HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-06/15/2022 Glenn Goldsmith,President ®� Soo,, Town Hall Annex
'A. Nicholas Krupski,Vice President ®� ®�® 54375 Route
P.O. Box 11799
Eric Sepenoski J�t i Southold,New York 11971
Liz Gillooly G Q Telephone(631) 765-1892
Elizabeth Peeples �Ol� �� Fax(631) 765-6641
c®UNTV,�
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, June 15, 2022 w
5:30 PM �c
Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee O
Eric Sepenoski, Trustee ��`fj 2p
Liz Gillooly, Trustee `�
Elizabeth Peeples, Trustee Ooh
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist
C
Lori Hulse, Board Counsel ���j�
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Good evening, and welcome to our Wednesday,
June 15th 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 by announcing the people on
the dais. To my left we have Trustee Krupski, we have Trustee
Sepenoski, Trustee Gillooly and Trustee Peeples.
To my right, attorney to the Trustees Lori Hulse, Senior
Clerk Typist Elizabeth Cantrell. We have Court Stenographer
Wayne Galante. And from the Conservation Advisory Council we
have John Chandler.
Agendas for tonight's meeting are posted on the Town's
website and are located out in the hall.
We do have a number of postponements tonight. In the
agenda under Wetlands permits, numbers 14 through 30 are all
postponed. They are listed as follows:
Number 14, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of CAROLE BRADLEY
requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace the existing
deteriorated upper bulkhead and replacement with proposed 51
linear feet of new vinyl bulkhead with associated 32 linear foot
return, both landward of existing bulkhead; install and
perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the
landward side of proposed landward bulkhead; remove and replace
Board of Trustees 2 June 15, 2022
existing catwalk/pier consisting of a 4'x16' landward catwalk to
a 8'x12' deck to a 4'x9' seaward catwalk as required only to
construct proposed bulkheading; and to install Thru-Flow decking
on the entire catwalk/pier surface.
Located: 1265 Island View Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-57-2-17
Number 15, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of JOHN COSENZA
requests a Wetland Permit to establish and perpetually maintain
a Non-Disturbance area seaward of the top of bluff with existing
vegetation to remain natural with selective hand pruning in
order to maintain view shed; establish and perpetually maintain
a 10' wide Non-Turf Buffer at top of bluff planted with ground
cover with a mix of native grasses and native species; remove
existing flagpole; remove existing 4'1" high stone retaining
wall to allow natural slopes to be regraded and place 2'x3'
natural boulders stacked to maintain natural grade; install new
6" high by 7' wide natural split face bluestone slabs placed at
grade for steps (two steps 7'6"x6"), and following the natural
grade; regrade to establish natural slopes; curbs along natural
grade, each curb 1' high split face bluestone curb and 4" wide
with 6" steps embedded in the slope, 5 curbs in total, each curb
along elevation 79 is 6 linear feet, curb at elevation 78 is 24
linear feet, curb at elevation 77 is 34 linear feet, curb at
elevation 76 is 42 linear feet, and lowest curb at elevation 75
is 24 linear feet; 10' and 50 linear feet of existing section of
retaining wall along easterly property line to be repaired,
alternating flag stone steps (3'x3') and 3'x6' (26 steps in
total); regrade east side yard of property for placement of
pathway with 3'x3' flagstone pavers and 3'x6', 26 pavers stone
pavers set into the slope and level with the retaining wall
(grade rising from elevation 66 to elevation 72 on north); plant
slope with new native species along east side of property; along
west side of property plant native trees and vegetation to
thicken existing vegetation, 26 stone pavers walkway (3'x3'
stones) to existing beach access; at 70' from top of bluff
replace existing terrace and expand existing stone terrace
(total size 700sq.ft.); and repair existing concrete block wall
on west side of.property line; in front yard install a new
gravel parking area with Belgian block curb to match driveway.
Located: 1700 Hyatt Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-50-1-5
Number 16, En-Consultants on behalf of DANIEL McGOVERN &
CATHERINE LUCARELLI requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing
3'x4.5' steps, and construct a fixed timber dock with water and
electricity consisting of a 4'x60' fixed timber catwalk (53'
seaward of bulkhead), constructed with untreated decking
(including open-grate decking at least 15' seaward of bulkhead),
with two (2) 4'x6' steps for beach access; a 3'x14' hinged ramp;
and a 6'x20' floating dock situated in an "L" shaped
configuration and secured by two (2) 8" diameter pilings.
Located: 830 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-1-4
Number 17, SLATTERY NASSAU POINT TRUST requests a Wetland
Board of Trustees 3 June 15, 2022
Permit to replace the existing 4'x16' set of stairs; 12'x18'
deck; and 4'x32' walk; deck and walk are 30"AGL.
Located: 460 West Cove Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-2-6
Number 18, East End Pool King on behalf of KIERAN COLLINGS
requests a Wetland Permit to install a proposed 16'x32' vinyl
swimming pool with approximately 1,300sq.ft. at grade patio;
install pool enclosure fencing; install a drywell for pool waste
water; and install a pool equipment area.
Located: 3960 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-26.1
Number 19, En-Consultants on behalf of ELIAS DAGHER
requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing wood platform, walk
and steps; construct a fixed timber dock with water and
electricity consisting of a 4'x74' fixed timber catwalk
constructed with open-grate decking; with two (2) 4'x6' steps
for beach access; a 3'x14' hinged ramp; and a 6'x20' floating
dock situated in a "T" configuration and secured by two (2) 8"
diameter pilings.
Located: 90 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-2-6
Number 20, BRIDGET CLARK requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 20'3"x22'4" (452sq.ft.) detached garage and to convert
it into an accessory apartment by replacing existing windows,
exterior door, add plumbing to connect to existing septic, and
install a wall mounted electric heating unit.
Located: 7825 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-6-15
Number 21, Michael Kimack on behalf of NUNNAKOMA WATERS
ASSOCIATION, INC. requests a Wetland Permit to perform work on
the property located at 645 Wampum Way (1000-87-2-42.3),
consisting of installing 235 linear feet of Shore Guard 9900
vinyl hybrid low-sill bulkhead with helical supports installed
at discretion of contractor; restore approximately 200 linear
feet of eroded bank with 90-100 cubic yards of sand recovered
from storm deposit area; install filter fabric (±1,600sq.ft.),
and plant American Beach grass @ 18" on center (±1,200 plants)
over restored bank area; construct storm water concrete
diversion swale (10'x43', 430sq.ft.) with rip-rap runoff area
(10'x20', 200sq.ft.), consisting of 50-150 Ib. stones set on
filter fabric; the storm washed sand area is to be restored to
the original grade line and the removed sand (90-100 cubic
yards) is to be used on site to restore the eroded bank area; on
all three properties, dredge a portion of Moyle Cove to deepen
channel in three (3) areas, AA, BB and CC to a depth of-4.00ft.
(Approx. 365 cubic yards), and area DD to a depth of-3.00ft.
(Approx. 85 cubic yards), for a total dredging of approximately
450 cubic yards; the dredge spoils is proposed to be spread on
the two Sauer properties (255 Wigwam Way, SCTM# 1000-87-2-40.1 &
175 Wigwam Way, SCTM# 1000-87-2-40.2), in an area of
approximately 8,000 sq.ft. and to a depth of approximately
1.5ft.; the dredged spoils placement area will be surrounded by
a silt fence with hay bales to be kept in place and maintained
until the spoils are de-watered.
Board of Trustees 4 June 15, 2022
Located: 645 Wampum Way, 255 Wigwam Way & 175 Wigwam Way, Southold.
SCTM#s 1000-87-2-42.3, 1000-87-2-40.1 & 1000-87..-2-40.2
Number 22, Nigel R. Williamson on behalf of JOSEPH &
DEBORAH POLIDORA requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing
one-story entrance and construct a new 6'x24.6' one-story
entrance to dwelling with a basement under(same footprint);
construct a new 4.8'x8.9' enclosed addition connecting the
existing dwelling to existing 489.25sq.ft., 1.5 story garage;
construct a new 4.0'x10.5' covered entry porch; construct a
4.6'x4.6' outdoor shower (open to the sky); demolish existing
8.8'x24.4' seaward side covered porch and construct a new
18.67'x38.0' single-story addition with basement under and
4.0'x4.0' egress window; the total square footage of existing
and proposed dwelling habitable area is 1,682.58sq.ft.;
construct a new 383sq.ft. stone patio in between the new .
addition and garage; remove existing cesspool and existing
boulder retaining wall closest to dwelling on seaward side,
install a new I/A OWTS system with a waterproofed 66.0' long
retaining wall with a 19' westerly return and a 17' easterly
return to retain the proposed I/A sanitary system; and create a
4.0'wide pervious access path with stepping stones to creek.
Located: 1055 Point PleasantRoad, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-114-1-1
Number 23, 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
Number 24, 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 25, 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 a "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 26, 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
Board of Trustees 5 June 15, 2022
platform with a 5'x4' access platform and a 4'x16' ramp; install
three (3) two-pile dolphins; and proved water and electrical
service to dock.
Located: 10995 North Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-79-5-20.14
Number 27, 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 28, 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 29, 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 30, 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
Those have all been postponed.
Under Town Code Chapter 275-8c, files were officially
closed seven days ago. Submission of any paperwork after that
date may result in a delay of the processing of the application.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to hold our
next Trustee field inspection on Wednesday, July 6th, 2022, at
8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 6 June 15, 2022
II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to hold our next Trustee
meeting Wednesday, July 13th, 2022, at 5:30 PM, at the Town hall
main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
III. WORK SESSIONS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to hold our next work session
Monday, July 11, 2022, at 5:OOPM at the Town Hall Annex 2nd floor
Executive Board Room; and on Wednesday, July 13, 2022, at 5:OOPM
at the Main Town Hall 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
May 18, 2022, Trustee meeting.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The Trustees monthly report for May 2022. A
check for$7,867.46_was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for
the General Fund.
VI. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VI, Public Notices are
posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
VII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VII, 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 XI Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, June 15, 2022 are classified as
Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are
not subject to further review under SEQRA. As written.
Founders Landing Boat Yard, LLC SCTM# 1000-64-3-10 & 1000-64-3-11
Douglas Bradford SCTM# 1000-53-6-16
Board of Trustees 7 June 15, 2022
Laura Finan SCTM# 1000-10-7-14
Dana Didriksen SCTM# 1000-2-1-6
J. Geddes Parsons SCTM# 1000-10-9-3.1
Fishers Island Ordinance Building, LLC SCTM# 1000-12-1-2
Kathleen D. Collins & Pauline C. Heeney (Exc.)
SCTM# 1000-10-4-15.1
Marilyn Rosenberg SCTM# 1000-10-3-13'
Richard Heus Revocable Trust & Pamela Heus Revocable Trust
SCTM# 1000-106-11-22
1663 Bridge LLC, c/o Donald P. Brennan, Jr., Managing Member
SCTM# 1000-118-2-4.2
Mary Hoeltzel SCTM# 1000-128-2-5
Charles Salice & Camille Passaro SCTM# 1000-87-5-25
Eric H. Dorf& Ellen R. Krakow SCTM# 1000-106-6-27.1
Town Creek Real Estate, Inc., c/o Michael Liegy SCTM#
1000-69-3-13
Linda Moeller& David McMillen SCTM# 1000-103-9-13.3
George Starkie, Jr. & Gail Berkes SCTM# 1000-57-1-7
Carole Bradley SCTM# 1000-57-2-17
Daniel McGovern & Catherine Lucarelli SCTM# 1000-77-1-4 TRUSTEE
SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VIII. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VIII, Resolutions and
Administrative Permits. In order to simplify our meetings, the
Trustees regularly group applications that are minor or similar
in nature. As such, I'll make a motion to approve as a group
Items 1 through 4 and number 8, as follows:
Number 1, En-Consultants on behalf of MICHAEL McALLISTER &
BARBARA JONES requests an Administrative Permit to replace
existing pool enclosure fencing in same location with
approximately 174 If of new 4-foot high pool enclosure fencing.
Located: 17665 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#: 1000-51-1-3
Number 2, ANDREW E. & LINDA M. TOGA requests an
Administrative Permit to install a 6' high approximately 83'
long PVC fence along the easterly property line running north;
tapering to a 4' high approximately 24' long PVC fence toward street.
Located: 2425 Mill Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-6-40
Number 3, CHRISTOPHER HUFE requests an Administrative
Permit to construct a 34'x6" x 20' deck with two sets of stairs.4'wide.
Located: 550 Jockey Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-5-10
Number 4, PAUL C. & DIANE M. GOLEB REVOCABLE TRUST
requests an Administrative Permit for the installation of an Innovative
&Alternative on-site Wastewater Treatment System.
Located: 360 Bayview Drive, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-37-4-1
And number 8, JANE & DAVID CASSARO request an Administrative
Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to hand-cut Common Reed
Board of Trustees 8 June 15, 2022
(Phragmites australis) to not less than 12" in height by hand, as needed.
Located: 2750 Minnehaha Blvd., Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-44.1
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, WILLIAM J. EARL requests an
Administrative Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to
hand-cut Common Reed (Phragmites australis) to not less than 12"
in height by hand, as needed.
Located: 5805 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-7-5.5
Trustee Peeples,conducted a field inspection June 7th,
2022, noting that the trimming had already taken place.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
So I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted,
subject to as-built fees, since the trimming has already taken place.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 6, WILLIAM J. EARL requests an
Administrative Permit for the as-built building addition for
fireplace -15 SF (6.3 x 2.4) and covered stoop -40.7 SF (9.7 x 4.2).
Located: 5805 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-7-5.5
Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection June 7th,
noting it was straightforward, however the LWRP found this to be
inconsistent. The inconsistency is the as-built structures were
constructed without obtaining a Wetland Permit.
So I'll make a motion to approve this application as
submitted thereby granting it a permit will bring it into
consistency the with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 7, BENJAMIN & CAROLYN BENNETT
request an Administrative Permit to remove non-native species and dead
tree limbs from 100' buffer area and replant with native grasses
for a long-term rehabilitation of land.
Located: 1220 9th Street, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-45-6-9.2
Trustee Sepenoski conducted a field inspection June 7th,
has extensive notes.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
As such, I will make a motion to approve this application
with the following conditions: That the five mature trees in a
line along the landward edge of the property remain undisturbed.
The 25 or more trees along the seaward edge be minimally pruned
of dead limbs only. And the invasive Bittersweet, Poison Ivy,
Sweet Briar and Wineberry be removed and replanted with native
grasses or shrubs. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 9 June 15, 2022
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 9, A&E KOEHLER LLC requests an
Administrative Permit to remove and replace a 5'x90'-concrete
sidewalk located at eastern end of property.
Located: 1595 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-4-5
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies
are established purpose, the structure, sidewalk and deck are
placed on the beach.
Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection May 27th,
noting the portable deck, also questioned the need of a sidewalk
and its environmental impacts.
Due to the fact that this sidewalk increases runoff into
the wetlands and has an adverse environmental impact, I'll make
a motion to deny this application.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IX. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral IX, applications for
extensions, transfers, administrative amendments.
In order to simplify our meeting, I'll make a motion to
approve as a group items 1 through 4, 6 and 7. They are listed
as follows:
Number 1, ROSEMARY SCHNEIDER requests the Last One (1) Year
Extension to Administrative Permit#9494A issued on July 17, 2019.
Located: 8095 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-6-16
Number 2, DAVID J. KAPLAN requests a Transfer of Wetland.
Permit#1808 from Robert Kaplan to David J. Kaplan, as issued on
April 30, 1984.
Located: Dock at Pleasant Inlet off Cedar Point Drive E., Southold.
SCTM# 1000-92-1-7
Number 3, THOMAS & ELAINE GINDELE request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#5438 from Michael Wilson to Thomas & Elaine
Gindele, as issued on October 26, 2001 and Amended on May 21, 2003.
Located: 590 Tarpon Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-57-1-6
Number 4, En-Consultants on behalf of GEANIE ARCIGA & THOMAS
JUUL-HANSEN requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#10125 for
the relocation of approximately 69 If of project limiting fence to the 50 foot bluff setback
and the re-vegetation of approximately 270 sq.ft. of clearing seaward of the 50 foot bluff
setback with native vegetation, excluding the permanent 4 foot wide pathway to the
proposed stairway.
Located: 500 Castle Hill Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-72-1-1.10
Number 6, En-Consultants on behalf of PECONIC RIVER, LLC requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9930 for the landward relocation and
reduction in size of the approved dwelling and swimming pool, specifically to demolish
existing two-story, 2,300 sf, FEMA-noncompliant, single-family dwelling with 460 sf
attached deck and 761 sf detached garage, and construct at least +27 feet farther
landward a new 1 to 2-story, 2,350 sf, FEMA-compliant, single-family dwelling with 16 sf
Board of Trustees 10 June, 15, 2022
and 17 sf entry porches, 1,402 sf attached pool deck with 4.7'-x 14' steps and associated
retaining walls, 681 sf swimming pool (equipped with saltwater filtration system), and
669 sf attached north deck; remove existing nonconforming septic system located +42'
from bulkhead, and install new I/A OWTS sanitary system outside Chapter 275
jurisdiction; install a drainage system of drywells to collect and recharge roof runoff and
pool backwash; install new pervious gravel driveway and parking areas; remove
specified trees located no closer than +69 feet from bulkhead; and establish a 27' to 39'
wide, approximately 5,959 sf buffer area adjacent to bulkhead, including existing 4,259
sf naturally vegetated embankment and additional 10' wide, +1,700 sf non-turf buffer in
place of existing lawn along top of bank.
Located: 450 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-1-18.1
Number 7, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of PHYLLIS SOUSA
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7928 for the as-built 83'
timber retaining wall and the as-built 11.2'x3.3' concrete dock access stairs.
Located: 1695 Mill Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-6-32
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, Frederick R. Weber, RA on behalf of
HEATH GRAY & MOLLY RHODES requests an Administrative Amendment
to Wetland Permit#9758 to create an "elevated lawn area" on the
west (water side) of house by constructing a 70' long x 2.5'
high stone facing retaining wall with two 7'wide stone treads
from porch to elevated lawn area and three 7' wide stone treads
from the lawn to natural grade; construct a retaining wall on
north side of and running parallel to house for a distance of
40' and ending in a half round shape 37' long; with two sets of
8' long bluestone slabs on edge forming three (3) 8" drops in
the lawn surface; reconfigure patio area on south side of screen
porch/house to 412sq. ft. in lieu of previously approved
156sq.ft.; reduce area of new driveway to 3436sq.ft. in lieu of
previously approved 4004sq.ft. with an arc retaining wall 83'6"
long added on the roadside; relocate outdoor shower to outside
Trustee jurisdiction.
Located: 8570 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-5-5
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on June 8th,
2022, talking about the need to possibly reduce the size of the
raised land and make the entire rear yard non-turf and/or
non-disturbance.
I will make a motion to approve this application with the
condition of a 50-foot non-disturbance buffer, a non-turf buffer
seaward from retaining wall to the non-disturbance buffer, and
subject to new plans showing those buffers.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 11 June 15, 2022
Number ten, resolutions, other, at the request of the applicant,
X. RESOLUTIONS -OTHER:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral X, Resolutions - Other, the Trustees
put forth the following resolution:
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees RESCINDS the Resolution '
Adopted on May 18, 2022, and AMENDS the Resolution to read as follows:
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees APPROVES the request of.
Stephen Kiely, Esq. on behalf of 2500 SOUNDVIEW, LLC for a Wetland Permit to install
a proposed 10'10"x24'0" in-ground pool; install a proposed 172sq.ft. masonry pool patio
against east side of pool; remove 28sq.ft. of existing westerly 299sq.ft. patio and
reconstruct existing patio to be a 271sq.ft. masonry patio; install a drywell for pool
backwash; install a pool equipment area; install 4' high pool enclosure fencing; a 4' wide
access path to pond; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 15' wide vegetated
non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the extreme pond water height; and as
depicted on the survey prepared by Ward Brooks, Land Surveyor of Land Survey Long
Island.com, last revised May 25, 2022, and on the landscaping plan prepared by Suffolk
Environmental Consulting, Inc., dated April 15, 2022.
Located: 2500 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-94-2-1.5.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral XI, public hearings. At
this time I make a motion to go off of our regular meeting agenda and enter into
the public hearings.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a public hearing in the matter
following applications for permits under the Wetlands Ordinance
of the Town of Southold. I have an affidavit of publication from
the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may be read prior to
asking for comments from the public.
Please keep your comments organized and brief, five minutes
or less if possible.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under Amendments, number 1, Costello Marine
Contracting Corp. on behalf of FOUNDERS LANDING BOAT YARD, LLC
requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#8666 for the as-built
68' long solid splashboard system under the offshore fixed finger pier.
Located: 2700 Hobart Road & 1000 Terry Lane, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-64-3-10 & 1000-64-3-11
Board of Trustees 12 June 15, 2022
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
The Trustees most recently visited this site on the 8th of
June and noted that it appears to be a groin that was
constructed without a permit. To be discussed further at work
session.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. COSTELLO: Hi, I'm Jane Costello, I'm the owner of the
Founders Landing Boat Yard LLC.
Okay, so it's for a 68-foot, I call it a solid splashboard
system. I know you use the word "groin." Okay, so let me just
tell you very quickly how this came to be. I'm not going to
bore you with excuses and things like that. But originally the
original splashboard system actually caused more problems than
it did good. I had boats getting damaged, the boat on the
inshore of that particular finger pier, got banged up, not once
but twice, and so that particular boater made demands on me, and
I was kind of put into a position where I had to choose between
two evils. To avoid a lawsuit, I made the call and I took his
suggestion, because he was an engineer, and I took extra
sheathing and I had a few guys over the weekend put it in. It's
a very minor structure in the sense that there is no piling
supporting the structure. It's just vinyl sheathing put in.
While originally it was not penetrating the ground very
much, but as the sand is accumulated, of courseit's penetrating
more and more.
A lot of, and you can see the build-up, there is a whole
beach there, you can walk all along it. I basically forfeited
that slip as a functioning slip. But the structure, to my
surprise, which I was thinking was going to be a temporary
structure, until I could remove the boater from the boatyard,
which has happened. But what has happened is so much sand has
accumulated, I can't take it out. I can't take it out until I
dredge. So then I tried to apply for a dredge permit. And at
that time I was told that, I don't know if it was a bay
constable or who, but a member, representative from Southold
Town, called the DEC. I went into a compliance hearing with the
DEC regarding the structure, um, and so I paid a fine. But
removal, they told me not to remove it.
Um, it's doing exactly what it was meant to do, to my
surprise. Because nothing is really holding it except for the
splashboard system. It's just kind of bolted to boards that are
being held, you know, it's just, but the sand has accumulated so
much that it's just, it's functioning, it is breaking the waves.
I'm getting a beach build-up, which is helping with the waves.
Um, and so here I am.
So the DEC approved it. They didn't want me to remove it.
And so now I'm here looking for permission to keep it, from you
Board of Trustees 13 June 15, 2022
guys.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response).
Just off of our notes, based off the code definitions, we
would classify that, I mean I argued for a bulkhead, but after
reading through the code it probably would be classified as a
groin, as it is quite buried, as you noted. Which definitely is
a self-imposed hardship that now has to be dredged and loss of a
slip, whatever.
I think the problems the Board faces with it is that
because of the way it's constructed, I certainly don't feel that
we can call it a splashboard. Therefore, I personally don't feel
that I could vote to approve something that is built this way.
I'm not saying that we are not open to working with you if
there is some modifications that can be made to this going up,
you know, maybe just increasing or decreasing the spacing on the
original splashboard down the road.
I'm certainly open to hearing other ideas. You know, I
understand what you are trying to do there, to protect the
marina. But splashboards technically are supposed to allow a
little bit of sand to move through. Obviously the sand moved
through, you know, you'd be getting the sand and I think you
have a dredge permit for the inside of the marina, and then you
can just dredge out, it would kind of make your life easier,
too, I'm assuming.
The other thing is, after looking at aerials, we see when
it was built, obviously. It shows up immediately. And the sand
is starting to change the whole littoral drift of the area, so
the sand is starting to push back toward the town ramp, which we
want to avoid, too.
So I'm open toward some sort of a fix here but I would like
to see something a little different than what I have in front of
me. That's just my opinion.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay. I don't think it's the section that is
running parallel with the fixed dock. You think that's backing
into the town ramp or into the navigational channel?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A little bit of both. It's created, it's
changed the whole littoral drift of the area there. So it's sort of
growing out, as you see, and with that, as another unintended
consequence, it's starting to grow back south, I guess it would
be, ever so slowly. But I'm afraid it will get worse.
So I would like -- and, for me, too, just based on the
code, I would have a hard time voting on this.
So I'm open to something to try and help the marina out,
you know, but this, I have a little issue with this as it stands
now.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay. So first I think, in general, a groin or a
jetty is an erosion control structure, and you are trying to
Board of Trustees 14 June 15, 2022
protect property, in a sense, with a groin, just like a
bulkhead. And.this I would consider more of a wave attenuation,
because I'm not trying to really protect property. I don't
really want the sand. Do you know what I mean? That is a side
effect. And I don't think the build-up is actually going toward
the ramp. I think the build-up is actually coming closer to the
mouth of the boat basin.
I think the sand, the way it comes, during the southwest
storms, where I'm completely exposed, it's coming off that
peninsula on the other side of the channel that has broken down
jetties, and as those jetties deteriorate, I mean more and more,
there is more drifting happening. And there is a lot of clean,
fine sand in that area. I mean, between the dredging of the
navigational channel, between the dredging of the boat slips,
between, you know, Jockey Creek, Goose Creek, that whole area,
the sand just moves very easily. And even with this structure in
place, you can still see on a southwest wind the water carrying
sand in between the splashboards.
I mean it still presses over because at high tide, the
water comes over this particular structure that we are
questioning.
So dredging, yes, it prevents it from going into the
marina, as the sand goes into the marina, it's going to line
that bulkhead. To dredge that area next to the bulkhead is much
more difficult than dredging out this one slip or even like the
open mouth of my boat basin. Dredging close to a bulkhead is
difficult. It's not easy. It's messy, it's, you take the risk of
hitting the vinyl sheathing. Out in the open space, dredging is
a lot easier. You don't agree?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I strongly disagree. I've seen a lot of Costello
dredging up against bulkheads and they do it quite well.
MS. COSTELLO: Yes, but that particular slip, though, did you
notice all the shoaling that is in the interior side of the slip?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MS. COSTELLO: I mean, that's difficult. I even had Latham come
in because they have smaller equipment than us and try do it,
and they couldn't do it. It's not easy. The reach --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand, any dredging can become
difficult. I understand that.
MS. COSTELLO: But you have to have the proper equipment. That
can't be done by hand. You have to have the reach of a crane to
'be able to make it. You also have to have the size of the
barge, between the two, that's what I mean, I called Latham, and
even he couldn't do it the last time I dredged.
Now, if this structure is removed, I hope you do understand
that I have to dredge that whole area out before I remove it
because it's --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure, I can understand that.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay. And I would want then to also use that area
as a boat slip once again.
Board of Trustees 15 June 15, 2022
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't particularly have an issue with using
that as a boat slip. And again, I'm open to doing something.
You are trying to protect the boats inside the marina, I can
appreciate that. You know, we routinely permit in splashboards,
which it looks vastly different than this, and it doesn't change
the littoral drift.
Very briefly, a groin is defined in our code as a man-made
barrier, typically perpendicular to the shoreline, used to
change the natural littoral drift, prevent erosion or protect an
area from wave energy.
So a splashboard is not supposed to change the littoral
drift, which this obviously has. Which is where I'm hung up. And
the groins are prohibited.
So, like I said, I'm willing to work with you on this. I
think the Board is. I would just like to see something, whether
it be raising it up, I understand you have to dredge beforehand
to be able to do that, but I would like to see something raised
up so in theory sand could move naturally, the way it was prior
to this, and also it's designed for the ecology, not to change,
you know, the whole benthic ecology that should be right there,
which should be, you know, underground water is now being
essentially being built up, and that's diminished. You should be
able to get finfish, shellfish, anything to move back and forth
under splashboard, and I think that's really the whole point of
avoiding a groin in this location.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is this something you would like to table and
maybe think about?
MS. COSTELLO: Well, you know. Well, yes, I guess so. I just, it
puts, it's such a difficult situation because now that it's
permitted by the DEC, whatever I have to do, I have to go back
to the DEC, because I want to remove it, right?
So you just want it that there is, on the bottom, there is no
penetration.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Into the ground, yes. Yup. I mean, I'm just one
Trustee but that's what I would be looking for, to remove the
definition of a groin and return to sort of a natural process there.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because I think under the original permit
when we allowed that dock and the original splashboard, it was
the wood with the gap in between it with distance, I forget, off
the bottom.
MS. COSTELLO: Two feet.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, so if the wood was changed to vinyl or
something else, if the wood was not sufficient to stop the wave
energy, maybe vinyl instead, but the whole point having it off
the bottom so it's not changing the littoral drift and not
affecting the finfish, shellfish and all that. I think we'd be
open to something like that. I think we've seen other designs at
different locations that work as a splashboard lead break that
are not vinyl into the ground. So there are other options. I
Board of Trustees 16 June 15, 2022
think we looked at one at Orient Yacht Club, for example. So
there's options out there.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay. That's fine with me. I mean, it just has to
be understood that I'm going to have to dredge on a more regular
basis to keep that, because even without the splashboard system,
any splashboard system, it just tends to accumulate right in
that area, and then maybe I can work, I don't know if you would
be opposed to even like an offshore splashboard system. Or would
it have to be underneath the dock?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we would have to look at something like
that. Maybe it would benefit from a pre-submission discussion.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay. I mean, there's things that we've done over
in other areas, Shelter Island and things like that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. We can meet you down there, and have a
discussion about that.
MS. COSTELLO: I'll table this --
MS. HULSE: Can I just jump in and ask, it's come to my attention
there are some storage containers on the property that were not
part of the permit that was issued in May. So in light of the
fact that it's not something that has been permitted, are you
able to remove those within 30 days?
MS. COSTELLO: I can. Um, they were just going to be temporary
through the season. I wanted -- as far as the sheds are
concerned, I wanted to do construction in the fall, at least
past Labor Day, to not disturb any of my boaters and then my
neighbors. And so that was the purpose of those storage sheds.
It was just to get me through the season.
MS. HULSE: They are generally not permitted in the Town but if
it had been presented at least it would have been something that
could have been considered by the Board during that hearing, so
just throwing them out there now is really not a good solution.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay.
MS. HULSE: But I just wanted to bring that to your attention
that it really needs to be removed or, I guess within 30 days
would be ideal.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay, so storage containers are not allowed
without permits.
MS. HULSE: Well, technically they are not allowed in the Town.
If it's something that was presented with a permit through the
current process as something was, you know, very temporary, for
a specific period of time, and the Board considered it and said,
okay, for"X" amount of time maybe that would be allowed. But
that was not done. So now they are there, and it's been brought
to my attention, and I brought it up to the Trustees and I think
that it's something, without approval, certainly can't be there.
So, I mean I'm throwing out 30 days, I'm hoping that is
acceptable to the Trustees, but, you know, it's something that
needs to be removed to avoid having to follow-up with a
violation.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay. I just--
Board of Trustees 17 June 15, 2022
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let me just table this.
I'll make a motion to table this application for the submission
of new plans and potentially a pre-submission.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. COSTELLO: Okay. So maybe we can talk about that because
there is quite a few containers including Sea Tow has like a
container on the other side, with like First Response kind of
stuff, that's kind of been there since --there was a container
there when we purchased the property, you know what.I mean, so I
think that's where it just got maybe a little confused since
they are moveable, and things like that.
But if all containers have to be removed, it's going to be
a big handicap, I think to Sea Tow, Wooden Boat Works too, I
mean, because, you know, I rent them out. Me personally, I'm not
storing anything. They are being stored for Wooden Boat Works
and things like that, just to get through the season. But, you
know, I can let everybody know, you know what I mean. But I hope
you understand that. It's just, the property was purchased and
there was a container and Sea Tow, so some of the containers
have wheels on it, you know, some of them have a hitch, things
like that, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we are just referencing-- and this has
all just come to my attention, so I'm playing a little bit of
catch up. But I think we are just referencing the ones that were
placed on site, not--
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The ones where the shed is going to go. I
think there is six of them.
MS. COSTELLO: They are specifically there, containers, trailers,
things like that.
MS. HULSE: If you have any questions, I would be happy to give
you a call.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay, yes. If you would do that, yes. Certainly,
that's no problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 2, AMP Architecture on behalf of
DOUGLAS BRADFORD requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#10046
for the demolition of existing dwelling (project meets Town Code
definition of Demolition); remove existing sanitary system and
install a new I/A OWTS system on the landward side of dwelling;
and as previously approved, to reconstruct the 1,438.0sq.ft
two-story dwelling; construct an 8.4'x36.2' (304sq.ft.) second
floor extension; a proposed 1.8'x10.7' (19.26sgft.), and a
1.8'x11.9' (21.42sq.ft.) second floor dormer extensions; and a
proposed 5'x12.5' (62.5sq.ft.) front porch.
Located: 3705 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM#1000-53-6-16
The LWRP found the application to be consistent, and the
Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the project.
Board of Trustees 18 June 15, 2022
We have plans most recently stamped April 25th, 2022, and
the Trustees most recently visited the site on the 6/8/22.
Notes from the field read straightforward, confirm changes at
hearing.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PORTILLO Anthony Portillo, AMP Architecture.
Just to give a quick synopsis. We filed with the Building
Department at that time. They looked at it as a reconstruction,
to be clear. We are leaving the 2nd floor joist, we're leaving
the first,floor. The plan had been changed from our original
submission to the Board.
The only thing that really changed is we are adding an IA
system in the front yard. We filed with the Health Department.
We need your approval to get to that. We are basically approved
there. Once I submit that approval from your office. And they'll
give us the approval for an IA system. We also have Zoning Board
approval. So we are back for that reason, unfortunately.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay.
MR. PORTILLO: One note, too, just so you know, we did submit
this to the Building Department prior to coming here and they
called it a renovation, and then they changed on us, so. It's
an unfortunate situation. So I throw that out there. So, thank
you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Well, we appreciate the addition of the IA
system, so.
MR. PORTILLO: Originally we weren't doing it because it was a
renovation and we weren't changing the bedroom count and, you
know, unfortunately, we were set back a little.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Especially in this area, it's so low-lying, and
obviously you are working within tight constraints on the
property, but we do appreciate putting an IA in on a property
such as this.
MR. PORTILLO: No problem. And one thing, because of the size of
the property, we did have to request a variance from the Health
Department as well because of our proximity to the property
line, which is, everything is basically approved. We are,just
waiting for approval from the local jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. PORTILLO: Thank you, Board.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 19 June 15, 2022
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits,
number 1, Docko, Inc. on behalf of LAURA FINAN requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct±114
linear feet of pile supported pier of which ±97 linear feet is
5' wide and ±17 linear feet is 8' wide; reconstruction to
include new rails, cross bracing, water and electric utilities,
and a davit; relocate an 8'x±20 linear foot floating dock and
restraint piles ±1' southeast; along southerly side of fixed
pier, construct a new 6' wide by±7 linear foot long pile
supported cantilevered ramp landing with rails; install a new
3.5'x±18 linear foot long hinged float access ramp; install a
new 7'x4' kayak platform with grate deck or Yakport off of
easterly side of floating dock; install four(4) new tie-off
piles; install 4' wide pile supported beach access stairs with
rails and grate treads; all waterward of the apparent high tide
water line.
Located: Hedge Street, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-7-14
The Trustees most recently visited this site on May 15th,
2022, noting that we will review the plans further at work
session, and questioning (inaudible) language on the plans.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent. Under section 4.1, it minimizes --the goal is to
minimize loss of human life and structures from flooding and
erosion hazards. The following management measures minimizes
losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion
hazards are suggested.
(A), minimize potential loss and damage by locating
development and structures away from flooding and erosion
hazards. Number 1, avoid development other than water-dependent
uses in coastal hazard areas. Locate new development which is
not water dependent as far away from the coastal hazard areas as
practicable. (A), no development is permitted in natural
protective feature areas except as specifically allowed under
relevant portions of 6NYCRR 505.8.
The proposed dock is within Coastal Erosion Hazard Area.
All development is prohibited in the near-shore area pursuant to
Chapter 111 Section 11, unless specifically provided for by
Chapter 111 Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas.
Pursuant to 111-6, allowable activities in these areas may
include open timber piles or other similar open work supports
with a top surface area of less than 200-square feet, which
are removed in the Fall each year. Therefore, the dock as proposed
is prohibited in the near-shore area pursuant to Chapter 111, as
it is greater than 200-square feet and not removable.
In the event that the application is approved, an
alternative to CCA-treated pilings is recommended.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection and therefore no recommendation was made.
Board of Trustees 20 June 15, 2022
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. NEILSON: Keith Neilson, with Docko, Inc., and I prepared the
application documents before you tonight.
We also did the previous dock application on this site, 25
years ago, for Dr. Hope, and the pier and the floating dock were
all approved at that time.
We are not asking to modify the dock. What we are trying
to do is make the floating dock more accessible by the addition
of a platform that will jet out off the side of the pier
approximately seven feet. And it's only about five feet long, and
it will put a hinged ramp on to that platform that will allow
for safe and efficient access to and from the float.
We have also added on a kayak step at the end of the float
so that kayak boarding and disembarking can be done fairly
safely from the facility.
The other feature for the project is the installation of
the stair down from the seawall. As you noted in your visit to
the site, the seawall is a fair distance above the bottom
sediments at the base of the wall, and there is not really a
good way down to the beach.
We had tried put in a stairway coming off the pier but felt
that it was better to put it in the stair the way we've got it,
facing into the waves. I would also mention that I know that the
floodway designation is done by statistical methods, and it is
very rare that this floating, that this dock facility is exposed
to significant flooding conditions, and the stairway can be
removed in order to minimize the possibility of damage.
Both of these facilities are water-dependent uses. The
stairway provides access to the beach, and this is one of the
few properties in the area that does actually have a bit of a
beach. And the ramp and system to the floating dock is for
recreational boating purposes.
So based on that, we feel that this is a good plan. It
improves the efficiency and safety of operation for the
residents, and that's the basis of our requested approval.
I would be happy to answer any questions that you might
have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: A quick question. Do you have a Coastal
Erosion permit for this one?
MR. NEILSON: No. When we got original permit for this site, 25
years ago, for some reason or other the Coastal Erosion permit
was not part of the application. It was not requested, and it
was, the tidal wetlands application was approved as it was.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just one second.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Any other questions or comments from the
Board of Trustees 21 June 15, 2022
Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve the Wetland permit
and the Coastal Erosion permit, thereby bringing this project
into consistency with the LWRP by issuing the permits. And that
is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. NIELSON: Thank you
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 2, Docko, Inc., on behalf of DANA
DIDRIKSEN requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit
to construct±130 linear feet of 4' wide fixed wood pile
supported pier in which ±73 linear feet is waterward of the Mean
High Water Line and ±86 linear feet is waterward of the Apparent
High Water Line; proposed pier to include rails, water/electric
utilities, two tie-off piles, two (2) ladders, and a removable
pile restrained ships ladder; also to establish a wood chip
access path through the brush landward of the Apparent High
Water Line.
Located: 6180 Clay Point Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-2-1-6
The Trustees visited the site for field inspection on May
15th, 2022, and noted to clarify the note of the landward tidal
wetlands for Fishers Island sea grass management image.
The LWRP found this application inconsistent. 4.1,
minimizes loss of human life and structures from flooding and
erosion hazards. (A), minimize potential loss and damage by
locating development and structures away from flooding and
erosion hazards. The proposed dock structure is within the
Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. All development is prohibited in
the near-shore area pursuant to Chapter 111-11, unless
specifically provided for by Chapter 111-11 Coastal Erosion
Hazard Area.
Allowable activities in these areas may include open timber
piles or other similar open work supports with a top surface
area of less than 200 square feet which are removed in the Fall
of each year.
The proposed action is prohibited in the near-shore area
pursuant to Chapter 111 as it is not removable.
Chapter 111-6, definitions, un-regulated activity. They
noted the open timber piles or other similar open work supports
with a top surface of less than 200 square feet or which are
removed in the Fall of each year, and therefore the proposed
dock does not meet this definition.
6.3, protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands.
Board of Trustees 22 June 15, 2022
(A), comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements of
the Southold Town Board of Trustees laws and regulations for all
Andros Patent and other lands under their jurisdiction.
And they noted that the shortening or reducing the size of
structures and increasing the width of the non-disturbance
buffers, that the alteration of tidal patterns in the Fishers
Island beaches, Pine islands and shallows habitat have negative
impact on the fish and wildlife community present.
Construction of shoreline structures such as docks and
piers in areas not previously disturbed by development may
result in the loss of productive areas which support the fish
and wildlife resources of Fishers Island beaches, Pine islands
and shallows habitat.
They've noted that the eel grass beds are particularly
sensitive to alterations in water quality parameters, including
temperature, salinity, light penetration, organic matter
concentration and the presence of pollutants.
Docks may be detrimental to eel grass beds because of
shading and review of any proposed new docks in the habitat area
shall be considered with the potential impact to the eel grass
beds fully considered.
Number seven, whether the dock will result in the
destruction or prevent the growth of vegetated wetlands, sea
grasses, including eel grass, and widgeon grass or shellfish.
The occurrence of eel grass is in the area where the dock
structure is proposed. Indirect impacts over time are expected.
Number eleven, whether the cumulative impacts of a
residential and commercial dock will change the waterway or the
environment, and whether alternate design construction and
location of the dock will minimize cumulative impacts.
The continued construction of dock structures within the
significant fish and wildlife habitat, critical environment area
will affect the public use of the area and degrade the
ecological quality of the area through introduction of
contaminants, destruction of marine life habitat, etcetera.
And then the use of treated materials should be minimized.
Pursuant to Chapter 268, the Board of Trustees shall
consider this recommendation in preparing its written
determination regarding the consistency of the proposed action.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection, therefore no recommendation was made.
And in the file we have plans that are dated March 31 st,
2022.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. NEILSON: Yes, I do. My name is Keith Neilson, I'm with
Docko, Inc., and we prepared the application documents before
you.
I would like to hand out a copy of some photographs that
were just provided to our office a week ago, and not in time for
Board of Trustees 23 June 15, 2022
our application submittal. But they show the house that has
been built on this site about 70 years ago and the dock that was
at the site at that time.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: (Perusing). Very nice-looking schooner.
MR. NEILSON: So we spent a lot of time trying to figure out the
best way and location for a dock facility so that Mr. Didriksen
and his family can enjoy recreational boating from this site.
And we are over on the easterly quarter of the site. And when
you were there you probably saw the beach area that is over in
this area, ringed by stones. Looking at this site at low tide,
there is really only one location that a dock could logically be
used, and I was pleased when Mr. Didriksen forwarded these photos
because the dock that we are proposing is in the same exact
area. As a matter of fact, this stone is a prominent stone, just
to the right of the photograph, I'm sorry, the dock in the
photograph that you see. So we are right in the same area.
However, the reason that we located the dock where we did
is because there is a recess in the alignment of stone. I think
there is something in the order of four-hundred boulders on the
shore front. It's a pretty rocky, it's a tough site. And the
contractor is going to have to work his way through to drive
these piles. They are probably not going to be the 10-foot
staking that I've shown.
In addition to the boulder field which is outlined by these
boulders, and on the inshore area here, we've had eel grass that
was documented by a submerged aquatic vegetation expert at the
beginning of the project, early last September. And the exhibit
is attached to your documents. And so the dock facility that
we've proposed has at least a 15-foot offset from the nearest
point of the eel grass beds. It only has tie-off piles on one
side so that the owner has agreed that he will not tie off any
boats on the inside of the pier. And this is really the only
navigation way into the site. The water depth is adequate,
there will be no bottom sediment disturbances, and standard
construction techniques could be utilized in the pier.
The other thing is that there is an existing pathway down
to the waterfront and it passes along the west edge of the tidal
wetlands vegetation which was observed during our survey and it
was documented in accordance with your town standards and your
town publications.
Other than that, this is a fairly standard dock
installation. We have a slight ramp up to clear the boulders at
the near-shore edge of the structure, and then gradually
descending elevations as you go down to and clear the mean high
water line, and then uniform elevation of.almost eight feet
above NABD, which is a considerable height, getting down to the
pier elevation at the end where we are five, six feet above mean
low water. And that provides a lot of ground coverage in
accordance with the eel grass conservation criteria. There is
no floating dock, also consistent with the eel grass
Board of Trustees 24 June 15, 2022
preservation standards. And so we have, it's a tough fit but
this would be a good, useable dock, and it won't have any
adverse impact on any of the habitat that we observed or were
observed by our consultants.
So I would be happy to answer any questions that you might
have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Do you have DEC for this one yet?
MR. NEILSON: We've got a comment back so far,just that we got
acknowledgment of the receipt of the application. We do not
have the permit yet. We are waiting for an opportunity to
discuss the project with them.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And the decking, what was that proposed as?
MR. NEILSON: It's proposed as wood. We are over a boulder field
for all of this area, and the only areas of eel grass are over
here, and there is some scattered eel grass over'here in this
boulder patch that we are well clear of.
The pier is at a considerably height, as you can see in the
profile, and it's a north/south orientation so that sunlight
comes in under the pier in the morning from the east and in the
west in the afternoon. And if it were to be a condition of
approval to have through-flow decking, we could put that on.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I for one would like to see through-flow
throughout the eel grass.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I agree. I would like to see that as well.
I would like to clarify, the plan that you are holding in
front of you right now, is that a more recent version than what
you submitted to the Trustees office, that we received it on
March 31 st?
MR. NEILSON: No, I believe it's the same drawing. So we have
not changed anything on there. What was your concern?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Not necessarily a concern. More of a
clarification. It seems you have kind of that line of boulders
that then has that dip down that you referred to.
MR. NEILSON: Let me bring this up. '
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That would be helpful.
MR. NEILSON: What I was doing before the meeting, you see this
shaded area from here, that is the edge of the boulders. I just
colored these in with a pencil so that they would stand out.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Oh, okay. I saw that stand out from here and I
wanted to clarify. So this is the same plan we are reviewing.
Nothing has been changed except you are defining the boulder
line.
MR. NEILSON: You can see how light this would have showed up. It
would be hard for everybody to see. So I just embellished the
boundary a little bit.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: What is the circa date of these photographs?
Sorry, I missed it.
MR. NEILSON: It was around 1950s. I didn't get the exact date
but when Mr. Didriksen sent them to me he indicated it was about
Board of Trustees 25 June 15, 2022
70 years ago.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Do you have any idea what happened to the
dock that was there at the time?
MR. NEILSON: I don't. When we did our survey, of course it
would be easy to miss in an area like this, but we did not see
piles. Normally we would have suspected that we would have seen
piles. It could be that that pier was there before the hurricane
in 1954, in which case there were probably would not be much
left of it.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Right.
MR. NEILSON: I would like to make one other comment about the
LWRP.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The coyotes on the property.
MR. NEILSON: No. The LWRP references 200 square-foot and
removable. We have done a similar analyses on other dock
projects and so on. And because of the water depth and
occasional roughness, we have to use piles to support. We can't
use pipes. And so when we drive those piles, they are going ten
to 15 feet into the bottom, and when we, if we were to have to
remove them, every year that ground would be disturbed, the
piles would gradually have less and less stability, and so it's
better to just drive the piles in and leave them.
These docks are very tough. We have a history of building I
think a dozen on the north shore of Fishers Island, and they
have all survived even Hurricanes Sandy and Irene. So I would
respectfully just respond and say that this will be a very tough
dock and I believe that it will withstand inclement weather and
hurricanes and so on. Of course if it's a Hurricane of'38,
there won't be much left.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Understood, thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in
regard to this application?
(No response).
Okay, as one member of the Board, I would like to see the
through-flow decking on the dock, as well as an indication
either on the plan orthe project description, that a boat would
not be tied up on the interior of that dock. Just to ensure that
that is clarified.
MR. NEILSON: Sure, we can do that. And I'll send you over
revised plans.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That would be great. And also, from our
perspective, without a DEC permit, we would not want to create a
hardship on you if for some reason that does not, you guys don't
receive that permit and would have to make any modifications and
come back to this Board.
So I would ask if you would be interested in tabling this
application based on DEC approval.
MR. NEILSON:Well, of course I would rather have the permit. If
you are agreeable to the parameters that I have expressed here
tonight, we would like to have the permit because at least we
Board of Trustees 26 June 15, 2022
can say to them, the DEC, that we have this permit. And it's, you
know, customary timing sequence issue with those permits.
So we would prefer to have the permit. If you feel that
you cannot issue your permit tonight, then we will wait.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, I 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 plans stamped dated -- I'm sorry, to approve the
Wetland portion of this application with the condition that
through-flow decking is used, and the condition that there is no
tie-up for vessels on the inside, interior portion of the arm of
the dock. And therefore with approval of the Wetland permit
portion of this application, therefore bringing it consistency
with the LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And I make a motion to deny the Coastal Erosion
application based on Chapter 111-6, that the dock is larger than
200 square feet. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL YES).
MR. NEILSON: Thank you, very much. I appreciate your attention.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on
behalf of J. GEDDES PARSONS requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to remove the existing 5'x81'fixed dock
and piles (16), 3'x20' ramp and 9'x18' floating dock; construct
a proposed 5'x81' fixed dock secured by sixteen (16) piles;
install a 4'x16' adjustable ramp; and install an 8'x18.5'
floating dock situated in an "I" configuration and secured by
four(4) piles; and to replace the five (5) existing tie-off
piles as needed.
Located: 515 Sterling Street, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-9-3.1
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is in regard to coastal erosion Chapter 111. The proposed dock
exceeds 200 square feet and is not removable.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection, therefore no recommendation was made.
The Trustees conducted field inspections May 15th. The
notes read as follows: Question the option to pull back fixed
dock by one pair of pilings so the new configuration has similar
length, and to check the pier line.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
Board of Trustees 27 June 15, 2022
MR. JUST: Good evening. Glen Just, as the agent.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I apologize, Mr. Just, we did get a letter
.from you as well following up on June 8th. And you had a letter
talking about the pier line and how it doesn't affect the
navigation and scope or the environmental upkeep.
So in our review, it does seem as if the proposed new
configuration of the dock exceeds the pier line, and what we
have been using for the pier line is the immediate, the two
immediate adjacent docks. So it does seem, I know we talked
about the tie-off pilings, they're not moving, however the float
appears to be going out somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 to
16 feet further seaward than existing.
So as we mentioned, I think in the field, and talked about
maybe dialing it back and/or relocating the float. Based on the
plans submitted March 18th, 2022, the seaward extension of the
floating dock currently is somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.7
to 4.8 feet. The new proposed depth is somewhere around 4.9
feet. So it doesn't appear as if we are really gaining any
water depth by moving it out, and again, we are pushing it
further out to exceed the pier line, which as you should be
aware that this Board is not in favor of.
MR. JUST: First of all, the letter that I sent you June 6th, I
did a little sketch. It shows the float to be eight feet further
seaward than the existing. And is a gain of about five to six
inches of water. I did a little overlay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I see that. But on that overlay I don't
necessarily, I guess that's northeast. You have a hydrographic
depth of 4.75. And on your new proposed location to the
northwest, is 4.9. So we are talking two inches, not even.
MR. JUST: How are you establishing the pier line? Also
described in my letter, I sent you a letter, of the dock
immediately to the right of this facing the water was just
granted approval last year, almost the same type of request, and
that is 107 feet measured from the seawall, whereas the client's
dock would be a little bit less than that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So on the plans that you submitted, I do not
see, on the site plan, the neighboring docks.
MR. JUST: They have not constructed the approved addition as of
yet. The permit is still.valid.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Would that then change the pier line. We are
talking the one to the right.
MR. JUST: Looking at the water, it would be immediately to the
right.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Mr. Just, would you be able to identify for
us which of those on the Google Earth is the dock you are
referring to?
MR. JUST: This is the existing, you can see the tie-off piles.
And this one is the one that was just approved for an extension.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So with that picture right there, what we
take is the dock immediately to the right, in shortened form,
Board of Trustees 28 June 15, 2022
and that dock to the left. So if you were to connect the two of
them with a line where you are at already, it appears to exceed,
and that one to the right is going to go out further. There is a
good bump out a little bit based on the dock you are planning
for, and the other dock. If we, so essentially, if we had new
plans that show the new dock that will be to the right, with its
most seaward extension, as well as the dock to the left with its
most seaward extension, we could establish the pier line between
those two and put it into reference with your proposed dock
structure-But since we don't have those on the plans right now,
we are going by the image you see before us, as well as on field
inspection, and we stood out on that dock.
MR. JUST: Glenn, if you would Like to, I'll table this and I'll
prepare those plan drawings.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing no further, I make a motion to table this application at
the applicant's request to submit new plans to show the new pier line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of
FISHERS ISLAND ORDINANCE BUILDING, LLC requests a Wetland Permit
and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the interior renovation of the
existing ±182.3' long two-story building; install concrete entry
steps; install a new±40'x140' paved courtyard on landward side
of building; install landscaping; install a parking area
landward of courtyard, and bike racks; and to install roof
drainage and new underground utilities.
Located: 530 Fox Lane, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-12-1-2.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make a
recommendation on this application, and it should be noted that
I'm not in receipt of a report from the LWRP, so as a result of
that, by Town law, we won't be able to vote on this application
tonight. I just want to make you aware of that. They have 30
days to submit.
The Board made a site visit on the 15th of May, and noted
that this was a straightforward application and project.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak to this application?
MR. JUST: Glen Just, the agent. I'll also ask, this has just gotten
done before a hearing at the Planning Board. Is there any
communication between the two offices, because the LWRP would
have done a report for the Planning Board.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: They actually conduct a slightly different
process for each Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just got advice from legal that, I mean this
Board of Trustees 29 June 15, 2022
is a straightforward application, and that we could proceed with
this application tonight. So I apologize for the confusion.
Just working out the details.
Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak to this
application, or any additional comments from the members of the
Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comment, 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 as
admitted, both the Wetland and Coastal Erosion,
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 5, JMO Environmental Consulting on
behalf of W. HARBOR BUNGALOW, LLC, c/o CRAIG SCHULTZ requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the existing
6.5'x53'fixed dock with a 11'x11' fixed portion in an "L"
configuration; existing 3.5'x12' ramp and existing 8'x20'
floating dock; the 6.5'x53' fixed dock and 11'x11' fixed portion
in the "L" configuration to remain; remove existing ramp, float
and two piles and install a new 4'x20' ramp with rails and an
8'x18' floating dock situated in an "I" configuration secured by
four piles; and to install four tie-off piles.
Located: 371 Hedge Street, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-7-18
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection, therefore no recommendation was made.
(Perusing). Just a moment, Mr. Just, we are still looking at the LWRP
finding.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Liz, you don't have the LWRP on that, do you?
It doesn't appear to be in the file.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you, for your patience. We have a
memorandum here from the LWRP finding the proposed action
inconsistent with Policy 6 and therefore inconsistent with the
LWRP.
The reason given, the applicant has not provided
information on whether sea grass including eel grass occurs
around the dock could be impacted.
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 15th of
May and notes from that visit read new proposed dock exceeds the
pier line. And we are in receipt of plans stamped March 29th,
2022.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. JUST: Glenn Just, as agent. What was the question, please,
about eel grass?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The LWRP states that the applicant has not
provided information on whether sea grass, including eel grass,
Board of Trustees 30 June 15, 2022
occurs around the dock that could be impacted. The letter is
dated April 7th, 2022.
MR. JUST: My cover letter on May 18th of this year, I had noted
that I had reviewed the US Fish &Wildlife eel grass survey of
2002, 2017, and reviewed the aerial, vessel survey of 2017 and
personally inspected the site. No eel grass.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right. That's the LWRP's concerns. Thank
you, for that.
MR. JUST: As far as the pier line, I just don't see how you
could use, and please don't take this the wrong way, just using
docks on either side, you have nine, ten docks in this area, and
they go from 127 feet to 61 feet. And so five, six out of the
eight docks in the adjacent area are in greater length than this
proposal. Two are them are indeed shorter. I just don't
understand why just use the dock on either side. That's my
personal question.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Our rationale has been consistent for some
time now. In a nutshell it's that we use the immediately
adjacent docks because on the average if we are to permit docks
to exceed, to continue to move outward, then the next dock goes
out further, the neighbor's dock goes out further and you sort
of march incrementally out further over time.
MR. JUST: I understand your rationality. But look at the
opposite shoreline. It's 500, 600 feet across. There's no docks,
no hazard to navigation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Just, I have been on the Board for six
years. The whole purpose for the pier line of the docks is to
avoid the creek and provide for public access and the ability of
any public boats to be able to utilize the area without having
to go way off shore. I have been doing this consistently for six
years. It's part of the job of the Trustees is to allow for
public use as well as private use, and find that merge between
the two. So as opposed to just continuously moving docks out for
one homeowner that lives on the waterfront, the whole idea is to
allow for everyone to utilize the public water system. So
that's something we have been doing for along time. I just
don't see flexing on that.
MR. JUST: I just don't recall ever using just docks on either
side. Personally, I just don't recall that. Many times I have
been in front of the Board. Nor have I heard it mentioned in
other decisions as well. I just want to say that for the record
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll kind of echo my comments from the
previous one, judging by the plans you submitted March 29th,
2022, at the seaward terminus of the existing float, you have
4.8 feet of water. The proposed, you are still in 4.8 feet of
water. So, you know, you are not gaining any water depth by
moving, relocating or extending the dock.
MR. JUST: I'll ask that you table this. I have to go back to the
homeowner, because this is the first--we talked briefly on
site and I did get a copy of the review and report. But I want
Board of Trustees 31 June 15, 2022
to review all these details firsthand, so I would ask you to
table it.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I appreciate your efforts to look for sea
grass.
MR. JUST: Pardon?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I appreciate your efforts to inspect for sea
grass and address the LWRP's concerns and respect your decision
to table the application at your request.
I make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 6, Michael Kimack on behalf of SOUTHOLD
SUNSETS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit for the as-built above ground 500 gallon propane tank
(30"x8', 20sq.ft.); as-built raised wood platform for AC unit
and electrical for I/A system (3'x9', 27sq.ft.) On east side of
dwelling; as-built on grade dry laid slate patio and walkway on
north and east sides of dwelling (±677sq.ft.); as-built partial
concrete walkway with added dry laid slate walkway with landing
(±100sq.ft.) along west side of dwelling; as-built Belgian block
surround for gravel driveway (±140 linear feet) along south and
east sides of dwelling; as-built gravel driveway (±635sq.ft.)
along south side of dwelling; as-built outdoor shower with 4'x4'
wood floor(16sq.ft.) adjacent to east side of main staircase
against deck surround; remove existing much surrounding planted
vegetation; remove existing fire pit; 8'x12.2' (97.6sq.ft.) shed
has been removed and not replaced; wood walkway along portion of
easterly side of dwelling has been removed and not replaced; and
to expand approved area of planting American Beach grass to
cover all additional areas approved @ 18" on center.
Located: 4200 Kenney's Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-4-3
The Trustees most recently visited the site on April 5th
noting the non-disturbance area seaward of the house, with
stipulation of access to IA for maintenance, four-foot path to
match either side of the house, therefore eliminating showers.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent. The as-built structures were constructed without
Board of Trustee review or permit.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this application
and resolved not to support it. The Conservation Advisory
Council does not support the application, the entire slate patio
and concrete walkway should be removed and the primary dune
should be vegetated with native vegetation.
A bit of history on this one. During the construction of
this project, a shocking amount of clearing was done without a
permit. We have some photos here. A final inspection was
requested in February where we realized that what was built was
far different than what was permitted. Since then we have had
Board of Trustees 32 June 15, 2022
several public hearings, conducted multiple field inspections
and gone back and forth on this project.
Two months ago during a public hearing we requested new
plans clearly depicting the non-disturbance throughout the
eastern side that was previously discussed, or that was
previously cleared.
I am in receipt of new plans stamped received May 25th,
2022, however they do not clearly depict the requested
non-disturbance area.
At this point, the Board is amenable to the idea of a
four-foot path surrounding the house, but rest of the patio
should be removed.
Mr. Kimack, is your client open to that suggestion?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the client.
I'm going to go back about three or four months when we had
our visit when we were on the site with my client. At that
particular time we looked at the existing patio, with the curbed
area. We looked at the non-disturbance area and the walkways on
both sides leading to the front area. And as I understood it,
the Board basically was in agreement that we chop off that first
curved area, and that we basically redefine the disturbance area
on that one side.
When I gave you the plan, I'm unsure as to why you think
the disturbance area was not identified on the plan, because
it's all identified by the black all the way around it.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: As we requested in the last public hearing, it
should all look the same as the non-disturbance area closer to
the beach, which is what we requested to reflect in the new plans.
MR. KIMACK: Well, the non-disturbance area on the beach was part
of the original surveyor's layout of that particular section,
essentially. But everything that is, it's an extension of that
non-disturbance area all the way around, primarily, that whole
black area, is all non-disturbance. As we had discussed when we
were onsite, primarily.
What I did is superimposed on top of it that which had been
approved for the landscape plan, which is from the original
landscape plan showing the walkways on both sides going up to
the staircase, recognizing in this case that the original house
staircase is five foot lower. So when the new house is put in
and raised five feet, the staircase extended out forward. And
the deck was in front of that staircase without a dimension to it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Kimack, can you see the picture on the
screen apparently, correct?
MR. KIMACK: Yes, I can see it
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That was the, Liz, can go back one. That was
the before. So it's quite a stark difference between the before
and the after. Trustee Krupski and I were on when we initially
approved this house, and at that time we said the house and
everything else was supposed to be left as is. And we have come
a long way from that.
Board of Trustees 33 June 15, 2022
MR. KIMACK: Do you have a current shot? Because -- let me go up
here and point it out. Can you go back to the other one?This is
roughly the line right here. It cut right through here. Remember
removing the stones. That's right in this area. Here, all of
this has been revegetated. So without--
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: My question is kind of a whole bunch. But for
the construction of the house, I don't see why there was a need
to pull out the vegetation all the way to that east side. So I
can see for construction of the house, a little bit of an area,
but to completely clear that whole, basically entire lot, is
definitely not what we intended.
MR. KIMACK: I guess there was going to be disturbance of that
area certainly for the installation of the IA system, the septic
tank and all of that. Which is adjacent to the house. But I
think the thing right now is, the important thing we are trying
to get to is what is the extent of the non-disturbance area, and
I thought I depicted that on the site, on that drawing, in terms
of what would be replanted and not disturbed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So you depicted it. I agree with that. But what
I was asking for, and we spent a long time going over this a
month ago, is I want the non-disturbance graphic to match so
that anyone who looks at this plan, it is very clear that the
non-disturbance is contiguous throughout the whole property, as
opposed to right now, if anyone who is not used to reading
plans, and this comes in front of the bench somewhere, it looks
to me like there is a non-disturbance buffer that runs parallel
with the Sound and then the rest is up for debate.
So if you have to do a call out from part of that area to
say non-disturbance buffer to be re vegetated, then left
non-disturbance, that's fine. But I need the plans to look like,
to anyone who looks at it, that the entire site is
non-disturbance. So if the client goes and violates something
again, and this comes before someone who is not used to looking
at plans, it's very apparent what this is supposed to be.
MR. KIMACK: You would like me to put the X's all the way across
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, please.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And you need to do a call out saying this area
is to be revegetated. That's non-disturbance. That's fine.
Clarify it. But it can't look, you know, back and forth.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I accidentally forgot to read two letters into
the record here, so I would like to read those now.
The first one was received April 8th. It says: Dear
Trustees, I write not only to oppose the current application but
to make the point that this application is a bellwether to what
the Trustees can expect to start happening with increasing
frequency if the application is allowed to stand.
Just like what was done here, properties will and already
are being purchased and turned into short-term rentals with
wildly inappropriate opening bids made for large houses.
Accepting the risk of the Trustees will bring the project back
Board of Trustees 34 June 15, 2022
down to earth. No loss for the developer except for the Trustees
and the community's time and effort. Then when the community
has expended years of opposing a project, the building will
commence, go past what was approved, and then the community and
Trustees will have to expend yet more time to fix the problems.
Many won't have the energy to do that or many developers just
won't get caught. This is not a sustainable way or fair way to
conduct the process. Developers and applicants need to
understand that their project must follow the law, and from the
first application must be built to the exacting standards set
forth in their permit, and any material deviation is liable to
be rejected and removed at their expense.
The Kennys-McCabe community knew seven years ago exactly
where 4200 Kenny's was headed. Destruction of primary and
secondary dunes, destruction to the already stressed natural
habitat and contentious back and forth over the final dimensions
of the project. I wrote this to you almost exactly four years
ago in connection with the application. We still have serious
questions about how the actual demolition and reconstruction of
the premises, separate and apart from the final state of the new
home, would be accomplished without damaging the surrounding
dunes which presently sits in some cases mere inches from the
existing structure.
Southold Sunsets LLC swore up and down to you that that was
not a concern. All would be fine. They were wrong. Or they knew
and made an agreement with you that they had no intention of
honoring.
The Trustees, through hard work and significant time and
commitment, incorporated the community's concerns and yet here
we are in 2022, doing this yet again. Enough is enough. Signed
Brett Anderson (sic) and John Castaglione (sic).
MR. KIMACK: A comment to that, he's not a developer, he's an
owner, and he's nota renter.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I have a second letter, here from Richard
Byrd. Dear Trustees, in regard to the recent posting located on
this property and the as-built request the same issues bought up
in December, as I'm sure you are aware, and at the time there
was a letter from myself and comments from Carol Brown of the
Conservation Advisory Council, this application was denied and
frankly nothing has changed with the current application.
I understand that there needs to be a place for the propane
tank and there should be a driveway. However the greatest
infraction exists is the destruction of the dune and planting
next to the driveway and non-native vegetation and slate patio
that has been placed in the middle of our fragile dune system.
I personally would like to see the patio removed, all
non-native plants removed and replanted in its entirety with our
native American beach grass. The beach grass should be planted
a minimum of 12 inches on center and not on the 18 inches on
center as proposed. The non-native tall shrubs on the west side
Board of Trustees 35 June 15, 2022
of the property should also be removed and beach grass be
planted. Sincerely, Richard Byrd.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you, Ms. Gillooly.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I echo the sentiments of Ricard Byrd about the
12 inches placement on center. I believe the original
application may have noted that and then it changed to 18.
MR. KIMACK: It really doesn't matter if it's 18" or 12". It
fills in over time.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I appreciate that. I also happen to know that
this neighborhood association did an extensive revitalization
effort at Kenney's beach and so I do think that it is important
to maintain that.
MR. KIMACK: So if I understand, other than the fact that you
don't disagree with the fact that we take the existing area and
we make it all non-disturbance buffer, as I had laid it out, you
don't have an issue with the driveway and you don't have an
issue with the propane tank and you don't have an issue with
raised platform, primarily. The two concrete walkway on both
sides are pretty much replacements for the ones that were
originally approved in the landscape plan.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Mr. Kimack, as we said before, we are open to a
four-foot pathway surrounding the house.
MR. KIMACK: I just want to make sure because, Liz, it was in the
original approval that was just taking, the concrete was taken
up and it was replaced with the stone on the dry setting, so
left in that situation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think just to provide a little clarification,
we need new plans showing the non-disturbance buffers continuous
throughout the site, and then the Board felt after the site
inspection, several site inspections with you, and going over
things at work session that rather than have a patio there in an
area that should already be planted, a four-foot would be the
max. So any decks or patios outside of the structure would have
to be.removed.
And as a matter of fact we spoke with your client while we
were out in the field and he would be more than happy to remove
.whatever he had to, to proceed
MR. KIMACK: He was there?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Several months ago, but yes.
MR. KIMACK: When I was there, when we first met, primarily.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right
MR. KIMACK: At that time we basically were cutting off the curb
section. We agreed to that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Obviously nothing can be held in the field.
It's all purely gathering --
MR. KIMACK: I took what you said in the field and designed what
you said accordingly. I had nothing else to go on except when we
were standing there and that's what was discussed and that's
what I followed.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: At the last public hearing we discussed,
Board of Trustees 36 June 15, 2022
Trustee Krupski asked for on the site plans, and you returned to
us the same site plans, more or less, at the last hearing.
MR. KIMACK: Well, the landscape plan we had approved, we did
have a five or six foot deck in front of the staircase.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: What I'm talking about is the planting plans.
So we have been clear about what we are asking for. If you would
like to proceed --
MR. KIMACK: I'm not sure what you want for the patio because I
have an approved area for the patio that I can put a 5'x5' off
of the deck, in front of the staircase. That's what was approved
with the landscaping plan. So what do I do with that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, now that we are back here again, I think
we would just like to see four-foot wide
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I have the previous plans if the other
Trustees would like to see them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we would like to see a four-foot
maximum on any path or structures outside the house, aside from
the raised platform you are applying for.
MR. KIMACK: So we have the four-foot walkway coming around both
sides to the staircase.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: What's on the screen right now. The foot path
goes perpendicular around the house, with no --
MR. KIMACK: If you refer to the drawing here, the shaded area is
what was approved in the original landscape plan. So.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. That's five feet.
MR. KIMACK: So this is okay, this way. And what about this?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You said that's five-feet wide?
MR. KIMACK: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, I would rather see it reduced to four
since we are back here with a new permit. But you can reduce it
to four and then tie it in and tie it in with the shower and
that.
MR. KIMACK: So what you are saying is, what you want to see is,
if I bring it this way, you want the shower out of there. And
then bring it this way. Leave that in the front, take this out,
take this out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And this out.
MR. KIMACK: Then I come back here. I have already blocked it
off. I just kind of need this area here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, the Board is looking for that. So we want
a walkway and then non-disturbance buffer and/or beach grass
everywhere else.
MR. KIMACK: I make a motion to table the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I'll make a motion to table this hearing at the
applicant's request.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I rescind my motion to table this application.
I do make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 37 June 15, 2022
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit
and Coastal Erosion Permit for the as-built aboveground
500-gallon propane tank, 30"x8' (20 square-feet); as-built
raised wood platform for AC unit and electrical for I/A system.
3'x9' (27 square foot) on east side of the dwelling; as-built
on-grade dry laid slate walkway on east side of dwelling 4'x46'
(184 square feet); as-built on-grade dry laid slate walkway not
to exceed four feet in width on the north side of the dwelling,
4'x47' (188 square foot) as-built partial concrete walkway with
added dry laid slate walkway with landing 4'x46' (184 square
feet) along the west side of the dwelling; as-built Belgian
block surround for gravel driveway, plus or minus 140 linear
feet, along the south and east side of the dwelling; as built
gravel driveway, 635 square feet along south side of the
dwelling; as-built outdoor shower with 4'x4' (16 square feet)
adjacent to east side of main staircase against deck surround;
remove existing mulch surrounding planted vegetation; remove
existing fire pit; 8'x12.2' (97.6 square feet) shed has been
removed and will not be replaced; and to expand approved area of
planting American Beach grass to cover all additional areas
approved @ 12" on center, contingent upon receipt of new plans
depicting the permitted walkways and the entire remaining
property clearly marked as non-disturbance buffer with the "X"s
to remain in perpetuity once the re-vegetation is complete.
Thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP by issuing
this permit. And I would like to strike the "as-built shower"
and have it removed instead. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: This is the first time I have actually wait for the
description in order to do the design.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I would like to see more of it.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Wetland Permits, number 1, J.M.O. Environmental
Consulting on behalf of KATHLEEN D. COLLINS & PAULINE C. HEENEY
(EXC.) requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 3.5'x21' fixed
dock secured by four (4) 4"x4" posts; a 3'x12.5' ramp; a
6.5'x33' floating dock secured by four (4) 4"x4" posts; and a
6'x12' floating dock situated in an "L" configuration; propose
to replace eight (8) 4'W" posts with eight (8) 10" diameter
piles and install two (2) 10" diameter tie-off piles.
Located: 1457 Peninsula Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-4-15.1
The Trustees visited this site on May 15th, and noted that
they would review it in the work session.
The LWRP finds this application inconsistent, and they
noted that in the event the action is approved an alternative to
CCA treated pilings is recommended.
Board of Trustees 38 June 15, 2022
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection, therefore no recommendation was made.
And I have plans stamped dated March 23rd, 2022.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. JUST: Good evening. Glenn Just as agent for the applicant.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So I do have one question on this plan here.
It's noted that to provide, and also in the project description,
provide four 10" diameter piles for the float support, and two
10" diameter tie-off piles. And as you know, we visited the
site. I was just curious why ten-inch piles were chosen, as they
seem a little large in this configuration.
MR. JUST: It's quite a bit of tidal reach in there. That's what
the engineer felt would be, asked for that particular situation.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak
in regard to this application?
(Negative response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application,
therefore bringing it into consistency with the LWRP. That is my
motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, J.M.O, Environmental Consulting on
behalf of MARILYN ROSENBERG requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing dwelling measuring approximately 14.4'x34.4'with a
one-story addition approximately 10.7'x20.6'; existing
20.5'x12.9' screened porch with a 4'x4' exit landing; existing
6.10'x14.4' deck to remain and relocate existing t3.8' wide by
3.0' long deck stair from east side to north side; propose to
demolish the existing one-story addition section and portion of
dwelling (project meets Town Code definition of demolition) and
replace with a 42'x11.9' two-story addition; install a new
concrete block foundation for new addition; remove existing
seaward side deck and outdoor shower enclosure; install a new
I/A sanitary system and a dry well for storm water management;
the area of the additional footprint is 277sq.ft. and the total
area of new construction is 494sq.ft.
Located: 1952 Peninsula Road, Fishers Island.
SCTM# 1000-10-3-13
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
Board of Trustees 39 June 15, 2022
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make inspection,
therefore no recommendation was made.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection, May 15th, noting
that we would like to see a non-turf buffer seaward of the
entire house.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. JUST: Again, Glen Just, for the applicant.
By non-turf--you said non-turf or non-disturbance?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Non-turf. Which I think it already is, for
the most extent.
MR. JUST: So the seaward side of it was all weeds and stuff when
we were there. I talked to the homeowner, he said he doesn't
even own a lawnmower. I guess he had just cut it down, had
somebody come down and cut it once in a while. But if they can
maintain just a small, just a mowed path, whatever the
vegetation is, along the seaward side of the house, two, three
feet wide, just to get around the side of the house, is
something we would ask for.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We would typically allow a four-foot path
around the perimeter, and non-turf seaward of that.
MR. JUST: That's fine.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 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 this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with a non-turf buffer starting four-foot seaward of the house.
Subject to new plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. Have a good evening.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 3, Michael Kimack on behalf of GARDINERS
BAY ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. requests a Wetland
Permit for the existing 4' wide landward steps leading to
existing 4'x38' fixed catwalk; existing 3'x14' aluminum ramp;
existing 4'x78' floating dock supported by three (3) pilings
with an existing 4'x22' floating finger dock at eastern end;
existing 3'x14' easterly middle floating dock; existing 6'x16'
westerly middle floating dock; and existing 3'x14' floating dock
at western end; propose to add additions to the seaward ends of
all four floating docks consisting of a 4'x2' extension onto
eastern end float; a 3'x10' extension onto easterly middle
Board of Trustees 40 June 15, 2022
float; a 6'x8' extension onto westerly middle float; and a
3'x10' extension onto western end float.
Located: End of Dogwood Lane in Spring Pond, East Marion.
SCTM# 1000-37-4-17 & 1000-37-1-23
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support
the application as the facility appears to exceed more than
one-third the width of Spring Pond and therefore requests more
definitive areas with locations.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. A
permit was not found for the existing dock structures, and the
applicant fails to prove this action meets the following
requirements as outlined in Chapter 275. It is recommended that
the Board minimize or prohibit CCA treated material,
construction of turbidity controls are required. The distance
from the end of the dock to the closest point to the opposite
shoreline should be measured to determine suitability of the
proposed dock. It should also be noted that the LWRP coordinator
made this determination based on the original submission.
Most recently the Trustees visited the site, on the 8th of
June, and noted that they would review the new plans which we
are in receipt of at work session. The new plans stamped in the
office, May 20th, 2022. And the new description, project
description, stamped received June 7th, 2022, show a structure
that is as existing, no further seaward, with only the spacing
between the four finger-link docks changed.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant.
Not to go into further, but essentially it's just the
as-built existing dock, no extensions, equalizing the fingers
between, basically putting a new helix underneath each one of
them in order to, because the other one is Styrofoam is
beginning to wear out. Remove the existing wood decking and
replace with marine-grade decking, and replace any portion of
the support frame as they open it up. So that's essentially to,
that's essentially the change to the application.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing to
speak regarding this application? Or additional comment from any
members of the Board?
(No 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
based on the new plans stamped received in the office May 20th,
2022, and the new description stamped received June 7th, 2022,
with the following stipulations: That turbidity controls are
utilized during construction, and that we have checked the .
Board of Trustees 41 June 15, 2022
distance of the shoreline with the new plans during field
inspection and thereby -- and granting this permit, we were
thereby bring it into consistency with the LWRP coordinator.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 4, Michael Kimack on behalf of ERIC H.
DORF & ELLEN R. KRAKOW requests a Wetland Permit to remove
existing 26sq.ft. Wood decking and wood railing; replace in-kind
three (3) linear feet; existing deck structure to remain; on the
existing upper deck remove existing 405sq.ft. of wood decking
and wood railing and replace in-kind; existing deck structure to
remain; existing wood structure to be evaluated in the field for
defective or damaged material which is to be repaired or
replaced as needed; on the existing lower deck remove existing
261sq.ft. of wood decking and wood railing; replace in-kind (47
linear feet); existing wood deck structure to remain; existing
wood structure to be evaluated in the field for defective or
damaged material which is to be repaired or replaced as needed;
relocate existing 8.17'x8.17' (66.75sq.ft.) hot tub; install 12"
thick structural base (8.5'x8.5' = 72.25sq.ft.); existing
184sq.ft. brick patio to remain; repair or replace existing
pavers as needed; existing 40.5 linear foot long wood retaining
wall to remain; repair or replace 6"x6"wood retaining wall
material in-kind as needed; existing 6'x5' (30sq.ft.) staircase
to be removed, relocated and reconstructed to adjacent side of
existing.6'x5' (30sq.ft.) deck; and for a proposed new 17'x5'
(85sq.ft.) staircase.
Located: 620 North Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-6-27.1
The LWRP found the project to be inconsistent. The
consistency stems from three points: The natural features not
identified. Setback on top of natural features not shown
correctly. Wetland permit issued in 2008 approved all as
depicted on the plan. Hot tub, deck, stair and decking were not
shown on the plan at that time and are inconsistent with Policy 6.3
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application using untreated lumber on the deck.
The Trustees most recently visited the site on 6/8/22.
Comments in the field read straightforward.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. Do you
have any questions of me?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I do not. Do any members of the Board wish to
speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
Board of Trustees 42 June 15, 2022
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve this application,
with the plans stamped April 18th, 2022, noting that the
features mentioned in the LWRP report are actually proposed
further landward of their present location. By approving this
application, brings it into consistency with the LWRP.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 5, 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, 62" 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 Trustees have visited this location on multiple
occasions, most recently on May 10th,2022, noting that an IA
system should be required. Would like to see the house further
from the wetland.
The LWRP did a review of this application and found it to
be consistent. They did issue a note saying limit or prohibit.
the proposed clearing of the 8,954 square feet within the 100
setback of the freshwater wetland.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support
this application. The Conservation Advisory Council does not
support the application because the proposed setbacks are not in
compliance with Chapter 275 of the Town Code. The proposed
dwelling should be setback at least 100 feet from the wetland
boundary. The requirement of an IA system and an impervious
driveway.
I am in receipt of new plans stamped received in our office
May 10th, 2022.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. NEMSCHICK: Yes. Ray Nemschick on behalf of Roger Siejka.
I understand the comments. All that I ask is that 75 feet
is of norm for Trustees, as far as the setback from wetlands.
Can you explain why we would go 100 feet? I mean, we have
received permits from DEC, permits from the Health Department,
and there is no zoning ordinances that are required.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: In Chapter 275 of our Town Code it does say
100 feet from the wetlands for a residence.
MR. NEMSCHICK: It does. I agree that is the jurisdiction of the
Trustees, but normally 75 feet is granted for a lot of projects
that I have worked on in the past, so I'm just curious why we
Board of Trustees 43 June 15, 2022
would go 100 feet. I mean, this a wetland, mostly, you know,
strangled by phragmites. But what is the reason to go 100 feet?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: As you know, this property slopes downward
toward the wetland, so any activity is actually heightened
because of the slope of the property here, so everything kind of
slopes down toward the wetland on this particular piece of
property.
I did have a question regarding the IA system. Are your
clients interested in doing that?
MR. NEMSCHICK: Sure. IA would not be a problem. We applied
before. This is going back a while, as far as the application,
and the original application, so I was assuming that IA was
going to be part of this project at some point anyway. But I'm
more concerned with the idea that we, if we are not able to
build within 100 feet, it makes this lot basically un-buildable.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just one other thing that I noticed on the
plans was a pretty large clearance area between the proposed
house and the wetlands. Is there any need for such a large
clearance? Because we, you know, what obviously we want is to
minimize any disturbance to this fragile piece of property as
much as possible, so if we dial back the amount of clearance and
ground disturbance, that may go a long way to adjust --
MR. NEMSCHICK: Absolutely. We are more than amenable. We have
not even discussed how much clearance or what --the last I was
here you had said you wanted the entire site to be
non-disturbance, which I did not quite understand. But this is
why I'm here, to discuss why, where you guys want to go with
this so I can at least close this application for Mr. Siejka in
the few years now that I have been pursuing it.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: For me, and certainly speaking as one Trustee
and as a newer member of the Board, I do look at the Town Code's
100-foot setback and, for me, I kind of need to be convinced
that this will not have any environmental impact rather than me
proving that it will have an environmental impact. I believe
that is how the code should be read.
So for me, personally, I think that 75 is a big lift. I
would be more comfortable with 85, personally. And that's just
one Trustee's opinion, so take that for what it's worth.
MR. NEMSCHICK: Opinions are great. I kind of think that's why we
are here is to discuss this. From my standpoint this is still a
section of un-buildable lot as far as the Town is concerned, and
this has been something that has been a buildable lot. And where
I kind of have a hard time with is if we go to 85 feet and then
I just go to the Zoning Board and go for a side yard setback of
five feet, not 15, which I understand. But it doesn't--what
I'm trying to accomplish here is deem this as a buildable lot
for my client so that we can understand that we can actually
build a structure on this lot.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Right. The hardship for the ZBA doesn't make
it an un-buildable lot. It just means you have to go before that
Board of Trustees 44 June 15, 2022
board.
MR. NEMSCHICK: No, I feel like it's kind of been going back and
forth. If you decide 85 feet then I just go back to the ZBA.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Again, I'm speaking as one Trustee. I welcome
other Trustees' comments.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think just in general, the farther away and
the more buffer we get, the better. So if it is something that
would require a ZBA variance, I believe your applicant is the
owner of the neighboring property as well, so I'm going to
assume he's not going to object to a variance for the
neighboring property, which happens to be his as well. But it
will go a long way to, you know, address those environmental
concerns that we have. You know, whether its 85 feet, 80 feet,
obviously the more the better, and if you can incorporate an IA,
less ground disturbance and more of a buffer, for me, you know,
I would definitely be willing to consider that.
MR. NEMSCHICK: Is there any consideration for, if we had a
landscape plan that dedicated the idea that there was any kind
of outflow going toward the wetland. I mean, to go ten feet more
as opposed to creating some kind of a structure where I can, you
know, I can assure that no runoff goes that way, that seems be a
better scenario for the Trustees rather than just move it ten
more feet.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: In my short tenure on the Board we
experienced, as you've seen tonight, one a structure gets built
then a patio is needed and it continues to go closer and closer
toward the wetland, and all these requests come in after. So we
are trying to on this end make sure the structure is as far way
as possible, to protect from future applications and things that
may come up.
MR. NEMSCHICK: I was just trying to make it a better scenario
for the Trustees.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I can appreciate what you are saying with that.
I think for me, personally, if you can pull the house back
slightly, whether that means the variance or making the house
smaller, because obviously the client can go buy a bigger piece
of property that doesn't drop off into a wetland, if they wanted
a bigger house.
And to echo Trustee Goldsmith's comments, it we can pull
the house back slightly, and I'm not even going to throw a
number out there, but for me, if you can pull the house back
slightly, lower the clearing area to as little bit as possible,
obviously they can use equipment to access right off of Mr.
Siejka's driveway for that. And then leave the rest of the
property non-disturbance. Because not all property, even if
they are deemed buildable lots and taxable lots, that doesn't
mean that they are clearable lots. I mean, this being the
headwaters of a creek is extremely fragile habitat. One of the
more fragile habitats we deal with on a regular basis, because
it is the headwaters.
Board of Trustees 45 June 15, 2022
So rather than build a berm or something like that, that
contains runoff, I would rather see as much of the property as
possible being non-disturbance and pulling the house back as far
as possible.
I don't really want to throw a number out there. I don't
know if that number is 80, if it's something, I don't want a
hard and fast number. But I would like to see pulled back
slightly and then remove that clearing area in the rear of the
house. I mean, for me this is not a piece of property that is
going to have a lawn or a pool or anything along those lines.
It's a natural, it's going to be a natural habitat surrounding a
house.
MR. NEMSCHICK: Agreed. There's two solutions that I have off the
top of my head, is move closer to the road and look for a front
yard setback relief, or just simply tilt it and look for a side
yard setback relief. Which I think would give you the most
approval rate for you guys. I mean, I can certainly can't the
house and then go for a variance. But again, this is more or
less to give my client some kind of semblance that, yes, it's
possible to actually build a structure on this lot. If we can
understand each other. I mean, that's --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, I make a motion to table --sorry.
MR. NEMSCHICK: Table it?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, and to your comment, we would have to
table the application otherwise we would have to close the
hearing and vote to approve or deny based on what we are looking
at tonight. Unless you want us to.
MR. NEMSCHICK: No, I completely understand. I'm just trying to
get to the point. Okay. I think I get where we are going with
this. That's fine.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And if you want to meet in the field, get a
pre-submission based on a new plan or something like that, that
we would be willing to do.
MR. NEMSCHICK: For me and for my purposes it just kicks me back
and forth between agencies, you know what I mean.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So if you would request pre-submission for
our July field inspections, we would be able to help you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And it would be helpful if it's flagged for us.
Okay, I'll make a motion to table the application.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 6, En-Consultants on behalf of RICHARD
HEUS REVOCABLE TRUST & PAMELA HEUS REVOCABLE TRUST requests a
Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place approximately 148
linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead;
remove and replace in-place ±9' timber return with ±6' vinyl
Board of Trustees 46 June 15, 2022
return; cut existing tree overhanging bulkhead down to stump;
and backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards of clean sandy
fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source.
Located: 615 South Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-11-22
The Trustees visited this site on June 8th, 2022, and noted
that the application is straightforward. A non-turf buffer from
the bulkhead to toe of the bank would be desirable. And noted
that the bank to remain as non-disturbance.
The LWRP found this application to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with the 15-foot to 20 foot non-turf buffer planted with native
vegetation. The Conservation Advisory Council questions why the
existing tree is being cut down.
I also have an e-mail from Robert Herrmann, dated Tuesday,
June 14th, 2022, noting that there are, I guess addressing the
concerns of the Trustees during the field inspections, noting
that you'll bring three hardcopies of the plan.
I'm also in receipt, I guess of this plan that you have
hard copies of, stamped and dated June 15th, 2022. And that's
two pages.
Does anyone here wish to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant.
And you are correct, I did, after speaking with Elizabeth,
in reviewing the results of the field inspection, we prepared an
updated plan that now depicts and labels that approximately
14-foot wide area between the bulkhead and the toe of the bank
to remain as a non-turf buffer, and also showing the bank slope
between the toe of the bank and top of the bank to remain as a
vegetated non-disturbance buffer.
So that's the, so that plan was revised pursuant to the
Board's comments. I e-mailed that to Liz and these are the three
hardcopies.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And this is the same that we have in the file
from the e-mail.
MR. HERRMANN: Correct. I e-mailed you a digital copy and those
are the prints. That's all I have.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That's all very clearly on the plans. I thank
you for addressing the concerns.
MR. HERRMANN: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Does anyone else here wish to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Are there any other questions or comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 47 June 15, 2022
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application
with the new plans stamped and dated June 15th, 2022.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 7, En-Consultants on behalf of 1663
BRIDGE, LLC, c/o DONALD P. BRENNAN, JR., MANAGING MEMBER
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 19'x4.1' swimming pool
surrounded by a 1,625sq.ft. raised, bi-level masonry patio with
1) access ramps, steps and landings, 2) cloth canopy above, and.
3) pool equipment, half-bath, laundry/storage space beneath;
remove existing two-system conventional septic system and
install a new two-system I/A OWTS sanitary system more than 100'
from wetlands; install storm water drainage system and pool
drywell; modify existing grade by±12" using excavated on-site
material; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 15'wide,
approximately 2,700sq.ft. non-turf buffer area adjacent to the
wetland boundary to northeast ("Bridge Lane").
Located: 1663 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-2-4.2
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
Trustees conducted a field inspection on June 8th, noting
the pool and structures are 55 feet from wetlands and
installation will result in two new IA septic systems. Is there
anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of the
applicant.'
Glenn, I don't have much to add beyond what you indicated.
There is a proposed pool and associated patio, all of which are
in compliance with the required minimum setback under Chapter
275 for pools and related structures in connection with this
proposed half bath. There is an existing conventional septic
system located within your jurisdiction that would be removed
and relocated outside of your jurisdiction, and replaced with an
IA sanitary system. And the second conventional septic system
that is located on the property, will also be replaced with an
IA sanitary system.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Anyone else here wish 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 KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 48 June 15, 2022
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Request a five minute recess.
(After a five-minute recess, this proceeding continues as
follows).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 8, Charles Thomas R.A., PLLC on behalf
of MARY HOELTZEL requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing
28'x59.6' dwelling to first floor deck and demolish existing
20'x20.2' detached garage; construct a proposed 32'x104.2'
(2,278sq.ft.) two-story dwelling with seaward side covered porch
and attached garage consisting of the proposed dwelling to be
32'x63.4', proposed attached garage to be 22'x31'; the proposed
dwelling will be using the same foundation and first floor deck
of existing dwelling with additions to the east and north;
construct a proposed 10.6'x29' covered porch with a 10.6'x29'
second story balcony above; a proposed 14.6'x26.4' patio on east
side and partially covered by a second story bump-out; construct
a 5'x8.6' covered front porch; and for the existing 7.10'x12.4'
shed landward of dwelling to remain.
Located: 6190 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-128-2-5
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
Discussing the addition of IA system.
The Conservation Advisory Council inspected it, however is
unable to make a recommendation until the determination was made
by the ZBA.
The Trustees visited the site on the 8th of June and noted
that the house exceeds the pier line of the two neighboring
houses and that due to the depth of the lot,the house should be
moved landward. Had questions about the ZBA variance and also
noted that the structure would need an IA system.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding the
application?
MR. THOMAS: Yes, Chuck Thomas, architect for the applicant.
We are maintaining the existing foundation and first floor
deck. We were thinking of keeping some of the first-floor walls
but past projects with Building Inspector, we don't want to get
caught up in the amount of demolition and what interprets them
as a new house. So we are proposing to take it down to the
existing first floor deck, do minor alterations and additions to
the east and to the north.
So the house line is kind of set with our foundation. We
are doing an IA system. We are already in the Health Department,
and that is approved subject to this Board, if they grant it.
We did go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and a copy of
that approval was submitted to this Board.
Board of Trustees 49 June 15, 2022
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So with a project of this magnitude, and
essentially a demolition that is going so far, the Board feels
it's appropriate to pull the house back to conform with the pier
line.
If the'house is being built in the rear of the existing
house and attached to, I can certainly see some argument. But
realistically we are talking about the removal of a very small
house and the construction of a very large house with a very
deep lot and plenty of room. And we are, as per the Board
practice and best practice, we are aggressively ahead of the
pier line. So that is something that!the Board has been adhering
to pretty strictly. j
MR. THOMAS: Okay, so the amount of demolition that would have to
take place on the site, removing all the existing foundation
work and all of that, I'm just looking for, is that better than
what we are proposing?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean quite frankly there are several reasons
for pulling the house back, both environmental and esthetic,
which the code speaks to both. The idea is that you should not
be building in front of the person next to you, like I said,
environmentally, every house should be pulled away from the
wetland. That is common sense. But also we are not trying to
block neighbors' views that are existing now.
With you going so low on a demolition, I just feel it's
appropriate to pull the house back: And environmentally
speaking, if we pull the house back and put a nice, sizeable
buffer in, get some of that turf and nitrates out, plus the
installation of an IA, I think it's a nice project here, to be
honest with you.
MR. THOMAS: Okay, I did speak to both neighbors, the neighbor on
the west and the neighbor on the east, he called me yesterday,
we did talk about the site lines, and I did stake out and I did
send him the building plans. So those were addressed,just
based on, you know, his house location and his view and where we
are going, and the limited amount of projection that we are
going to the east. We are not, we were not looking to go closer
to the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I appreciate'where you are coming from.
Believe it or not that is something, the exact situation has
come before this Board, I don't know how many times that I have
been on the Board in the last six years.
But the, you know, the idea is that the neighbors can sell,
the neighbor can say one thing and, you know, come back in in
the future complaining. I mean, really, this is something that,
at least I feel pretty strongly on this. This structure should
be pulled back, given the amount of work at the site.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I agree.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I would echo Trustee Krupski's comments.
This is a demo, so you are basically starting from scratch. You
have plenty of room on that property to move it back, which
Board of Trustees 50 June 15, 2022
would address our environmental concerns, it would address the
esthetics, the view line of the neighbors. So we are not really
constrained here from a construction standpoint, as far as
depth, so common sense, you want that thing as far back from the
water as practicable.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not to mention, this shoreline takes a beating,
and we are a good storm away from bulkheads getting wiped out
again. Which this Board has seen before. It makes sense, if you
are going to build a multi-million dollar home there, it makes
sense to pull it back. And not to mention, we have gone into
before, on other hearings, you know, we are trying to keep
structures out of the bay, too. And I could very easily see that
happen, eventually.
MR. THOMAS: Okay. All right, I would like to table this to
discuss it with my client to see what direction he would like to
go. He may just want to do a more moderate project.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, is there anyone else here wishing to
speak regarding this application or any additional comments from
the members of the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to table the application.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 9, Ural Talgat on behalf of CHARLES
SALICE & CAMILLE PASSARO requests a Wetland Permit to dredge an
artificial canal for recreational boating access consisting of
dredging an approximately 300' x 50' x 2' area within the canal;
approximately 1,200 cubic yards of dredge spoils to be removed
from canal and place the dredge spoils in waterside yard;
install silt curtains along canal where it is to be dredged;
grade out spoils and install landscaping and lawn; construct a
4'x150 linear foot long timber catwalk using 60% open-grate
decking; a 3'x25' ramp; and a 6'x20' floating dock situated in
an "I" configuration and secured by two (2) pilings; two
additional dolphin piles installed beyond seaward end of dock;
improve a 5'x135' (675sq.ft.) pathway to canal with
approximately 120 cubic yards of gravel bed; construct a
215sq.ft. Front entrance with 5.5' wide stairs to ground; and
install 5.5'x20' (110sq.ft.) rear yard stairs.
Located: 9326 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-5-25
The LWRP found the proposed project to be inconsistent for
dredging. And for catwalk and dock. Construction standards.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
The Trustees most recently have been to the site on June
8th, 2022. Notes from the field read not staked, but
subsequently Trustee Peeples visited the site and the location
was staked, consistent with the plans we received in our office
Board of Trustees 51 June 15, 2022
stamped April 11th, 2022.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. TALGAT: Ural Talgat, on behalf of the applicant. And also
Ron Abrams.
MR. ABRAMS: Ron Abrams, consulting ecologist available for
questions, if you need.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Questions or comments from members of the
audience?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: There are only a few minor concerns that I
for one have seen, and other members have echoed. It's the
landscaping and lawn portion of the project description. So we
would necessarily not like to see lawn, what we call turf, in
that area seaward of the house, because we find it associated.
with excess nitrogen and phosphorous which has a deleterious
effect on the wetlands.
The other small concern here is typically the Board
approves a four-foot wide pathway for providing access to the
wetlands. Currently on the project description you have five
foot by 135 foot. So a small adjustment in it of about one foot.
And a small third point was the language in the project
description saying recreational boating access. Primarily, our
concern right now is the lawn. Would you like to speak to that
point?
MR. ABRAMS: Yes, by all means. I think we certainly would be
willing to use a grass species that doesn't require intensive
treatments with fertilizers or herbicides, and just some light
watering, maybe zoysia grass or something like that. But if we
don't plant a good surface in that backyard it is going to be
invaded by phragmites within one or two years coming right up to
the building. Up to now it's sort of a bare sand bed, and the
phragmites has started to move in. So our thought was new soils
will settle and if we don't cover them properly, then we'll get
invasive species. So that is our thinking.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I can appreciate that. Thank you. Typically,
the Board has approved a landscaping plan with native species.
I understand that the phragmites can compete aggressively with
those species. But we are also, I believe, speaking as one
Trustee, to a phragmites trimming ten-year permit, which allows
you to hand trim those phragmites to prevent them from
continually encroaching.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think what the Board discussed is that we
prefer not to see a grade change in this property. It's an
environmentally sensitive area. If we were to approve dredging
to allow for a boat to access and approve a rather long catwalk
across the wetlands. I don't think we were looking to make the
area surrounding the house environmentally worse. I mean, I
think it makes sense to remove the dredge spoils from the area,
and not change the grade.
Board of Trustees 52 June 15, 2022
1 mean, I certainly would be open to planting something
that I would want to see a planting plan on, that was
non-fertilized, and put a stipulation on height on it so that if
they wanted to trim it, you know, and keep phragmites out of it,
I understand that. I can appreciate that. But in terms of
grading around the house, I mean the house is already built in
essentially a wetland. You know, it's an interesting little
spot, the house is kind of shoehorned in. I certainly would not
want to change it for the worse, environmentally speaking.
MR. ABRAMS: Let me answer. When you refer to the grading, one
choice in terms of disposal of the dredge spoil would have been
to truck it somewhere. But we find that to be an environmental
challenge as well.
So the material tested quite clean, and we discussed with
the DEC their preference which was always, if possible, to
retain the material on site. They don't like to see material
moving around the region when it doesn't need to.
Now, you commented about changing the grade. Based on
geometry, we are dredging an area that represents 1,200 cubic
yards of material. But that material is so saturated and so fine
that it's not going to raise to the height-- Ural had to draw
an area that accommodated the 1,200 cubic yards, and that's what
he did in the backyard. And it looks tall, because we can't
presume how much it will shrink. But my experience with dredge
spoil from a site like this is that as clean and sandy as this
material is, it's going to shrink by 80%. So while it looks like
it's two or three feet higher, when this job done, it's going to
be a foot, 14 inches. And the grading is done in such a way
that it helps,with the drainage around the house.
They have had considerable trouble with drainage because
when the house was built nobody was thinking about this problem.
Fortunately, the substrate there is all sandy, so when we put
the dredge spoil in the backyard and contain it with hay bales
and silt fence, within less than a year, it's going to settle,
it's going to create a little bit of a grade away from the
house, which is necessary to cure a drainage issue.
So we really think that when we look at the whole picture,
the treatment in the backyard makes sense. If we plant shrubs,
we can plant, maybe use some ornamental grasses, maybe use some
other types of native plantings, but if we don't cover that
ground, the invasion by the phragmites will be continual and
reduce the usefulness of the backyard.
And yes, you're right, this is an interesting location for
a house, and we are dealing with the challenges that come from it.
To answer the question about the pathway down to the dock,
this was an issue discussed extensively with DEC. Most of that
pathway is now six or eight feet wide. It's an existing pathway.
We originally asked DEC to make it a formal six-foot wide area,
and their reaction was, well, you need to tighten that. We
tightened it to five feet because it's a long run, and to
Board of Trustees 53 June 15, 2022
transport small vessels, four feet would just be too tight. And
the DEC eventually agreed with us. We spent a lot of time on
this project with DEC about the backyard and about the pathway.
One thing DEC did insist on is that there a 50-foot setback
associated with the original permit for the house, and part of
that goes through the backyard. That area will be planted in
shrubs and wild flowers that are native to the area, in other
words that sort of an extension of the wetland buffer, that will
be in the backyard.
So as you can see, a lot of attention was paid at a very
detailed level about the questions you've raised. We think we
have given you the very best environmental and practical solution.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So starting with the width of the path, our
code allows for four-foot. There is no leniency for that. That's
not a discussion.
MR. ABRAMS: Even though at this time most of it is five or six
or seven feet wide?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. We cannot approve a path greater than four
feet. That's not a back-and-forth item.
For me, we are taking a project that is allowing dredging
and a dock, which I would lean toward, because you know,
dredging, keeping water bodies open, flushing, depth. You know,
removing that dredge spoils there is arguments for the benefit
of ecology. But I don't believe that. I think you remove it,
you give it depth, you get cooler water. I think it's a
benefit, personally.
But you are taking -- essentially this project is to get a
useable dock and water to use it. And then by the rest of the
plan, though, for me, makes it a non-starter. I don't think it's
appropriate for the, where the dredge spoils are going to go and
then not having turf in the backyard. I mean, this is just one
opinion, but.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You have DEC approval on that disposal
location, correct?
MR. ABRAMS: Yes, all of the plans have been reviewed extensively
by DEC and they were ready to issue but they are waiting for the
Town Trustees to pass their opinion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: If I'm not mistaken, there was old dredge
spoils kind of on both sides, perpendicular to the property?
MR. ABRAMS: Yes. This is a dredge canal. This is a dug canal.
Looking at it, the left-hand side, which I guess is the
northwestern edge, is entirely dredge spoil. The backyard and
the wetlands associated with the backyard are all dredge spoil.
And on the east or south side along the canal, the dredge spoil
pile stops about a third of the way down the open water part.
It's all dredge spoil material, almost, surrounding the canal.
At that time it appears as if the dredging was just side cast up
onto the bank, and you can even see native species like
Baccharus and the phragmites of course growing up through these
mounds all around the area.
Board of Trustees 54 June 15, 2022
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just for me -- and I get your point with if
you leave them alone, the phragmites will probably overtake it.
For me, if it wasn't grass, lawn, if you wanted beach grass,
native plantings, something that, you know, is more native and
conducive to that environment, and then as somebody mentioned, a
permit to cut the phragmites, a ten-year maintenance permit to
give whatever you are planting a chance to kind of block that
out, you know, I'm one, but that would go a long way for me.
MR. SALICE: Hi. Charles Salice. We have been doing this with
Ron, who is an environmental engineer, and Ural, for almost two
years now. With the DEC's cooperation and the Army Corps
reviewing everything.
Just to be clear, it was a former boat basin back in the
60s and 70s. When you talk about spoils, they were put to the
left and to the right, over the years. It silted in on the front
and then continued to silt in. There are still some pilings
floating around in there, I don't know why or how. I can't find
anything for it. When I spoke to the DEC, they liked the idea
that we are taking dredge spoils, after we did extensive
testing, numerous tests that we went back and forth with the
Army Corps as well, and they liked the idea the spoils were
staying on the property, that we were not relocating them. They
also didn't like the idea that years past, that the spoils were
put to the left and to the right. They wanted it in front of the
house, and I don't know enough about it, to create against tidal
surge or any tidal surge to the house. And they thought it was
a protective barrier.
They wanted, might not use the right words, indigenous
species, to be replanted there. When you speak about lawn, there
is no lawn there. There is just sea grass growing up out of the
bay. It's a very natural habitat there, and we like to keep it
that way. So we are not trying to change the complexion of it.
What we are trying to do is preserve the spoils where we have
been instructed to put them, and maybe it was our mistake, we
didn't come here before we went there, but there is a lot of
process, as you very well know, and there is a lot of people
that have an opinion, and Ron does what he does, and we went
through the process. And the DEC said you have our permission,
but Southold is one of those areas where the LWRP overrules us
until you get their permission.
.TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Correct me if I'm wrong, but based on the
sediment samples, it dictates where the DEC will allow you to
put that spoils.
MR. SALICE: From the best of my knowledge, yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So it passed muster to be left on property.
MR. SALICE: Very much so.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you be open to some sort of stipulation
that, I mean obviously you are talking about 80% of the dredge
spoils, you know, leaching out over time, essentially, and the
P
Board of Trustees 55 June 15, 2022
grade not being changed that much. I mean what about a
stipulation of, and you can draw up a number as an environmental
engineer, but are you left with a two-foot grade change at max?
Is that something we can stipulate?
MR. SALICE: Is it really a grade change or a berm?
MR. ABRAMS: To answer your question is yes. It's my opinion when
that stuff settles it won't be deeper than two feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
MR. SALICE: I mean, the DEC has been out there, we have been
three times testing for them in different configurations of
spoils. It's not like we are creating this. It was there. Okay,
it just was not maintained properly and filled back in.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That testing does satisfy one of the requests
of the LWRP to have testing to prove it's clean.
MR. SALICE: Yes. And we spoke to the Army Corps as well, the
Army Corps is very much aware of it, and they are all standing
by for your blessing so we can issue a public notice. I learned
more about this than I wish to.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: We appreciate your intimate knowledge and
awareness of not only the environmental agencies involved but
also the environmental concerns.
It's good to work with people and to know you are not an
owner somewhere off waiting for the permit, but you have been
involved in the project. Which I like to see.
MR. SALICE: Way too much. Sorry, but yes.
So anything we change on this right now would send me back
to the DEC, okay,.because the DEC has basically marsh, and the
other lady have basically approved this, and they are just
waiting for the second phase.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I would say, with a stipulation, that this
is just me personally, with a stipulation for two-foot max on
the dredge spoils, once, obviously once it dries. And then some
sort of non-fertilized area in the rear. The thing that threw
me is page six, where it said provide six-inch thick topsoil on
top of fill from dredge spoils for planting of lawn. So that's,
probably, as you just spoke as the owner, it's a natural area.
It's excellent now. That's what I would like to see when the
project is done. Not topsoil and a planted lawn. That's really
all I'm saying.
MR. SALICE: Nor do I want to maintain a lawn. It's just not
esthetic to the property. It doesn't really go there. So Ural,
can you speak to why there is a lawn, per se, called out.
MR. TALGAT: I think it was so that the phragmites would be kept
at bay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just for point of clarification, six inches of
topsoil won't keep phragmites at bay.
MR. TALGAT: It's the surface grass that keeps it at bay.
MR. ABRAMS: Our objective is to create a root bed that will
resist the phragmites. So what you want, if you want to get
that going, you use some loamy soil that's got enough nutrients
Board of Trustees 56 June 15, 2022
in it naturally that whatever seeds you use will grow in in a
reasonably quick period of time.
MR. SALICE: It's not like a traditional lawn.
MR. ABRAMS: No. We are not using Kentucky blue grass.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you talking like a fescue?
MR. ABRAMS: Well, we had not actually specified the seed. We can
make a stipulation as to the types of seed bed that you are
lacking for. We could use a mix of wild flowers. All I want to
do is reduce the amount of time spent cutting phragmites, which is --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It will get there eventually anyway, but, I
understand you what you are trying to do. I mean, for me, if
it's some sort of stipulation against a nitrogen-fed lawn.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That's something I'm comfortable with.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. And the height of the final grade.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Not to exceed two foot.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. And also, just to your point earlier
about going back to the DEC. Us being more restrictive on the
four-foot wide path, which we have to be by code, that would not
make you go back because we are being more restrictive. DEC is
being less. So you would not have to go back and change that
with them. Just for clarity on the application.
MR. SALICE: Let's get some clarity on this.
MR. ABRAMS: The problem we have now is that most of the pathway
is wider than four feet. Are you asking us to plant it in?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That has not been discussed.
MR. ABRAMS: So what we can do under the Town permit is, we were
providing for a surface, like a bark mulch chip surface. If the
Town wants it only four feet wide, then we'll leave it four feet
wide and we don't have to go back to DEC.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Well, and the trick is, with this construction
project, you will need to take the material down in order to
build the dock, so I current path that is there will allow that,
and then if the gravel or the woodchips you are proposing are at
that four-foot-wide width, then as we have all seen, the
property is fairly naturalized, so it should grow into that
point.
MR. SALICE: Right. And I think, to your point, the four-foot is
the end result. But the DEC did acknowledge that we needed a
wider path to take the spoils out. Because we could never get it
down a four-foot path. .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And currently you have a wider path, yes.
MR. SALICE: It was there from whenever it was a boat basin or
however it was used in years past, and prior to.
MR. TALGAT: And it was maintained that way.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And when I met on site with Ms. Passaro, it was
refreshing to hear that it seems like you were trying to go
after every decision that is keeping the environment in the
front, forefront of your decision. So that is much appreciated.
-And I also did, it's come up several times about the trimming of
the phragmites, I did mention as well, that you can come to the
Board of Trustees 57 June 15, 2022
office to apply for a ten-year maintenance permit and then that
would help moving forward with that. The hand trimming of the
phragmites only.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Members of the Board?
(Negative response).
Motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Bear with me. We have discussed quite a bit.
I make a motion to approve the application with the following
stipulations:
That the language for"recreational boating access" be
stricken from the description.
That the 1,200 cubic yards of dredge spoils that will be
removed and placed on site will not exceed a thickness of two
feet at the final inspection.
The access path of five-foot by 135-foot be redrafted as
four-foot wide by 135 feet long.
That the area where the dredge spoils are to be placed be a
non-fertilized vegetation.
And I believe that is all I have. That is all the
stipulations that I have for today. And those bring it into
consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 10, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of TOWN CREEK REAL ESTATE, INC., c/o MICHAEL LIEGY
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a proposed 25'x50'
two-story, single-family dwelling with attached 20'x20' garage;
install a pervious driveway; install a new I/A OWTS system; and
to install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof
runoff.
Located: 480 Ackerly Pond Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-69-3-13
The Trustees most recently visited the site June 8th, 2022,
noting very close proximity to bank and wetlands. Will review
further at work session, will review prior permit history.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
consistent, but with the following notes: The lot is in a
cultural resource area and most likely contains Native American
and colonial artifacts. Coordination with the Southold Indian artifacts
archaeologist is strongly recommended prior to any ground
disturbance. A 30-foot no work zone to the east of what is
referenced in the LWRP CCR. This area is not shown on the
survey and should be clarified and shown.
Board of Trustees 58 June 15, 2022
The 50-foot non-disturbance buffer was approved with the
Board in Wetland Permit 5983. The buffer and 30-foot no work
should be memorialized in the covenants and restrictions permit
and description.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this application
and resolved not to support this application.
The setbacks are not in compliance with Chapter 275 Wetland
code and the CAC will defer to the LWRP.
I am in receipt of a beautifully handwritten note from a
neighbor in support of the project. And I have plans stamped
received April 5th, 2022.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Robert Anderson, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting on behalf of the applicant, here to answer any
questions that the Board may have and provide some clarification
as to some of the setback issues that were encountered here.
When this project was originally approved in 2004 by the
Trustees, there was an allowance of a 20-foot setback from the
street. We also maintained that distance from the historic
resource to the east and then some.
This project also has reduced the overall scale of the
project by about 210 square feet from what was originally
approved in 2004. Our setback from the bank since then has only
increased by about eight feet, that I can tell. Decreased by
about eight feet, from what I can tell.
As far as our necessity to keep the house in its position
that we are currently proposing, a lot of this comes from kind
of a safe navigation on and off of Ackerly Pond Road, as I'm
sure you have all witnessed is a very busy roadway used as a
junction between Main"Road and County Road.48. Just sitting
there and doing the staking you can tell people zoom by there,
and it's, as a motorist myself, I would imagine I would like to
have a little more room to maneuver, a little bit more room to
see and be able to safely gauge your entrance and exit on and
off the roadway. And that's one of the reasons we would also
like to keep that distance.
Another reason we like to keep it at the current location
is because we are proposing a single-car garage. As you know,
throughout the Town, two-story single-family dwellings, many of
them have more than one car. And as for reasons I just
mentioned, it's very, you would be, there would be large amount
of trepidation of parking a car along the edge of that road. So
that's another reason we would like to keep the current distance
from the street and current distance from the bank. It's just a
safety standpoint as well.
As mitigative measures we would maintain that 50-foot
non-disturbance buffer that was originally proposed in the 2004
permit#5983. We have also added an IA/OWTS treatment system
that pushed us as far back from the wetland as we can do while
Board of Trustees 59 June 15, 2022
complying with Health Department standards.
That's what I have at this point. I'm here to answer any
questions.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'm just looking at the plans.
MR. LIEGY: Hi, I would like to address the Board. I'm Mike
Liegy, I'm the owner of the property.
Back in 2004-5, when this project was originally approved, there
was an archeological dig there done, because there were two
original homes on that property, dating back to the 1700s. So,
they found nothing there. Whether or not that area was filled in
or not, but they found nothing in the archeological dig.
Also, I just wanted to address, I think Rob mis-spoke.
There is one car, not a one-car garage, it's a two-car garage.
But it's attached to the house. Which is on the plans.
TRUSTEE SEPENOWSKI: That brings me to a point I wanted to make.
Given the traffic concerns and the speed at which people drive
and the danger pulling in there, I would suggest flipping the
garage to the opposite side of the house and shifting the house.
I'm not sure which direction that is, to the right, based on the
plans you are looking at. To give you a little more room to come
to approach --
MR. LIEGY: The reason why it's all done to the right, is for the
septic systems is to the right. And originally when this was
done, back in 2004, there was only well water around there. No
public water. So now that has changed. So I can probably move
a little bit of it, a little bit of leeway.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That makes sense.
MR. LIEGY: I don't know if I have anything more to add
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I'm just looking at previously-approved plans,
and it does appear that the residence has moved slightly closer
to the wetland.
MR. ANDERSON: I believe I mentioned that previously. But as we
had to accommodate for the sanitary system, things have had to
shift. Accordingly, setbacks have changed to accommodate that
system.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And it is a fairly wide lot in terms of the
street front, and it seems like some of that could kind of
stretch out on the lot.
MR. ANDERSON: I understand that, however we also, there are
still some wells in the area, as you can see from the plans
submitted. To the west there is a well, so shifting it that way
might not exactly work. We had to kind of still keep within our
Health Department standards as well. Extending out the house.
Making'it, are you suggesting to elongate the house and make it
more shallow?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I mean, I'm not necessarily trying to design
the project, but we do see quite a bit of area on the site to
the left and the right of the current house. And it seems that,
I think the Trustees have not seen, you mentioned this, is kind
of shifting the house slightly and, you know, one other thing,
Board of Trustees 60 June 15, 2022
the back corner I'm not familiar with my directions where we are
here, but kind of that, the corner that is closest to the
wetland, you know, at that point, there is nothing else that has
been proposed kind of seaward of the house.
So as one Trustee I would not want to see any other
hardened surface or patio even in that area, because there is
not a lot of space. So I feel like, as has been mentioned
previously this evening, we have seen applications come back for
a patio or a deck or something like that. And my interpretation
and my opinion in looking at this plan is there would not be any
room for that. So if the intention is to have some sort of
outdoor area behind, again, you know, the fact this is a fairly
wide lot, you can put that in a different area. But I just
wanted to bring that up as a concern as well.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Basically, we don't want to design the
project for you, but from our standpoint, the maximum distance
between a proposed structure and the wetlands is obviously what
we are looking for. So whatever you can do to design something
that will maximize that distance as much as possible is what we
are looking for.
MR. LIEGY: If we did something,just looking at this, and had
the garage facing east, the entrance to the garage, and
pull-ins, we have a little L-shaped driveway entering, and
pulling the whole house and everything a little bit further to
the east, would that be.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Whatever you can do to maximize the distance
from whatever you are proposing and the wetland is what we would
like. From an environmental standpoint.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For me, if you can do anything to pull it a
little bit away from the wetlands and then put in a nice buffer
in the rear yard to really -- I mean, if you look at the two
houses, the two adjacent neighbors, we are not looking at like
heavy nitrogen, fertilized sod. I mean the one has a little bit
of grass, probably closer than we would like to see it than any
other house. But no dumping nitrogen. You know, we would like
to see something as natural as possible in that year yard, too
MR. LIEGY: Okay.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And for me, the corner that is closest to the
wetlands is about 35 feet from the top of the bank, which is
quite close for me, and as Trustee Krupski just said, the two
adjacent houses were built in the 1700s and they were farther
from the wetlands, and, you know, I think that whatever we can
do to pull back closer to the road in this situation, I
understand that puts you in whatever situation, but this is
really just trying to shoehorn a house between the wetland and
the road in a very tight lot here. So it's difficult for us
environmentally.
MR. LIEGY: Understood.
MR. ANDERSON: If I may speak from an environmental standpoint. I
believe we are proposing some significant improvements that
Board of Trustees 61 June 15, 2022
these houses from the 1700s did not benefit from, which might be
a reason to consider having an IA/OWTS.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Technically an outhouse would be better, I'm
just saying.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I would not consider this; however, an
improvement over a lot, which it has been up until 2022.
MR. ANDERSON: I understand that but I also do believe it's been
an improvement of the over what was originally approved in 2004.
Which was considered.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: However that permit expired and was not
renewed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. For me, though, if you can just move it,
if there is anything you can do to move it slightly further
landward and mitigate some environmental concerns, with some
sort of a slightly increased buffer, that's, as one Trustee,
that's where I'm at with that.
MR. ANDERSON: We have a lot to consider. I would like to table
so we can come up with another plan to present to you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 11, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of LINDA MOELLER & DAVID McMILLEN requests a Wetland
Permit to remove three cesspools located 30', 30' and 52' from
the wetland boundary and construct a new IA/OWTS septic system
52' from the wetland boundary; and deposit 200 cubic yards of
clean fill in support of septic system. Located: 3600 Little
Neck Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-9-13.3
The Trustees visited this site on June 8th, and noted that
it's a straightforward replacement.
The LWRP finds this application to be consistent, noting
the installation of a new hydro-action sanitary system 52 feet
from the wetland boundary supports Policies 5 and 6. Consider
relocating the hydro-action sanitary system further from the
wetland system. Number three, consider requiring a vegetated
non-turf buffer landward of the wetland, incorporating existing
vegetation.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application. And we are in receipt of plans stamped and dated
April 8th, 2022.
Is there anyone here who wish to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Robert Anderson, Suffolk Environmental
Board of Trustees 62 June 15, 2022
Consulting on behalf of the applicant. As you mentioned, what
this is is an IA/OWTS system to replace currently, THE current
system that is in fairly poor shape. In fact fairly recently we
had, there is a pump out done in February of the system as it
was overflowing, and I have some photographs.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Great, thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: (Handing).
During our field inspection there were.some concerns about the
position of the system. If I may speak to that. We had to
position the system in its current location due to the present
location of wells 150 feet from the system. Our current system
is proposed at 151 feet. A bit of leeway space. If there are any
questions from the Board, I'm happy to address them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seems like a good improvement to me.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Agreed. Anyone else here to speak regarding
this application?
(Negative response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much for your time.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And I would like to make one note. That it
would be requested that the grass clippings are no longer
deposited in the wetlands.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Perfect. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have a good night.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 12, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
D. CANNIZZARO QRPT & B. MILTAKIS QRPT, c/o JOHN MILTAKIS, TRUSTEE
requests a Wetland Permit to dredge.a total of 40 cubic yards of
spoils surrounding existing floating dock to a depth of 4' below
mean low water and placement into sealed containers and
delivered to an approved upland landfill.
Located: 1460 Strohson Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-10-29.1
The LWRP found this to be consistent, provided turbidity
controls are required.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports application
however questions the installation of an existing walkway and
lack of proper grading and drainage.
The Trustees did a field inspection way back in September,
where we waited for the DEC. Subsequently we have a letter
Board of Trustees 63 June 15, 2022
stamped received May 16th, 2022, that shows that this
application has DEC permit.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
(No response).
Any questions or comment from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that turbidity controls are used during
dredging.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 13, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of GEORGE
STARKIE, JR. & GAIL BERKES requests a Wetland Permit to remove
and replace 125 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with new
vinyl bulkhead in same location as existing; remove and replace
existing permitted timber decking consisting of a 4'x125'
boardwalk, a 37.5'x14' irregular platform, and 9'x6' steps with
un-treated timber decking in same location; remove and replace
existing 6'x4' timber cantilevered platform, 3'x16' aluminum
ramp, and 6'x30' floating dock in same location as existing.
Located: 630 Tarpon Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-57-1-7
The Board most recently visited this site on the 8th of
June, and noted that it appeared straightforward, and questioned
the floating dock.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application with the installation of a ten to 15-foot
non-turf buffer planted with native vegetation.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application
or any comments from the Board?
(No 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 new plans depicting a non-turf buffer ten feet of the
retaining wall.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
Board of Trustees 64 June 15, 2022
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
411— & -
e
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees