HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-09/14/2022 Glenn Goldsmith,President O��DE SU(/j�ol Town Hall Annex
A. Nicholas Krupski,Vice President h o 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski Southold,New York 11971
Liz Gillooly c/> >c
G Q Telephone(631) 765-1892
Elizabeth Peeples Fax(631) 765-6641
couff l,�c�
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes R E C E-11
Wednesday, September 14, 2022
0 CT 2 0 2022
5:30 PM
Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President Southold Towey Clerk
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Eric Sepenoski, Trustee
Liz Gillooly, Trustee
Elizabeth Peeples, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist
Lori Hulse, Board Counsel
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Good evening welcome to our Wednesday,
September 14th, 2022 meeting. At this time I would like to call the meeting
to order and ask that you stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance is recited).
We'll start off the meeting by announcing the people on the
dais. To my left is Trustee Krupski, Trustee Sepenoski, Trustee
Gillooly and Trustee Peeples. To my right we have the attorney
for the Trustees Lori Hulse, we have Senior Clerk Typist
Elizabeth Cantrell. And we have with us tonight Court
Stenographer Wayne Galante, and from the Conservation Advisory
Council we have John Stein.
Agendas for tonight's meeting are located out in the
hallway and also are posted on the Town's website. We do have a
number of postponements for tonight. Postponements are in the
agenda as follows:
On page four, number 4, 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.
On page five, numbers 3 through 5.
Number 3, Young & Young on behalf of MKS REALTY, LLC
Board of Trustees 2 September 14, 2022
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to
construct a two-story 2,445sq.ft. footprint dwelling with
garage; a proposed 21'10"x11'9" (253.5sq.ft.) seaward bedroom
balcony with railing system; a proposed 10'4"x20'2"
(191.7sq.ft.) mezzanine level bedroom balcony, railing system, a
privacy screen wall along west side, and a 6' wide spiral
staircase to ground; a 1,218.8sq.ft. elevated deck with a
522sq.ft. pool on seaward side, privacy screening along portion
of east side, a 3'9" wide stairs with railings to ground to west
and a 3'6" stairs with railings to ground to east; proposed 10'
wide bar/grill area on pool deck; seaward of pool to the east
off pool patio, a proposed 203.6sq.ft. elevated (ranging from
t7.5' to 10' above natural grade) catwalk leading to a
127.9sq.ft. open air gazebo with flat roof over, 3'6" wide
stairs with railings to ground, and 110.6sq.ft. storage area
under gazebo; proposed 663sq.ft. of non-pervious front entry
stairs; proposed 4,095sq.ft. of stone blend driveway; proposed
1,200 gallon underground propane tank; new I/A OWTS sanitary
system, i.e. one (1) 500 gallon wastewater treatment unit and
six (6) 8.5' long by 2' effect. depth sanitary leaching galleys;
public water service connection; new storm water control
structures for roof runoff and driveway runoff; approximately
690 cubic yards of clean material from the excavated areas will
be used to fill the site to the proposed grades; and all
mechanical equipment (i.e. A/C unit), to be located above the
second-story structure.
Located: 1925 North Sea Drive, 'Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-4-20
Number 4, 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
Number 5, J.M.O. 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
Pages 11, 12 and 13, numbers 21 through 25; page 12,
numbers 26 through 29; and page 13, numbers 30 and 31. They are
listed as follows:
Board of Trustees 3 September 14, 2022
Number 21, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of
DAVID C. ESSEKS & KATHRYN R. STOKES requests a Wetland Permit
to install a new retaining wall consisting of 260' on the face with
two 6-foot returns for a total of 272 feet.
Located: 522 Town Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-1-14.7
Number 22, Young & Young on behalf of STEPHEN & JACQUELINE
DUBON requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 1,118sq.ft.
one-story dwelling and for the demolition and removal of certain
existing structures (project meets Town Code definition of
demolition), within and outside of the existing dwelling to
facilitate construction of the proposed additions and
alterations consisting of a proposed 45sq.ft. addition to
northeast corner, and a 90sq.ft. addition to southeast corner
for a 1,195sq.ft. total footprint after additions; construct a
1,195sq.ft. second story addition; a 70sq.ft. second story
balcony; replace and expand existing easterly deck with a
320sq.ft. deck with 69sq.ft. of deck stairs to ground; replace
and expand existing porch with a 40sq.ft. porch and 20sq.ft.
porch stairs to ground; install one (1) new drywell for roof
runoff; abandon two (2) existing cesspools and install a new
IA/OWTS system consisting of one (1) 500 gallon treatment unit
and 46 linear feet of graveless absorption trenches and for the
existing 84sq.ft. shed.
Located: 5605 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-4-3.2
Number 23, En-Consultants on behalf of JAMES & LINDA
GEMMILL requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing 16'x20'
wood deck and embankment stairs with two landings; construct a
new embankment stairway consisting of a 10'x10' top landing with
two entry steps, 4'x12'6" stairs, a 4'x8' middle landing, and
4'x9'2" stairs, leading to existing 11'x36' deck; remove
easterly 11'x16' portion of existing 11'x36' deck, and shift
existing 8'x12' shed approximately 36" west on westerly
11'x19'7" section of deck to remain; replace and relocate
existing 4'x6' steps to beach off bulkhead; construct a 10'x20'
grade-level masonry patio landward of buffer; and to establish
and perpetually maintain a 10'wide non-turf buffer area along
the landward edge of top of bank.
Located: 6004 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-98-5-18
Number 24, 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 25, Cole Environmental Consulting on behalf of
GERARD & KAREN DIFFLEY requests a Wetland Permit to demolish
existing dwelling, deck, driveway and curb; construct a new
±48'6" x±61'2" two-story irregular shaped dwelling
Board of Trustees 4 September 14, 2022
(±2,354sq.ft.) with a full basement (±2,354sq.ft.); remove ±387
cubic yards of soil for the full basement; construct a ±24' x
±5' front porch; a ±21' x±5"rear porch; a ±4' x±5' entry
stoop on east side; install a ±40' x±35' irregular shaped stone
patio with a ±15' x 15' shade porch; install a ±30' x±14'
in-ground swimming pool with a max depth of±7'; proposed patio,
shade porch and pool to be on-grade; install a drywell for pool
discharge; install a pool enclosure fencing; install a ±4' x±4'
outdoor shower; remove ±80 cubic yards of soil for pool
excavation; install a pervious semi-circle driveway landward of
dwelling; existing septic system to be abandoned (system to be
pumped clean and filled with clean sand from upland source); and
the installation of a new I/A OWTS system landward of dwelling;
there is no proposed grade change.
Located: 1050 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-11-14
Number 26, SLATTERY NASSAU POINT TRUST requests a Wetland
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 27, 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 28, 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
Board of Trustees 5 September 14, 2022
until the spoils are de-watered.
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 29, 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 30, 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 31, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of JUSTIN
&ALLISON SCHWARTZ requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
proposed 4'x165' fixed pier with open grate decking a minimum of
4' above tidal vegetative grade; a 3'x16' aluminum ramp; a
6'x20' floating dock situated in an "T" configuration; and to
install a natural path leading from upland to fixed pier using
permeable material.
Located: 2793 Cox Neck Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-8-7.6
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Town Code Chapter 275-8(c), files were
officially closed seven days ago. Submission any of paperwork after that
date may result in a delay of the processing of the applications.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to hold our next field
inspection, Wednesday, October 12th, 2022, at 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion to hold our next Trustee meeting
Wednesday, October 19th, 2022, at 5:30 PM, at the Town Hall Main
Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
III. WORK SESSION:
Board of Trustees 6 September 14, 2022
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next work
session Monday, October 17th, 2022 at 5:OOPM, at the Town Hall
Annex 2nd floor Executive Board Room; and on Wednesday, October
19, 2022 at 5:OOPM at the Main Town Hall Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion to.approve the Minutes of our August
17th, 2022 meeting.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The Trustees monthly report for August 2022.
A check for$6,397.79 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office
for the General Fund.
VI. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Public Notices: Public Notices are
posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
VII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the
Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications
more fully described in Section X Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, September 14, 2022 are
classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and
Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA.
They are listed as follows:
18975 Soundview Avenue, LLC, c/o Christopher Moore
SCTM# 1000-51-1-16
William E. Hamilton SCTM# 1000-14-2-3.6
Roberts Premier Development, LLC SCTM# 1000-78-2-27
Kathleen B. Kilbride Family Trust SCTM# 1000-118-4-14.1
Joan M. Keating APRT, c/o Stanley J. Keating
SCTM# 1000-118-4-14.2
Richard & Gina Bonati SCTM# 1000-88-5-68
Samuel & Rebecca Lissner SCTM# 1000-94-3-1.10
Neil Currie SCTM# 1000-34-4-15
David & Helen Leis SCTM# 1000-107-8-44.1
Angeliki Kazeros & George Plitas SCTM# 1000-78-1-10.20
Board of Trustees 7 September 14, 2022
Scott & Patricia Paskewitz SCTM# 1000-78-7-20
David C. Esseks & Kathryn R. Stokes SCTM# 1000-64-1-14.7 =
JSK Park Ave, LLC SCTM# 1000-123-8-9
JSK Park Ave, LLC SCTM# 1000-123-8-10
Marilyn Pymm Irrevocable Family Trust SCTM# 1000-122-9-7.25
Nicole Martorana & David Alworth SCTM# 1000-115-17-11
Alyse Ticker SCTM# 1000-107-7-8
Evan Geoffroy SCTM# 1000-70-4-18
James & Linda Gemmill SCTM# 1000-98-5-18
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VIII. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VIII, I will make a motion to approve
number 1, Charlotte Greene on behalf of JOHN & CARRIE MULLINS requests an
Administrative Permit for a Ten (10) year Maintenance Permit to clear a 4'-wide beach
path (within 15' deeded easement) to the sand, located at the property line.
Located: 905 Stephenson Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-17-1-2.2
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, SUNSET SOUND VIEWS LLC requests an
Administrative Permit for as-built trimming of bushes, removal of vegetation,
poison ivy and cutting down of two (2)trees, digging of trench to top of bluff for
installation of electric for landscape lighting.
Located: 62345 C.R. 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-40-1-5
Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection of this property on August 31st, 2022.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is the
language in the request to remove poison ivy-filled vegetation is unclear.
The request should say "remove poison ivy only."
As such, I'll make a motion to approve this application with the following
project description: Request Administrative Permit for the as-built trimming of
bushes, removal of poison ivy only, and cutting down of two trees, digging of trench to
top of bluff for installation of landscape lighting. Located: 62345 County Route 45,
Greenport, thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IX. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The Trustees regularly group together items
that are minor or similar in nature to simplify our meeting.
As such, under Roman numeral IX, I will make a motion to
Board of Trustees 8 September 14, 2022
approve as a group items 1 through 5 as a group. They are listed
as follows:
Number 1, En-Consultants on behalf of DAVID GRESHAM and
BENJAMIN PARDO requests a One (1) Year Extension of Wetland
Permit#9764, as issued on November 18, 2020.
Located: 435 Narrow River Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-3-10
Number 2, Martin D. Finnegan on behalf of DEBRA A. ROTH
2012 FAMILY TRUST c/o WILLIAM M. ROTH, TRUSTEE requests a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#5530 from Geoffry & Domenica Penny
to Debra A. Roth 2012 Family Trust c/o William M. Roth, Trustee,
as issued on April 26, 2002.
Located: 570 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-7-2
Number 3, Martin D. Finnegan on behalf of DEBRA A. ROTH
2012 FAMILY TRUST c/o WILLIAM M. ROTH, TRUSTEE requests a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#1898 from Henry &Ann Wong to Debra
A. Roth 2012 Family Trust c/o William M. Roth, Trustee, as
issued on October 26, 1984.
Located: 570 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-7-2
Number 4, Martin D. Finnegan on behalf of DEBRA A. ROTH
2012 FAMILY TRUST c/o WILLIAM M. ROTH, TRUSTEE requests a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#1155 from Henry D. Wong to Debra A.
Roth 2012 Family Trust c/o William M. Roth, Trustee, as issued
on June 7, 1976.
Located: 570 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-7-2
Number 5, Ian Crowley on behalf of ORIENT WHARF COMPANY,
INC. requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#8274 to install approximately 120 10" diameter pilings along
the seaward face of the wharf, to be installed in the bay bottom
with 2-3" gaps, for the purpose of protecting the suspended wave
break on the north and west side of the wharf.
Located: 2110 Village Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-24-2-28.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral X, Public Hearings, at
this time I'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting
agenda and enter into Public Hearings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a public hearing in the matter of the
following applications for permits under the Wetlands Ordinance
of the Town of Southold. I have an affidavit of publication from
the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may be read prior to
asking for comments from the public. Please keep your comments
organized and brief. Five minutes or less if possible.
Board of Trustees 9 September 14, 2022
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Amendments, number 1, Frank Uellendahl
on behalf of PETER &VALERIE SAKAS requests an Amendment to
Wetland Permit#9869 to raise the existing cottage up 11 inches
by installing an additional course of 8x16 cement blocks plus a
double plate on top of it, bolted into the existing foundation;
and in raising the cottage, add two more 11" deep by 50" wide
steps for a total of four(4) steps to existing grade off of
entry steps.
Located: 65490 Route 25, Breezy Shores Cottage#16, Greenport.
SCTM# 1000-53-5-12.6
Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection on September
8th, noting it was straightforward, just remove the existing structure.
The LWRP found this to be exempt.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. SAKAS: Yes, sir. Hello, Trustees. Thank you, for looking at
this provision. I'm Peter Sakas, the owner of cottage 16. What
do you need to hear?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 'Nothing.
MR. SAKAS: We would like to have the amendment done.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else here
wishing to speak to this application?
MR. SAKAS: And thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH:.Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 2, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on
behalf of CARMELA LAZIO requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit
#9889 to construct a new±103' long retaining wall 2'6" in
height with a ±15' west wall and a ±15' east wall from the
existing bulkhead to new retaining wall.
Located: 250 Blue Marlin Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-7-21
The Trustees most,recently visited the property on the 8th
of September, wanted to discuss the height of the wall and
review plans further at work session.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
Board of Trustees 10 September 14, 2022
this application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the application?
(Negative response).
Any additional comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, with the addition of new plans showing a non-turf
buffer between the proposed retaining wall and the bulkhead.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 3, Costello Marine Contracting Corp.
on behalf of DAVID C. ESSEKS & KATHRYN R. STOKES requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit#5974 to rotate the existing 6'x20'
floating dock to form a straight"I" configuration, and to reset
the two (2) float pilings and the two (2) tie-off pilings.
Located: 522 Town Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-1-14.7
The Trustees most recently visited the location on 9/7/22.
Notes from that visit read: Turning dock would put dock outside
of pier line and not be permitted.
The LWRP issued its report as inconsistent, for several
reasons. A number of them have to do with another aspect of a
postponed hearing on tonight's agenda and do not speak directly
to the dock configuration.
We have plans stamped and received July 22nd, 2022.
Although I would like to note that plans show the "I"
configuration of the dock, they do not show the "I"
configuration of the dock with the pier line of the adjacent
docks drawn.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak regarding this
application?
MS. STOKES: Hi, I'm Kathryn Stokes. I don't think I totally
follow what you just said. But we made the application because
at low tide our sailboat is often in the muck, so we were
hoping, like our neighbors,,to just rotate the dock. And I have
to say, I don't know why the other applications are related
because we are also looking for a bulkhead. But I see it's
postponed, but I don't see why it's postponed. So I would just
hope that our dock can be rotated for the sailboat. But it
sounds like you are saying you are missing something from us?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes. Would you like to come on up, I can show
you?
MS. STOKES: Yes.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: They have provided all these materials
Board of Trustees 11 September 14, 2022
here. What they have done is they've shown the dock
configuration rotated 90 degrees like you want, and they put this
line in here, but it's unclear whether or not this is accurate.
This line. And I'll show you what I mean. Because here, what
they've done is they've included both of these docks to the
adjacent properties and drawn that pier line straight cross, but
they have not depicted it showing the rotated 90 degrees.
MS. STOKES: You just want evidence to show that it's within that line.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Exactly. It would just be this pier line
with the rotated dock, but with that adjacent dock in the
picture.
MS. STOKES: Okay, got it.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So for the record,just to clarify,
Ms. Stokes. I explained that we received two plans, one of which
shows the adjacent docks, the pier line, but the dock is not
rotated to its "I" configuration, which is what Ms. Stokes
seeks. And we would like to see new plans showing the adjacent
docks, the pier line with the "I" configuration so it's clear
that that dock doesn't exceed any further than the adjacent
docks. Does that make sense?
MS. STOKES: Yes.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So, at your request we can table this
application for the resubmittal of new plans, if that is your
wish.
MS. STOKES: So requested.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Under Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits,
number 1, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of
18975 SOUNDVIEW AVENUE, LLC, c/o CHRISTOPHER MOORE requests.
a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct the existing
bluff stair assembly with railings consisting of'one (1) 9'x10'
top wood platform to 4'x14' stairs to one (1) 4'x5.5' wood
middle platform to 4'x13' stairs to one (1) 4'x5.5' lower wood
platform to 4'x8' stairs leading to stone steps down to the
beach that are to be built into a proposed 102' long rock
revetment consisting of a 20-501b. gravel base over filter cloth
and 2-3 ton stone; stabilize the existing bluff by terracing the
areas of excessive scouring, utilizing 206 overall feet of
2"x12" CCA planks secured by 2"x2"x4' CCA stakes placed 6.0' on
center perpendicular to the downward slope of the bluff along a
horizontal plan; and to revegetate all disturbed area using Cape
American beach grass planted 12"18" on center.
Located: 18975 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-16
The Trustees most recently visited the site on September
Board of Trustees 12 September 14, 2022
7th, 2022, noting to add non-turf buffer at the top of the bluff.
I am in receipt of new plans stamped received in our office
September 12th, 2022, depicting the requested non-turf buffer.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
consistent, but added two notes. Number one being no boulders
naturally occurring on the beach shall be used in the revetment.
And number two, the pitch of the slope should be addressed to
hold vegetation.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this application
and resolved to support it with retractable steps off the bottom
landing and parallel to the shoreline, and the installation of a
15'-20' buffer planted with native vegetation.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Robert Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
on behalf of the applicant.
As far as the retractable staircasing goes, we had designed
this to count for stairs within the designed revetment and we
figured this is the least intrusive option and also esthetically
the most pleasing.
As far as any other aspects of the project, I'm here to answer ,
any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Regarding the LWRP request regarding the pitch
of the slope should be addressed to hold vegetation. Do you
have any comments on that?
MR. ANDERSON: We provided what we believe to be adequate
terracing that should hold the vegetation in place for the
duration of its establishment.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY:Thank you. Any other questions or comments
from the Board?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just quickly. You said there was rock
revetment on both sides of this proposed --
MR. ANDERSON: I'm sorry, that might be referring to a separate
application, but I believe there is a rock revetment to the
east, I believe.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because what we had talked about in the field
was matching up with the revetments on either side, however
since it's just.on one side what we would like to see on the
opposite side is more of an angled return.
MR. ANDERSON: In which direction? More towards the bluff?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Toward the bluff, to minimize the impact on
the property to the east.
MR. ANDERSON: My concern with that would be if in the future the
property to the east was to build their revetment, build a
revetment in the future, we would, we believe it would be easier
if it was some kind of slope there. Then you would have to
adjust the other revetment to maintain conformity.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: To clarify, the rock revetment is currently on
the property to the east and not to the west. I know it gets
confusing. For clarification purposes.
Board of Trustees 13 September 14, 2022
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Sorry. I apologize.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to speak to the point that you just made,
do you know if the neighbor is planning on doing a rock
revetment?
MR. ANDERSON: Not to my knowledge, I'm not aware.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So this has been a practice of the Board to
just do a very -- and we're calling it a shallow return, I don't
know if you quite understand exactly what we are saying, but not
anywhere near the 90-degree angle of a standard return. Almost
sort of mirroring, you see the fence line seaward of the pool
there. Sort of something like that.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And the idea is to soften that line of
revetment going into the neighbor's property so you are not
having a negative effect on their property as well as protecting
that corner of your property a little bit at the same time.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay, I understand that. I just don't understand
the protection that would be provided to the property to the
west. I'm not sure how the return would accomplish that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Most people when they do it this, they apply
for some sort of a hard return, which is when we would ask them
to soften that going into the neighbors to protect the property.
You are not doing any of that here, however there should be a
softer return to protect your applicant's property.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay, I'll make the notes and add them to the
plans.
Is there any specific sketch that you would like to provide
us that would give us an idea of what you would like to say?
Maybe that the Board can provide us to look forward from.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, literally something along the lines of that
fence line.
MR. ANDERSON: Just mimic the, parallel to the angled section of
it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That way if the neighbor to the west does do
a return, they can mimic it and they can both have somewhat of
an angled return to each other.
MR. ANDERSON: Understood. I'll have to speak with the owner and
make sure he's okay with that moving forward.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Any other comments?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 2, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of WILLIAM E. HAMILTON requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a bluff stairway with
railings consisting of one (1) 4'x4.25' top timber platform with
a 4'x9"wood step on its landward side to 4'x12.75' timber
Board of Trustees 14 September 14, 2022
stairs to a 4'x4' upper middle landing to 4'x12.75' stairs to a
4'x4' middle platform to 4'x12.75' stairs to a 4'x4' lower
platform to a 4'x11.25' set of wood stairs to ground; install a
±166' long rock revetment at base of the stabilized bluff(4'
high by 10' wide) consisting of 2-3 ton stones placed atop a 2'
deep stone/gravel base (20-30 Ib. Stone); install ±996 linear
feet of 10"-12" diameter coir-logs secured by 2"x2"x4' wood
stakes arranged in six (6) rows running parallel to the
shoreline and spaced 10.0' on center; each row of coir-logs to
be backfilled with ±6 cubic yards each (36 cubic yards total);
,revegetate disturbed areas with native vegetation consisting of
Cape American beach grass (Ammophila breviligulata) plugs 12" on
center, Switch Grass (Panicum virgatum)#1 container 2' on
center, Beach Rose (Rosa virginiana) #3 container 3' on center
and/or Beach Plum (Prunus maritima) #3 container 3' on center in
spaces between rows of coir-logs; re-contour the top of the
existing bluff by relocating it landward an average of five (5)
feet; and to remove three (3) trees at the top of the existing
bluff.
Located: 2670 Grandview Drive, Orient. SCTM# 1000-14-2-3.6
The Trustees most recently visited this site on the 7th of
September and noted that it was straightforward and you keep the
non-turf buffer.
I'm in receipt of plans stamped and dated August 10th,
2022, and there is a letter in here from Elizabeth Cantrell of
the Trustees office to Robert Anderson requesting a revision of
the plans similar to the last application that, including a
flair on both ends of the proposed revetment inward to alleviate
possible disturbance to the two abutting bluffs.
The LWRP found this proposal is consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection, therefore no recommendation was made.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Robert Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
on behalf of the applicant. I know we just had this conversation
just previously. I'm now understanding what the intention was
behind that request. I just didn't understand the schematic of
it. Now that it's explained to me, I believe I understand what
the Board is looking for in this case.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, so I guess my question to you was going
to be was if you brought any plans with you this evening or if
you were just looking for some further clarification.
MR. ANDERSON: I needed some further clarification before I
submit new plans.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. Sounds good.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Then are there any other questions or comments
from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else who wishes to speak in regard to this application?
Board of Trustees 15 September 14, 2022
(Negative response).
With that said, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
MR. ANDERSON: If I may, I do have one question regarding the
flair. On the last application I was referenced to the fence
line on the top of the bluff. In this case, should I try to
mimic that sort of angle in relation to this?
Just for my own purposes moving forward.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That's a good question.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know that we need a reference point.
Honestly, it's a matter of softening the transition for, you
know, at the edge of the property line. We don't really have a
set angle.
MR. ANDERSON: Just something soft.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's really up to the design professional.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. I will make the recommendation to the
engineer and see what he has to say.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And to answer your question specifically, there
doesn't seem to be a reference point on the plans that are
provided, so, you know, if you would like to propose something
and submit it to the office we can always take a look and let
you know.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. As I said, I'll need to speak with the
engineer to see what he's able to work with and what he is willing
to design going forward.
I also have one other question, as far as how this relates
to going to the DEC. In the Board's experience, does the DEC
look favorably on this? Have they issued approval for this?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: They have, because it somewhat protects the
neighboring properties, which is always a concern, when somebody
hardens their property, what the effect will on the neighboring
property. So the angled return seems to lessen that impact, at
least to the adjoining property. So it's usually viewed
favorably.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Mr. Anderson, one question would be, there is
an option that I guess we could table the application for today,
we could also approve -- move forward with an approval in order
to, with the receipt of new plans based on the discussions that
we had about that softened edge, if that is something you are
comfortable with.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, if that's okay. Yes, as long as you are
willing to accept the plans in addition, that's fine with me.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. And clearly the Board would need to
review those plans prior to issuing the permit and be in
agreement with them.
MR. ANDERSON: Understood.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, any other further questions or comments
from the Board?
(Negative response).
Board of Trustees 16 September 14, 2022
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Hearing none, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH:.AII in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application ,
subject to the receipt of new plans that indicate the request
for the flair or the softened return on the revetment to both
sides of the property. That is my motion.
MR. ANDERSON: If I may--
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The motion has been made.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. I'm sorry.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland Permits, number 1, Costello
Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of JSK PARK AVE, LLC
requests a Wetland Permit to remove and dispose of existing 70'
long jetty and construct new 51' long jetty to Mean Low Water,
in-kind, in-place, and using vinyl sheathing.
Located: 2150 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-8-9
The LWRP found this to be exempt.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection, September 7th,
noting to wait for a DEC permit as well as to have the new jetty
no higher than 12 inches above existing grade.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, on behalf of the applicant, here to
answer any questions you might have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Did you get to DEC yet?
MR. COSTELLO: No.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: What about the height, is that 12 inches
above? It looked like parts of it were actually extended over
it. So --
MR. COSTELLO: Yes,_most of it will be underground. The offshore
end, the very, very offshore end might be 12", 18" at the most.
But it disappears into nothing. It's working and it's starting
to fail. It's just to maintain the beach, so: It's basically
as low as it can be.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: As you know; it's usually the policy of the
Board is to wait for the DEC, they make more of a global view on
jetties as a whole, and we don't want to propose a number and
they come back with a different number and the applicant gets
stuck in the middle. So usually we try to wait for their number
to come back.
Board of Trustees 17 September 14, 2022
MR. COSTELLO: You are just saying on the overall length.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes.
MR. COSTELLO: Okay, fair enough.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here to speak to the
application?
(Negative response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table this application for
receipt of DEC permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 2, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on
behalf of JSK PARK AVE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove
and dispose of existing 66' long jetty and construct new 51'
long jetty to Mean Low Water, in-kind, in-place, and using vinyl
sheathing.
Located: 2200 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-8-10
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 7th of
September, and noted tabled for DEC input on the size of the
structure, and that it should be no higher than 12 inches above
existing grade.
The LWRP coordinator found this application to be
inconsistent. It's noted that the loss of function of the
subject jetty reveals the sand character is minimal and that the
jetties to the east and west provide stabilization of the beach.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, on behalf of the applicant. We are
waiting for DEC feedback.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That has just has been our practice, because
sometimes they suggest moving one slightly or eliminating one and
putting one next door. They are looking at the whole thing kind
of holistically.
MR. COSTELLO: Right. It's the simplicity of that, we decided to
move along with it, and -- but we can wait. That's fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, great. Is there anyone else wishing to
speak regarding this application or additional comments from
members of the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table this application for
submission of DEC plans.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 18 September 14, 2022
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 3, 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 on September
7th, 2022. Notes from that visit read: Inhouse review. Will
review new plans at work session. Trustees received those plans
stamped September 6th, 2022.
The LWRP coordinator found this project consistent for two
reasons. The lot is in a cultural resource area and most likely
contains Native American and Colonial artifacts. Coordination
with Southold Indian Museum archeologist is strongly recommended
prior to any ground disturbance. A 30-foot no-work zone to the
east (of what) is referenced in the LWRP CPR. This area is not
shown on the survey and should be clarified as shown.
Point number two, a 50-foot non-disturbance buffer was approved
by the Board in Wetland Permit 5983. The buffer and the 30-foot
no-work should be memorialized in the covenant and restriction permit
and description.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support
the application because the setbacks are not in compliance with
Chapter 275 Wetlands Code. The Conservation Advisory Coufncil
will defer,to the findings of the LWRP.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak,regarding the
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Rob Anderson, Suffolk Environmental, on
behalf of the applicant.
As I believe we mentioned in the previous renditions of
this, there was a cultural study done on the area of
archeological resources and the results were little to no
results, as far as that goes.
With regard to meeting the setbacks, we have gone back and
forth several times and it's our understanding we have come to
something a little more agreeable as far as complying with the
overall esthetics of the neighborhood while maintaining
practical considerations as well.
I also have revised plans from the engineer, which I would
like to pass out to the Board, depicting the same revisions on
the survey.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to clarify, did everyone get plans but me?
MR. ANDERSON: I apologize. I do have an extra.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm just kidding.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right, so during our work session we
discussed this project, and you provide some of what we asked
for but not everything, or at least not exactly_what we were
looking for.
Board of Trustees 19 September 14, 2022
You provided a pier line to an adjacent property on one
side, and to the other side it's labeled "shed."And I was
wondering if you can speak to why it's labeled to the shed and
not to the primary structure of the adjacent property.
MR. ANDERSON: Of course. In honor of going back and forth, we've
always found that these pier line rules with regard to houses is
to maintain a viewshed, so to speak, maintain a uniform
alignment to wetlands, street, so have you. And in this case we
found that the shed is part of the viewshed and'we figured that
would be appropriate to account for the overall pier line,
because it does impact the visual. That's why we did it.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: Again, it was our understanding in many
of these cases that these pier lines are put in place to protect
waterfront views, so to speak, and in this case, as we have
seen, there is very little water to look at, and very, it's a
different case in this matter.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Sorry to interrupt. Part of our definition
with the pier line is in order to ensure that structure, primary
structure in particular, does not kind of continually get closer
and closer to the wetland. So while this particular property
doesn't necessarily have a viewshed, we are still concerned
about the distance from the wetland boundary. And it was not
clear on your plans that Trustee Sepenoski referred to, does the
shed sit seaward of the house, the primary structure, on that
property?
MR. ANDERSON: I believe it's the seaward most visual structure,
yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think what would be helpful for us, in regard
to his comment, is to maybe just have a little bit larger
viewport there in order to see the primary structure, and have
that line drawn to the primary structure.
MR. ANDERSON: I understand that. What we are talking about here
must be extremely negligible. By feet. Not tens of feet. Within
a pace, maybe.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That may be the case, I think, but from our
perspective as a Board that offers continuity for applicants in
the future where they might get confused if they see a pier line
that is drawn from a shed versus primary structures.
So while it is, it's seemingly minor, it is beneficial to
have as part of the file.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. But am I incorrect in that the viewshed is
not impeded by the shed and doesn't count for an overall --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think it's a fair point and a fair
consideration. We are looking right now at this line on the
survey at 75-feet wetlands setback line, and it's very close to
where it's almost like, it's very close.
Do you feel you can move this structure a little bit
further toward the road to give us that setback that we are
looking for?
Board of Trustees 20 September 14, 2022
MR. ANDERSON: Setback of?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Right now I'm looking at the 75-feet looks
good.
MR. ANDERSON: You want me to meet the 75-feet.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: So the pier line in fact does not matter now. Now
you want it pulled back further?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: If the pier line to the primary structure is
a.matter of paces, then it shouldn't be a problem to line up
with that pier line.
MR. ANDERSON: And the lining up to 75-feet, we are --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And that's impossible with the pier line. I
understand that. So if you can depict accurately on the survey
where that pier line is, get the structure in,line with that
pier line, I would be comfortable with this.
The additional point I would like to make is we would like
to see a non-disturbance buffer delineated by the fence. The
`stock rail fence.
MR. ANDERSON: Stockade or?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Wooden. Split rail. And then everything from
the marsh from that split rail would remain a non-disturbance "
buffer.
MR. ANDERSON: Would you like the split-rail fence to also come
within the landward side of the 30-foot no-work zone that was
requested by the LWRP?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI.: Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay, I'll have to speak with the owner to see
what works as far as design esthetics go, and we have to go back
'to the engineer and redesign the sand turn and make sure
everything works as far as that goes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would agree about the pier line, I mean it
seems to me like it's a number, like a pace, possibly, but if we
could see that, I would be very comfortable with that as an
application. Just to clarify. And it does appear that the pier
line is closer to that bump-out in the back of the neighboring
structure. I really don't think it's going to be much of a move
MR. ANDERSON: And may I also remind the Board, this is also kind
of a bowed property. It bows inward toward the wetland where the
other properties are further. Also I would like,you to consider
that in your decision.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Certainly.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And we do appreciate that. It's helpful to look
at the aerial here to note that this property happens to also have a
lot more depth to it than the two adjacent properties have as
well. And I think to just go back to that pier line, it's not
trying to nitpick this situation in regard to the shed. It's
really trying to clarify for, you know, to make sure that all of
our applications are consistent and have that pier line drawn
consistently, because that is something that this Board does
stand fairly strongly against with docks, with homes, primary
Board of Trustees 21 September 14, 2022
residences. So that's really where that comes from.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And just speaking as one Trustee,_I see you
are frustrated with having to pull it back a little, but I do
think that the year 2022, we've had the comprehensive plan for
the Town, and we've seen the IPCC report, so to have a brand-new
build on an unmolested lot in Southold Town, we really do have
to consider the environment in these situations. So the 75-foot
setback line seems reasonable and it seems that you can get a pretty
decent-sized house in there with that.
MR. ANDERSON: Again, I'll have to talk to the property owner
about the significant changes that he will have to okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to be fair, there are some different
ideas. I mean, some people are speaking to 75 feet. Some are
speaking to just a few.
MR. ANDERSON: I understand. We always try to come to an
agreeable plan that we have been making good on that thus far. I
apologize that we were not able to satisfy all of your concerns.
Again, we have taken into practical considerations as far as who
is going to have to live here in the future, taking into account
the overall, our experience with how these pier lines are
applied, and of course every situation is different and worth
making mention of.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: The other thing about this lot is that it is
very wide, so there is also the opportunity to park a car on the
side of the house rather than the front of the house, if that
means that the house can be a little closer to the road. The
neighbors park on the side of the house, maybe the driveway
can be on the side.
MR. ANDERSON: It's my understanding if we flipped so the garage
could be on the other side to increase setback there. As far as an
approach for going to parking on the side, that would likely bring
us with a net 30-foot non-work disturbance buffer zone. I mean,
we can park the car by the garage, is the most typical --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: How comfortable would you be with an extra
50-feet non-turf whole backyard to the fence, and then a structure
conforming with the pier line to the neighboring living structure?
MR. ANDERSON: Completely agreeable to that. But again, I have to
check with the owner and make sure. I can't make decisions
without his go ahead. But I can't imagine that would be much
of a problem.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Would you like to proceed with the hearing,
given those stipulations?
MR. ANDERSON: I think I would probably have to come back with
some plans, so I'm fine tabling the hearing at this point.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to be clear, you want to speak with the
owner before --
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, these are changes that will impact the
overall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay. Given those new developments, I make
Board of Trustees 22 September 14, 2022
a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 4, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of KAAN ILGIN requests a Wetland Permit to mitigate the
existing clearing by re-vegetating a 14,257sq.ft. area by
installing native plantings throughout the disturbed area, and
by preserving 68,134sq.ft. of existing vegetation;. install 372
linear feet of fencing along the rear of the existing dwelling
to provide a physical demarcation of the upland and wetland
areas; for the existing 8'.x12' shed; and to maintain a 4'wide
access path to the water.
Located: 3525 Paradise Point Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-1-15.8 & 15.9.
The Trustees most recently conducted an inhouse review on
September 7th, 2022, noting we did review the new plans stamped
received in our office September 6th, 2022.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent. The inconsistencies are as follows:
Number one, landscaping wetland was inconsistent with
Policy 6 of the LWRP.
Number two, the proposal will remove valuable native plants
adapted to the current growing conditions.
Number three, the area should not be irrigated.
Number four, the'as-built shed is inconsistent with Policy 6.3.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this application
and resolved to support this application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, Robert Anderson, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting, on behalf of the applicant.
Speaking to some of the points referenced, we have
stipulated in the plans that there will be temporary
above-ground irrigation as per the request of the Board during field
inspection during the month of August. We understand the
landscaping within wetlands is non-permissible however in this
case, these are unmapped wetlands by DEC. We have not had
definitive proof of wetland conditions there, however we are
proposing only to do native planting materials, and we have also
added a stipulation within the most recent plan to only plant
within the denuded areas so as to not disturb any of the
passively revegetated native plants that are currently existing
from the original clearing until now.
Since that point we have had an increase in the growth of
Bayberry as well as Low Bush Blueberry along the westerly side
of the property. We are going to strive to maintain all of that
because obviously being successful in its survivability and,
like I said, we'll plant the denuded areas and we will not
change our 2-to-1 replacement of woody material. We will
maintain that as well and make sure that works regardless of how
Board of Trustees 23 September 14, 2022
that has to be accomplished, so as not to disturb the native
vegetation that we are required to put there.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So with that re-growth that you just
mentioned, is there any current deer fencing on the property?
MR. ANDERSON: No, there is not. We have stipulated for a
temporary deer fencing to be put in to allow the chance for
establishment of these plants within a two-to-three year period,
85% to 100% survivability rate.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: As you have just mentioned, there has been
some regrowth without the deer fencing, and most of the species
that you mentioned here are not commonly eaten by deer, so is
the deer fencing totally necessary?
MR. ANDERSON: I-think it is. And in my experience working in
the landscaping industry before doing this, I've seen deer eat
everything. And we want to give this the best shot of being a
successful planting. So I think that the deer fencing is absolutely
necessary to make sure that these plants are able to survive.
Deer have a habit of seeking things that are freshly
planted and being curious about them, so they might be grazing
just for curiosity purposes, so we would like to prevent both
instances, and fence in, and in some cases depending on how
large the area is, a larger area, and some cases individual
trees to keep them from consuming canopy or rubbing against the
bark.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Would you be open to, you indicated
swapping the red fescue area with a different plant that you
have in here?
MR. ANDERSON: With any of the other plants work there, I would
be happy to.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Any of the other ones.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay, that's not a problem.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think we were also wondering, there is a
part of the plan that shows nothing, I believe that's where the
phragmites currently are. Will there be any disturbance in this
white area on the plan?
MR. ANDERSON: No. We originally had that planned to be part of
the landscaped area, but since comments in the field and coming
to a fenced-in rear yard area, I believe we came to the
conclusion it would need to be pulled back, I believe 14 feet, I
want to say the number was, and providing for a ten-foot buffer
extending, and running parallel with that seaward deck. So I'm
just going to leave that as is. There's no point in disturbing
what doesn't need to be disturbed.
And I would also like to mention that our client is more
than willing to take in any suggestions from the Board, we would
like to get this resolved as quickly and as efficiently as
possible.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: You have the note on here, you mentioned
also about the deer fencing would allow for all the plantings to
completely, you know, grow in healthy and have a higher success
Board of Trustees 24 September 14, 2022
rate.
Once they are planted, they are native to the area, would
you be comfortable with this area becoming non-disturbance?
MR. ANDERSOW I believe that we already put that on the plan,
but absolutely, we would be more than happy with extending that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, I just double-checked the plan before
asking that question, and if you don't mind explaining where
that is on the plan, please.
MR. ANDERSON: We have wetland preservation area written over the
hashed areas, wetland preservation over here. Fencing off,
should be any kind, it is written on the plans, wetland preservation
area, within the property.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I was actually referring to what is going
to be the proposed revegetated area.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay, then I would be happy to extend the label
over that area. Not a problem.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That would be great. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: How long would you expect to keep the deer
fencing; two years, three years?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I would likely go with a shorter timeframe.
There's plenty of white here, we irrigate, that will help
immensely with getting roots set in. If you would like to
shorten to a one-to-two year period for removal of the deer
fence, I'm sure that will work as well. Some plants are very
capable of establishing themselves within that period.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I would just recommend, given the history of
this application, that the Board would stipulate a final
inspection of survivability and removal of the deer fence in. a
two-year period before issuing a C of C and closing out the
application.
MR. ANDERSON: Final inspection in two years for survivability.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And to make sure that the deer fence is --
MR. ANDERSON: Perfectly fine.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Do you feel relatively confident with the
changes we've requested?
MR. ANDERSON: Of course, yes.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Are there any questions or comments from the
Board or public?
MR. KLEIN: Yes. I was just hanging back because I didn't want to
interrupt. Marc Klein, neighbor 3595 Paradise Point Road. My
wife couldn't be here. But we did submit something with regard
to this and want to say we really appreciate the efforts that
have gone into the remediation efforts.
Did want to flag two things. One,was in one section on the
plan it doesn't reflect the number of trees that are actually
there, and it says existing mature evergreen and deciduous trees
to remain. And I just want to clarify that "mature" can mean almost
anything. We would like to preserve all trees, if possible.
That seems like a reasonable request.
And then a number of trees were seemingly chopped down on
Board of Trustees 25 September 14, 2022
our side, between two and five, they were mature, we would love
to consider that those be replaced in-kind.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just to speak on that, sir. With a
non-disturbance, any trees that currently exist, stay. So they
are not allowed to cut anything down going forward. Anything
that is planted stays in perpetuity. So what is there is at
minimum, and going forward, the re-vegetation, so from this
point forward, nothing else can be touched.
MR. ANDERSON: If I may also speak to that point. We got into
this mess by cutting and it's obviously not going to be resolved
by more cutting. So we have no intention of doing so.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: What is the total number of trees you are
proposing?
MR. ANDERSON: 24. The original Trustee inspection as per the
violation was in excess of ten. On this side 12. That was it.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: To the gentleman's second point about trees
cut down on his property, the Trustees cannot get in the middle
of, we can't require trees be replanted on someone else's
property. However-- because that's a civil matter--we can require
that trees be planted on the client's property in an area
relatively close to where they would have been.
MR. ANDERSON: I understand. Like I said, we are trying to get
this done as quickly and efficiently as possible. There was an
issue with some trees that were removed on his property, and I
am more than certain that the client will be willing to replace
anything that is marked within his property lines and replace
that one-to-one ratio there.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Are there any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
MR. KLEIN: I was just going to say very quickly, the trees that
were chopped down on our property do seem like they were right
on the line. So, to your point, we don't want this to get into a civil
matter at all. But if something can be done that sort of clumps
them on that property, it would end up accomplishing basically
the same thing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. We also care about the trees.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just for clarification point. What was the
LWRP's concern? Was it with the shed?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: The as-built shed is inconsistent with Policy
6.3.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, hearing no further comments, I make a
motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH_: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, subject to new plans depicting a replacement of red
fescue with an alternative species listed in your plan.
The new plans should also depict a non-disturbance area for
Board of Trustees 26 September 14, 2022
the entire area seaward of the fence. And it should depict 26
trees to make up for the two that were cut down on the
neighbor's property. And subject to removal of deer fence and
survivability check in two years, for inspection in two years.
Two years from the date of the permit. Thereby with these
amendments, bringing this project into consistency with the
LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much, for your time this evening.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: 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, 67" deep; rear
veranda (deck) is 24'5" wide by 10' deep; and overall max height
is 32'3".
Located: 955 Blossom Bend, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-6-22.
The Trustees have visited this site multiple times and have
had multiple inhouse reviews. The most recent was on September
7th, noted inhouse review, will further review plans at work
session.
It appears that the most recent plans are stamped and dated
September 2nd. We have a note here, an e-mail sent from Nick
Marcinek, for NSA Architects, noting a new project description,
dated Monday, August 15th, including additional square footage
updates for the basement floor, the first floor, the second
floor, the front porch, side porch, rear deck, driveway. And
noting the sanitary IA system with leaching pools.
The LWRP finds this application consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not
support the application because the proposed setbacks are not in
compliance with Chapter 275 of the Town Code. Proposed dwelling
should be setback at least 100 feet from the wetland boundary.
The requirements of an IA system and an impervious driveway.
And this is dated January 12th, 2022, so we obviously have
some updates to the plans since then.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak with regard to
this application?
MR. NEMSCHICK: Ray Nemschick, on behalf of the client.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Good evening.
NIR. NEMSCHICK: Good evening.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is there anything additional that you wish to
add?
MR. NEMSCHICK: As far as we met last time, I thought we resolved
everything that the Trustees were asking for and I'm happy to
answer any questions.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Wonderful. Well, the new plans that we received ,
on September 2nd, it appears that we do have many of the
Board of Trustees 27 September 14, 2022
modifications that were requested. So, thank you, very much, "
for that.
MR. NEMSCHICK: Sure.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: In particular, there is a very dark outline
that indicates the limits of clearing and ground disturbance,
and also notes that it will provide a split-rail fence along the
wetland clearing limits. So that is much appreciated. We see the
IA system also noted.
The one thing that I noticed on here, it's in very small
letters here at the bottom of the plan, notes the
non-disturbance zone, which we have requested to the seaward
side of that darkened boundary on the plan. The one request that
I would have is that that possibly be noted larger on the plans,
and more clearly noted. It doesn't stand out when you are
looking at the plans that that is in fact non-disturbance
seaward of that line of that split-rail fence. And that would
be helpful if that were added.
MR. NEMSCHICK: Just in that location?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes.
MR. NEMSCHICK: Sure, not a problem.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I'm just confirming a couple of dimensions
here on the plan. (Perusing).
Are there any questions or comments from the Board while
I'm reviewing this briefly?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, just that this is a difficult lot and I do
appreciate, I mean the way we got here was probably not the
proper way, but I do appreciate you working with the Board to
try to conform to the environmental, appropriate standards and
best practices.
MR. NEMSCHICK: Absolutely. We are happy to.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Any other questions or comment?
(Negative response).
Anyone wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
I do just want to make a brief statement.
While this Board has taken measures to reduce the
environmental impact from this property on the wetlands, there
is still a responsibility on the property owner and any future
owners of this'site.
We are increasingly seeing undeveloped sites in the
proposed building envelope. And while building on the lot is
possible, it does not always"mean that it is in the best
interest of the site or for the Town for it to be developed.
It should not be taken lightly that this Board seems
inclined to grant this permit.
During the lengthy process that has resulted in where we
are today, I believe as one Trustee that initially we were
presented with ill-conceived plans. Additionally, an undue
burden was placed on this Board to assist the client in arriving
on the final plans and project description that we have in front
Board of Trustees 28 September 14, 2022
of us today.
I would ask that the environmental concerns expressed by
this Board will be heeded in perpetuity and addressed in the
most strenuous way by both your client and any future owners of
the property.
With that said, I do appreciate everything that you have
done along this process in order to comply with the request of
the Board.
With that, are there any other questions or comments from
the Board?
(Negative response).
With that, hearing no further comments, I'll 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
with the request that plans that are submitted do note that a
non-disturbance area seaward of the clearing line and the
split-rail fence is prominently noted. And with that, that's my
motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very much.
MR. NEMSCHICK: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 6, 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 found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council inspected the property,
however they were unable to make a recommendation until a
determination is made by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
We do have a ZBA determination in the file, October 18th,
2021, granting the variance with the only condition being an I/A OWTS.
The Trustees most recently conducted an inhouse review
September 7th, noting receipt of new plans. So we do have new
Board of Trustees 29 September 14, 2022
plans in the file here, stamped received August 24th, 2022, that
depict the pier line that we previously requested.
However, on one note the pier line is slightly off because
he was using the edge of the deck from a neighboring property as
opposed to the living structure.
Is there anyone here wishing to.speak regarding this application?
MR. THOMAS: Good evening, Chuck Thomas, Architect, representing
the owner Mary Hoeltzel.
Just to touch on,the pier line, if I were to have used the
property's main structure instead of the porch, I would be able
to move the house two feet closer to the water. I took the
absolute worst-case.scenario of the two feet, so I can move the
house two feet closer to the water if I adjust the pier line.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think we are good. Anyone else here
wishing to speak regarding this application?
(No response).
I just want to note the project does include an I/A OWTS.
MR. THOMAS: Yes, it does
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close
this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
application with the new plans stamped received August 24th,
2022.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. THOMAS: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number seven, ROBERTS PREMIER DEVELOPMENT, LLC
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a proposed two-story dwelling
with 2,730sq.ft. of living space; a 505sq.ft. attached garage;
a 268sq.ft. front covered entry; a 230sq.ft. rear covered entry; install a
Fuji cen-5 I/A sanitary system landward of dwelling; install a driveway;
install three (3) drywells to contain roof runoff; and to install and perpetually
maintain a 10'wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the tidal
wetlands.
Located: 910 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-27
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 7th of
September, and then again by Trustee Peeples, noted that the
applicant should submit new plans showing a 25-foot
non-disturbance buffer with a four-foot access path to the dock,
and to depict the pier line of adjacent houses.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application.
Board of Trustees 30 September 14, 2022
I should also note that there is a letter in the file from
a neighbor adjacent to the, immediately adjacent to the
property, discussing concerns of a wire fence and a potential
disputed property line.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. ROBERTS: Dave Roberts, on behalf of the applicant, just to
answer any questions you might have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I appreciate you getting us the new plans. We
obviously spoke briefly in the field about that.
So, we have the concern from the neighbor about the fence.
The fence,doesn't really impact our decision, but it just should
be noted that, you know, the Trustees don't take a stance on
property lines. I'm not sure who owns the fence or where exactly
the line is there. .But, I mean, certainly any determination here
or future meetings about this property that that fence has no
bearing.
MR. ROBERTS: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else 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 on this
application.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the plans submitted stamped received September 9th, 2022,
depicting a 25-foot non-disturbance buffer, and four-foot access.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 8, David W. Kilbride on behalf of
KATHLEEN B. KILBRIDE FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to
replace in place 100' of failing permitted bulkhead, constructed
18" higher than existing using vinyl sheathing, 10" piles 6' on
center, three 6"x6" timber whalers, one inch tie rods leading to
horizontal lay-logs with vertical deadmen and fiberglass grating
cap; install new 12' return along south property line; remove
and replace in place existing permitted 7'x5' cantilevered stair
deck; reinstall existing 4'x16' retractable aluminum beach
stairs; remove and replace in place existing permitted 11'x28'
deck on new pilings, not attached to bulkhead; raise non-turf
buffer at bulkhead grade level by 18" by using 50 cubic yards of
clean fill from an approved off-site source and restore the
non-turf buffer vegetation.
Located: 9045 Nassau-Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-4-14.1
Trustee Krupski most recently visited the site on the 7th
of September, 2022. Notes read: straightforward. Recommend
Board of Trustees 31 September 14, 2022
replanting Cape American beach grass.
The LWRP found the project to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application.
We are in receipt of plans stamped July 20th, 2022.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. KILBRIDE: Hi. Jake Kilbride, homeowner. I'm happy to answer
any questions.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The only question I have, Mr. Kilbride, is if
you are comfortable meeting Trustee Krupski's concerns about
replanting with Cape American beach grass after disturbance in
the areas.
MR. KILBRIDE: No problem. The non-disturbance landward of that
is all native. Where the digging will be is where the grass is.
So that will all be replanted. Some of it, actually, the last
couple of years, has not held. There's a lot of bare spots. We
replanted that two or three times. I'm not sure why. We tried.
But we'll try again. Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you. I appreciate that.
All right, I'll make a motion to close this application.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH:All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this
application stipulating replant with Cape American.beach grass
in the area of disturbance.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 9, David Bergen on behalf of
JOAN M. KEATING APRT, c/o STANLEY J. KEATING requests a
Wetland Permit to replace in place approximately 102 feet of failing,
permitted bulkhead constructed 18" higher than existing using vinyl
sheathing, 10" diameter piles 6' on center, three 6"x6" timber
whalers, one inch tie rods leading to horizontal lay-logs with
vertical deadmen, and fiberglass cap; remove and replace
existing permitted 4'x5'6" cantilevered deck plus 3'x11'
retractable aluminum stairs (adding one step to ground), and
existing stair hoist; remove and replace in place post
construction existing permitted 10'x10' deck on new pilings, not
attached to bulkhead; raise non-turf buffer at bulkhead grade by
18" with 50 cubic yards of clean fill from an approved site
source; and to restore the non-turf buffer.
Located: 9275 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-4-14.2
Trustee Krupski most recently visited the site on September
7th, 2022, noting it is straightforward, and recommending
replanting with Cape American beach grass.
The LWRP reviewed this project and found it to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
Board of Trustees 32 September 14, 2022
the application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, on behalf of the Keating Trust.
It's pretty straightforward. I just want to note on the
record, we already have the DEC permit for this, and we already
have the go ahead from the Army Corps of Engineers for this
project. And we would be willing to replant any disturbed areas
with Cape American beach grass
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make motion to approve this application with
the condition that Cape American beach grass be replenished in
the areas where it is disturbed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 10, Michael Macrina, Architect on behalf
of RICHARD & GINA BONATI requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 30'x40' two-story dwelling, existing seaward side wood
landing with steps leading to existing 32'x20' (640sq.ft.)
uncovered deck on grade with a bbq area; existing 4'x8'
(32sq.ft.) outdoor shower; existing 9'x12.4' (104sq.ft.) shed;
and existing stepping stones (4sq.ft. each); remove existing
bilco door (crawl space entry) and a/c unit; construct a
proposed 17'x17' (282sq.ft.) two-story addition onto the east
side of dwelling, reinstall existing 5.5'x8' Bilco door and
3'x3' a/c unit; and install one (1) drywell for the new
addition.
Located: 1315 Watersedge Way, Southold. SCTM# 1000-88-5-68
The Trustees most recently visited the property during site
inspections, field inspections, on September 7th, and noted that
the property was not staked and not posted. That was rectified
and Trustee Peeples, myself, visited the property on September
11th, at 4:15 in the afternoon, and I noted it was
straightforward. When I got there, it had been posted and
staked and in fact spray painted on the grass, which was very much
appreciated. So, thank you, very much.
The plans that I have here are stamped and dated August
26th, 2022.
J The LWRP found that this project is consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
Board of Trustees 33 September 14, 2022
the application.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
Application?
MR. MACRINA: My name is Mike Macrina, I'm the architect for my
clients. I'm here to answer any questions if you have. Also to
hand the posting affidavit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can you hand that to the clerk. Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak?
(No response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I'll make a motion to approve this.application
with the plans stamped and dated August 26th, 2022. That's my
motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. MACRINA: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. Have a good evening.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 11, Jason Michael Fay on behalf of
SAMUEL & REBECCA LISSNER requests a Wetland Permit to demolish'
existing garage, non-conforming shed, rear paths on grade, rear
brick steps, brick pool deck, two front stone stoops, asphalt
driveway, and existing two-story dwelling (project meets Town
Code definition of demolition); construct new two-story dwelling
with a t1,500sq.ft. footprint on existing foundation to remain;
construct a 23.8'x50.6' (1,1 95sq.ft.) two-story addition;
construct a new 12.4'x14.9' (182sq.ft.) first floor over
existing first floor; install new 4.4'x10.11' (48sq.ft.)
basement stair; construct new 4'x8.4' (34sq.ft.), 5'x11'
(55sq.ft.), and 5'x14.9' (74sq.ft.) rear wood decks/stoops off
of dwelling; install new 46sq.ft. front stone stoop; install new
1,228sq.ft. of new stone pool deck on grade; for the existing
795sq.ft. pool and coping and to replace liner and coping;
replace and relocate 24sq.ft. pool equipment area; install
117sq.ft. of front stone walkway on grade; install 115sq.ft. of
new rear stone walkway on grade; install new solid wood gates
and pool enclosure fencing around property; install a 30sq.ft.
trash enclosure; install 6,492sq.ft. of new gravel driveway;
install a new I/A sanitary system landward of dwelling; install
gutters to leaders to drywells; and install a new geothermal
HVAC.
Located: 3925 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-94-3-1.10
The LWRP found this to be consistent, noting the required
vegetated non-buffer seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area.
Board of Trustees 34 September 14, 2022
No boulders naturally occurring in the beach so they are using
the revetment.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection September 7th,
noting that the adjacent houses should be shown on the plans, as .
well as a 20=foot vegetated non-turf buffer at the top of the
bluff.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. FAY: Jason Fay, here to answer any questions. This is the
first time I heard about the adjacent houses.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So that was to establish the pier line.
Since this is considered a demolition, we want to make sure that
your reconstructed house does not go further seaward than the
pier line. I believe somebody was sending us new plans that got
stuck in the UPS?
MR. FAY: Yes, I have small-scale printed ones with just the
buffer. This is the first, I only heard the buffer with the
e-mail yesterday morning.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Looking at the aerial --
MR. FAY: We are--from the hundred-foot setback from top of
bluff, everything we are doing is clearly marked on the
drawings, is within the existing footprint of what is there.. So
it's very clear that we are not going anything seaward. And we
are removing structures that were asked to be removed by the
ZBA. So I don't--
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, yes, as you can see on the screen, that
you are landward of the pier line of the neighboring two houses,
so that should not be an issue.
With the new plans that you are going to submit, moving
that proposed pool fence one-foot further landward and
establishing the non-turf buffer seaward of that, which would
also match what the LWRP recommended.
And then one other question while we were out there,
obviously that deck is a big issue.
MR. FAY: That's with the DEC right now. We are submitting it under
a separate application. So that is not part of the architectural
project. It's part of the, they are going to fully restore the
bluff.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Is there anyone else here wishing to
speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I would just like to state for the record,
that what we see at the edge of the bluff, we have looked at
aerials over the years, and this is almost a very good
cautionary tail for why you should not put structures close to
the edge of the bluff, because you can clearly see over time the
runoff has completely eroded the bluff in that area.
Board of Trustees 35 September 14, 2022
MR. FAY: That was there when my clients bought the house.
MS. GILLOOLY: Yes. And I think it's noting that that is what
happens when structures are placed that close to the bluff.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions or comments?
(Negative response).
Hearing non; I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition the proposed pool fence be pulled 20 feet
further landward, and that the vegetated non-turf buffer be
established seaward of that fence, and new plans submitted
depicting the changes. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. FAY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 12, Mike Kimack on behalf of
SCOTT & PATRICIA PASKEWITZ requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 4'x136' catwalk using Thru-Flow decking with six (6)
pair of 4"x4" Epai O/E pilings set 8' on center with cross ties for the
first 44' and thirteen (13) pair of 8" diameter pressure
treating pilings installed a minimum of 3' above catwalk set at
8' on center; a 3'x10' aluminum ramp; and a 6'x20' floating dock
with marine grade decking situated in an "I" configuration set
six (6) feet from catwalk and secured with one (1) anchor piling
and one (1) dolphin piling.
Located: 1475 Waterview Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-7-20
The Trustees most recently visited the property on the 7th
of September and noted they are unable to establish a pier line
from the dock, mostly due to the change in shoreline. Might be
most appropriate to supply dimensions for neighboring docks.
The path to the wetlands should only be four-foot wide,
looking for re-vegetation there.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The applicant has
not demonstrated the following dock standards pursuant to
Chapter 275-11: Construction/operation standards have been met.
The pier line is not shown. The plans are deficient. Whether the
dock will unduly interfere with the public use of the waterway,
swimming, boating, fishing, shellfishing, etcetera. Decreases
public use of bottom lands nearshore area. Whether the dock
proposed, degradation of surface area, water quality and natural
resources; whether the cumulative impact of the residential
commercial dock will change the waterway or the.environment. The
dock structure will ultimately result in a net decrease in
public access to public underwater lands.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
Board of Trustees 36 September 14, 2022
application, however there.is concern with the depth of the
water and the size of the vessel.
It should also be noted that there is a letter in the file
which they requested to be read into the hearing and has already
been reviewed by the Board.
It is without a doubt that the proposal is way out of line
ethically and environmentally. We must object being the
adjacent property owner. There are several serious concerns not
only for us but for everyone who has property to Goose Creek and
those who navigate the creek for peaceful pleasure.
Major objections and concerns: Elevated catwalk and dock are too
close to my property. How will this affect my wanting a dock. How will
it affect the wetlands. Catwalk structure is too long. J
Structure over wetland marsh. Dock and ramp are.insanely too
long protruding into creek. It will be like looking at the
Triborough Bridge, totally out of character for the serene Goose
Creek., It continues in that manner. This is from the neighbor Joseph M.
Petruzziello Family Trust and Jo Ann Petruzziello, co-trustee forwarded to
us by Heather Lanza, Town Planning Director.
It should also be noted that we were in contact with a
member of the Department of Public Works in the Town, the issue
of Town property neighboring this, and questions with the size
of this dock limiting public use.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant.
The two points that you made, and I knew this was going to
be forthcoming, having visited this before. I apologize not being
able to be with you on the date. But I had just picked up the
packet and had another mailing to do the same date, which was a
posting of the property.
There really is not a pier line that we could basically,
that's one of the reasons I got the aerials for you. It's a
little bit more clear. The property to the west, if you took
those three lines, they actually dive right into the canal
property there. The property to the east. If you take the line
along all of the existing docks, they dive in, and there is a
vacant piece of property directly to the west, so there is
really no way to establish a pier line. Which means that the
guiding factors here are, in a sense we go to the DEC requirement
of being no more than 25% across, even though you have 33%. We
always use 25. And tried to get to two-and-a-half feet of water
in order to have enough depth so that the motor doesn't chuck up the
bottom. That's what the dock achieves in doing.
We do have a DEC permit application in, obviously have not
received any comments back. But the reason I wanted to show you
this particular picture is because it shows you both the fact
that we don't have a pier line to go by, and the other guiding
factor is that the land directly across, we are only 25% across.
So we meet your requirements, primarily. And we are just getting
Board of Trustees 37 September 14, 2022
out to two-and-a-half feet of water. That was one of the
reasons we had to go out,that far.
And I would hope and expect that the Board would encourage
that where it was feasible, and where you were within the 25%,
that achieving the two-and-a-half feet is something that you
look forward to in order to make sure that any boat getting in there,
that is a motorized boat that you saw out there, would not
impact on the bottom, at the two-and-a-half feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you speak to plans showing re-vegetation of
the path?
MR. KIMACK: We could. It's interesting with that particular
piece of property, I went back, I looked back about 20 years
worth of photos, Nick, the phragmites, basically, it's a big
piece of property, at one time was an extra hundred feet in from
the original photos. And like most things, they don't keep it
cutting, and now it just grew back again. And I suggested to
the fellow, that he try to maintain that line but it began to be closer to
where it is right now. He did cut a wide path through there. We can
narrow that down to four feet. That's not an issue.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. In terms of the dock length, as I
said earlier, the Board recognizes that you can't establish a
normal pier line between the two neighboring properties.
MR. KIMACK: Not with this piece of property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: However, as with multiple properties on this
creek, sometimes you just don't have the depth for a float. And
it would appear, to myself at least, that we are looking at
neighboring docks, and the neighboring, the closer structures to
this, that you are closer to a 40-foot fixed catwalk with no
float than what was proposed, so --
MR. KIMACK: Under what basis?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, there has been a pretty solid
precedent, when you can't establish a pier line, looking at the
other docks in the area at the creek.
MR. KIMACK: The other docks are not going out, they probably don't have
the depth at low water tide, nor will the boat float.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I will say, and without going into a back and
-forth on this, I for one, and I believe the Board agrees with the concerns
of the LWRP coordinator, about public access, public use, navigational
hazards, environmental concerns.
So I guess my question for you is based off the LWRP report and
the opinion of the Board on the matter, do you want to proceed with
the hearing?
MR. KIMACK: In essence, you are saying if I proceed with the
proceeding, I may get a denial, which means without prejudice.
And I could resubmit another drawing, but I would have to go all
through the application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I can't speak to how the other four members
would vote --
MR. KIMACK: You don't have to.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But certainly where I would be leaning --
Board of Trustees 38 September 14, 2022
MR. KIMACK: I would, basically, I already made my comments.
It's difficult when you deal with the policy issues that the
Board deals with. Because each piece of property is becoming an
individual, when you look at it, and try to apply these
policies, they always don't fit.
Now we, I think we established in this case we don't have a
pier line to go by. We meet the 25% across. We meet the right
depth. But your concern is that somehow because none of the other
properties go out that far, that all of the other boats probably
are going to be, probably at low tide at best, because if they
are that close to the shoreline, given the fact the shoreline
crosses the easement, and we did the soundings, and that's where
the two-and-a-half feet is.
So if you look at it, all these other docks probably are
short in terms of not getting out to the two-and-a-half feet.
They don't have that kind of water. They may have floating
docks, I don't know. So that would be a violation of what
you would try to do is not have floating docks in less than
two-and-a-half feet of water
I mean, your alternative is a subjective one on your part.
In essence it becomes an application of policy that tries to fit
a piece of property where in fact we are meeting the obligations
of the Board. We don't have a pier line, we are meeting the 25%,
we're meeting the two-and-a-half feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would disagree. And again, we are not going
to have a back and forth on this. But a major part of this
Board's job is look out for public use and public access, and
not just a single application and single homeowner in the Town
of Southold.
MR. KIMACK: We're not dealing -- public access, you always said,
is 25%.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is one of the criteria that the Board
observes. But again, would you like to proceed with the public
hearing or not, basically?
MR. KIMACK: I think given what you have just said,basically,
and knowing full well your temperament is basically once you
said something is a recommendation it becomes more of a mandate.
I'll probably ask for a consideration to table at the present
time, and then we can perhaps have a site visit again, and I
could be present and we take a look and come up with what you
think with that site meets your requirements. Either policy or,
expressed or implied, whatever they may be.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(No response).
Or any questions or comments from members of the Board?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I would just say that it is a matter of policy
of the Board of Trustees that a pier line can also be, I think
that when we don't have a pier line of the two adjacent
neighbors, we do look at the adjacent structures, the adjacent
Board of Trustees 39 September 14, 2022
docks. So providing that information to us of what the
neighboring docks are, the.length of those docks would be a
useful piece of information for this Board.
MR. KIMACK: I think the difficulty, and I agree with you to that
extent. Because we've looked at it before, I've certainly done
enough of these before that that is one of the considerations.
That probably all those docks, if they were going to be built
today, and none of them were there, with no pier lines, they
would be extended out further in order to meet your two-and-a-half
feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can't speak about theoreticals. And also if
there were no docks there, I would not be voting for a dock there.
I'll be completely honest with you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Also, I don't think there is a mandate for
floating docks.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to table this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 13, Young &Young on behalf of
NEIL CURRIE requests a Wetland Permit to demolish and remove the
existing 585sq.ft. dwelling and 83sq.ft. utility shed and
construct a new proposed 1,341sq.ft. two-story dwelling with
a 259sq.ft. covered porch; a 168sq.ft. wood deck; a 30sq.ft. entry
landing and stairs; a 34sq.ft. egress window; a 16sq.ft. outdoor
shower; existing 89sq.ft. Frame shed to remain; install two (2)
new 8' diameter by 4' deep drywells for roof runoff; remove
existing sewage disposal system and install a new I/A OWTS
sewage disposal system consisting of one (1) 500 gallon treatment
unit and three (3) 8.5' long by 4.0' wide by 4.0' deep sanitary
leaching galleys.
Located: 1175 Champlin Place, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-34-4-15
The Trustees visited this site during field inspections on
September 7th, 2022. Notes from that visit read: Increase
non-turf buffer along wetland side of the property. Pull
structure back to within existing structure footprint.
The LWRP found this to be consistent. -
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection, therefore no recommendation was made.
We did receive plans stamped September 12th, 2022.
Are there any comments from the public?
MR. WOLPERT: Good evening, members of the Board and staff.
Thomas Wolpert of Young &Young, representing the applicant Neil
Currie who was with us at the site inspection but unfortunately
is home recovering from an illness.
Following the site inspection and receipt of the comments
from various members of the Board, we revised the plans to
increase the buffer from ten feet to 15 feet on the seaward side
of the house. And we also shifted the house northerly by two
Board of Trustees 40 September 14, 2022
feet to assure we were no closer to the wetland than the living
portion of the existing structure.
With regard to permits and approvals, we do have a
DEC permit that was issued on April 8th. And we also have a
pending application with the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services for construction of water supply and sewage disposal.
And the proposed sewage disposal is an onsite wastewater
treatment system, I/A OWTS. That Health Department review is
complete pending receipt of a permit from this Board.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you. I think the only suggestion that I
would like to see for this application is that given its
location, a small, non-traditional lot, so close in proximity to
the wetland, would have a non-turf designation on the entire lot.
So the structure location is fine, I appreciate you moving
it. We would like to not see grass, turf, on the entire lot.
Most of it is wooded, as you know. So it's already amenable to
that.
MR. WOLPERT: Yes. If you are talking non-turf, but not
non-disturbance, and allow to, fire hazard area, and we left it
to revert to natural vegetation. So, yes, we are amenable to
that non-turf on the entire property outside of the 15-foot wide
non-disturbance, non-turf area as already shown on the plan.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Very good. Anyone else?
Members the public who would like to speak?
MR. MALTESE: Hi. Peter Maltese, I live at 506 Bailey, right behind
the proposed house that they want to build.
I want don't object to the house. I've lived there for
nine years, and it's been vacant. A lot of people come and look
at it, to build on it, it seems like it must be a difficult
property to build on, as you can see.
A couple of questions about the private road that is there.
There is a lot of very, very tall trees there. I want to make
sure they stay. You know. Also, the height of the house, how
high is it going to be? It's going to be two stories, but how
high?And will there be a basement. And also, if the property
is going to be hard to build, get a permit to build a house on,
then why doesn't the land trust just buy the property back and
incorporate it into the existing property the land trust owns
now?
It just seems there's people back,there hanging out,
drinking --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We can't comment on anything about
the land trust.
MR. MALTESE: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have the same question, but I don't know the
answer to it.
MR. MALTESE: Oh, okay. It just seems kind of strange because
people hang out there, sometimes just sleep on the property.
I see like alcohol cans there and stuff. So that's my main. I
would love to have somebody live there, it would be nice, but if
Board of Trustees 41 September 14, 2022
the property is deemed un-buildable, maybe, whatever. That's my,
thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right, any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Speaking to the gentleman who just spoke, I
mean, keeping the, all remaining trees possible on the property,
I think would be the most appropriate.
MS. WILLUMSTAD: Hi, Laura Willumstad, I live right next door to
Peter. Do we know how tall the house is? I couldn't make it out
from the plans.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Mr. Wolpert, are you able to speak to that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have to speak to the Board, obviously. If
you can answer that, sure.
MR. WOLPERT: Well, the height of the house is shown on the
architectural plans that were submitted as part of this
application. I don't happen to have a copy with me right now,
but this is, the house would conform with the maximum building
height for two-story structures.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The house as indicated on the plans is
34'10", however it's not within the Trustee purview to limit--
MS. WILLUMSTAD: 34 feet?
MS.'HULSE: I'm sorry, this is a building issue. This has nothing
to do with the Trustees. The Trustees can't make any
representations regarding that. Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Are there any other questions or
comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this
application stipulating a non-turf buffer outside of the
building envelope, and trees outside the building envelope to
remain on the entirety of the property. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. WOLPERT: Thank you, for your time. Have a good evening.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 14, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
DAVID & HELEN LEIS requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built (per
Emergency Permit#9584E) removal and replacement of existing
sanitary system with a new I/A type in a further landward
location than existing; and to install a proposed second story
9'3"x13'4" deck with step to ground.
Located: 1150 Grand Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-8-44.1
The Board most recently visited the site on September 7th,
2022, noting that the application is straightforward.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
Board of Trustees 42 September 14, 2022
consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support it.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. Any
questions, I would be happy to answer it. .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
(No response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 15, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
ANGELIKI KAZEROS & GEORGE PLITAS requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a proposed 4' wide by 193' long fixed catwalk with a
14' long by 3' wide aluminum ramp and a 6'wide by 20' long
floating dock situated in an "L" configuration and secured with
two (2) 10" diameter piles.
Located: 1395 Sleepy Hollow Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-1-10.20
The Trustees visited this site multiple times. The first
time it was not staked. The most recent time we revisited on
September 7th, and noted, the Trustees notes are to review the
previous permit history, navigational concerns presented, and
that this property and this application, the area is currently
an essential untouched habitat.
I have here plans stamped and dated September 7th. I also
have a hydrographic map stamped and dated July 27th, and a
survey stamped and dated June 13th.
The LWRP noted this application is inconsistent, stating
the following: 9.3, preserve the public interest in use of lands
and waters held in public trust by the state and the Town of
Southold.
One, environmental impact: The proposed 193-foot long dock
structure would be susceptible to storm damage and/or ice.
Adverse impact and loss of intertidal vegetation will occur from
the construction of the dock. The disposal of sanitary waste on
board the vessel has not been identified.
Number two, the values of the Peconic Bay and environs are
high. The application does not discuss potential impacts to
natural resources, public recreation or commerce, including
aquaculture to the action. An active aquaculture farm is located
Board of Trustees 43 September 14, 2022
at the Goose Creek Inlet.
Number three, the proposed dock appears to be excessive.
Areas where deep water for vessels cannot be reached that
would support a vessel are not appropriate for a dock.
Alternative methods for mooring a vessel are recommended.
Number four, the private 193-foot long dock structure would
impede navigation of vessels, public use of public waters along
the nearshore.
Vessels would be forced to upright or on the dock structure
are seaward of the dock structure.
Number five, the construction of the dock structure in
public waters removes and/or hinders the public use waters and
bottom lands of where the dock structure is located.
The natural resources transferred from the construction of
A permanent private dock structure would be included in the area
that the dock occupies.
The recreational and commercial use of these natural
resources would be extinguished.
Number six, the private residential use not water-dependent.
However recreational boating requires water access, for example,
mooring public boat ramp. A mooring could be established off
this location. Moorings could be designated to mitigate harmful
impacts and are temporary.
Number seven, the private dock structure would remove the
area occupied by the dock structure, and vessels from public use
including commercial uses that vary in Goose Creek.
Number eight, the proposed private dock structure in this
location would extend into public trust waters, resulting in a
net decrease in public access to public underwater lands in the
nearshore area.
9.4(e), number one. Private dock structures extending into
public trust lands and waters obstructs public use of navigable
waters and other public use in an area where the dock is located
and does not meet this policy.
And, additionally, the Conservation Advisory Council
resolved to not support this application because the overall
length of the docking facility exceeds one-third across the
width of the creek and extends beyond the pier line.
-Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. I do have
a New York State DEC Permit that was obtained on September 8th.
I would like to present that. I only have one copy,
unfortunately. I would like to present that to the Clerk.
And I would like to gain the comments from the Board for
this application, prior to postponing this application to make
some revisions, because apparently there's a couple of issues
associated with this proposed dock.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, for coming today.
There are some concerns that the Board has and I personally
Board of Trustees 44 September 14, 2022
as one Trustee have as well.
First of all, in just looking at the plans here that are
dated September 7th, you do have a pier line on here, which is
appreciated, however it's in an unusual location because the dock,
the contour of the shoreline is not necessarily relevant. It's
due to the contour and then the further extension of the length
of the dock. This.property does have a history, a permitting
,history, and there was a previous denial of the application.
MR. PATANJO: I was unaware of that, going into it. I understand
that the proposed dock as you see on the revised plans that we
had sent out, extended out further, which is in conformity with
the permitted DEC permit. I think it's 244 feet, if I'm not
mistaken, on the revised.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: The overall length is 244, yes.,
MR. PATANJO: Yes. So what we did is the DEC had asked to extend
the proposed pier or catwalk, dock, whatever you want to call it,
an additional 60 feet into landward to get over the wetlands. So
we had done that at the request of the DEC.
The water depth, and this is very similar to the
application that Mr. Kimack had just presented to you, with the
pier line on a radius area, in projecting out island area, where
there is water going around the radius of the land, there is no
specific pier line because there is no piers to the south side
or the east, the west side of it. So you can't really
technically establish a pier line because there is no piers to
the other opposite side.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I would be in agreement with that. And I think
therefore that actually causes additional concern for me.
Because not only is the contour of that shoreline protruding
into the creek but then this dock is protruding even further,
and it has been increased in length.
So, you know, this area, while you reference the previous
application, we don't like to compare applications, because that
is not relevant. They are all kind of their own.
I would say_this particular property is quite unique. It
really does have a fairly untouched, environmentally sensitive
habitat, and so adding additional structure to something that
does not have any structure there just, it seems like it would
cause quite a bit of harm, essentially.
And, you know, it's sensitive wetland habitat, adding this
structure will not only have, potentially negative impacts on the
habitat, but it also could impede navigation, because, like you
mentioned, it is even further extended. And you would have to
speak to the LWRP, having aquaculture activity, commercial
activity in this area, there is a lot of recreational and
commercial uses in this location.
MR. PATANJO: The extension, as you say, didn't go more seaward.
The extension of the dock, based on multiple applications,
extended more landward to avoid any conflicts with any of the
existing vegetated wetlands in that area. So we extended the
Board of Trustees 45 September 14, 2022
actual proposed dock, catwalk, I should say, because it's over
the wetlands, further landward.
So that is where the extension occurred. It didn't occur any
further into the seaward side. So we still kept, if you look at
the elevation wise, 2.5 feet, which is the 30 inches of water at
low tide. It didn't extend any further into the waterbody. It
extended further into the landward side.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, for clarifying. While there is not a
dimension on here, it's the overall of 244, it is about half of
it looks like catwalk and about half of it looks like dock, so.
MR. PATANJO: Correct. So it extends landward.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It extend landward toward --
MR. PATANJO: There is a considerable amount of wetlands in that
area. Over the wetland area is all going to be through-flow
decking. And it's going to be at the requirement for the Army
Corps of Engineers and DEC, which is 4.5 feet above the wetland
elevation from the bottom of the structure, which is in
conformance with their requirements.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Patanjo, maybe it's unclear to me, are
there any other 244' docks in this general area?
MR. PATANJO: When you say 244', you are putting it into a
precedence of thinking the whole entire dock is 244' into the
waterbody. This one traverses over 144, or even more than that,
of wetlands, which is no more than a catwalk traversing that
area. It doesn't extend out into the water body by that far.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, then are there many 120-foot docks
extending into the waterway in this general area?
MR. PATANJO: I would have to do an analysis of that to determine
how far out they go. And, again, like Mr. Kimack said on the
last application, they could be non-conforming docks, there
could be docks that at low tide they sit on the bottom and cause
destruction.
So this dock right here meets the requirements of the New
York State DEC. I don't believe Chapter 275 of the Town of
Southold code calls out that you actually need 30 inches of
water at low tide. I don't know if that was amended or codified
to actually indicate that.
That is an actual code developed by New York State DEC.
They allow a chocking of a dock to maintain 30 inches off the
water at low tide. So as far as it goes for 30 inches, that is a
DEC requirement, not necessarily a Town of Southold Trustees
requirement.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So I'm sure you are aware that the Town
can be more stringent than the DEC, but not less than.
MR. PATANJO: Absolutely. Correct.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Mr. Kimack spoke earlier to this point. You
mentioned him, so I mention him also.
MR. PATANJO: Right.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Chapter 275-3, findings, purpose,
jurisdiction, setbacks, makes it pretty clear to me that there
Board of Trustees 46 September 14, 2022
are additional concerns with docks on creeks. And just so you
know what the language sounds like. Town Board of the Town of
Southold finds that rapid growth, the spread of development, and
increasing demands upon natural resources are encroaching upon
or eliminating many of its wetlands and patent lands, which if
preserved and maintained in an undisturbed and natural condition
constitute an important physical, social, esthetic, recreational
and economic asset to existing and future residents of the Town
of Southold.
So that's the spirit of our code and our policy, and as you
look at our standards for issuance of a permit, we have
navigational issues to contend with, esthetic issues to contend
with. And given that this property was denied a permit in the
past for a structure through this pristine point of wetland, I
don't feel comfortable voting for this application. But I'm one
Trustee and I have one decision.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in
regard to this application?
(Negative response).
MR. PATANJO: Can I table the application at this point?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, I would like to answer that question, and.
this is just one Trustee's recommendation, but, given the past
practices of this Board and how much of this structure is going
over a vegetated wetland, you know, untouched, pristine,
transition from a very, very healthy, low-lying wetland all the
way through mid-level to upper wetland, I'm going to
respectfully recommend that we put this to a vote tonight.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I also would like to note that there was a
previous denial on a smaller dock, and now we are proposing an
even bigger structure. So I'm uncomfortable moving forward as
well.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I would agree with that. In 2008 it was
denied,sand, if anything, the environmental concerns have become
greater.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to deny this application,
citing Chapter 275 of the Town Code of Southold, 275-12. (a), this
application adversely affects the wetlands of this Town. (b),
adversely affects fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine
organisms, 'aquatic wildlife and vegetation or the natural
habitats thereof; adversely affects navigation on tidal waters
or the tidal flow of the tidal waters of the Town; (i), otherwise
adversely affects the health, safety and general welfare of the people
of the Town; and Q) adversely affects the esthetic value of the
wetlands and adjacent areas.
Board of Trustees 47 September 14, 2022
And I would also like to note that we are denying this
application based on the comments from the LWRP, being
inconsistent by the LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have a good night.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll request a five-minute
recess.
(After a brief recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Back on the record, 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
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. Goose Creek is in a
New York State DEC critical environmental area. Environmental
impacts of higher dock density on water quality, wildlife,
submerged vegetation and commercial fishing has not been
addressed.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with the condition of overall length and reduces the amount of
existing docks.
And the Trustees conducted field inspections September 7th,
where we were in receipt of new plans. We do have in the file
here new plans stamped received September 7th, 2022, that do
show new water depths adequate for a float, as well as proposed
dock within the pier line of the adjacent docks.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants. This is a
continuation where we did submit revised plans. We submitted a
couple of e-mails, for the record, explaining the revisions, and
the Board is aware of them. You did see the revised plan last
dated September 6th, 2022, which shows water depth sufficient at
mean low water, in line or consistent with the pier line of the
adjoining docks, including the somewhat recently permitted dock
to the southwest.
So we hope now that the dock complies with --we know that
the dock now complies with the Town code construction standards
for docks and hope that the revised design satisfies the Board
Board's concerns.
Board of Trustees 48 September 14, 2022
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
MR. RYAN: My name is Donald Ryan, and my wife Glenna. We live
at 760 Oak Avenue, which is the property adjacent to the east.
Last name is Ryan but the property has been in my wife's family
for almost 65 years.
We have there a mooring, a permitted mooring that-- and
our property is 80-feet wide. So if we keep the mooring in the
middle, plus the 15-foot buffer, I think we can meet the
standards of keeping our mooring 50-feet away from the proposed
dock.
So with some conversations with Mr. Herrmann, we are
comfortable with this project and have no objections to it.
If you have another 30 seconds for an aside, Mr. Herrmann
on this application makes comments about the beach grass that is
in the middle of this property, and that is one of the reasons
why it's over towards our side. I think the concern for beach
grass is a bit overblown. There are docks two houses away to the
west that put recently built docks over the beach grass, and the
beach grass is doing just fine.
So again, we don't have any objection to this project. The
McGovern's are good neighbors and we wanted you to know that
since we have been sitting here getting our education this
evening. Thank you, for all your hard work.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here
wishing to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Mr. Herrmann, we see on the plans that you have a through-flow
for part of the dock.
MR. HERRMANN:,Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Would you be opposed to doing through-flow
for the entirety of the fixed catwalk section?
MR. HERRMANN: Well, I know the applicant, this was something we
had discussed. They were hoping to avoid, like other applicants
that we deal with who don't like the open-grate for esthetic
reasons, et cetera, but I did explain to them the purpose of the
open-grate is to allow, you know, referencing the speaker's
comments, the object is not beach grass but intertidal marsh
grass there, the elevation of the dock and the open-grate
decking allows the intertidal marsh to hopefully come back
underneath it within the intertidal zone.
But they got the idea for the open-grate only over that
critical marsh area because the Trustees allowed that on the
dock to the southwest, I can't remember now, was 2015, something
like that, that was approved, that the Board allowed the
open-grate just over that wetland area. So that's where that
proposal came from. It seems important to them, that's why we
are holding with that proposal, hoping it would be consistent
Board of Trustees 49 September 14, 2022
with that decision, understanding it doesn't represent the more
global policy of the Board. So that is where that stems from.
Obviously the others, there is no sub-aquatic vegetation
that goes out beyond the mean, the water line here in this
creek, that the open-grate would benefit. It's really the
wetland fringe that it will benefit, and we do have it proposed over
the wetland fringe.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other comments?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. I mean, I did, fortunately, I forget the
exact date the other dock was permitted, but fortunately I was
not on that Board, to make that argument. But, overall, I think it's a
good project but I would prefer to see it open-grate,
personally. I mean, there is no aquatic vegetation,there now,
but it's very possible you could get some Ruppia maritima, aka
Widgeongrass in there, something like that, and we would open to
that in keeping to best practices over the past couple of years.
MR. HERRMANN: I don't want to agree with you, but if you impose
It, there's not much I can do about it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing no further comments, I make a motion
to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I make a motion to approve this dock with the condition that the
entire fixed catwalk be through-flow decking, which will reduce
the environmental impacts and bring it into consistency with the
LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: So imposed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 17, En-Consultants on behalf of MARILYN
PYMM IRREVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to
install approximately 78 linear feet of 200-500 pound stone
rip-rap (over filter cloth) along toe of eroding embankment (±48
linear feet adjacent to James Creek and ±30 linear feet adjacent
to Peconic Bay); and restore embankment face with approximately
10 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be_trucked in from an
approved upland source and planted with Cape American beach
grass 18" on center.
Located: 2504 Camp Mineola Road Ext., Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-9-7.25
The Trustees most recently visited the property on the 7th
of September and noted it was mostly straightforward.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. Use
vegetated, non-turf measures to manage flooding and erosion
hazards.
The CAC resolved to support this application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
Board of Trustees 50 September 14, 2022
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann, En-Consultants, on behalf of the
applicant.
It is a reasonably straightforward erosion control project,
speaking to the LWRP comments. I think the Board did see the
condition of the escarpment and the bank there. There were
fairly well-on trees in age with very extensive root systems
that have been holding that bank for a long time, that have been
undermined. So the idea that a completely non-structural
approach here would work, I think is a falsehood. But to try to
be consistent with Policy 4 as we presented in the LWRP part of
the application, we are minimizing the location scope of the rip rap
and combining it with re-nourishment material and vegetation
so that we are taking sort of a hybrid approach of hard versus
soft stabilization.
So we do think we are consistent with the LWRP in terms of
the design, and without some element just using a small rip rap,
it would be designed to fail. Obviously this was a project born
from the fact that the existing natural vegetation is just
getting chewed away there by that wake associated coming in with
that channel into the marina and the overall fetch. So, we do
feel it is consistent.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would tend to agree with you. Normally, I
would rather see a softer approach within a creek, however that
being said, this is at the mouth of the creek and there is a
rather large marina with a lot of activity there.
So, for me, I will say if there is future projects to
expand on this, I would rather see some'softer in-fill in
between, if this continues to be a problem. And it might. But
that has to be one of the bigger boating lanes in Town for a
small,creek. But I understand where you are coming from there.
Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding
this application, or any additional comments from members of the
Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
noting that the applicant has attempted to minimize the use of
hard construction thereby bringing it into consistency with the
LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 18, En-Consultants on behalf of
NICOLE MARTORANA & DAVID ALWORTH requests a Wetland Permit
to make alterations to the existing two story dwelling consisting of
constructing a 9'x14' screened porch addition with 4'x3' steps
Board of Trustees 51 September 14, 2022
in place of existing first floor door, basement/bilco door, and
stoop/steps to be removed; construct a 7.1'x14.5' wood deck with
3'x4' steps in place of existing 7:1'x8' wood deck and steps to
be removed; construct a 4'x6' front entry porch with steps in
place of existing porch and steps to be removed; construct a
4'x4' side entry porch with steps; construct two 4'x5' basement
egress window wells; construct a 10'x14' expansion of the
existing second floor over and within the footprint of the
existing first story (no increase in bedrooms); install drywell;
and to establish and perpetually maintain a 10'wide,
approximately 990sq.ft. non-turf buffer(including approximately
420sq.ft. of existing lawn) adjacent to existing covenanted
non-disturbance buffer.
Located: 3400 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-17-11
The Trustees visited the site on the 7th of September,
2022. Notes from that visit read: Straightforward.
The,LWRP found this to be consistent with the LWRP policies
and with the LWRP, provided the following is considered to
effect the functional value of the wetland system. Consider this
recommendation as written determination regarding consistency of
the proposed action. But there is no action listed.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support
the application. Construct additions within a flood zone. There
are also concerns with the potential of adding bedrooms to the
addition and questions why this addition would be permitted
activity. The proposed addition could require additional
cesspool.
The Conservation Advisory Council observed egress/ingress
windows in the basement and questions this would be a livable
area.
The Trustees received plans stamped August 3rd, 2022.
Any comments from the public?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Hermann of En-Consultants, on behalf of the
applicant. I'll try to keep this brief, because we did meet with
the owner Nicole Matorano, who is also here, met with the
entire Board onsite.
It's basically the reconstruction of the deck, and placing
existing deck and steps, and small porch addition in place of
existing stoop steps, extend the door and basement door on the
water side of the house. There is a second-floor addition which
technically under code would be exempt because it's a second-floor
addition within the first-floor footprint. But again,.for full
transparency it's included in the plan.
That addition does not create an additional bedroom. There
is a previously-approved Suffolk County Health Department
sanitary system onsite with a septic tank and five pools. We
talked about the fact that there is, in connection with a prior
approval of the Board, the area that was 30-feet seaward and
beyond from the house is a covenanted non-disturbance buffer,
and we were proposing to add to that another ten feet of
Board of Trustees 52 September 14, 2022
non-turf buffer on the landward or west side of the existing
non-disturbance buffer, which would have the benefit eliminating
another 420 square feet of existing lawn to a non-turf buffer.
There is storm drainage proposed as additional mitigation
in connection with the project.
If the Board has any other questions, I'm here to answer them.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Questions, comments 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 SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 19, En-Consultants on behalf of ALYSE
'TICKER requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 1.07
linear feet of paver block retaining wall, including two (2) 10
linear foot long returns along landward limit of 12'wide
non-turf buffer, with associated 6'x8' steps; excavate
approximately 15 cubic yards of soil material from non-turf
buffer to lower/level grade of buffer; and reuse on-site
material, together with approximately 10 cubic yards of clean
sandy fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source, to
raise the grade elevation and reduce the slope of the steeply
sloping lawn landward of the retaining wall.
Located: 1685 Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-7-8
The Trustees most recently visited this site on September
7th, 2022, noting a straightforward inspection. I am in receipt
of plans stamped received in the office August 24th, 2022.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
this application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann, En-Consultants, on behalf of the
applicant.
This is a straightforward application. I met with most of
the Board at the site. Retaining wall landward of an existing
bulkhead and non-turf buffer, which would be retained, and will
have benefit of reducing the slope toward the creek from the
upland, which should help mitigate runoff while providing a more
safe and useable yard behind the wall and the buffer area for
the owners.
If you have any questions you have not already asked, I can
answer them.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
Board of Trustees 53 September 14, 2022
regarding this application or any questions or comments from the
Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
'TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES). -
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 20, En-Consultants on behalf of EVAN
GEOFFROY requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
approximately 165 linear feet of existing tiered wood retaining
walls with a three-tiered retaining wall system, consisting of
an approximately 102 linear foot long base level retaining wall,
an approximately 112 linear foot long mid-level retaining wall,
and an approximately 54 linear foot long base top-level
retaining wall, each to a max. Height of 2.3 feet; remove 8",
12", and 18" oak trees on west side of dwelling for removal-and
replacement of retaining walls; establish proposed grades
between/landward of new retaining walls with approximately 12
cubic yards of clean sand/loam fill to be trucked in from an
approved upland source and planted with native vegetation; plant
six (6) trees landward of top-level retaining wall; remove and
replace in-kind/in-place existing 3'x33' stone paver walkway,
4.3'x7.5' stoop/steps, and 4'x4' outdoor shower; install
stormwater drywell for outdoor shower and roof runoff; and widen
existing pervious gravel driveway by approximately 205sq.ft.
Located: 2505 Wells Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-18
The Trustees most recently visited this site on September
7th, and noted that the application was straightforward.
I am in receipt of plans stamped and dated August 5th.
The LWRP finds this application is consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection, therefore no recommendation was made.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this .
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann, En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant.
Elizabeth, I have to tell you, you are the first person to
correctly pronounce Evan's last name.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: The final one of the night. There we go.
MR. HERRMANN: Quick and simple, itis basically a maintenance
application to replace existing retaining walls on a retained
slope. There is a five-foot wide non-turf buffer behind the top
wall between the slope and the house. There is some maintenance
work associated with the platform and an existing outdoor
Board of Trustees 54 September 14, 2022
shower, and drainage will actually be added not just to
accommodate the replacement shower but also for the entire
existing dwelling.
So the project comes also with a general storm water
drainage upgrade. That's all I have.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Great. Thank you, for that storm water drainage.
upgrade. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak, or questions
or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion on close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL'AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
v
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees