6925 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-15-9
Number 32, 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
Board of Trustees 3 February 16, 2022
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 33, 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
Number 34, 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 35, 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 Y2 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
Number 36, Michael Kimack on behalf of JANICE HILLMAN
SITYLES a/k/a JANICE HILLMAN REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a 4'x18' walkway with a staircase consisting
of three (3) treads and four (4) risers with Thru-Flow decking
(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 37, 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 a AE zone; and a pervious driveway.
Located: 420 Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-1-21.2
Those have all been postponed.
Under Town Code Chapter 275-8(c), files were officially
closed seven days ago. Submission any of paperwork after that
date may result in a delay of the processing of the applications.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to have our
next field inspection on Wednesday, March 9th, 2022, at 8:00 AM.
Board of Trustees 4 February 16, 2022
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next Trustee
meeting Wednesday, March 16th, 2022, at 5:30 PM at the Town Hall
Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
III'. WORK SESSIONS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next work
session, Monday, March 14th, 2022, at 5:00 PM at the Town Hall
Annex 2nd floor Executive Board Room; and on Wednesday, March
16th, 2022, at 5:00 PM in the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve the Minutes of the
January 19th, 2022, meeting.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The Trustees monthly report for'January 2022.
A check for $31,203.83 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office
for the General Fund.
VI. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's
Bulletin Board for review.
VII. RESOLUTIONS -OTHER:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Resolutions, Roman numeral VII,
Resolutions - Other.
Number 1, RESOLVED, the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Southold, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review
Act, hereby declare itself Lead Agency in regards to the
application of VINCENT J. MARTORANA.
Located: 700 Sound Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-33-4-32
Board of Trustees 5 February 16, 2022.
So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, RESOLVED, the Board of Trustees of
the Town of Southold, pursuant to the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, hereby declare itself Lead Agency in regards
to the application of ARTICLE THIRD TRUST UWO JERRY LASTIHENOS
FBO MARYANNE DALTON;
Located: 100 Sound Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-33-4-35.3
So moved.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VIII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VIII, State Environmental
Quality Reviews, RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town
of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more
fully described in Section XIV Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, February 16, 2022 are classified
as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and
are not subject to further review under SEQRA, as written:
Catherine Cahill SCTM# 1000-52-5-23
Levent Temiz SCTM# 1000-44-2-3
Kathleen Knapp SCTM# 1000-145-4-4
Gardiners Bay Estates Homeowners Association, Inc.
SCTM# 1000-37-4-17
Peconic Land Trust SCTM# 1000-79-5-20.12
Areti Lavalle SCTM# 1000-15-3-7
Sand Lennox, LLC SCTM# 1000-68-3-1
Roger Siejka SCTM# 1000-115-6-22
POE Boat Storage, LLC, c/o William Lieblein
SCTM# 1000-65-4-13.3 & 14
9450 Main Bayview, LLC SCTM# 1000-87-5-22
Albert W. Selden; Jr. & Christian Rasmussen SCTM# 1000-97-7-1
Philip & Lia Chasen SCTM# 1000-55-7-3
Peter J. Maltese & Madeline Joyce Covello SCTM# 1000-34-4-13
Gayle Marriner-Smith & Christopher F. Smith SCTM# 1000-121-3-8
JALC Expeditions, LLC, c/o Joshua Ho-Walker& Lillian
Goldenthal, Members SCTM# 1000-50-1-6
Pants View, LLC, c/o Anthony Bonsignore, Manager SCTM# 1000-50-1-21
Alexandra Fox Stern 1997 Trust, c/o Jolyon F. Stern, Trustee
SCTM# 1000-40-1-14
North Fork Project, LLC SCTM# 1000-106-6-3
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So moved.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
Board of Trustees 6 February 16, 2022
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the
Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications
more fully described in Section XIV Public Hearings Section of
the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, February 16, 2022, are
classified as Unlisted Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and
Regulations:
Vincent J. Martorana SCTM# 1000-33-4-32
Article Third Trust UWO Jerry Lastihenos FBO Maryanne Dalton t
SCTM# 1000-33-4-35.3
At written. So moved.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO NEW
YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT NYCCR PART 617:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral IX, Number 1, DESCRIPTION OF
ACTION: L.K. McLean Associates on behalf of VINCENT J. MARTORANA requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to install a stone revetment at the base of
the slope on the north side approximately 58' long along the base of the slope and 10.5'
deep; the toe of the revetment will be located at elevation 6.5'± (NAVD88) and will
consist of a 1.5' thick layer of W50=500Ib. Bedding stone (approximately 57± cubic
yards) and two (2) layers of three (3) ton heavy armor stone (approx. 135± cubic yards)
at a 2H to 1V slope up to an elevation of approximately 11,.0'± (NAVD88); the existing
bedding stone will be underlain with geotextile filter fabric; the stone revetment will span
over an area of approx. 388sq.ft.; to further stabilize the existing slope it is proposed to
fill in existing voids on the slope with clean selected fill, suitable on-site material that was
excavated within the footprint of the stone revetment and material that was recovered at
the toe of the slope; the existing voids caused by erosion are being filled to create a
constant slope of 1.5H to 1V maximum to reach the top of the eroded area at elevation
26.0'± (NAVD88); approx. 120 cubic yards of fill placed over a 545± sq.ft. area;
revegetate area with native wetland vegetation as well as evenly spaced 16" diameter
bio-fiber rolls to further stabilize the slope landward of the revetment; there will be no
excavation or fill placed seaward of the proposed stone revetment, below A.P.H.W. (EL..
2.24'±) or S.P.H.W. (EL. 3.24'±); to avoid heavy stormwater runoff/point discharge onto
the slope and provide storage prior to the crest of the slope, construct a berm along the
tree line in the backyard of the property using select fill planted with topsail and
hydro-seed with the top of the berm to be at elevation 55.50 (NAVD88); the slope on the
berm shall be no shallower than on a 1 OH to 1 V and not steeper than 4H to 1 V; on the
southern portion near the toe of the slope is an eroded area, to stabilize this area install
a 3'x3'x9' gabion basket followed by a proposed soldier pile and lagging wall consisting
of steel H-Piles and 4"x8" Greenheart timber sheeting; approximately 6.2'± of the slope
above the proposed soldier pile and lagging wall will be replanted with native wetland
vegetation and a permanent erosion control mat.
Located: 700 Sound Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-33-4-32 1
Board of Trustees 7 February 16, 2022
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 February 8, 2022, and having considered the survey of property by
L.K. .McLean Associates, P.C. dated October 12, 2021, and having considered the plans
for this proposed project submitted by L.K. McLean Associates, P.C. dated December
2021 at the Trustee's February 14, 2022 work session; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2022 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself
Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2022 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 L.K. McLean Associates, P.C. dated
December 2021 it has been determined by the Board of Trustees that all potentially
significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein:
Vegetative, non-structural measures are not capable of stabilizing the erosion of
the bluff alone.
Protection of the toe of bluff using hardened structures including rock revetment
is necessary.
No existing rocks or boulders are to be utilized, moved, or relocated on the
beach.
As time progresses, continued soil loss at the..toe of the bluff may lead to habitat
degradation and bluff instability.
A site inspection by the Southold Town Board of Trustees recognized erosion on
this property and the need,for a bluff stabilization/erosion control plan.
THEREFORE, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees
Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to
SEQRA for the aforementioned project.
So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Number 2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: L.K. McLean Associates on behalf of
ARTICLE THIRD TRUST UWO JERRY LASTIHENOS FBO MARYANNE DALTON
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to install a new stone
revetment at the base of the slope on the north side approximately 58' long along the
base of the slope and 10.5' deep; the toe of the revetment will be located at elevation
6.5'± (NAVD88) and will consist of a 1.5' thick layer of W50=5001b. Bedding stone
(approximately 57± cubic yards) and two (2) layers of three (3) ton heavy armor stone
(approx. 135± cubic yards) at a 2H to 1V slope up to an elevation of approximately
11.0'± (NAVD88); the existing bedding stone will be underlain with geotextile filter fabric;
the stone revetment will span over an area of approx. 388sq.ft.; to further stabilize the
existing slope it is proposed to fill in existing voids on the slope with clean selected fill,
suitable,on-site material that was excavated within the footprint of the stone revetment
and material that was recovered at the toe of the slope; the existing voids caused by
erosion are being filled to create a constant slope of 1.5H to IV maximum to reach the
top of the eroded area at elevation 26.0'± (NAVD88); approx. 120 cubic yards of fill
placed over a 545± sq.ft. area; revegetate area with native wetland vegetation as well as
evenly spaced 16" diameter bio-fiber rolls to further stabilize the slope landward of the
Board of Trustees 8 1 February 16, 2022
revetment; there will be no excavation or fill placed seaward of the proposed stone
revetment, below A.P.H.W. (EL. 2.24'±) or S.P.H.W. (EL. 3.24'±).
Located: 100 Sound Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-33-4-35.3
S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with this project having
visited the site on February 8, 2022, and having considered the survey of property by
L.K. McLean Associates, P.C. dated October 12, 2021, and having considered the plans
for this proposed project submitted by L.K. McLean Associates, P.C. dated December
2021 at the Trustee's February 14, 2022 work session; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2022 the Southold Town Board of Trustees declared itself
Lead Agency pursuant to S.E.Q.R.A.; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2022 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 L.K. McLean Associates, P.C. dated
December 2021 it has been determined by the Board of Trustees that all potentially
significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein:
Vegetative, non-structural measures are not capable of stabilizing the erosion of
the bluff alone.
Protection of the toe of bluff using hardened structures including rock revetment
is necessary.
No existing rocks or boulders are to be utilized, moved, or relocated on the
beach.
As time progresses, continued soil loss at the toe of the bluff may lead to habitat
degradation and bluff instability.
A site inspection by the Southold Town Board of Trustees recognized erosion on
this property and the need for a bluff stabilization/erosion control plan.
THEREFORE, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees
Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to
SEQRA for the aforementioned project.
So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
XI. RESOLUTIONS - EMERGENCY PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral XI, Resolutions - Emergency Permits.
Number 1, The TOWN OF SOUTHOLD requests an Emergency Permit to
replenish sand at Town Beach that was lost due to winter storms by using approximately
200 cubic"yards of clean spoils from dredging being performed at Cross Sound Ferry.
Located: 53005 County Road 48, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-5-1
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
XII. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral XII, Resolutions -Administrative
Board of Trustees 9 February 16, 2022
Permits, number 1, STEIN SEA FARMS LLC requests an Administrative Permit for
as-built repair/replacement of concrete apron/barrier along south exterior wall, 34"x84'
(238sq.ft.)
Located: 900 First Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-8-17.
1 make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
X. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral X, Applications for Extensions,
Transfers and Administrative Amendments.
In order to simplify our meeting, the Trustees regularly
group together applications that are similar or minor in nature.
As such, I make a motion to approve as a group items 1
through 4. They are listed as follows:
Number 1, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of
JONATHAN BABKOW & MARIA RUBIN requests the Last One (1) Year
Extension to Wetland Permit#9388, as issued on February 13, 2019.
Located: 360 Private Road #8, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-23-1-18.1
Number 2, En-Consultants on behalf of DAVID GRESHAM and
BENJAMIN PARDO requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#9764 from
Abby Tannenbaum to David Gresham and Benjamin Pardo, as issued
on November 18, 2020 and Amended on March 18, 2021.
Located: 435 Narrow River Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-3-10
Number 3, Michael Chuisano on behalf of KENDALL TODD
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9503 for
a 24"wx30"hx481 generator to be installed on a 30"x54" concrete pad.
Located: 670 Bayview Drive, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-37-5-3
Number 4, Louis Caglianone on behalf of DARCY GAZZA
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#10007
for construction of a 4'x32' ramp up from grade to a 4'x40'
fixed catwalk to a 4'x24' ramp down to a 4'x32' fixed catwalk
leading to a 4'x14' ramp down to a 4'x20' fixed "T" dock, in
lieu of the previously permitted.
Located: 1500 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-3-4
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
XIII. MOORINGS/STAKE & PULLEY SYSTEMS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral XIII, Moorings/Stake & Pulley
Systems, number 1, ROBERT SHELTON requests a Mooring Permit for
a mooring in Haywaters Creek for an 18' motor boat, replacing
Mooring #4. Access: Public
I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 10 February 16, 2022
(ALL AYES).
XIV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting
agenda and enter into public hearings.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: 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 brief,
five minutes or less if possible.
AMENDMENTS:
Number 1, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of CATHERINE CAHILL
requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#9994 to demolish existing
dwelling (project meets Town Code definition of demolition) and construct additions
to the northerly corner of the existing dwelling (416sq.ft.), easterly corner (138sq.ft.),
southerly corner (140sq.ft.), and second floor (345sq.ft.); construct a proposed portico
to the landward face of the existing dwelling (193sq.ft.); remove and reconstruct the
existing seaward deck in-place; construct a second floor deck (186sq.ft.), above the
existing seaward concrete platform; replace asphalt driveway with gravel; install
an IA/OWTS septic system; construct a porch along the landward side of the
existing dwelling (194sq.ft.); and to establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide
non-turf buffer landward of the existing bulkhead thereon and landward of the
tidal wetland boundary thereon.
Located: 495 Bayview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-5-23
The Trustees most recently conducted a field inspection February 8th, 2022,
noting this is straightforward.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MS. CANTRELL: Robert Anderson on Zoom. Robert, if you want to
un-mute yourself and speak to the Board, but I first have to ask
you if you consent on conducting the public hearing virtually by Zoom.
MR. ANDERSON: Robert Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
on behalf of the applicant. I'm here to answer any questions
the Board has regarding this project
MS. CANTRELL: Robert, can you answer the question first if you consent?
MR. ANDERSON: It's spotty on my end. I didn't understand the question.
MS. CANTRELL: Do you consent to conducting the public hearing via Zoom?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
MS. CANTRELL: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Board of Trustees 11 February 16, 2022
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 2, SAMUEL J. DIMEGLIO, JR. requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit#9454 for the as-built water side
Trex-type deck with W spacing in lieu of Thru-Flow decking/open
grate deck; as-built 5'x9.2' wood staircase on west side of
property; as-built water side Trex-type 7.5'x10' staircase to
ground; as-built front entry 6'x5' roof-over platform with
5.3'x4.6' stairs to ground; and to revegetate the 50' wide
non-disturbance buffer by planting 3" caliper trees and other vegetation.
Located: 2280 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-4-6
The Trustees most recently reviewed this application on the
8th of February, and noted this was discussed further at work
session. Prior to that, a month prior, we discussed delineating
the edge of the 50-foot non-disturbance buffer and reviewed the
new planting plan.
I'm in receipt of a new planting plan in the file as well as a new
description.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent, due to
the fact that this is an as-built structure and clearing the
50-foot wide non-disturbance buffer was constructed without
Board of Trustee review or permit. Note that the 50-foot wide
non-disturbance buffer is also a non-fertilization buffer shown
on the 2006 approved plans for purposes of protecting the water
quality of Deep Hole Creek.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support the
application. The CAC did not support the application with the
as-built materials on the structures. It is recommended.that the
structures be reconstructed as originally authorized.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. DIMEGLIO: If I may, Samuel J. DiMeglio, Jr.
I submitted, I had Ian Zuhoski, Coastal Plantings, submit
the revegetation plan as per the prior request at the public
hearing last month. That was the only item I was told that was
of concern to the Board.
There will be no --there will be natural vegetation placed
to replace the dead whatever was taken out, dead weeds, whatever
was taken out. And then the reforestation plan, I believe, is
consistent with the area. In fact most of my neighbors have
bright green lawns. I don't intend to fertilize. I intend to
comply with the request of the Board.
However, the materials that were placed on the deck, the
tremendous cost involved in replacing.that is insurmountable. I
Board of Trustees 12 February 16, 2022
have complied with other code-compliant materials. I have
complied, understanding that there is quarter-inch spacing for
water to go through. There is no vegetation that needs to be
protected underneath the decking, okay. There's rocks there.
Every material I placed in the area, not including -- including
the no-disturbance zone and along the perimeter is all
non-fertilizer dependent. I understand the ramifications of
nitrogen, trust me, I'm a fisherman, okay. Everything else is
porous around the perimeter of the premises. I know the Board
was there a'few months ago. As far as the other agencies
declining the materials, materials were hard to get, number one.
Number two is the original material, thru-flow decking that was
originally approved, is not safe. And in fact it's
non-buildable. The beams were put on 12-feet on center. Which
is more than the required code, which is 16-feet on center.
The materials that were previously approved were for boards
that were thru-flow decking, which I did put on the dock. The
materials that were on the deck, number one, are not safe. They
are not sturdy enough to hold, I believe, to hold the weight on
that area. Plus they were built, the decking materials that you
order from, I think Port Lumber-- I did all ther research on
this, guys --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We discussed this with you at site visit. We
are aware. Thank you.
MR. DIMEGLIO: All right. Anything else you need from me?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't believe so. I think the new
description and the new plan, site plan in the file speaks for
itself.
Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding
this application? Or any additional comments from the Board?
Hearing no additional comments, I make a motion to close
the hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the new plans stamped received in the office January 28th,
2022, and the new amendment to the description, which I'll read
now:
Seeking approval for the as-built waterside Trex-type deck
with 1/4 inch spacing in lieu of thru-flow decking/open grate;
existing 5'x9.2' wood staircase on west side of subject
property; existing on waterside Trex-type staircase 7.5'x10' to
ground below;, existing front platform 6'x5' with stairs 5.3'x4'
to ground below; approval of landscape plan for existing
three-inch caliper trees and other vegetation in designated
50-foot wide non-disturbance buffer area.
Also within my motion for approval is that the 50-foot
non-disturbance buffer be non-fertilized, and that irrigation
installed for propagation is removed after everything is
established, thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP
Board of Trustees 13 February 16, 2022
coordinator.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, under Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits,
SHEENA ACHARYA & ADRIAN SAPOLLNIK request a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Hazard Permit to raise the approximately 100 linear foot long top retaining wall
by 12 inches using two six (6) inch railroad ties; remove and replace existing timber
railing with 36-inch high cable and wood railing above the proposed raised top retaining
wall; new proposed railing will consist of 86' of railing and a 4' wide, 48" high gate
followed by 10' of railing; remove and replace existing east side returns along eastern
property line and extend to approximately 40' with railroad ties keeping the line with the
proposed raised top retaining wall; remove one dead tree from eastern side of property;
install a dry laid gravel pathway from the front of the property to the existing back patio
on the eastern side of property; remove existing asphalt semi-circular driveway; install a
proposed 24' wide driveway from the existing shed to the roadside and line using
pavers; install a 4' wide masonry walkway at grade level from the proposed driveway
to front entrance to dwelling; install a 5'x10' front masonry patio at grade level in front
of the west side sliding doors; install dry-laid stepping stones from the proposed front
patio to the proposed southwest corner patio and existing back patio; install a 5'x8'
masonry patio at grade level on the southwest corner of the dwelling; remove and
replace existing 62'x28' wave shaped masonry back patio at grade level with rectangular
shaped patio using similar type of material and at grade level; remove and replace
existing 75' side returns along the west side of property line using railroad'ties keeping
in line with the proposed raised top retaining wall.
Located: 645 Glen Court, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-83-1-7.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support the application. The
majority of the proposed work has already been completed and should be applied for as
an as-built.
The Conservation Advisory Council questions the permeability of the large patio
and walkway. Drywells should be installed to contain any runoff from the non-permeable
areas.
The Trustees most recently conducted an in-house review on this on February 8th,
2022, where we reviewed the new revised plans that showed the ten-foot non-turf buffer
at the top of the retaining wall, which we had asked for in last month's meeting.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application.
MS. CANTRELL: Jeff Patanjo is present and we have also Ms. Acharya.
So, Jeff, since you raised your hand first, I'll allow you to talk first. If you want to
un-mute yourself.
MR. PATANJO: Good evening. Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. I have the
new plans as revised based on the comments that were addressed at last month's
public hearing. And if there are any other questions, I would be happy to answer them.
MS. CANTRELL: Jeff, I have to ask you, this is a new question.
I have to ask if you consent to conducting the public hearing virtually via Zoom.
MR PATANJO: Yes, I do consent.
MS. CANTRELL: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wishing-to speak regarding
this application?
Board of Trustees 14 February 16, 2022
MS. CANTRELL: She was on but she lowered her hand.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing none, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the new plans received February 3rd, 2022, that show the
ten-foot wide non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 2, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of
LEVENT TEMIZ requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit for the existing (2,317sq.ft.) two-story dwelling with
attached garage and to construct a new 155sq.ft. addition onto
the center of the dwelling on the seaward side with a
second-floor terrace above; for the existing 11.4'x4.1' storage
room under existing stairs on west side of dwelling; existing
927sq.ft. swimming pool; for the existing 90' of pool fencing
along seaward side of deck, 75' along east side, and 75' along
west side with 15' to the dwelling with gates; existing decking
around and seaward of pool is in part above grade and at grade
and is to be modified by resurfacing the 830sq.ft. Seaward
portion of decking with existing structure to remain
undisturbed, and existing portion of deck around pool is being
replace with a 2,302 stone patio on granular base and permeable
joints on grade which includes a 4' expansion on the west side
of patio; expand existing 81 sq.ft. wood deck on westerly side of
dwelling an additional 195sq.ft. for a total 276sq.ft. and
install a 7'10"x9'2" hot tub on deck; resurface existing
42sq.ft. easterly side deck; and for the existing 70sq.ft.
landing leading to 4'x20' stairs to beach.
Located: 57305 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44-2-3
The Trustees most recently visited the site on 8th of
February, and noted we wanted to review the location of the hot
tub, check location of CEHA line and consider pulling back
behind CEHA line. Also there should be a discussion about the
drainage with the new patio going in.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be both consistent and
inconsistent. The existing wood deck and fence to be resurfaced
is recommended to be inconsistent with the LWRP. Specifically,
portions of the wood deck and wood bench to be resurfaced are
located seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line.
The construction of non-movable structures or placement of
major non-movable additions to an existing structure is
prohibited in the structure hazard area.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
Board of Trustees 15 February 16, 2022
the application. The Conservation Advisory Council did not
support the application because a portion of the deck located
within the CEHA. The beach stairs should have removable or
retractable stairs at the base, and Conservation Advisory
Council questions the maintenance of the deck being exempt from
CEHA.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Good evening. Patricia Moore, on behalf of the
applicant. Just to give you a little bit of background.
Everything on this property has COs. So everything is legal.
The client wants to repair a small part of it and in fact we
went to the Zoning Board because of the pre-existing setbacks.
We had to go.to the Zoning Board just for the small deck that
has the hot tub, I think that was it, maybe something else. But
it was very minor.
I brought the survey because think maybe you didn't catch
it with the paperwork that was submitted, but you have this in
your file. I have a survey. I actually highlighted the coastal
erosion hazard line so you can see where it is.
The hot tub is landward of the pool and way back by the
house, so I don't know if, in the field --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did --
MS. MOORE: It was resolved. Okay, great. Then I don't have to
deal with that.
Did you also see the drainage that was on the plans?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: We saw that, too.
MS. MOORE: Okay, good. I'll address any issues with that.
With respect to the LWRP comments and Conservation Advisory
Council comments, that was the same response that he submitted
to the Zoning Board application. So as part of the Zoning Board
process, I submitted to the Board a written statement. The
first part of it deals with zoning variances, but the second
part, which I turn to, is in response to LWRP. And the most
important thing here is that this, the re-surfacing of existing
structures is specifically permitted under the LWRP as minor action.
In addition, it's also under the coastal erosion law, structures,
which in this case has a CO. Normal maintenance is also permitted,
permitted under the coastal erosion management law.
So his issue, it's fine, well taken, but these, again, as I
said, these are all CO'd structures. We actually had the lot
coverage of the property with all the decking was, I want to say
it was like almost 19% lot coverage. We actually, by removing a
lot of the decking, we went down to 12.9% lot coverage. It was
a huge improvement on the property. It's going to be with
pavers. The decking that is around the pool is going to be
pavers rather than wood decking. On the sides you see, and when
you went to the property, you also saw, it has, the drainage is
done in part with beach stone on the side and mature plantings
that have grown over the years, Montauk daisies and other
salt-tolerant species within the drainage area, and we added, as
Board of Trustees 16 February 16, 2022
you can see, the drywell and the French drain system, which the
architect consulted with Dave Chicanowicz, I don't know if he's
here or not, but to get input on the best way to handle the
drainage on this so as to not disturb the plantings and what has
already been established there.
So the plan was really considered very carefully. I'll
submit to the Board the write-up that was submitted to the
Zoning Board. Do you want one for your file?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Sure
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'll take one.
MS. MOORE: So I turned to the page, because the first part of it
is dealing with Zoning Board issues, but this was submitting the
issues -- I have one left. I knew this was going to happen
because LWRP used the same response whether it's Zoning Board or
Trustees. So I dealt with that issue, as I said, with the
Zoning Board and then again here with the Trustees.
I'll address any questions you might have. We can't put
the hot tub anywhere else. That is the most landward location
for the hot tub. And as I said, it's all landward of the
swimming pool. So I'm hoping you'll find that to be very
reasonable request.
If you have any questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Several. So you are proposing that the patio
around the pool will be permeable?
MS. MOORE: Yes, what is a wood deck now will be permeable pavers
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is permeable pavers? Is it, I don't know
if you want to go the permeable route, because a paver on sand
is, under the Town's drainage code, is not permeable.
MS. MOORE: How about we say more permeable. Because it's not
cement, it'is done on sand, and it is still capturing the water
runoff. So I think according to the DEC there is only one
material that they consider permeable. I have not seen the
specs for it. I only what it's called. I can't remember what
it's called. But I, the plan here is to make it a more
esthetically pleasing design. So --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's fair enough for the esthetics, but we
definitely have to remove the term "permeable".
MS. MOORE: Well, it says "permeable joints". That's what the
specs call for. Well,'because the architect, you know,
accurately described the stone as non-permeable. But the joints
And what it's sitting on is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:So my understanding of the deck on the most
seaward side of this is not a Trustee permit. It just has a C of O?
MS. MOORE: Correct. This all predates the Trustees. The
Trustees had no jurisdiction at the time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI Do you have any evidence of that at this time?
That it was constructed before?
MS. MOORE: Yes. I mean, look at the C of O. Yes. I attached
the CO and the plans, and if you look at aerial maps and you go
to 1984, whenever it was done, you'll see the identical
structure. Nothing has changed. I specifically looked back.
Board of Trustees 17 February 16, 2022
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have that aerial?
MS. MOORE: I don't know. I can provide it. Let me see if I
have one, if I printed it. But I gave the certificates of
occupancy, and again, the Zoning Board is an arm of the town.
It's a quasi-judicial board.
Are you listening?
(Affirmative response).
The Zoning Board is a quasi-judicial board. They also in their
findings stated this had a C of O and when it was built - let
me see what I have. '86. The in-ground pool and deck was done
in 1986. And they had various drawings that they did. The
architect did multiple submissions. I can e-mail it to you if
you would like. But the Zoning Board did make those findings in
their record, so. This Board listens to another board as well.
Here is the one I was looking for. I only have one, I
apologize. I didn't know you were going to be asking.
This is the CO from 1986. This is the drawing that was
attached to that. There is also, as I said, there is multiple
if you go back to the Town's aerial, it's all there, in very
clear photographs.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It would probably be helpful to look at them.
MS. MOORE: Again, I hate to delay this when the Zoning Board
already made those findings as part of an official record of the Town.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I guess my other issue with this would be I do
not have a square footage for that wood deck on the seaward side
of the CEHA line.
MS. MOORE: Yes, I did provide it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So it's not really clear to me in your plans..
MS. MOORE: That was specifically requested., Ms. Cantrell is
extremely competent. She quizzed me on it. So I know, let's see.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: On Google Earth it doesn't show. 1985 is too
blurry. The first picture we have is '94.
MS. MOORE: No, well '94 it would definitely be there.
MS. CANTRELL: Can you see it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What year is that?
MS. CANTRELL: '94. The earliest is a big ball of fuzz.
MS. MOORE: I can actually, for future reference, if you would
like, the Suffolk County GIS program, if you look at Suffolk
County GIS, they have historic aerials. They definitely go back
to '81 or'80s. They have some that go back to the 70s. The 60s
are very fuzzy, and after that they profess to have earlier, but
it's a big map.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would be helpful for the file, though.
Something.
MS. MOORE: I mean, I can provide it to you at a later date.
Again, I don't want to delay something for--
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, beyond that, my issue is, I don't have a
specific square footage for the, that deck on the CEHA line. So
I mean, as you know--
MS. MOORE: Are you sure it's not there?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's possible that I missed that.
Board of Trustees 18 February 16, 2022
MS. MOORE: Because that's something I expected you to ask.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. So I have a total square footage, but I
don't have a square footage to include the CEHA line.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The architectural drawings does not show the
CEHA line.
MS. MOORE: Yes, I know that.. Yes, I realize that, because I
went to the survey, I said, oh, it's on the survey.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So that's not something that, under Chapter
111, we could move forward with.
MS. MOORE: Well, I'm -- I thought it was there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I looked in the file. I mean it's certainly
not on.the site plan or the drawing.
MS. MOORE: I mean it's the existing deck to remain, but can I
tell you the exact square footage, not without the architect.
Is Vincent on your-- I asked him to join if he could. I
think he was traveling, so I don't know that he would have that.
MS. CANTRELL: What company is he from?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: At this point, the past practice of the Board
is if something is not compliant with Chapter 111, the Board
would have to deny the Chapter 111 portion.
MS. MOORE: No, I don't want you to deny it because --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In which case you can go before the Town
Board and appeal.
MS. MOORE: Let's start--we have an existing structure. It has
a CO. I have given you proof that all we are doing is
maintaining the existing structure. That is a permitted act
under the Coastal Erosion. What you asked me is what is the
square footage of the decking, that, just that portion that is
within the Coastal Erosion. I thought it was here but I'm not
finding it immediately. I can get you that-number. But it
doesn't warrant a denial and certainly doesn't warrant an,
appeal because the law itself gives us the right to have that
and keep it.
So I would strenuously object that, you know, I think you
have to follow what the Coastal Erosion law is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We certainly do.
MS. HULSE: But you don't know that the size is unregulated, due
to the fact that you don't know the size of that platform,
correct? If your argument is that it falls under"unregulated"
definition --
MS. MOORE: No, it falls under"maintenance". So regardless of
the size of it, it doesn't have to be under 200 square feet,
which is the other provision the Board always relies on. The
existing structure is a maintenance structure. So if you want
to know what size it is, I can get you the square footage. I
don't have it immediately on hand. It's not, the portion that
is over the coastal erosion line is, a small portion of it is a
triangle. Part of it, as a matter of fact, the deck portion is
being replaced with --
MS. HULSE: If a small portion falls into the coastal erosion
then the whole structure needs to be examined to the extent that
Board of Trustees 19 February 16, 2022
you are making that argument that it's simple maintenance and
outside of the Chapter 111.
MS. MOORE: Correct. The wood deck, which is existing, is the
portion that is maintenance. The portion that was a wood deck,
that is being converted to stone is outside the coastal erosion.
There is a triangle that is overlapping, which we are removing
decking and just replacing it with the stone and drainage. That
is the only portion that is, I want to say, that area is
definitely under 200 square foot as a triangle.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Again, I can't look at these plans and say
that. That's impossible. I mean I have it right in front of
me.
MS. MOORE: So this little triangle is the triangle that was
wood, and it's going to be stone.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about the rest of the wooden deck?
Is that--
MS. MOORE: This is existing wood deck, above grade, to be
re-surfaced. Existing structure to remain undisturbed. So.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I still need to know how much the square
footage of both those items that are outside of the lot.
MS. MOORE: This area and this area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Everything that is outside of the line.
MS. MOORE: Okay. I'll have to get you a copy of the square
footage. But I'm not saying it warrants a denial for an appeal.
I'm saying, what you are telling me is you can't act on it tonight
.TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was laying it.out as an option for you. And
I would strongly suggest an aerial.
MS. MOORE: Oh, I can get that for you. That's not a problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: At this time do you wish to table the
application for submission of new material?
MS. MOORE: Because you force me to, yes. Yes, I will postpone to
get those two dimensions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I make a motion to table the
application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. MOORE: I'm just asking as a courtesy, because if you ask for
these things prior to the meeting, I can come with the answers
with me. It would have been easily obtained. I didn't know
that the plans, you would have a question, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, right, I mean the public hearing is
over, but typically we need dimensions on everything submitted.
MS. MOORE: I gave you dimensions on everything, but if the
square footage, and you are asking for a specific part of it,
so. And I'll get that. I'll get that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MS. MOORE: You're welcome. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, L.K. McLean Associates on behalf of
VINCENT J. MARTORANA requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to install a stone revetment at the base of the
Board of Trustees 20 February 16, 2022
slope on the north side approximately 58' long along the base of
the slope and 10.5' deep; the toe of the revetment will be
located at elevation 6.5'± (NAVD88) and will consist of a 1.5'
thick layer of W50=5001b. Bedding stone (approximately 57± cubic
yards) and two (2) layers of three (3) ton heavy armor stone
(approx. 135± cubic yards) at a 2H to 1V slope up to an
elevation of approximately 11.0'± (NAVD88); the existing bedding
stone will be underlain with geotextile filter fabric; the stone
revetment will span over an area of approx. 388sq.ft.; to
further stabilize the existing slope it is proposed to fill in
existing voids on the slope with clean selected fill, suitable
on-site material that was excavated within the footprint of the
stone revetment and material that was recovered at the toe of
the slope; the existing voids caused by erosion are being filled
to create a constant slope of 1.5H to 1V maximum to reach the
top of the eroded area at elevation 26.0'± (NAVD88); approx. 120
cubic yards of fill placed over a 545± sq.ft. Area; revegetate
area with native wetland vegetation as well as evenly spaced 16"
diameter bio-fiber rolls to further stabilize the slope landward
of the revetment; there will be no excavation or fill placed
seaward of the proposed stone revetment, below A.P.H.W. (EL.
2.24'±) or S.P.H.W. (EL. 3.24'±); to avoid heavy stormwater
runoff/point discharge onto the slope and provide storage prior
to the crest of the slope, construct a berm along the tree line
in the backyard of the property using select fill planted with
topsail and hydro-seed with the top of the berm to be at
elevation 55._50(NAVD88); the slope on the.berm shall.be no
shallower than on a 1 OH to 1 V and not steeper than 4H to 1 V; on
the southern portion near the toe of the slope is an eroded
area, to stabilize this area install a 3'x3'x9' gabion basket
followed by a proposed soldier pile and lagging wall consisting
of steel H-Piles and 4"x8" Greenheart timber sheeting;
approximately 6.2'± of the slope above the proposed soldier pile
and lagging wall will be replanted with native wetland
vegetation and a permanent erosion control mat.
Located: 700 Sound Drive,'Greenport. SCTM# 1000-33-4-32
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application. Supports the application for as-built structures
and recommends the cedar tree located near the top,of the bluff
remains in place if possible.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection February 8th,
2022, noting to question the presence of a bunch of orange
ribbons on the bluff; questioned the access to the proposed
site; no use of existing rock boulders-that are on the beach; no
bluff cut; and indicate the size and depth of the berm at the.
top of the bluff.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
(No response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
Board of Trustees 21 February 16, 2022
(No response).
I note that we did receive new plans stamped received February
15th, 2022, that do show a non-turf buffer at the top of the
bluff, including the vegetated buffer with a proposed berm.
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close
this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted, with the new plans stamped received February 15th,
2022, that show the buffer at the top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KR'UPSKI: Number 4, L:K. McLean Associates on behalf of
ARTICLE THIRD TRUST UWO JERRY LASTIHENOS FBO MARYANNE
DALTON requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to
install a new stone revetment at the base of the slope on the
north side approximately 58' long along the base of the slope
and 10.5' deep; the toe of the revetment will be located at
elevation 6.5'± (NAVD88) and will consist of a 1.5' thick layer
of W50=5001b. Bedding stone (approximately 57± cubic yards) and
two (2) layers of three (3) ton heavy armor stone (approx. 135±
cubic yards) at a 2H to 1V slope up to an elevation of
approximately 11.0'± (NAVD88); the existing bedding stone will
be underlain with geotextile filter fabric; the stone revetment
will span over an area of approx. 388sq.ft.; to further
stabilize the existing slope it is proposed to fill in existing
voids on the slope with clean selected fill, suitable on-site
material that was excavated within the footprint of the stone
revetment and material that was recovered at the toe of the
slope; the existing voids caused by erosion are being filled to
create a constant slope of 1.5H to 1V maximum to reach the top
of the eroded area at elevation 26.0'± (NAVD88); approx. 120
cubic yards of fill placed over a 545± sq.ft. Area; revegetate
area with native wetland vegetation as well as evenly spaced 16"
diameter bio-fiber rolls to further stabilize the slope landward
of the revetment; there will be no excavation or fill placed
seaward of the proposed stone revetment, below A.P.H.W. (EL.
2.24'±) or S.P.H.W. (EL. 3.24'±). Located: 100 Sound Drive,
Greenport. SCTM# 1000-33-4-35.3
The Trustees most recently visited this site on the 8th of
.February, questioned the access for the contractors,
specifically no bluff cut. Questioned the ribbons on the bluff
for staking. No use of existing boulders.
The LWRP coordinator found this be consistent. No
naturally occurring rocks or boulders should be removed from the
beach. Vegetation would not hold the toe of the bluff without
stabilization. What are the storm water controls of the structure.
Board of Trustees 22 February 16, 2022
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There are any additional comments from the
Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hearing none, I make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the stipulation that none of the ribboned trees on the
bluff are removed; and no bluff cut occurs; existing boulders to
remain and not to be used in this project. That access is by
barge.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
DEMETRA MAKRIS requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit to install 71 linear feet of rock revetment at toe of
existing eroded bluff to replace existing temporary sand bags;
install 15 cubic yards of clean sand fill and Cape American
beach grass on entire bluff.
Located: 910 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-30-2-81
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistencies are the slope of the bluff appears to be too
severe to hold vegetation over time; and to identify the source
of the boulders; the use of boulders in private projects that
occur on the beach should be prohibited.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
The Trustees most recently conducted an in-house field
inspection on this February 8th, 2022, where we reviewed the new
plans that were stamped received February 4th, 2022, that
addressed the return on the neighboring property that was
discussed at the previous meeting.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
(Negative response).
MR: PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant, and as
discussed, plans revised based on comments addressed at last
month's public hearing. Any other questions, I would be happy
to answer.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes
to comment?
MS. CANTRELL: Jeff, I have to ask you, it's a new question. Do
you consent to conducting this virtual hearing online via Zoom?
MR. PATANJO: Yes, I consent.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
Board of Trustees 23 February 16, 2022
regarding this application?
(No response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the revised project description that reads as follows:
Project includes removal of existing temporary sandbags along
the bottom of the eroded bluff, and replacement with 71 linear
feet of rock revetment and ten linear feet of revetment return
consisting of natural stone boulders from upland sources;
stabilization fabric to be placed under proposed boulder
revetment; install 2"x12" untreated timber terrace boards for
every ten feet along eroded portions of bluff; install 40 cubic
yards of clean sand fill from upland source to re-nourish bluff
landward of proposed revetment; revegetate all disturbed bluff
areas with Cape American beach grass plugs 12 inches on center;
provide a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer at the top of the bluff;
and in accordance with the new plans stamped received February
4th, 2022, with the further condition that all access be via
barge, and that the terracing and the source of the boulders
will both address the LWRP's concern and bring it into
consistency.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 6, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of LEFKARA
HOLDINGS, LLC, c/o NEOFITOS STEFANIDES requests a Wetland Permit
and a Coastal Erosion Permit to install 68 linear feet of rock
revetment at toe of existing eroded bluff to.replace existing
temporary sand bags; install 60 cubic yards of clean sand fill
and Cape American beach grass on entire bluff to protect
property against additional storm erosion.
Located: 1070 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-30-2-77
The Trustees mowers recently reviewed this application on
the 8th of February and noted that we had received new plans and
reviewed at that time as well as further at work session.
The LWRP coordinator found this be inconsistent. Some time
after 2019 the landowner cleared their property to the bluff,
most likely accelerating erosion of the bluff. A long line of
sandbags occurs along the shoreline and the stretch of the
shoreline could have a coastal management plan developed for a
consistent method of erosion control.
Due to the severe angle of the bluff slope, it is probable
that Cape American beach grass will not hold on the slope and
prevent erosion.
In the event the action is approved, prohibit use of
Board of Trustees 24 February 16, 2022
naturally occurring rocks and boulders on the beach in
construction. The impact of accelerating erosion on the two
unarmored underlying properties should be assessed.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with a CEHA management plan.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. As with
the last application, plans were revised based on last month's
public hearing and if there are any other comments, I would be
happy to answer them.
MS. CANTRELL: Jeff, I have to interrupt and ask this question
with every one of your applications. Do you consent conducting
the public hearing virtually via Zoom
MR. PATANJO: Yes, I consent.
MS_ CANTRELL: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, it should be noted that I am in receipt
of new plans stamped received February 4th, 2022, showing
terracing vegetation, a small rock return and a non-turf buffer
at the top of the bluff.
I am also in receipt of a new project description stamped
received January 18th, 2022, which I will now read into the record.
The project includes the removal of the existing temporary
sandbags along the bottom of the eroded bluff and replacement
with 68 linear feet rock revetment and ten-foot linear revetment
return consisting of natural stone boulders from upland sources.
Stabilization fabric to be placed under proposed boulder
revetment installed 2"x12" untreated timber terrace boards every
ten feet along eroded portions of bluff. Install 48 cubic yards
of clean sand fill from upland source to re-nourish bluff
landward of proposed revetment. Revegetate all disturbed bluff
areas with Cape American beach grass plugs 12" on center,
provide ten-foot wide non-turf buffer at top of bluff.
Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding
this application?
(Negative response).
Any additional comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI' Second.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve the application
based off the plans stamped received February 4th, 2022, the
project description stamped received January 18th, 2022, noting
that the non-turf buffer and the addition of terracing would
bring this application into consistency with the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
Board of Trustees 25 February 16, 2022
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland Permits, number 1, Jeffrey
Patanjo on behalf of KATHLEEN KNAPP requests a Wetland Permit to
remove and replace 58 linear feet of deteriorated timber
bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead in same location as existing
and raise the height 12" above existing; re-face 113 linear feet
of existing timber bulkhead in existing location with vinyl
sheathing below lower wale and 2"x6" CCA sheeting above lower
wale; existing bulkhead to remain undisturbed; install two
courses of 6"x6" CCA timber directly to top whale of existing
timber bulkhead to raise height a maximum of 12" above existing
for a total length of 294 linear feet.
Located: 2260 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
SCTM# 1000-145-4-4
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is the proposed action is listed within a New York State DEC
critical environmental area with high quality intertidal wetland
located to the north. The use of CCA wood preservatives in
construction projects is unsupported by Policies 5 and 6 of the
LWRP.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application without raising the height of 12-inches above the
existing and the installation of a ten-foot non-turf buffer
planted with native vegetation.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection February 8th,
2022. The notes read no treated lumber, as well as the need for
a non-turf buffer.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. We have
no objection to switching the lumber choices to untreated
Greenheart and provide, in addition to the Greenheart timber for
both the exterior wales and the piles, we will install a
ten-foot wide non-turf buffer along the --the buffer, we should
question that buffer is where would you like the buffers, along
the entire length of the bulkhead or just --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The entire length.
MR. PATANJO: Okay, inherently, it's pretty much there. We have
no objections to that. Because most of the bulkhead already has
a non-turf buffer by way of all the vegetation along the
bulkhead and there is no intentions on removing any of it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
MS. CANTRELL: If I can just interrupt, Jeff, I have to ask you
again, do consent to conducting this public hearing virtually
via Zoom?
MR. PATANJO: I consent.
MS. CANTRELL: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions or comments from the
Board?
(Negative response).
Board of Trustees 26 February 16, 2022
I'll make a motion to table this hearing for the submission
of new plans showing the ten-foot buffer for the entirety of the
length of the bulkhead as well as removal of the CCA treated
lumber. _
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second..
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 2, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
JENNIFER LEUBA &VICTOR HOU requests a Wetland Permit to
construct bluff stairs consisting of a 4'x8' top platform leading to 4'x13'
steps down to a 4'x4' platform to 4'x13' steps down to a 4'x4'
platform to 4'x12' steps down to a 6'x8' platform with benches
to 4'x12' steps down to a 4'x4' platform to 4'x13' steps down to
a 4'x4' platform to 4'x13' steps down to a 4'x4' platform down
to 4'x13.43' steps to a 4'x4' platform and 4'x13' steps to
beach.
Located: 950 Red Fox Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-1-23.1
The Trustees most recently reviewed the application on the
8th of February. It is noted we had received new plans and the
new project description.
The LWRP coordinator found thi's to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection, however the plans were reviewed and it was noted
retractable aluminum stairs to base would be recommended.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding the
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. As you
see, the plans were revised to address any comments that were
raised during the field inspection by the Trustees, and I would
be happy to answer any questions you may have.
MS. CANTRELL: Jeff, again, I have to ask you, do you consent to
conducting this public hearing virtually via Zoom?
MR. PATANJO: Yes, so consent.
MS. CANTRELL: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hearing no additional comments, I make a motion
to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the plans
stamped received in the office February 8th, 2022, and the
project description which reads as follows, stamped received
February 8th, 2022.
The project includes the installation of proposed step down
from bluff consisting of 8x8-foot upper platform flush with
surrounding grade 4'x14' steps, 4'x4' platform, 4'x13' steps,
4'x4',platform, 4'x12' steps, 4'x6' platforms with benches,
Board of Trustees 27 February 16, 2022
4'x12' footsteps, 4'x4' platform, 4'x13' steps and 4'x14'
platform 4x13' steps, 4'x4' platform, 4'x13.43' steps, 4'x6'
platform and 4'x7' platform steps to beach. Also included is
trimming of four-foot wide path through vegetation to gain
access to the beach area. Trimming to be done twice per year,
and that is by hand method. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
MIKHAIL RAKHMANINE & JENNIFER V. RAKHMANINE REVOCABLE TRUST
requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing timber bulkhead and
replace with 131 linear feet of new vinyl bulkhead in same
general location and raise the height an additional 18" above
existing top cap elevation; a total of 45 cubic yards of clean
sand fill will be placed landward of the proposed bulkhead and
utilized as fill due to raised height of bulkhead; construct a
proposed 4'wide by 48' long fixed pier utilizing Thru-Flow
decking over wetlands and non-treated timber decking on
remainder which will lead to a 30" wide by 14' long aluminum
ramp and a 6' wide by 20' long floating dock with un-treated
decking, supported with tow (2) 10" diameter CCA piles, situated
in an "I" configuration; a 35'x24' dredging area surrounding the
proposed floating dock will be dredged to a depth of 36" below
mean low water removing a total of 65 cubic yards of spoils
which will be removed from the site to an approved upland
location; and for a proposed 10' wide non-turf buffer to be
installed and perpetually maintained along the landward edge of
the proposed bulkhead and consist of beach sand, mulch or pea
gravel.
Located: 685 Bungalow Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-3-9
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistencies are the applicant has not demonstrated the
following dock standards pursuant to Chapter 275-11 construction
operation standards have been met. Although the parcel has a
previously-permitted dock, the shallow water depths in the area
promotes bottom scarring and turbidity. Evidence of bottom
scarring shown in the 2001 aerial photographs. Dredging of
basin at the end of the dock does not'address the shallow water
depth when navigating to and from the dock.
The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the
application to harden the shoreline and recommends coir logs and
a vegetated buffer and thru-flow decking on the ramp and dock.
The Trustees attempted to conduct a field inspection on
February 8th, 2022, however the project was not staked.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. I do
consent to this hearing being conducted on Zoom. I'm looking,
it might have been a mix-up on my end. Before I sent in
Board of Trustees 28 February 16, 2022
revised plans but I modified the entire project scope to no
longer include a floating dock. Do you have the latest plans
dated 1/11 of,'22?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, we do. So I believe the LWRP review is
still based on the previous description. But we do have plans
stamped received January 18th, 2022, that show fixed dock.
However when we were in the field, there was nothing staked, so
we couldn't tell where the fixed dock began, where it's located,
where it ends. I think there is a proposal for to re-do the
lower bulkhead as well as installation of an upper retaining
wall. But again, without having that staked in the field, we
can only speculate. We did have some potential concerns. Go
ahead.
MR. PATANJO: All right, as far as, I absolutely staked it. The
previous stake must have been dislodged. And I'll stake that
upper retaining wall. If we can address any other comments you
may have at this point, now would be the time, I don't know, or
should we do that during field inspection?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I mean it would be ideal if we could meet
you out in the field to go over some of this. We did have some
concerns with the preliminary when we were out in the field as
far as the need for that lower bulkhead. It's pretty well
vegetated as is. I don't know necessarily think we had a big
deal with the upper retaining wall, but the lower bulkhead, as
the Conservation Advisory Council stated, might be more
beneficial for a natural shoreline type project, with the
installation of that upper retaining wall would probably negate
the need for that lower bulkhead. And there is also another
bulkhead in the middle of the two that looks to remain as well.
MR. PATANJO: Right. We had comments from the DEC similar to
those. The DEC had no objection to us removing and replacing the
lower bulkhead as well as was done with (Zoom audio glitch) no
trenching, no jetting, which we could easily accommodate. And
the sole purpose removing the lower bulkhead area is to
stabilize that existing lower level area in between the-lower
bulkhead and the upper bulkhead. But I would be happy to meet
you in the field to discuss everything about it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, I think that would be ideal if we can
meet you and everybody.putting their eyes on the same project.
Our next field inspection is Wednesday, March 9th. So if it's
okay with you, we'll table this to meet you in the field to see
staking and have a discussion in the field on what is proposed.
MR. PATANJO: Absolutely. Yes, please table it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Is there anyone else here to speak
to this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table this application to
meet with the applicant in the field at next field inspections.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
Board of Trustees 29 February 16, 2022
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 4, BRANKO & MARGARET PEROS
requests a Wetland Permit for the existing one and one-half story dwelling
with a 1,200sq.ft. footprint, existing 8'x12' (98sq.ft.) front
porch and 460sq.ft. rear deck; reconstruct the northerly wall in
order to install new sliding doors; remove existing second story
and construct new 32 '/2x24.8' second-story with a new 6.4'x11.2'
balcony.
Located: 815 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-17-18
The Trustees most recently reviewed the application on
February 8th. The notes read new plans are acceptable but
overly restrictive; and could be moved, forward but recommends
dividing buffer area up between ten-foot non-turf and ten-foot
non-disturbance.
The LWRP coordinator found this project to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application.
There are no letters submitted. We have new plans stamped
February 15th, that indicate a ten-foot wide non-disturbance
buffer and a ten-foot wide non-fertilized dependent or non-turf
buffer indicated on these plans.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
(No response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Looks good with the new plans.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Taking that into consideration, I make a
motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the new plans stamped February 15th, 2022.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 5, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of POE BOAT STORAGE, LLC, c/o WILLIAM LIEBLEIN requests a
Wetland Permit for the as-built clearing along eastern portion
of the property (8,260sq.ft.), and by establishing and
perpetually maintaining a 10' wide vegetated buffer area
landward of the existing top of bank.
Located: 63125 & 63285 Route 25, Southold. SCTM# 1000-65-4-13.3 & 14
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I would like to recuse myself from this
hearing. I'm a relative of the applicant.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Trustees most recently reviewed this
application on the 8th of February. Noted that we were in
receipt of the new plans prior to the inspection. We had
Board of Trustees 30 February 16, 2022
requested for a 20-foot non-turf vegetated buffer landward from
the top of bank and the trees. Also adding that no more fill
should be put on the property.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent, noting
that the area has been cleared and filled without board of
Trustees review or permit.
Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with
a 15-foot non-turf buffer, planted with native vegetation.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application? i
MS. CANTRELL: Robert Anderson is on the line, Suffolk
Environmental. And I also have to ask, Robert, do you consent to
conducting this public hearing virtually via Zoom?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I do. Rob Anderson, Suffolk environmental
Consulting, on behalf of the applicant. I'm here to answer any
questions the Board may have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to
speak regarding this application, or any additional comments
from the members of the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with plans stamped received in the office February 2nd, 2022.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES). (Trustee Sepenoski — RECUSED)
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to re-open the prior hearing
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would like to note that with my prior motion
and the new plans, this would thereby bring it into consistency
with the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL.AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make sure I don't do that again.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 6, Costello Marine Contracting Corp.
on behalf of GARDINERS BAY ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
Board of Trustees 31 February 16, 2022
requests a Wetland Permit to dredge a 25'x300' channel to elevation -4.0' below
mean water.
Located: Spring Pond, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-37-4-17
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies are the
dredge spoil disposal area will bury existing beneficial vegetation, and turbidity
controls are not proposed.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application and recommends
the installation of a gabion or a breakwater to minimize scouring.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on February 8th, 2022, noting
straightforward, and to check on the DEC approval.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application?
MS. CANTRELL: We have Jane Costello from Costello Marine.
Jane, if you would un-mute yourself to speak to the Board.
But I do have to first ask you a question. If you can answer
the question, please. Do you consent to conducting the public
hearing virtually via Zoom?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, I do. Jane Costello, Costello Marine, on
behalf of the applicant, here to answer any questions that the
Board or the public may have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Jane, this has a DEC permit, I believe?
MR. COSTELLO: It does. And I did issue that to the office. I
think it's on your public records.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And the DEC was okay with where the proposed
spoils were going?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. So the spoils are going where all the spoils
typically go for the main channel, it's on the east side of the inlet.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. And will you avoid any existing
vegetation with the proposed dredge spoils?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, we'll avoid all of them. The site-- all the
spoils will be landward of the spring high water mark and clear
of the vegetation over there.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, and one final thing, will you use a
silt boom during dredging.
MS. COSTELLO: Yes
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else here
wishing to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
noting that the dredge spoils will not be burying any existing
vegetation, as well as a silt boom will be used during
construction, thereby bringing it into consistency with the
LWRP. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 32 February 16, 2022
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Liz, is there any way to move the screen over
again so we can see if anyone has their hand raised? Sometimes
it needs to be re-centered.
MS. CANTRELL: It moves on itself here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
Number 7, Twin Forks Permits on behalf of SCOTT ROSEN & LORI
GOEDERS ROSEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct additions
and alterations to the existing 3,742.1sq.ft. dwelling consisting of a
landward side 27'x7' (184.5sq.ft.) addition; an approximate 25'x28'
varying dimensions (302sq.ft.) addition onto the southwest corner of
the dwelling; construct an approximately 14'x5' varying dimension
(29.6sq.ft.) addition to the existing 747sq.ft. upper level deck that will
have approximately 310sq.ft. of deck removed in order to accommodate
the addition to dwelling; for the existing 267sq.ft. Lower deck to remain;
construct a 22'x22' second story addition; relocate existing bilco doors to
accommodate new addition; remove existing septic system and install
an I/A septic system; install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof
runoff; and to install a row of staked hay bales and/or erosion control silt fencing.
Located: 850 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-11-16
The Trustees most recently visited this site on the 8th of
February, and noted that with the new plans, which we received
--with the new plans received, that it appeared to be within
the existing pier line with the neighboring properties:
It should be noted that since then I am in receipt of new
plans stamped received February 11th that depict the non-turf
buffer landward of the bulkhead.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
And Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
the application due to inadequate setbacks.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application.
MS. POYER: Lisa Poyer, Twin Fork Permits, on behalf of
applicant. And you received revised plans February 11th, 2022,
that does show the 15-foot wide non-turf buffer as requested by
the Board. And the addition was relocated in a more landward
location in line with the pier line from the neighboring
properties, as well as the bulkhead setback.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI; Very good, thank you. Is there anyone else
here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
(No response).
Or any additional comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the new plans stamped received February 11th, 2022.
(ALL AYES).
MS. POYER: Thank you.
Board of Trustees 33 February 16, 2022
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 8, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc.
on behalf of KOEHLER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP requests a
Wetland Permit to reconstruct all three (3) of the existing
groins and wing groins at the site utilizing vinyl sheathing;
the groins are proposed to be reconstructed so the groins do not
extend seaward of apparent low water and are no higher than 18"
above sediment grade on the down drift side; the existing groin
to the south is 79' long with two wing groins facing north
(11.4' and 12' long) is to be reconstructed to be 69' long; the
existing groin in the middle is 78' long with four wings groins,
two facing north (8.2' and 67), and two facing south (7.7' and
11.4'), as indicated is to be reconstructed to be 65' long; the
existing groin to the north is 77' long with four wing groins,
two facing north (9.4' and 7.4'), and two facing south (11' and
8.4'), as indicated is proposed to be reconstructed to 59' long;
no fill is proposed; the top elevation of the proposed
reconstructed groins is to be no higher than 18" above sediment
grade on the down drift side of the groins.
Located: 575 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-3-6
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees did an in-house review February 8th, 2022,
noting that we did receive the DEC permit for this application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. CANTRELL: We have Dan Hall on Zoom.
Dan, if you want to un-mute yourself and speak to the
Board. But I do have to ask you a question. I need to ask you
if you consent to conducting the public hearing via online Zoom.
MR. HALL: Yes, I do. Thank you.
MS. CANTRELL: Thank you.
MR. HALL: Good evening. Dan Hall, Land Use Ecological Services,
and I'm here to represent the owners, Koehler family.
And yes, we have received New York State DEC permit, and I
also submitted a revised project description with reference
elevations that the Board had requested.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. Thank you. We have that stamped
received February 15th, 2022, in the file.
MR. HALL: I don't know if there are any other questions or
information required at this time.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Not at the moment. Is there anyone else here
wishing to speak regarding this application?
(No response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
Board of Trustees 34 February 16, 2022
application with the new updated project description stamped
received February 15th, 2022, which reads as follows:
The applicant is proposing to reconstruct all three of the
existing groins with wing groins at the site utilizing vinyl
sheathing; the groins are proposed to be reconstructed so the
groins do not extend seaward of the apparent low water,.and are
no higher than 18 inches above sediment grade on the down drift
side. The existing groin to the south is 79' long with two wing
groins facing north, 11.4' and 12' long, is to be reconstructed
to be 69' long. The existing groin in the middle is 78' long
with four wing groins, two facing north 8.2' and 6.7 feet, and
two facing south, 7.7' and 11.4', as indicated, is to be
reconstructed to be 65 feet long.
The existing groin to the north is 77' long with four wing
groins, two facing north 9.4' and 11.4', and two facing south
11' and 8.4 as indicated is proposed to be constructed to be 59'
long. No fill is proposed. The top elevations of proposed
reconstructed groins is to be no higher than 18" above sediment
grade on the down drift side of the groins, see section views
details. And the elevations are referenced in that project
description stamped received February 15, 2022. So that is my
motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 9, David Bergen on behalf of
STEVEN & DANIELLE PORTO requests a Wetland Permit to move
existing permitted ±12.5'x9.5' deck located landward of top of bluff
approximately 25 feet north, attached to a proposed 97sq.ft.
landing/deck with bench leading to a set of bluff stairs
consisting of 4'x23' stairs to second 4'x4' (16sq.ft.) upper
landing to 4'x±6' stairs leading to a third 4'x5' (20sq.ft.)
upper landing with bench to 4'x18' stairs to a 10'x10'
(100sq.ft.) middle landing with bench to 4'x6' stairs to a 4'x5'
(20sq.ft.) lower landing with bench to 4'x20' stairs to a 4'x4'
(16sq.ft.) landing at top of retaining wall with 4'x12' stairs
to a 15'x30' (450sq.ft.) deck between retaining wall and
bulkhead with a 4'x4' (16sq.ft.) cantilevered platform off
bulkhead with 8' long retractable metal stairs to beach which is
to include a mechanical hoist plus electric at midway deck and
bulkhead deck plus water to bulkhead deck; all stairs and
landings/decks to include handrails plus fall protection barrier
at mid-height between stairs and railings.
Located: 4875 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-9-10
The Trustees most recently reviewed this application on the
8th, of February, noted that we are in receipt of new plans and
project description.
The project description reads as follows, which was
received January 31 st, 2022: Construct at top of bluff a
proposed top landing deck 97 square feet with bench, with
Board of Trustees 35 February 16, 2022
attached 44 landing, to a set of bluff stairs consisting of
4'x23' stairs to a second 4'x4' 16 square foot landing, to
middle landing with bench, 4'x6' stairs to a 4'x20' stairs
landing on top of retaining wall with 4'x12' stairs to bottom of
retaining wall; install a 405 square foot deck between retaining
wall and bulkhead with 4'x4' cantilevered platform off top of
bulkhead with 8' long retractable metal stairs to beach, which
is to include a mechanical hoist plus electric and midway deck
and bulkhead deck, plus water to bulkhead deck. All stairs and
landings to include handrails plus fall-protection barrier at
the mid-height between stairs and wailing as per site
construction plans dated December 2nd, 2021, revised identifies
January 1st, 2022.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent due to
the size of the lower deck associated with the stairs.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not support the
application. The size of upper and lower decks not compliant
with Chapter 275.
Is there any here wishing to speak regarding this
application.
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, on behalf of the Porto's. This was
tabled last month and we have addressed a couple of Trustee
concerns, first off. We also addressed the inconsistencies.
We had first proposed that an existing permitted deck be
moved at the top of the bluff over to join the start of the
stairs at the beach. We have agreed to not touch that, so it's
no longer associated with this project, and that's shown in the
new description.
And the second concern also, which was the bottom decking
attached to the stairs coming down the bluff are actually coming
from the retaining wall down to that deck. That deck has been
moved as per the Trustees recommendation, so there is no longer
attached to the stairs. And we also did downsize that lower deck
by 50 square feet.
So we have addressed those concerns, and if there's any
other questions the Board has, I'm here to answer them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak regarding this application, or any additional
comments from members of the Board?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: One slight one. Stainless steel fasteners
for construction of that lower deck is acceptable?
MR. BERGEN: Yes, it will be stainless steel fasteners, and it
will be two, as shown in the diagram pilings going down, so the
decking will go nowhere.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hearing no additional comments, I make a motion
to close the hearing on the application.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
Board of Trustees 36 February 16, 2022
noting that stainless steel hardware will be used during
construction, and the lower deck is not associated with the
stairs, therefore bringing this into consistency with the LWRP
coordinator.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 10, Daniel Heston & Jacqueline Wilson
on behalf of PECONIC LAND TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to
perform work at the Plock Shellfisher Preserve consisting of
repairing in-place 386 linear feet of the bulkhead on the box
jetty; repair in-place 42 linear feet of the bulkhead at tidal
lagoon inlet; replace damaged tie-backs on lagoon peninsula
bulkheads and backfill sink holes with excavated soil, 30 cubic
yards of eroded soil; replant using native vegetation as per
detail on site plans; repair hatchery weir; replace 11 rotted
pilings with 8' timber piles and inspect and replace all damaged
corroded anchors; replace 3"x3" wooden vertical screen slots at
weir; replace existing wire fence with vinyl coated fence;
maintenance dredging at weir and hatchery flume building (363
cubic yards) to -4.7' mean low water and place resultants 363
cubic yards of dredged material on jetty peninsula; the total
Phase 1 area of disturbance is 9,192sq.ft.
Located: 10273 North Bayview Road, Southold SCTM# 1000-79-5-20.12
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I'm recusing myself from this application
because my business is hosting an upcoming event with the
applicant. Additionally, the application is indirectly involved
and may impact another currently existing business relationship.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection February 8th,
2022, noting it was a straightforward replacement of existing
structures.
We also have a letter in the file supporting this project,
signed by Ben Gonzalez, David Daily, Karen Rivara, Melanie
Douglas, Joe (inaudible) and Robert Moore.
We also have a new project description stamped received
February 10th, 2022.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. RIVARA: Good evening, my name is Karen Rivara, owner of
Aeros Cultured Oyster Company.
I'm just speaking in support of the application. As you
saw with the letter, there are quite a few people whose
businesses are based there, and a lot of shellfish growers in
the region depend on this sea grass produced out of that site,
and it's, as you saw, in need of major repair. So I'm just
Board of Trustees 37 February 16, 2022
speaking in support of.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
MR. BYRNES: My name is Martin Byrnes, I am a Southold Town
resident. I also am a part-time manager at Aeros Cultured
Oyster Company. I also help out with Peconic Pearls, that's our
market program, and I'm also a preserve manager for the Peconic
Land Trust at the site.
I just wanted to voice my opinion. This has been a
shellfish aquaculture facility since the mid-60s, as I'm sure
you guys are aware, from the Plock's. The Land Trust has done a
great deal to preserve this working waterfront. What we do is
really environmentally beneficial to everybody in the community,
so I just would like to your support in this matter.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here
wishing to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
application with the revised project description stamped
received February 10th, 2022, which I'll read as follows:
Project description for the work that is being requested to be
performed Plock Shellfisher Preserve is as follows:
Replace 386 linear feet of bulkhead on the box jetty; repair and
replace 42 linear feet of the bulkhead at tidal lagoon inlet;
replace damaged tie-backs on lagoon peninsula bulkheads and
backfill sink holes with excavated soil, 30 cubic yards of
eroded soil; replant as per detail on site plans; repair
hatchery weir; replace 11 rotted pilings with 8' timber piles,
and inspect and replace all damaged corroded anchors as per
details on site plan; replace 3"x3"wooden vertical screen slots
at weir, as per detail on site plan; replace existing wire fence
with vinyl coated fence; maintenance dredging at weir and
hatchery flume building (363 cubic yards) to -4.7' mean low
water, and place resultant 363 cubic yards of dredged material
on jetty peninsula; the total Phase 1 area of disturbance is
9,192 square feet.
In addition to the above provided description we also need
to address the erosion problem in front of our education
facility located on the east of the shellfish farm; to repair
this we propose to bring in approximately 40 cubic yards of
clean fill and place it in eroded area to bring it out to
approximately where it was at the beginning of 2022.
Once the fill is installed and packed, we would install
Board of Trustees 38 February 16, 2022
filter cloth on the seaward side and extend the rock jetty
eastward approximately 40 feet to protect the building.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Al in favor?
(ALL AYES). (Trustee Peeples — RECUSED).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 11, Jonathan Foster, R.A. on behalf of
ARETI LAVALLE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 13'x36'
and 8' deep gunite swimming pool which includes a hot tub and
steps; the pool edge coping will be approximately 1OOsq.ft.;
install an additional 225sq.ft. of new pool terracing for a
total of existing and new terracing, and pool coping combined to
be 738sq.ft.; install 4' high pool enclosure fencing; install a
45sq.ft. pool equipment area; and install a pool drywell.
Located: 555 Sound View Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-3-7
The LWRP has found this consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council is in support of this
application.
The Trustees visited this site on February 8th, 2022, and
noted that it's a straightforward application. The non-turf
buffer is already in place.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MS. LAVALLE: Good evening. My name is Areti Lavalle, I'm the
applicant and the owner.
I guess I can only say that we are looking forward to this
pool being put in. At one point we had some plans revised.
This was with the ZBA. We feel that it is consistent with the
neighborhood. All our neighbors both easterly and westerly have
pools across the street under construction as we speak.
We have a non-turf buffer already in place. It is a small
pool. It is not a, you know standard by 25x40. We restricted
the size to get it to be 67 feet away from the bluff; which was
originally where the first house was. We knocked that down
because we felt it was in the best interest and to move the
house back 100 feet to comply, and we give ourselves better
distance from the bluff. I'm hoping that this application and
I'm opening myself up to any.questions you may have.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. I do have one question.
On the plan it's noted a drywell option #1 and drywell option #2.
Drywell option #1 is seaward of the pool and the coping, and the
fence, in fact. And drywell option #2 is landward and right off of the
house.
MS. LAVALLE: Right. The original plan was put it in option #1.
The reason we had tried to avoid option #2 is in that driveway
right now we have gas lines, we have the main sewer line coming
out of the house, we have main electrical lines. So it's a
little congested there. Obviously it would be easier to put it
in option #1, but obviously we will follow whatever the Board's
recommendation is.
Board of Trustees 39 February 16, 2022
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, great. I would recommend the drywell
option #2, the landward option.
MS. LAVALLE: It's doable, it's just a little more complicated
and difficult.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. We appreciate you taking that on.
Are there any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application
with the note that drywell option #2 will be the location for
the drywell.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
(ALL AYES).
MS. LAVALLE: Thank you, very much. Have a good evening.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time we'll take a five-minute recess.
(After a short recess, this proceeding continues as follows).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, we are back on the record.
Number 12, Michael Kimack on behalf of DAVID & BARBARA
HAZARD requests a Wetland Permit for the existing dock
consisting of an existing 4'x8'(32sq.ft.) landward deck to a
5'x18' (90sq.ft.) fixed catwalk; existing 3'x18' (54sq.ft.)
aluminum ramp; and existing 6'x20' (120sq.ft.) floating dock;
construct a 4'x12' (48sq.ft.) fixed dock extension with
Thru-Flow decking; relocate aluminum ramp and floating dock 12'
further seaward and situate the floating dock in an "T"
configuration; reface existing bulkhead, approximately 100
linear feet @ avg. 3' in height (300sq.ft.) with 2"x10" tongue &
grove HDPE dimensional lumber with 8" diameter pilings @ 6'
on-center for additional support.
Located: 1465 Harbor Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-2-1.1
The Trustees most recently reviewed the application on the
8th of February, and noted we would review the new plans further
at work session.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application, noting that the subject property is an ideal
location for living shoreline project.
It should be noted that I am in receipt of new plans
stamped received January 31st, which depict removal of the older
wooden wall, slight regrading to be planted, and make the slope
a little less steep and conducive to what is essentially a
living shoreline.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application.
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. Good
evening. The applicant is here also.
We did revise it in order to create more of a living shoreline than
Board of Trustees 40 February 16, 2022
originally had been than just repair of the original bulkhead.
Nick, the only thing I would suggest is we did want to
leave the existing bulkhead in place at least for the two-year
period. It's going to fall down. If it falls down, it's gone.
But it will be gone within that two-year window of the permit.
At least to give enough time to stabilize the slope as much as
possible behind it. And that's it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding
this application?
(Negative response).
Any additional comments from members of the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the new plans stamped received January 31 st, 2022,
depicting regrading and subsequent eventual removal of the lower
wood wall section.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 13, Michael Kimack on behalf of DAVID
& BARBARA HAZARD requests a Wetland Permit for the existing dock
consisting of an existing 4'x8' (32sq.ft.) landward deck to a
5'x18' (90sq.ft.) fixed catwalk; existing 3'x18' (54sq.ft.)
aluminum ramp; and existing 6'x20' (120sq.ft.) floating dock;
construct a 4'x12' (48sq..ft.) fixed dock extension with
Thru-Flow decking; relocate aluminum ramp and floating dock 12'
further seaward and situate the floating dock in an "T"
configuration; reface existing bulkhead,'approximately 100
linear feet @ avg. 3' in height (300sq.ft.) with 2"x10" tongue &
grove HDPE dimensional lumber with 8" diameter pilings @ 6'
on-center for additional support..
Located: 1465 Harbor Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-2-1.1
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency is if this is a restoration of the area with
objective to remove invasive species, then all native species
should be preserved.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
however requests careful selection of trees to be removed and to
leave some of the cedar trees in place.
The Trustees most recently conducted a field inspection
February 8th, 2022. Notes say save all native evergreen trees,
specify no trimming lower than six inches landward of the
proposed fence. Non-disturbance buffer seaward of fence.
We did receive a new project description and plans stamped
received in the Trustee office February 14th, 2022.
Board of Trustees 41 February 16, 2022
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, behalf of the applicant.
There have been, on the original one, I think the original
request we were looking for about 12,000 square foot clearing.
I think Mr. Krupski suggested basically suggested we pull it
back a little bit from 15 foot to ten foot, which we have done,
in the course of new plans, and currently there is a 5,300
square foot clearing.
The clearing would be done, there is no grubbing, there is
no regrading, there is no filling. It would be done as if it
was a phragmite cut six inches above grade, and maintained as
such.
There are no cedar trees within that window, there are some
junipers, which we would like to take down, because part of the
reasoning is we would like to be able to make sure to keep the
view as much as possible. But I think most the juniper trees,
really the majority, are seaward of where this fence line is
going to go in. There might be I think one or two at most
within the ten-foot line.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
DR. PECK: Good evening. My name is Dr. Charles Peck, I'm a unit
owner at The Cove, 41-year veterinarian, and also proud
grandparent of 80 million oyster larvae which were spawned on
Valentine's Day. .
I'm looking for a little bit of clarification. In the
renewed application it sounds as if the buffer zone on the
landward side of the fence, all the work there would be to move
things down to six feet. And, is that --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Six inches. They'll cut it to six inches.
DR. PECK: I'm sorry, what?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It's to six inches.
DR. PECK: Six inches?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes
DR. PECK: Okay, secondly, it was discuss all of the native
evergreens would be preserved in the buffer zone, and I think we
still feel that is very important to the integrity of the buffer
zone. And I hope that is included in the permit, that those
trees, and there is quite a few more than two or three that will
be preserved in that area.
I would also hope that the new map that was submitted on
the 14th, if you go down about halfway on the written part of
it, it's still reverting to grubbing and grading. I was hoping
maybe that is going to be removed so it's just specific enough
that there is no confusion about that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Thank you.
MR. KIMACK: I apologize for that. I think if you look at the
description, the description is quite specific that there is no
grubbing in the grade.
DR. PECK: And just quickly, I didn't realize it was six inches.
Board of Trustees 42 February 16, 2022
I thought it was six feet. Which I was very happy about. But
six inches is a little more disturbing. But as long as we are
leaving the roots and stuff intact, as long we are leaving the
evergreens intact, as long as we are doing that, I think we are
okay with that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding
this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I have one comment. When I was there the other
day it appeared, I know that originally things were, it was a
tag point for delineation. It seemed a little bit confusing,
I'm not sure if some of them were left from the previous
tagging, I would just request that that is reviewed and the
tagged areas remaining are compliant with the description and
the plans.
MR. KIMACK: You mean the stakes that were put in those areas?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: In the little tags that were tied on to the
vegetation. There are stakes, but then there are also --
MR. KIMACK: That would be the wetland line, I would think.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: There was another one that I saw that was a
little more landward. Maybe I was misreading it, but--
MR. KIMACK: What happened it, I tied a little on there, mostly
with identification for the ten-foot cut line. I just wanted to
be, sometimes you were not able to see the stakes, so I might
have put some flagging above it to indicate specifically where
those were. And there were two sets. The first is the cut line
and the one further back was the wetland line itself.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes, and thank you for clarifying that. It
might have been between that--
MR. KIMACK: Yes, when we do look at it, a lot of times, the
stakes are not that visible a lot of times, so I put a couple of
flags above it to indicate that was the location.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, for,clarifying.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I would also like to state on the record there
are quite a few more evergreens in that area than two or three.
It's closer to ten or more. So.
MR. KIMACK: Well, one of the reasons I'm being reticent about
this, one of the reasons that I had indicated I would be willing
to cut back there is to make sure that we kept the visibility
clear, in essence, because the first ten-foot cut takes us down
the little embankment there. So one of the reasons was to
establish the fence line so that there would be no cutting into
the non-disturbance area. But the other way is to make sure
that we kept the clear line for the people in those houses.
The evergreens may possibly be an issue as they grow,
basically and I don't want to necessarily have to come back to
you and say we have to trim these, essentially. I'm not quite
sure, I didn't quite frankly take a count, in essence, like
Board of Trustees 43 February 16, 2022
that. I quite expected that we were asking for ten foot, 5,300
feet that we would basically be able to clear. Below that is a
whole range of junipers, and I suspect it's also probably some
cedar as you get closer in there. But not anything within that
first ten feet. If it was anything, it's a juniper. And we
would like to be able to take that down. Because the real
reason for this is to make sure we have that clear so that we
are able to achieve those two purposes. One is to make sure we
keep the lines of visibility open to make sure that they don't
do any more cutting further of that, as we go through. Because
there had been some intermittent cutting, in order to open it up
for use.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I will say, for my part, you know, I understand
wanting to clean up that line and then establish a fence line of
a protected area. There is definitely some goldenrod in there,
some mugwort, ragweed and some briar. And I do appreciate the
fact you want us to lower it to six inches so you are really not
getting any clearing or ground disturbance, I think that's
important to this application. But speaking for myself, as one
Trustee, I think I don't want to see any evergreens, regardless
of cedar or juniper remain. If that means coming back for a
trimming permit this Board as always looked more kindly upon a
ten-year maintenance trimming permit than outright removal for a
nice buffer area.
DR. PECK: Can I just make one more comment?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, sir.
DR. PECK: I would like to concur with Mr. Krupski, and just add
that as it is, as it stands today, at this moment, this buffer
zone works perfectly for both protecting the buildings and
protecting the creek. And I just hope you would keep that in
mind as you make this decision. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions or comments?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the new plans stamped received February 14th, 2022 as well
as the new project description stamped received February 14th,
2022, that states as follows: Clear non-wetland vegetated area
of approximately 5,300 square feet, cut vegetation to six-inches
above grade, and maintain at that height. No proposed grubbing
to remove existing roots, no additional fill, and no additional
plantings or native grasses, install approximately 630 linear
feet of one-rail high split rail fence along seaward edge of
clearing; area seaward of proposed split-rail fence shall be
designated a non-disturbance area except for existing two
pathways and kayak storage area as previously approved by the
Trustees. As well as the condition that no trees are removed,
Board of Trustees 44 February 16, 2022
and without removing or disturbing any of the native vegetation,
it will bring into consistency with the LWRP. And that no
trimming is to occur any further than ten feet from the
proposal. That is my motion
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 14, Michael Kimack on behalf of
SAND LENNOX, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to demolish and
remove existing 554sq.ft. dwelling with porch; abandon existing
sanitary system and back fill with clean course sand; construct
a proposed two-story, four (4) bedroom dwelling with covered
decks (2,4120sq.ft.), and a gravel driveway; install gutters to
leaders to drywells; install a proposed four (4) bedroom I/A
OWTS system in accordance with Suffolk County Health Department
standards; remove 19 trees of varying calipers; and to install
and perpetually maintain a 30' wide non-turf buffer along the
landward crest of bluff.
Located: 1450 Salt Marsh Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-68-3-1
The Trustees most recently visited this site on the 8th of
February, and noted the house should probably be pulled back
from the bluff due to extreme erosion in this area.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. This
stretch of the coastline is highly erosive and structures should
be located to the greatest extent practicable to meet Police
4.1, to minimize loss of human life and structures from flooding
and erosion hazard.
The following management measures to minimize loss of human
life and structures, minimize potential loss and damage by
located development and structures away from flooding and
erosion hazards.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application, only with the recommendation the proposed
dwelling is moved further landward and away from the CEHA. All
trees along the bluff should be left in place and minimal
removal of the trees between the house and the bluff.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant.
It is not a very large lot in terms of all the other lots
that may be to its left, its east, essentially like that.
Peconic Land Trust is on its south side, primarily, as you drive
in there. It's, when you look at the lot, I know that
unfortunately I was not able to be with you, we had some
miscommunication, but I had it well staked so you had an idea to
see where everything was.
In order to stay within the building envelope we have to be
40 feet back from the property line in the front. To begin
with. And that is something that I can tell from experience the
Board of Trustees 45 February 16, 2022
Zoning Board would not entertain any kind of lessening of that.
Plus the fact is that in that 40, we meet it anyway because we
need a driveway, and we need a place for parking and we also
need a place for the IA system within that 40 feet, and that
kind of works in terms of the distance from the house and
distance from the property line to meet the Health Department
standards.
Your concern about the distance from the top of the bluff
is obviously understood because we deal with this a lot. The
original house, I would imagine, had been moved back. There has
not been any additional erosion of that bluff since, some time
since that house has been moved back, primarily.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There certainly has been. I have been to this
property a lot. There certainly has been a lot of erosion.
MR. KIMACK: I have not seen it in front of the house, though,
since they moved it back. I haven't seen it come any more
closer.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: When we first looked at this a couple of
years ago, that house was hanging over the bluff, I believe at
the time we moved it back 20, 25 feet. Now it's right at the
edge of the bluff again. Not hanging over it, but it's right
there.
MR. KIMACK: Well, the proposed house was designed basically to
be in accordance and be in line with that. Yes it doesn't meet
the hundred-foot setback but it's, the thing is when you look at
that design, when you look at the drawings themselves, when you
look at the northeast corner of the house it's 70-foot back on
that one corner, but the other side, the 67, 65.7 feet is to the
other deck, not the foundation. I wanted to, if you have a
chance, take a look at the drawings, you'll see the upper deck
there. Important to the fact that yes, we have to represent it
as being the closest point, but in terms of the distance, in
terms of the structure of the house and the support of the
house, that one corner is seven feet. The other corner in the
northwest side is 80 feet from the house. It's a fact that the
deck appears to obviously be more forward of that.
The house is not that wide. In terms of, I think it's
about maybe 31 feet, basically. You can see it on that one
which is not an overly-sized house. And the question is whether
or not, ultimately, the bluff would obviously have to be
stabilized. DEC, the difficulty with DEC in this particular
matter is there will be some, I think in the future, there will
be either a gabion, which they recently approved me to have a
design for that. After they shot me down three or four times.
But to stabilize that particular bluff, I mean to stabilize the
toe and the overall bluff, in essence would be something I think
they have to ultimately do.
And I think the DEC and I think the Board would be
favorable to obviously doing the rock revetment or the gabions,
which we had approved before. Primarily. But they don't plan
any stairs going down, as far as I know. That's not part of the
Board of Trustees 46 February 16, 2022
application. And the DEC's, unfortunately DEC really doesn't
care whether or not you lose 20 or 25 feet. I know you do. But
their approach is when you come to within seven or ten feet from
the house, we may consider it an emergency, other than that have
a nice day. The rest is on you to maintain your slope, even if
the slope is inadequate. And I've had those fights with that.
So, this is one is, I did the one next door, primarily, which
was an approved staircase, exactly next door. So I'm not quite
sure if it has gone since then. That was, if you look at that,
that was for Jonathan, that was for 4950 Blue Horizon. We have
an approved staircase going down on that one. And that was
pretty much on the same bluff line that we are on right now.
1 think that it's. And I, coming into these meetings, I
understand that your hope and expectation is to try to move the
house back as reasonably far as you can, but at the same time
the property owner would like to have some semblance of a house.
The difficulty is that it's a truncated piece of property
between the top of the bluff and the property line in the back.
Take off the 40 feet simply because Zoning would not give us any
less than that and we are working within that little confine
with the house. And I indicated that we have 80 on one side and
70 on the other. In that particular case. We did propose a 30
foot non-turf buffer on the top, recognizing that that is
something you have been leaning toward in terms of the distance.
And plus the fact is the 30 foot non-turf lines up fairly
closely with the coastal erosion hazard line, in any event, on
that particular one. I don't if the architect is on line.
Victor Ruiz.
MS. CANTRELL: He just put his hand up.
MR. KIMACK; Please. He might want to talk a little bit about the
foundation and the structure.
MS. CANTRELL: Mr. Ruiz, if you want to un-mute yourself and
speak to the Board, feel free.
MR. RUIZ: Hi, I'm Victor Ruiz, the architect.
I've tried to follow, I don't have the greatest connection, but
I think I mostly heard what you said so far. So any questions
you have.
MR. KIMACK: Victor, I think what I would like to have you
present to them is how you designed the foundation, primarily.
Their concern is the distance from the top of the bluff. Their
concern is the bluff is continually receding, and that they
would like us to consider moving it back further, and I tried to
point out the fact that we designed the house within a very
tight, limited space in accordance with what we had to work
with; tried to keep it back as far from that bluff as possible
and still give the homeowner the opportunity to have a
reasonably sized house at the end of the road.
I know you did a specific on the design of the foundation,
and I just wanted you to see if you could point that out to the
Board.
MR. RUIZ: So if I understand you correctly, as far as placement
Board of Trustees 47 February 16, 2022
of the house, you've covered at length, and we do keep the, as
prescribed setbacks, the footprint that we have available on
that property is essentially a sliver, about 12 foot in depth,
from street side to bluff, which is essentially would obviously
render the land non-developable for the owner. And then we also
addressed, Mike, was the question of the setback from the
street. You know, we have come as close as we can as per the
prescribed setbacks, and that's also relevant to us in terms of
our septic system, distances from the adjacent wells and septic
systems, adjacent properties as well. So we felt limited in
pushing in that direction that that did not seem feasible
either. So the design of the house;.in that sense, coming from
those parameters, we have taken it to where it is now instead
of, as Mike stated, the foundation itself does not, is not as
large as the overall perimeter or footprint from the bottom of
the total house of the second floor, and so it does setback in
order to kind of help mitigate that distance as well.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. KIMACK: I'm glad you pointed out the fact that 100 feet
makes it 12 feet wide, and that's all we have to work with,
primarily, in order to be conformance with it we had a 12-foot
line between the 40-foot setback from the top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So one thing I'm not clear about is you say you
are 40 feet back, I guess from Salt Marsh Lane? But I'm having
trouble --
MR. KIMACK: No, from the property line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: From the property line. Okay. So as you are
speaking to, there is property, is there additional property on
that right-of-way that you have to --
MR. KIMACK: No, that's over by Peconic. I believe this is the
right-of-way across Peconic Lane
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The plans stamped received September 9th,
2021, that shows the 40-foot setback, it almost shows to a line
of the existing overhead wires, and then it looks like there is
a big distance between that and what constitutes Salt Marsh
Lane.
MR. KIMACK: The overhead wires are drawn along that line from
the pole going, but it's the property line, you can see the
monument point on the south.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So you are proposing some of their driveway to
be on this --this is the monument you are saying here, right?
MR. KIMACK: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And this is the property line. So all of this
applies for here.
MR. KIMACK: That's part of the right-of-way.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
MR. KIMACK: It's a little confusing. When you drove in, it was
all grass. It looks like it became part of the property. But
it isn't. It's just the driveway, it's the right-of-way coming
in. And off to that side,,if you saw the power pole, which is
sitting right here, that's where the property line is,
Board of Trustees 48 February 16, 2022
primarily. It looks confusing because it looks like the
property line is on the other side, but it's not. I wish it was.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. 20 feet would be pretty helpful.
MR. KIMACK: Yes, so we start with the first 40 and then come
back and try to set the house, the hundred feet represents about
a 12 foot distance between the 40 foot and that. That's what
will started to work with.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Obviously one of our concerns is the existing
distance between the house and the bluff is only going to get
shorter as time progresses with the erosion.
MR. KIMACK: I think that, I can't speak totally for the
homeowner. I can in a sense. The reality of the situation that
.she bought a piece of property that may be vulnerable to the
recession of the top of the bluff even further and that for her
to protect her investment, if you allow to her to proceed with
the house, because I still have to go back to the Zoning Board
with this one, would be to engage to try to basically stabilize
that slope, basically, with some kind of hardening of the base,
and also re-planting of it. That is something that is going to
ultimately have to occur. It was not something that originally
started that way, but I'm not even sure if it's going westerly
also into Blue Horizon bluffs area. The same erosion is
happening there also.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you just confirm for me that I'm seeing
this correctly. Is there a pool on the roof?
MR. KIMACK: Victor?
MR. RUIZ: Yes, that is an intended amenity as well.
MR..KIMACK: He couldn't put it anyplace else.
MR. RUIZ: Exactly.
MR.,KIMACK: I think they tried to self-contain everything.
There is no other place on the property to put a pool that would
have been satisfactorily to anybody. It would have to be more
seaward of the house and that would cut back the distance even
further and not be acceptable to the Board.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Have you looked into a variance to get it
closer to the road?
MR. KIMACK: The property is not owned. It's Peconic Trust.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Well, there is still property owned that you
could bring it closer to and apply for a variance, yes? .
MR. KIMACK: In essence, I didn't look at it, in a sense. You
saw the road coming in, it services what, about seven, eight,
nine houses up through there. It's certainly in need of
regrading. And the only reason it stops at the last house there
is because it was always a vacant lot, so the road itself was
not improved for the extra20 or 30 feet to get into the property.
I didn't look into the fact that where the right-of-way,
who owns the road, basically, who is responsible for the update
of the road, all the way in. I don't know whether or not that is
Peconic or whatever. But in order to do this, we have to
basically buy that portion.
Board of Trustees 49 February 16, 2022
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Well, you have 40 feet there, right? 40 feet.
So could you apply to bring that closer within the 40 feet. So
20 feet back, you would need a variance to --
MR. KIMACK: No, you mean, my setbacks from the property line, I
would have to move the property line in order to be in
conformance with the setbacks. It can't be on a right-of-way.
It would have to be on a lot line change.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think what, I don't think we are asking
necessarily for you to move the property line. But if you could
get a variance to bring the house, I mean I'm fairly certain
ZBA, who we have been in discussion with in the Blue Horizon and
Salt Marsh Lane bluff area would be, and I speak for them, but
they will look at this differently than other structures in
town, because they recognize the problem. I know they have done
site visits for a house. I don't know, for say four or five
houses on the west. There is a real problem here. I have had
multiple discussions with the ZBA on this location.
So I think what Trustee Gillooly is asking,, it might be
better to go to ZBA on this and try to get a little relief. I
mean we are talking, you know, anything would be better than
what it is now.
One thing I wanted to say is that I have been going to this
area for roughly six years now, at least with the Trustees, and
we have seen 20 to 25 plus feet of erosion. If you do the math
to get to your elevated terrace, you know, you are looking,
says, oh, we are going to do the toe of the bluff next. It's
astounding that you wouldwant to invest in a property and not
start with protecting the property. I have trouble
comprehending that. And no one has done it yet. I will say
that, too. But the most recent new builds that we did approve in
this area, which is three properties over, is 135 feet to the
nearest--to the bluff.
MR. KIMACK: Is that to the west?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. KIMACK: In the Blue Horizon --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. So that's 135 feet away.
MR. KIMACK: Their lots are a lot deeper.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They are deeper. I recognize that and I think
this Board recognizes that. Speaking as one Trustee, for me,
this is just, because of everything I mentioned, this is just a
little too close. I'm not here to design the project. I don't
know if it means getting a variance, I don't know if means
reducing the width or depth of the house, but personally this is
a little bit too close for me, for my comfort.
MR. KIMACK: Well, let's explore that. Obviously I have the
opportunity to do it at this particular time. Without getting
into moving the lot line on the bottom, what you are suggesting
is two alternatives. One is to go back to the Zoning Board.
I've already got that application before them, primarily, and if
what you are suggesting is to move the house back, I mean there
is a possibility -- and Victor, are you still on?
Board of Trustees 50 February 16, 2022
MR. RUIZ: Yes, I'm on.
MR. KIMACK: I mean we still have to preserve enough room in the
front to get the septic system in there. I mean, I need ten, I
need five from the property line. So if I move it say 30, as an
arbitrary number, get an extra ten feet, that gives me 80 to 90
feet on both sides, essentially, like.that. Ten from the house,
five from the bluff, I have 15 on the inside, I could probably
stretch it out. But then again, it's difficult to get because
you see where the wells are, on both sides? I still have to go
for a variance because I don't have the 150 feet for those
wells. We are putting, we are doing away with the existing
wells and putting a new proposed well up the hill, I still don't
have 150 feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
MR. KIMACK: So if I move it back ten feet, I'm going to be in
the situation where my LP's are going to be less than 100 feet
because I have to stretch them out as opposed to, from either
well. So now it becomes a Health Department issue. But I have
to go for variance anyway.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: If you are going for variance anyway--
MR. KIMACK: It may not make that much of a difference either
way. But a variance is a variance is a variance, it all
depends on the plume and the engineers report. Which I have
done before. And then basically in that particular case, I mean
you are looking for at least ten feet?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the number in my head is 80 feet from
the top of the bluff to any structure.
MR. KIMACK: Well, do you discount the second floor?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know if, I mean that is not something
that is in front of us that we can make a determination on right
now.
MR. KIMACK: Because we've got 80 feet now on the one corner and
we've got 70 on the other corner.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the issue for me is everything. I
mean, if you are talking about--
MR. KIMACK: I can't move it 15. That doesn't give me enough
space to set the septic system.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: If you have the current 70 on-the one corner
and 80 feet at the other, I think --
MR. KIMACK: That's the foundation.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. So if you get the foundation no closer
than 80 feet, it might be a little more acceptable to me, at
least. If you are going for a variance anyway.
MR. KIMACK: If we pull the house back the way it was, then we
would make the one corner 80 feet and the other at 90.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sounds a lot better than 70 and 80.
MR. KIMACK: That would leave me 30 and we would have to adjust
the septic system in there, primarily. But you are right, I
would have to --what we can do, perhaps, let me make a
suggestion, because I'm before the Board here. I would like to
discuss this with my client and make the recommendation perhaps
Board of Trustees 51 February 16, 2022
to come back to you with a revised drawing. Because I think the
Board is look for you to make your decision first. I would
rather go back to the Zoning Board with the Trustees decision
and moving it back ten feet because it makes a stronger case to
get the variance than to go to them without the Trustee
approval. Because they sent me here. I went to Zoning Board
first. They sent to me to the Trustees to get your stamp on
this. What you are saying is you would like it back ten and
you'll put me into a variance situation. I would like to be able
to go with the force of the Trustees permit and go back to the
Zoning Board to make that argument as to why we are now asking
for a variance.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We certainly don't want to send people ping
ponging back and forth between different agencies.
MR. KIMACK: So if I could ask to table it and then give us the
opportunity to took after it and revise it and take into
consideration the ten foot, move things around, and then -- but
I would rather stay here and resolve it here and take that
approval, whatever we can agree to, and take it back to the
Zoning Board. It puts me in a much better position than to go
back with nothing and they are going to, they sent me here in
the first place.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand. So I strongly suggest, this is
just one Trustee, that all structures are back 80 feet,
regardless of design or structure, but that is just one
Trustee's opinion.
Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak to this
application or any further comments from members of the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application for
submission of new plans.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you, have a good evening.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 15, Raymond Nemschick, AIA
on behalf of ROGER SIEJKA requests a Wetland Permit to construct
a two-story, single-family dwelling with a basement; first floor
is 24'5" wide by 50'0" deep; front porch is 11'0" wide, 67'
deep; rear veranda (deck) is 24'5" wide by 10' deep; and overall
max height is 32'3".
Located: 955 Blossom Bend, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-6-22
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the
application because of the proposed setbacks are not in
compliance with Chapter 275 of the Town Code. The proposed
dwelling should be set back at least 100 feet from the wetland
boundary. The requirement of an IA system and impervious
driveway.
The Trustees most recently conducted a field inspection
Board of Trustees 52 February 16, 2022
February 8th, 2021, noting the need for an IA system, noting a
need for extensive non-disturbance buffer, questioning the DEC
permit. In further review at work session also discussed
pervious driveway, as well as concerns about the setback from
the wetland line.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. NEMSCHICK: Ray Nemschick, on behalf of the application, here
to answer any questions the Board may have.
We do have a DEC permit contingent on the Trustees. We
also have a Health Department permit in place. So I'm here to
answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: With the Health Department, it was for
traditional septic?
MR. NEMSCHICK: It was. When we applied, it was traditional
septic.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, item number one, we want that be IA,
regardless.
MR. NEMSCHICK: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Another issue, looks like an asphalt
driveway, so we'll want to see that changed, at a minimum. And
the distances from the wetlands. And we also have some concerns
-- have you been to the Building Department or ZBA on this as of
yet?
MR. NEMSCHICK: Well, the ZBA is not required. We are not
breaking any setbacks for the ZBA. And for the Building
Department we go to at the end, when are ready. So there is no
reason to go to, building codes, we are not, we are not breaking
any zoning codes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You don't need to go to building for building
new house?
MR. NEMSCHICK: After we get everything else set, we go to get a
building permit.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because this is necessarily more of a
building issue than us, but it looks like it's out, some of the
structure is outside of the buildable area as submitted on these
plans.
MR. NEMSCHICK: No, it's 15-foot side yard, 50-foot front yard.
We are inside the buildable area.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The plans stamped received December 27th,
2021, it shows the buildable area in those two lines, it looks
like that structure falls outside of those two lines.
MR. NEMSCHICK: Right, we are still maintaining the 15-foot side
yard and 50-foot front yard.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There are steps within the 15 feet.
MR. NEMSCHICK: Well, steps are permitted inside of setback.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we would need maybe a letter of
clarification from the ZBA on that. Because we are trying to
avoid, as discussed, actually, with the prior application,
people ping ponging back and forth between different departments
in the town. So I think added to that list of some of the
Board of Trustees 53 February 1.6, 2022
Trustees issues, would be just some sort of a clarification from
ZBA on that just to avoid a conflict down the road, and then you
are coming back to us as a new design.
MR. NEMSCHICK: So,just like the last applicant, I mean, is that
contingent upon the Trustees making a decision or a rule today,
as far as the Zoning Board could still say we would have to go
to Zoning. I understand what you are saying to me, but if we go
back to Zoning and back to Trustees --the DEC made the Trustees
condition on their permit.
MS. HULSE: The,point is, though, if I could speak, the fact that
you have not applied for a Building permit, you are making a
representation you are not sure to be true, because if you get
disapproval, you still have to go to the ZBA. So the
difference between you and the last applicant, which is not
really relevant to this hearing is that he is in front of the
ZBA. He has an open ZBA application. So in order for you to
not have something where you are going to end up having to go
back and forth multiple times, it would be beneficial and
recommended that you apply for a building permit and if you are
in fact as you say not in violation of any zoning, then you'll
get an approval. A building permit approval.
MR. NEMSCHICK: Then can I come back to Trustees again?
MS. HULSE: You'll be here. Pending.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, it would be pending.
MR. NEMSCHICK: Okay, that's fine. So if we stay pending with
you guys and come back..
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yup. So we can table it.
MR. NEMSCHICK: Okay, understood.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Another sort of things, while we are reviewing,
to kind of avoid, you know, back and forth, that when you do
eventually come back before us, that this property is definitely
a little complicated. I respect the fact that you and the
applicant submitted an application that does attempt to mitigate
some environmental concerns. I would say for myself,
personally, on a future set of plans, I would need to see a
sizeable non-disturbance buffer, because basically in the entire
property currently is a non-disturbance buffer for the adjacent
property, where there is a house, so something like this would
have to be pretty sizeable, bordering on the line of making the
whole property sort of just an environmentally-protected area
minus the buildable area. And then obviously no filling or
grading on the property. It would have to remain natural.
MR. NEMSCHICK: Can you clarify? When you say "sizeable buffer",
that is a little ambiguous. I mean, can you give me a dimension?
Right now we are 75 feet back.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You are 75 feet back.
MR. NEMSCHICK: Right, and I understand you want a
non-disturbance buffer in there, but, I mean, how far are we
asking for a non-disturbance buffer at this point?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have a set number.
MR. NEMSCHICK: It would help me.
Board of Trustees 54 February 16; 2022
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Understandable.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because that whole area basically like slopes
town to the freshwater wetland, so the last thing we would want
to see is what is now exclusive native vegetation to be ripped
up and fertilized lawn be put down in its place.
MR. NEMSCHICK: I understand completely. But we still have a
buildable lot, is what I'm trying to get at.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. So I think what Trustee Krupski was
alluding to, a buildable lot is a buildable lot. You know you
have to disturb it to essentially construct a house, however the
remainder of that property, which is currently 100% natural, we
want to see that remain natural as much as possible.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just to be clear, you are seeking relief from
our Town Code which requires 100 foot setback from any wetlands
for any structures. So you are seeking relief from that code for
a new structure on a lot that has never been built. So asking
for a large non-disturbance area I think is the minimum.
MR. NEMSCHICK: I understand. We are certainly seeking, I'm just
trying to get clarification on the non-disturbance buffer. But
at a certain point, obviously we are going to disturb a certain
portion of the site, and if that disturbance becomes, from what
I'm hearing, the actual site itself, and everything else stays
non-disturbed, that is kind the direction we are looking at.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. NEMSCHICK: Understood. Thank you, for the clarification.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wish to speak to this
application?
(No response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to table this
application to get some clarification from the building
Department and ZBA, for you to apply to those two.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 16, AMP Architecture on behalf of
LISA & DAVID CIFARELLI requests a Wetland Permit to demolish
existing two-story dwelling with full basement with the existing full
basement and first floor structural members to remain
(1,850sq.ft.); existing 1,850sq.ft. first floor to be removed
and rebuilt; construct proposed additions to the first floor
consisting of a 2'x6.1' (12sq.ft.) addition, a 14.1'x13.0'
(96sq.ft.) Addition, a 7.5'x12' (90sq.ft.) addition, a 4'x16.3'
(66sq.ft. Addition), a 17'x34' (545sq.ft.) addition and a
3.4'x11.5' (39sq.ft.) addition for a total of 848sq.ft. of
additions to first floor; remove existing 1,140sq.ft. second
floor and roof; construct a proposed 27.7'x59.2' (1,575sq.ft.)
second floor with an 18.5'x31.1' (387sq.ft.) second story deck;
proposed exterior staircase to second story deck attached to
Board of Trustees 55 February 16, 2022
side of dwelling; proposed concrete stairwell to basement from
exterior; the two (2) existing sheds are to be removed and
existing masonry patio at grade is to be removed; abandon or
remove existing traditional sanitary system and install a new
I/A OWTS system; install gutters to leaders to drywells to
dwelling to contain roof runoff; install and perpetually
maintain a 10' wide sand non-turf buffer along the landward side
of existing bulkhead; for the as-built 2.8'x9.8' (27sq.ft.) fire
pit; as-built 5.9'x27.1' (155sq.ft.) wood deck at grade;
as-built 3.1'x6.1' (19sq.ft.) hot tub; as built 1.7'x8.9'.
(15sq.ft.) each pervious stone walls; and as-built flagpole and
stone wall.
Located: 2672 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
SCTM# 1000-128-6-13.3
The Trustees most recently reviewed this application on the
8th of February and noted we need to review the new plans
further at work session. The initial report on the 11th of
January noted that the seaward bump out would not fit within the
guidelines of what the Trustees typically approve.
I am in receipt of new plans dated stamped received
February 4th, 2022, showing no seaward bump out. I am also in
receipt of a revised project description which specifically just
changes some of the dimensions for the existing structure.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent, due to
the addition being located further seaward than the existing
structure, less than the required 100 feet of Chapter 275.
And the Conservation Advisory Council supports the
application with non-turf buffer planted with native vegetation
and drainage for the hot tub, and all construction to be
landward of the existing structure.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. CANTRELL: Anthony Portillo is present. Anthony, if you want
to un-mute yourself and speak to the Board. I also have to ask
you a question. If you noticed in the past, I have to ask you
do you consent to conducting this public hearing virtually on
line via Zoom?
MR. PORTILLO: Yes, I do consent. Good evening, Board, thank you
for having me. I just wanted to state that, as you said, Trustee
Krupski, that we did revise the drawings, and if there are any
questions, I'm here to answer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
Is there anyone else that wishes to speak regarding this
application? Or any additional comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the new plans and project description stamped received
Board of Trustees 56 February 16, 2022
February 4th, 2022, depicting the new dimensions of the house,
showing no seaward extension, thereby bringing it into
consistency with the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 17, AMP Architecture on behalf of
9450 MAIN BAYVIEW, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
proposed two-story dwelling with full basement consisting of a
proposed 20'x41' (820sq.ft.) two-story area and a 18'x18'
(324sq.ft.) one-story area; a proposed 4'x17.8' (70.8sq.ft.)
front covered porch; a proposed 6.2'x21.0' (88sq.ft.) front
covered patio; a proposed 5'x29' (145sq.ft.) second story
balcony; a proposed basement window well and concrete entry
stair; install a new I/A OWTS landward of dwelling; install an
810sq.ft. pervious driveway; install a proposed 15'6"x29'
(450sq.ft.) pervious patio at grade against the seaward side of
dwelling; install gutters to leaders to two (2) 8'x4' deep
drywells to contain roof runoff; install one (1) 1,000 gallon
propane tank buried at front of property; install new buried
utility connections at front and side of property; proposed
re-grading at perimeter of proposed rear of dwelling consisting
of approximately 8,865 cubic feet of earth to be removed for
construction excavation, the majority to remain at site for
backfill and 2,300 cubic feet to be used for proposed regrading.
Located: 9450 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-5-22
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistencies are verify how the lot was created. Ground
water is high elevation 4.5 feet below grade and the basement
should be reconsidered. Seasonal and storm surge flooding is
expected. Setback to wetland should be maximized to the greatest
extent practicable. Establish and maximize vegetated buffers
landward of wetlands.
The Conservation Advisory Council could not make a
recommendation at this time as the property was not properly
staked and labeled. According to the site plan proposed
structures do not meet setbacks in accordance with Chapter 275.
Trustees conducted a field inspection February 8th, 2022.
Notes say proposed dwelling very close to freshwater wetlands.
DEC oversight is recommended. Would benefit from significant
non-disturbance buffer as well as we had significant concerns,
regarding the setback of the proposed structure to the wetlands.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Please state your name for the record.
MS. KIRSCH: Hello. Mary Kirsch, and I am the property owner
adjacent to the 9450 Main Bayview Road, and I just want to say,
first of all, that the building package, I think you just
mentioned, is pretty much in the middle of the fresh water
buffer that you need to have that, you suggest 100 feet. They
don't have 75 feet. They barely make 50 feet. So that was a
Board of Trustees 57 February 16, 2022
big concern of mine. And, um, the water table, those ponds, I
mean it doesn't look like much is going on, but during certain
times of the year, they go up, they go down. I don't know if
it's connected to like tributaries or the creek, but they vary
like all the time. And, um, especially nor'easters, high tides,
full moons, etcetera.
The property if they clear that property above the pond,
which they are going to have to do, that is going to take away
the vegetation, and it will be more saturated there. And the
excavation that they are suggesting, it just seems like it will
tear up that whole piece of property, in front of the pond, and
even where they suggest to put the septic. It's all a really
sensitive lot, and there's two other lots above them that's
equally, they are all connected, those ponds.
So, um, yes, and constructing a basement, I don't know,
they are going to have black mold going up their wall. It won't
be a good thing.
But anyway, and then they suggest to put a, make a grade,
they'll make it higher, and I mean, after a few storms that will
just end up going right into the pond. And the pond, it's alive
and well. It stars April 15th, the tree frogs show up, and the
turtle that is laying eggs in my compost in the back. I seen
salamanders, snakes. I mean it's really amazing. Besides the,
you know, screech owl and the hawk and everything else that is
going over there. So it really does, it's concerning.
They can't meet the setback for the front yard from the
Zoning Board. They seem like they are not making the hundred
foot setback from the pond, and the DEC they don't have
involved, but they would not be able to meet that as well,
because they don't have the footage in front of the pond. So if
you can't comply with any of these agencies, how can it be a
buildable lot. That is what I just really wanted to say.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate it.
Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application?
(No response).
If we could, the applicant is actually on. Maybe he can address
some of the issues.
MS. CANTRELL: Anthony, if you would like to speak to the Board,
before you do, I again have to ask you this question for each
new application. Do you consent to conducting the public
hearing virtually via Zoom?
MR. PORTILLO: Yes, I do. Thank you.
In regard to DEC, we have filed an application with DEC.
We did receive comments back. Pretty minor. Normally for fresh
water wetlands, they are holding a 50-foot buffer or setback.
That is pretty common. Commonly approved by DEC, at least in my
experience. I think we will receive DEC approval, based on,
like I said, the comments we did receive were minor, we have
responded back to them. And currently just waiting, you know,
for their response back.
Freshwater right now is a little bit behind. Tidal zone is
Board of Trustees 58 February 16, 2022
a little quicker. In regard to the basement and water level, I
mean that is something I'll look into and consider, and
obviously we are not looking to have a wet basement. We are not
looking to pump out water. That could be something that, if we
decide to have a basement, we could elevate further.
I mean, in all honesty, we are fine having, you know, a
buffer up to the house. We are not looking to cause any, you
know, the least amount of interruption to the property. I mean
we are proposing the IA system to be toward the front of the
property.
One thing to notice, if you look at the survey, I mean it
is a pretty steep lot and we are pretty high up on the lot. I
mean, if it was a tidal wetland in regard to DEC, we would be
able to file for non jurisdiction because of the grade height.
Obviously on the freshwater, that's not the case.
Based on my site visits, I want to state, I mean, the pond
has been pretty dry. I'm not saying it doesn't have vegetation
around and living creatures, but, you know, it's more of a
watering hole. And, you know, we did go to Zoning originally.
They asked us to go to the Trustees for your basically, your
call on this or what your comments would be.
One of their comments, which we did remove, was a proposed
carport in the front of the building. And, you know, it's
pretty common, Main Bayview Road, that homes are pretty close,
just commonly down that road. So I mean, I think that when we
go back to Zoning, we should not have a problem getting the
variance for the front yard. Obviously I can't put words in
their mouth, but their biggest concern was the covered parking
space, that we removed, and we are just trying to get the house
essentially built. Which, you know, I think we sort of tucked
it in here the right way, in my opinion. We do have a lot of
different things going on here. But it is a single and separate
lot so I don't think it's, I mean in regard to your opinion, the
Board's opinion, but I don't think it's an un-buildable lot.
I think I covered most of the questions, but if there is
more, obviously I'm here.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: There are a lot of questions. One of which,
it looks like there is proposed fill seaward of the house,
toward the freshwater wetland. Can you comment on that?
MR. PORTILLO: Um, well, I think just it's a little bit of a
slope, if you look at the topo. We were trying to get that
grade to be up so that we could have, you know, have that area
where the patio is. Um, again, I mean, there is, if these
things are something that the Trustees are against, I mean we
can just keep the natural slope and build the foundation from
there. You know, just again, we were trying to get some outdoor
space. That's again, within that kind of setback on that 52.5
foot corner, we were trying to create a patio on grade.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: There is also drywells proposed between
the patio and the pond. Can you comment on that?
MR. PORTILLO: That's the proposed retainment for the home to
Board of Trustees 59 February 16, 2022
catch the rainwater. We can reconsider putting those in the
front yard. I think we have room based on, maybe that location
was not the best, now that I'm looking at it. But we can
definitely, there is room in the front yard to put the drywells
in. But we are proposing to basically catch the rainwater.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, so hopefully, as you heard, we do have
a number of concerns on this property. As far as the fill, as
far as the distance, as far as the pretty much everything. This
is a very tough project with a limited distance to work with. I
don't know if DEC, I can't speak for them, but 50 feet sounds a
little light, in my opinion. I think the DEC may weigh in with
a lot more restrictions than just 50 feet. As well as I believe
you said you were going to go back to the ZBA. I'm sorry, I
can't really tell on the plans if that's 30 foot setback from
the road or if that says 50?
MR. PORTILLO: It's 30.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, in either respect, I think that is
probably step number one is try to get some relief to move
whatever proposed structure further toward the road. You know,
the patio and everything, as it exists, you know, I don't think,
that's not even a starter for us, or for me, at least. The fill
will not happen. You know, drywells between, closest to the
pond, that is another contentious issue as well. So we have a
lot of work to do on this proposed project.
So I'll ask if anybody else has comments, but I think it would
be best to table this to re-work what you proposed to
potentially go to the ZBA to get some additional relief.
But I'll open it up to any other questions or comments. I
believe there was another person in the audience.
MR. PASSANANT: Good evening, My name is Tom Passanant and I
reside in the property next to the proposal with Mary, and I
just too wanted to go on the record to oppose the proposal. Not
just because I live there. If it was a buildable, I heard that
term a lot tonight, I would not object at all. But I see with
my own eyes, I'm a registered nurse, I'm not a specialist in any
of these things, but just looking out the window, I thank you,
Mr. Goldsmith, for everything you said. I think you seen it in
your field survey what I see every day. And that pond to me, I
could talk about the 30 feet versus the 50 feet in the front,
which does effect the integrity of the neighborhood. I'm sure
those laws were put into effect because of that symmetry to the
neighborhood, to Bayview. But the back side is, that's my
biggest concern. You know, Mary mentioned the tree frogs. I
call them peepers. When you come in in April, they are so loud.
It's a.beautiful sound. Like a springtime sound. I seen wood
ducks in there, I seen mallards. There have been frog eggs laid
in our yard. I can't see how that area would not be grossly
disturbed by the proposed --tonight was of the first time I saw
about the 8,000 cubic feet of fill being transferred I guess in
the back side of the house, and the effect that would have.
There is few of these ponds left. I would love to see it stay.
Board of Trustees 60 February 16, 2022
But I would welcome Mr. Marra, if this was a buildable home, a
buildable lot, he would be my neighbor.
So I appreciate what you said, Mr. Goldsmith, and I hope
you'll take all the pretty significant objections to building a
home here, and I hope you'll take all those things into
consideration.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir. For the record, when
we did do the field inspection there was a nice bull frog hanging out
on the ice on the pond, so we did witness it first hand when we
were out there.
MR. PASSANANT: I lived there for seven years, there is always
water there. It never dries up. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wishing to speak to this
application?
MR. PORTILLO: Just, sorry, if I could further comment. In
regard to requesting relief from Zoning, I'd much rather try to
work this out before I go back to Zoning because they actually
asked me to come here. They were not really looking to provide
any relief until there was some Trustees input. So I took all
the notes and I understand what the Board is saying.
Um, one other statement, I mean, this is not the only, the
neighboring property, which is not on the survey, but you can
see that they are just as close to this freshwater wetland where
we are requesting.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Portillo, just--
MR. PORTILLO: I'm just stating a fact.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. That application was not in front of
this Board, so we did not have say over that.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure, I'm just stating the facts.
The other thing, like I said, is if the Board would allow
me to revisit this with the owner, um, we can rethink about this
design. And then the other thing is I can sort of do a little
more research on Main Bayview in regard to, you know, what would
probably be accepted, you know, obviously I don't know this, but
without going back to the Zoning Board then if I do get
acceptance from the Trustees then I'll go back to Zoning and
I'll have to get my relief up in the front yard or I'll have to
hold the rear yard and work my front yard out, but then whatever
the case may be.
So, I mean that's just, I don't know if it makes sense to
go back to them because they asked me to come to you. So I'm
just putting that out there.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
MR. PORTILLO: So thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just want to make one other comment that I
don't believe I heard earlier. The proposed one-story wood
frame, I'm assuming it's a bedroom sticking out the back. That
is one of the closer, more egregious areas, in my mind, at
least. So I'm not sure, I know we mentioned the patio, and the
installation of a large non-disturbance buffer, but that is one
issue that perhaps that could be relocated as well.
Board of Trustees 61 February 16, 2022
MR. PORTILLO: Yes, as you are speaking and the Board is speaking
I'm sort of in my head thinking about how this might be able to
fit better with less disturbance, further away from the fresh
water pond.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Great.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So you have some work to do.
MR. PORTILLO: I appreciate that. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Are there any other questions or comments?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes, on the plans that are before us, you
have a line going across that says limits of clearing, grading
and ground disturbance. And on this plan it's not measured
anywhere from that freshwater wetland line. That is something
we would want to see in the future. I'm not saying I would
accept a line where it currently exists on the plan. I would
like to see it pushed much more landward from the freshwater
wetland as well. And I would also like to know from the
applicant what is the depth to groundwater in this location, if
that knowledge is at the tip of your fingers at the moment.
MR. PORTILLO: I don't have it, but what I can do is I can add in
the test well that we completed. I'll add that on to our site
plan for the next submission, if that's okay. And noted on the
limits of clearing line, ground disturbance, obviously I'm going
to revise that based on revising the design itself and how the
building is situated on the site. So, and I'll make sure that
is dimensioned for clarity on the next submission.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Any other questions, comments?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes, just to be clear and for consistency, I
would also like to note that Town Code does limit structures to
100 feet from the wetlands, so you are here seeking relief from
this Board for this application, and I want to make that clear.
MR. PORTILLO: Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other comments?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table this application for
further review and for new plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 18, AMP Architecture on behalf of
ALBERT W. SELDEN, JR. & CHRISTIAN RASMUSSEN requests
a Wetland Permit to construct a proposed two-story dwelling with
crawl space and attached two-car garage (33'3"x66'5"), 2,300sq.ft.;
a proposed 713sq.ft. covered patio and deck; a proposed 12'x26'
(312sq.ft.) pool; and to install a new Innovative &Alternative
Wastewater Treatment system.
Located: 200 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue.' SCTM# 1000-97-7-1
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 8th of
February, noting that at least a 50-foot non-disturbance buffer
bordering the entire wetland line would be most appropriate.
Would like to see any trees flagged for construction to be
Board of Trustees 62 February 16, 2022
shown. The trees that will be removed. And we opted to review
the rest of the driveway and patios at work session.
I'll also mention after the inspection wherein the office
is in receipt of plans dated stamped received February 11th,
2022, that show a second story bump out.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent, but noted
that it isrecommended that the limit of clearing, grading and
ground disturbance lines to be relocated to the 100-foot setback
line on the south of parcel. Note that groundwater levels are
expected to be high in this area and seasonally fluctuate.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
the application. The Conservation Advisory Council does support
the application. The proposed project was not staked and the
property is within a flood zone.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. CANTRELL: Anthony Portillo from AMP is with us. Anthony,
again, I'm sorry I have to ask you, do you consent to conducting
the public hearing virtually via Zoom?
MR. PORTILLO: I do. Thank you.
So I'll just comment on the last comment in regard to the
flood zone. The home and pool and development area is in Zone
"X". Portions of the property are within the flood zone. But
the area we are showing, the buildable lot, is not. Just to be
clear. So we are not really restricted by FEMA regulations or
Building code regulations since we are inside of that zone.
I'm sorry, you guys said a few things and I was just going
to my next project, so I missed a couple of things. But there
was a comment about a non-turf buffer, I believe?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. I can clarify that.
MR. PORTILLO: I apologize.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, it's no problem. I believe both the LWRP
and the Trustees felt very strongly that because of the location
of this property, it would be most appropriate to have at
minimum a 50-foot non-disturbance buffer encompassing the whole
entire wetland line.
MR. PORTILLO: Okay. And that's not a problem. We can revise
that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Another question that I had, we are in receipt
of these two new plans with the second-story addition. Did you
get a chance to stake that in the field? Because it might be
helpful to take a look, I would think, at that at some time, you
know, in the near future.
MR. PORTILLO: So we, I mean we staked the building. So that
second floor is cantilevered over the first floor. But I mean,
I could have that staked. That was, I mean that was revised,
yeah, that was revised like, and I think a couple days before we
submitted it, and I wanted to get it into you guys since we
were, you know, making a revision, so everything was up to date.
We have basically approval on the IA system. Their final
request is to provide a DEC and local wetlands approval. So
Board of Trustees 63 February 16, 2022
once we have that, once we have approval then we would have, we
have approval from the Health Department.
No zoning issues, as you can tell. I mean, we are within
our setback limits. So I think most of the home, based on what
I'm, what we are showing --well, we are within, we are not
within the hundred feet but we are pretty close to the hundred
foot setback from the limit. But the property is very large, as
you can see. So I mean we really tried to get it within
something that was sensible. And like I said, we were sensitive
to the flood zone, obviously not wanting to build in the flood
zone if we don't have to. So that's kind of how we determined
that, you know, siting a building in this location.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One of the other things I mentioned was,
because I personally would just like to go back and look at the,
seeing as we need a non-disturbance buffer added to the plans,
we do need to revisit the application anyway, or I would like
to, anyway. I would like to see that area staked, the new bump
out staked. Granted, I understand it's a cantilevered section,
but just to review that in the field, I think would be nice.
And then also we were looking to sort of understand how much
clearing was going to go on and maybe have all the trees that
were to be removed for construction to be flagged.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure. I just want to make one statement so the
Board is aware. And this is why it says Lee (sic) residence on
our plans and the applicant is different, so you guys
understand, is they are basically in contract on buying the lot
and they have, you know they are in escrow until there is
acceptance on the buildable. So I guess I'm just bringing this
up because I'm going to have to pass it by a few parties,
probably a couple of lawyers, to go out there and do all this
stuff. So I just don't, you know, I could let your office know,
I just don't know what we are going to have that ready for your
site visit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Where was the test hole done for the, on
this site? Do you know, offhand?
MR. PORTILLO: Wait a second. Yes, you know, we usually show it
on here. It might be on, yes, if you look at the bigger, like
the zoomed in site plan, it's V002. It's up closer to the road.
It's at elevation 7.3.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yup. All right, there it is. Okay. Are you
proposing a full basement for the application?
MR. PORTILLO: No, actually it's sort of like a slab on grade,
and the first floor is at that level. And then you have the
second floor. And then it's a flat roof. Sorry, I mean it's a
cellar, I guess. Let me rethink about this. I apologize. Yes,
we are showing a cellar. But I believe my last conversation
with the owners was, because we were worried about some of the,
you know, had a higher water lines, that we might be able to go
to more of a crawl space. But the idea is to walk straight into
that home, and we are not that far off of grade on the second floor.
But I think the existing elevation -- in that area, if you
Board of Trustees 64 February 16, 2022
look at our elevation, you can see that it doesn't have much
change in grade across the building, um, so I think it's pretty
clear, even like where you take, if you look at where the test
hole is taken, at the location of the home, it's about the same
grade height.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I guess my concern is without bringing in fill
and elevating the cellar, if you were to go 8'6" down you would
be a couple of feet into the water, into the groundwater.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: What I'm seeing is four-foot to groundwater.
MR. PORTILLO: 5.3 feet. I'm sorry. Yes, 5.3 feet is where they
encountered groundwater, at elevation 7.3.
So the basement is a little bit above, and I think it's
three or four risers up to the first floor. So I'll take a
better look at that. I mean we are not really proposing to have
much fill here. We are trying to raise it a little bit, but,
like I said, it's pretty much the natural grade at the, keeping
it like natural at the front of the lot there. So we are showing
like 7.9.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, I could be wrong, but if I'm understanding
it correctly, if you put in an eight-foot basement you would be
roughly four feet of it would be under water.
MR. PORTILLO: Well, your basement is above grade, if you look at
the elevation itself. There is a portion that will be above grade.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: To clarify, I'm looking at drawing SD-1. I
think what is a little confusing is that it says 8'6" height
cellar. So this is basically showing the foundation slab. Then
the first floor, excuse me, that SD-2 sits on top of.
MR. PORTILLO: That's correct. And you know, we are four risers
up to the first floor. It's essentially about two feet out of
ground, a little more, like'30 inches out of ground.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: With this, I mean the way I'm interpreting, is
what you are calling the first floor SD-2, is kind of the
basement or the lower level of the house. And then the main
level of the house is SD-3.
MR. PORTILLO: Correct.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So nothing is below grade. If anything it's --
MR. PORTILLO: None of the home is below grade. The cellar would
be a portion below grade, I mean, off the top of my head, four
feet. I don't have a section of this in front of me, but I can
provide that to give a little clarity--
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: We have the elevations. I think a section may
be beneficial in order to see --
MR. PORTILLO: I can kind of give clarity on the kind of grade we
are proposing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: On the plan it's showing elevation 2.1 foot to
groundwater.
MR. PORTILLO: 2.1 is, right, where it was taken at 7.4, they
encountered groundwater at 5.3. We are out of the grade, like
Winches.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is nothing deeper that this. This is
grade.
Board of Trustees 65 February 16, 2022
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Right. What you are showing in SD-1 is the
poured slab for the foundation. Correct?
MR. PORTILLO: Well, it's below grade by four feet,
four-and-a-half feet, approximately. Like I said, I can give
you guys,a little more clarity on that. I'm just giving you a
grade to slap it. That portion is below grade. But it's just
not 8'6" below grade because the first floor comes out, you
know, the cellar level comes out of ground.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. I think you had mentioned offering a
section. I think that would help clarify. Because in the
comments, I now have, listening to the comments, I now have a
different interpretation of the plan, so I think that would be
helpful in clarifying. Thank you.
MR. PORTILLO: And I'll take a better look, maybe we need to
adjust the cellar height to make sure we are outside of ground
water, maybe I'll make an adjustment on the revised set that we
resubmit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, thank you.
MR. PORTILLO: Of course. So I'm going to try to get it done,
the staking and the tree flagging, I'll try to get that done for
the next site visit. For next month. But I'll just notify you
guys if it doesn't happen and we'll just adjourn to the next
month, I imagine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
MR. PORTILLO: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to summarize we are looking for staking of
the addition, just so we can check it out in the field; new
plans showing a 50-foot non-disturbance buffer, flagging of the
trees, and a new cross-section,just to give us a little bit
more clarification of the structure.
MR. PORTILLO: Of course.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other thoughts or comments
on that?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Just that this property is part of the marsh
system that extends on the other side of the road as well, so
it's important to get the project right to avoid damage to the
area and the flooding. So I appreciate you making those
changes. So if you can get those back to us as soon as you can.
MR. PORTILLO: Of course, thank you. No problem, Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table the application.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 19, AMP Architecture on behalf of
PHILIP & LIA CHASEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
14'11"x23'4" (350sq.ft.) Pool house; proposed reconstructed
Board of Trustees 66 February 16, 2022
10.2'x28.1' deck on seaward side of dwelling; and to install and
perpetually maintain a 7' wide (1,375sq.ft.) non-turf buffer
along the landward edge of the top of the bank.
Located: 1585 Long Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-55-7-3
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with a 15-foot non-turf buffer. The plan would need
a vegetation and removable/retractable stairs at the base of
bluff stairs.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection February 8th,
2022, noting that to review the pier line with the neighboring
structures.
We did receive new plans in the project description stamped
received February 11th, 2022.
Is there anyone here.who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. CANTRELL: We have Anthony Portillo present. And, Anthony,
again, I. have to ask you, do you consent to conducting the
public hearing virtually via Zoom?
MR. PORTILLO: I consent. Thank you. This is the last time
you'll hear from me tonight.
So there was an application, I just wanted to give a little
background, there was an application from the pool, which we are
not a part of and also a proposed shed in the same location as
the proposed pool house. So we, our application is basically
for the pool house. And then we are designing a deck, basically
a rebuilt deck. There is an existing deck there. And the
trellis. The trellis is actually a little smaller than the
trellis that is existing,just to be clear there. And also the
pool fence was revised based on just kind of how the layout of
the pool house and some suggestions by me that I thought just
gave them a little more room around the pool area.
I believe a seven-foot non-turf buffer was what was
requested from the last Trustee approval. So that is why we
indicated that. I don't think there is any issue if we need to
go to a 15-foot non-turf buffer. I just assumed the seven foot
was requested from the initial approval.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Can you speak to the proposed pool house at
all;will there be any bathrooms or anything inside of that?
MR. PORTILLO: Yes, sir. A toilet and a sink, half bathroom. We
are meeting the 350 square foot allowable for a pool house. We
have filed and have received approval from the Health Department
for the connection of water and sewer into the home. We are not
going directly into the septic system. We are going to connect
into the home and then into the waste line and into the water,
which is really a cleaner job, in my opinion, because then you
don't have to dig and expose all the way to the septic system.
So that has not been approved currently. Approval for us to go
to the Building Department would be Trustees.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: May I ask how many bedrooms the existing
residence has?
Board of Trustees 67 February 16, 2022
MR. PORTILLO: Um --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Excuse me. Bathrooms.
MR. PORTILLO: I don't know off the top of my head, to be honest
with you. I want to say four, but I would maybe be making it
up. I believe it's four on the second floor. I believe it's
pretty much like a colonial home. So that's when I think, but I
don't know.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So essentially, the pool house would be adding
an additional load to the current system and --
MR. PORTILLO: Well, I guess in a way, yes, but systems are
looked at as how many bedrooms, and we are not requesting a
bedroom. This is obviously a seasonal pool house based on
Southold building code. It can't be -- it's not occupiable or
sleeping quarters. And it's common that we request approval
from the Health Department for adding.a toilet and a sink in an
accessory building, but it doesn't require an upgrade in the
septic system.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So I do like your part about going to a
15-foot non-turf buffer. So I think we'll need to start there
with new plans that show the 15-foot as opposed to the
seven-foot as proposed on your plans submitted here February 11th.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PORTILLO: If I can just make a comment there. I guess what I
was stating is it sounded like LWRP might have indicated that
they were requesting a 15-foot, but as I stated, I think
seven-foot was what was originally approved for when they
applied for the pool. I.mean, again, if that's what is
requested, could we approve it and have a stipulation for the
15-feet and not have to,just give you guys an updated plan, if
that's the only request?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So what you are saying is that seven-foot
non-turf buffer that is on these plans was previously approved
under the permit for the pool?
MR. PORTILLO: Yes, I believe so. That's how we put that on. I'm
pretty sure that's what was requested for the pool. I don't
have that approval in front of me, but I'm just thinking back,
that's where that came from. I don't think I, but again, I'm not
saying the 15-foot, if that's what is being asked, we'll revise
it. I'm just asking can I submit a revised plan and not
essentially have to come back to a public hearing, if there are
no further comments.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Unfortunately, no. It's been the policy here
for a while that we need set plans in hand, that we vote on and
determine based on those plans.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure, no problem.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Liz, is that a ten-foot buffer showing on the
approved plan?
MS. CANTRELL: I'm not entirely sure that is showing the contour,
the ten-foot number. It's not a section of the buffer. Let me
find the permit.
Board of Trustees 68 February 16, 2022
(Perusing). No conditions for a buffer with the pool plan.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All right, so since we can't find a buffer
from the previous pool plan, I think we would like to stick with
the 15-foot, and we'll subject it to new plans showing that
15-foot buffer.
MR. PORTILLO: Okay, sure. Thank you
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And other questions or comments?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application for
submission of new plans showing a 15-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. PORTILLO: Have a great night, Board. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 20, En-Consultants on behalf of
PETER J. MALTESE & MADELINE JOYCE COVELLO requests a
Wetland Permit to remove and replace existing 10'x18' one-story detached
garage with a 14'x25' one-story detached garage that will be equipped
with gutters, leaders and drywells.
Located: 825 (aka 506) Bailey Avenue, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-34-4-13
The Trustees most recently visited this site on February.
8th, noting that the application was straightforward.
The LWRP reviewed this and found it to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this
application and resolved to support it.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Sounds like a good start. Rob Herrmann,
En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicant.
This is a pretty straightforward application. It is a
demolition and removal of an existing garage and construction of
a new garage in the same location. It's within the Board's
jurisdiction due to an off-site wetland that is on the
neighbor's property.
The existing garage is about 88 feet away from that wetland
boundary, and the new is about 89 feet away.
If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. The
project does have ZBA approval and a non-jurisdiction letter
from the DEC.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
(No response).
Any comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
Board of Trustees 69 February 16, 2022
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 21, En-Consultants on behalf of
GAYLE MARRINER-SMITH & CHRISTOPHER F. SMITH requests a
Wetland Permit to remove and replace in place existing 4'x13' fixed dock,
and add a 4'x10' step-down platform to north side of dock; and to
replace approximately 22 linear feet of 2-foot high landscape
retaining wall along top of bluff with approximately 30 linear
feet of 2 foot high landscape retaining wall.
Located: 2555 Kirkup Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-121-3-8
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The CAC supports the application using thru-flow decking.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection February 8th,
noting straightforward application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I recuse myself from this application for a
prior employment relationship.
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on
behalf of the applicant. This is the replacement of a small
existing fixed dock that pre-dates 1984, and with respect to the
materials, the entire proposed dock structure will be comprised
of untreated materials and open-grate decking. There is'also a
small retaining wall up near the top of the slope that will be
replaced in-place and extended a little bit to match the top of
the slope, which the Board saw during field inspections:
If you have any other questions about it, I'm happy to answer.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 22, En-Consultants on behalf of
JALC EXPEDITIONS, LLC, c/o JOSHUA HO-WALKER & LILLIAN
GOLDENTHAL, MEMBERS requests a Wetland Permit to replace existing
±3'x±125' timber bluff stairway, including 8'x13' and 6.5'x9' decks, with
a 4'x±126' timber bluff stairway, including a 4'x9' entry platform with bench
at top of bluff, a 4'x6' landing with bench, a 4'x6' landing with seat, a 4'x6'
landing with storage bin, a 4'x6' landing at toe of bluff, and 4'x7' steps to
Board of Trustees 70 February 16, 2022
beach; maintaining existing 10'x12.5' covered deck to remain; and
plant/replant with native vegetation all areas of existing vegetation disturbed/lost
during demolition/removal of existing stairway and construction of new stairway,
including areas devoid of vegetation in location of prior stairway and decks.
Located: 1600 Hyatt Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-50-1-6
The Trustees most recently visited this property on the 8th
of February. Noted that it seemed a straightforward stair
replacement. They did however question the fence in close
proximity to the top of the bluff.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
proposed 250 square foot deck is inconsistent with LWRP
policies. Platforms associated with stairs may not be larger
than 100 square feet. The platform deck exceeds 100 square feet
and is located seaward of the top of the bluff. By definition,
that platform deck is not permissible pursuant to 275.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the
application with a ten-foot non-turf planted with native
vegetation, reduction of the size of the oversized platform and
removable stairs at base of the stairway.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann, on behalf of the applicants. Just
to the LWRP comment, before I start, Nick, there was a reference
to a 250 square foot-deck? There is no 250 square foot deck.
I'm trying to figure out where that is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm assuming he's speaking to the platform at
the mid-point. I don't know what else it could be.
MR. HERRMANN: Just for the record, that is a actually 125 square
feet. It's less than 200 square feet. But basically this
entire structure predates Coastal Erosion. You can see it on
the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area map. It predates the Trustees
jurisdiction over Long Island Sound on the'wetlands code here.
We met in the field, we pointed out that basically the new
stairway will go in the same location and configuration as the
existing, but with some streamlining, particularly toward the
top of the bluff. And with respect to the oversized decks where
are several that are part of the existing structure. All of
those are in fact to be removed and replaced with landings no
'larger than 4x6, with the exception of the existing covered deck
which is to remain. So again, that is a legally pre-existing
portion of the project that is not to be demolished or
reconstructed. That is to remain. Everything else is going to
be removed, and those larger platforms that are shown on the
survey, there is a 6 1/2x9 platform lower down, and then there
is a larger platform near the base of the bluff that also will
be removed. So those oversized platforms are being replaced
with smaller landings.
With respect to the fence, we talked about that a little
bit in the field. Under prior Wetlands permit in 2007, #6533,
there was a six-foot wide non-turf buffer that was required in
Board of Trustees 71 February 16, 2022
connection with the property at that time. That non-turf buffer
is now well vegetated along with the rest of the face of the
bluff, and that wire fence was installed shortly after the property
was purchased. It was put in at the edge of the lawn behind those
plantings, but it was put in without a permit. They did not realize you
needed a Trustees permit for the wire fence. If possible, we would
like to have it approved as part of this permit.
As an alternative, their intention was to really make that
fence sort of temporary, in a way, as you mentioned in the
field, it was a dog run and young kids. So there is a future
plan to come back to replace that fence anyway, so if you are
not, if you can't, if you are not inclined to approve the
as-built locations as part of this application, it could be
addressed at a subsequent date.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here
wishing to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Or any additional comments from the members of the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hearing no additional comments, I'll make a
motion to close the hearing in this application.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the plan stamped received in the office February 11th,
2022, also stipulating that the fence near the top of the bluff
be a temporary-style fence. And after receiving clarification
of the deck sizes and structures, it would thereby bring this
application into consistency with the LWRP coordinator.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Number 23, En-Consultants on behalf of PANTS VIEW, LLC, c/o
ANTHONY BONSIGNORE, MANAGER requests a Wetland Permit to
renovate, alter, and partially reconstruct (project meets Town
Code definition of demolition) existing 1 and 2-story, single
family dwelling (with 1,853 sq.ft. habitable footprint), as
follows: Remove existing 492 sq.ft. partially covered waterside
deck (with pergola) and construct 762 sq.ft. roofed-over,
wrap-around deck, at least 11 feet farther landward; reconstruct
in-place approx. 226 sq.ft. portion of 2nd floor roof and 66
sq.ft. balcony over proposed roofed-over deck; reconstruct
in-place 459 sq.ft. 1-story portion of dwelling; remove all
existing accessory structures located seaward of top of bluff
and/or within Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, including 7' x 7'
spa, 137 sq.ft. deck, and 280 sq.ft. brick patio areas, and
replace the spa and deck with a 186 sq.ft. sand patio (+/-15
cy); remove from landward side of dwelling existing 56 sq.ft.
Board of Trustees 72 February 16, 2022
1 st floor front entry and 145 sq.ft. covered porch; construct on
landward side of dwelling a 274 sq.ft. grade-level masonry
patio; construct on landward side of dwelling a 1,005 sq.ft.
grade-level masonry pool patio in place of existing 1,454 sq.ft.
patio; install new pervious gravel driveway in place of existing
driveway; replace existing fencing with new 4' high
pool-enclosure fencing; replace existing conventional septic
system with new I/A sanitary system; and install stormwater
drainage system.
Located: 2022 Hyatt Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-50-1-21
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
Trustees conducted a field inspection February 8th, noting
the natural buffer on seaward side of house. We did receive new
plans stamped received February 12th, 2022, that state all
ground surface area situated seaward of the proposed porch shall
be maintained as a non-turf buffer.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicant.
Just a quick review of the application. This is really a
drawback of the existing structures that are there. But due to
parts of the existing dwelling being either partially or
completely demolished, this is a demolition that is in front of
you, pursuant to Town code, the definition thereof.
We did recently get ZBA approval. The project is outside
the jurisdiction of the DEC.
Just to run you through it quickly, there is a partial
reconstruction of the second-floor roof and balcony. There is a
demolition and reconstruction of the one-story part the house
that is on the landward side of the house. There is a
demolition and removal of the existing 492 square foot partially
covered waterside deck. And then there is substantial
renovation to the two-story portion of the dwelling, but that
portion of the dwelling is not to be in fact demolished, but the
cumulative result is the project meets a Town-defined demo,
which is why it's characterized that way on the project
description. So I just wanted to be clear about that.
But the removal of that waterside deck and construction of
the roofed-over wraparound porch, pulls the structural setback
of the house from the bluff back 11 feet landward.
The project results in a 19% decrease in lot coverage.
There is an overall 19-foot increase in bluff setback of the
structures on the lot because the existing permitted hot tub and
the associated deck that are currently located seaward of the
top of the bluff are to be removed. All other structural
surfaces within Coastal Erosion Hazard Area are to be removed.
There is a storm water drainage system proposed and a new IA
system proposed in place of the existing conventional septic
Board of Trustees 73 February 16, 2022
system. And Glenn, as you mentioned when we were at the site
there was some comments that you wanted covered, the portion of
the property seaward of the proposed porch would remain as
non-turf buffer, and Nick had noted that some of those areas
that might be left temporarily barren either through removal of
the removal of the patio surfaces or removal of that privet
hedge would actually be replanted with native vegetation and
that the existing pathway to the beach would be vegetated in a
way that it narrows the path to four feet, and that revised plan
that you got has a note we wrote a note to sort of encompass all
of those requests of the Board.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Just to clarify, the existing
foundation is to remain, correct?
MR. HERRMANN: That's correct. In all cases. Even the one-story
part that has been demoed.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone here wish to speak to this
application?
(No response).
Questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the new revised plans stamped received February 14th, 2022,
that address the non-turf buffer seaward of the house.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Number 24, En-Consultants on behalf of ALEXANDRA FOX STERN
1997 TRUST, c/o JOLYON F. STERN, TRUSTEE requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a 1,863sq.ft. two-story, single family
dwelling with attached garage in-place of existing 1,686sq.ft.,
1 & 2 story dwelling, and 43sq.ft. and 134sq.ft. porches
(existing dwelling foundation to remain, with structural
reinforcement provided if/as needed; new foundation to be
provided for portion of new dwelling constructed in place of
existing porches); remove existing 89sq.ft. and 169sq.ft.
second-floor decks, and resurface existing 1,184sq.ft. deck to
remain; construct 427sq.ft. deck addition to landward side of
existing deck with 6.3'x14' stairway to grade and 14'x20.5'
pergola above; remove existing 294sq.ft. masonry patio, and
construct 299sq.ft. porch addition on landward side of
reconstructed dwelling with 8'x10 entry stair; remove existing
septic system and install new I/A sanitary system, utilizing
approximately 77 cubic yards of ratable soil to replace existing
subsoils; and to install a stormwater drainage system.
Located: 63165 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-40-1-14
Board of Trustees 74 February 16, 2022
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 8th of
February, noted that needs to add ten-foot non-turf buffer to
the plans and written description along the bluff.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent, but also
asked for a non-turf buffer landward of the top of the bluff.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application with a vegetated non-turf buffer along the top
of the bluff.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann, En-Consultants, on behalf of the
applicant.
As we discussed in the field, this project is substantially
similar to the that was approve by the Board just a few years
ago in 2018 pursuant to Wetland Permit 9234. That project was
not undertaken before the property was sold, so the permit was
allowed to expire.
The main differences between the current project and the
one the Board previously approved is that there is more
substantial demolition here, and the first and second floors
will be taken down to the existing foundation and reconstructed
in the same footprint. But the proposed water-side second-floor
balcony extension that would have moved the structure partially
closer to the bluff, that was part of the last permit has been
eliminated. So all of the proposed reconstruction occurs
landward of the existing bluff setback to the deck around the pool.
There is a deck addition on the landward side of the house
and an increase in habitable space over the existing front
porches but both of those expansions occur more than 100 feet
from the top of the bluff, and whereas the prior project had
maintained the existing conventional septic system, this project
proposes a new IA system in place of the existing.
The waterside deck and pool are to remain and in response
to the Board's request for the ten-foot non-turf buffer, I just
handed up to Liz our revised plans dated 2/14/22, which adds the
non-turf buffer to the plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(No response).
Or any comments from members of the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this application
based off the submission of new plans stamped received in the
office February 16th, 2022.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH:.AII in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 75 February 16, 2022
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 25, En-Consultants on behalf of
NORTH FORK PROJECT, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to renovate
and modify existing commercial building (Old Mill Inn, originally
constructed circa 1821), by raising in-place a 1,455sq.ft., 2.5
story portion of building 4.5 feet over new/modified piling
foundation (with interior renovations); removing and replacing
in-place 100sq.ft., one-story portion of building with 1.5 story
space over new piling foundation with attached 30sq.ft. wood
stoop and steps for access; removing and replacing in-place
1,310sq.ft. one-story portion of building with 388sq.ft.
one-story open porch and 922sq.ft. of open wood deck and steps
over new/modified piling foundation (design emulates original
building.footprint); removing 107sq.ft. one-story portion of
building and 22sq.ft. cellar entrance; and constructing a
127sq.ft. ADA compliant access ramp; replace surface of existing
665sq.ft. wood deck to remain; remove and replace masonry
walkway; upgrade existing sanitary system with I/A OWTS system;
install stormwater drainage system; remove existing LP tank and
fencing; and temporarily remove and replace overhead utilities.
Located: 5775 Mill Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-6-3.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection February 8th, noting it
was a straightforward replacement of an historical structure.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant/owner, who is here as well. Hopefully saving the
best for last here.
The project seeks to raise the central 1,455 square foot
two-story portion of the existing building on to a new piling
foundation, with a reconstruction of a small one-story portion
of the structure on the south side of the building.
The existing 1,310 square foot one-story portion of the
building, which is currently all enclosed restaurant seating
space, will be replaced in part with a 388 square-foot
roofed-over open porch, and in part with a 922 square-foot
uncovered deck, all within the same footprint as that existing
one-story portion of the building.
As a result, the finished design returns the overall character of
the building to its historic appearance, dating back to prior to 1955
when the Old Mill Road bridge was still there.
I did want to show the Board a couple of photos. I didn't
get a chance to show you these out in the field. This is an
historical photo of Old Mill back when the bridge still went
across the creek. And I think we submitted these with the
application there.
This is just a rendering of what the existing structure looks like.
And then the proposed. Which you'll notice looks a lot more like it
used to in terms of having the porch on the side of the building with
all that additional enclosed space being removed.
Board of Trustees 76 February 16, 2022
And so in addition to I think what has been thus far recognized also
by the ZBA as sort of cultural/historical/architectural improvements, the
design also does bring some significant environmental improvements to
the site, not just raising the building to flood compliant elevation, but
through the upgrade of the existing septic system which is approved by
the Health Department a long time ago to a low nitrogen IA sanitary
system and also storm water drainage system.
If you have any questions about the project, I'm happy to
answer them, and I'm sure Anthony would be happy to answer them
as well. He has been at this a long time with the design and
planning stage and is getting pretty anxious to get this project
done in the way we hope.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak to
this application?
(No response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
This is a great project to revive an historical landmark.
MR. HERRMANN: It's cool, isn't it?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I appreciate all the care that's taken to make
sure it's environmentally friendly as well.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a
motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees