The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-11/16/2022 Glenn Goldsmith,President O��QF soUjyol Town Hall Annex A. Nicholas Krupski,Vice President h 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Eric Sepenoski Southold, New York 11971 Liz GilloolyG • Q Telephone(631) 765-1892 Elizabeth Peeples �`� a Fax(631) 765-6641 C4UNTY,� BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes coVED Wednesday, November 16, 2022 5:30 PM DEC 1 6 2022 Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President Southold Town 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 and welcome to our Wednesday November 16, 2022, Trustee meeting. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order and ask that you please stand for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance is recited). I'll start off by announcing the people on the dais. To my left we have Trustee Krupski, we have Trustee Sepenoski, Trustee Gillooly and Trustee Peeples. To my right we have Attorney to the Trustees Lori Hulse, we have Senior Clerk Typist Elizabeth Cantrell. We have with us tonight Court Stenographer Wayne Galante, and from the Conservation Advisory Council we have Shannon Wright. Agendas for tonight's meeting are out in the hall and posted on the Town's website. We do have a number of postponements tonight. In the agenda, on page five, under Amendments, Number 1, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of FOUNDERS LANDING BOAT YARD, LLC requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#8666 for the as-built 68' long solid splashboard system under the offshore fixed finger pier. Located: 2700 Hobart Road & 1000 Terry Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-10 & 1000-64-3-11; On page six, number 4, Young &Young on behalf of MKS REALTY, LLC Board of Trustees 2 November 16, 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 ±7.5' 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# 100.0-54-4-20; On page seven, number 5, 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. And number 6, 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 On page 13, number 25, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of CHRISTOPHER & ELIZABETH AUSTIN requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing dwelling, shed, and accessory structures; construct a proposed'two-story±39.5'x65' irregular shaped dwelling with ±30.6'x±22.5' attached garage; a ±15.8'x±7.7' front porch; a ±25'x±65' irregular shaped rear Board of Trustees 3 November 16, 2022 porch raised 4' above elevation with a 5'x22'9" roofed over open section with second-story balcony on east side, a 12'x18' roofed over open section with second-story balcony on west side; and a ±13'x±30' pool; pool and porch to be at elevation 9.5 with stairs from porch to be ±5'x±6' and have a pool safety gate; install a pool drywell for backwash, and pool equipment area; install A/C units; install a generator; install a Bilco door; existing septic to be abandoned in accordance with S.C.D.H.S. specifications; install a new I/A system in front yard; underground water and electric to be installed; install a propane tank; install two retaining walls (top of retaining walls to be ±82, bottom to be ±4.0'), on the east and west property lines with the west side yard retaining wall to be 1037' in length and extends from the north-east, roadside of the property and ends 3'8" from the southwest corner of proposed dwelling, the wall then returns in towards the house with a length of 18'5"; the east side yard retaining wall is 927' in length and extends from the northeast, roadside of the property and ends 8'0" past the southeast corner of the proposed dwelling; the all then returns into the proposed 8'0" wide porch from east side yard property line with a length of 20'0"; approximately 592 cubic yards of fill will be brought in and used on the north, roadside of the property, within the boundaries of the proposed retaining wall; the proposed elevation of the street on the east side is 8', and on the west side is 9'; the property to be graded from the street to the retaining walls to be elevation ±8' and the grade of the rear yard (seaward of retaining walls) will remain as is; with the existing 10' wide non-turf buffer to remain. Located: 2200 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-4-5.1. On page 14, number 26, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of PHILIP & DEBRA RYBECKY requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling over existing foundation consisting of a proposed ±30.2'x±39' two-story dwelling with a ±21.7'x±15' two-story addition, a ±25'x±28.2' attached garage; a ±13.5'x±9.3' front porch; a ±4'x±18' seaward side second story balcony; a ±10'x±39' seaward side irregularly shaped deck with outdoor kitchen area and ±12.5'x±12.5' screened in pavilion; install a ±5'x±8' outdoor shower on west side of dwelling over thru-flow decking with a catch basin underneath; install stepping stones leading from front entrance to rear patio; proposed ±15'x±15' rear on-grade patio; remove existing driveway,-asphalt area, and all existing walkways; install a ±5'x±47' (±7' wide at porch) walkway; install a ±1,676sq.ft. Pervious gravel driveway and along easterly driveway section install a ±32' long (±20' long with' two ±6' returns) stone wall varying in height from ±1' to ±3' tall; remove and replace existing westerly wood retaining wall with new±84' varying in height from ±18"to ±36"; remove and replace existing ±14' long, ±12" tall wood retaining wall, ±38' long, ±18" tall wood retaining wall, and ±36' long and ±18" tall Board of Trustees 4 November 16, 2022 wood retaining wall all seaward of dwelling; remove existing cesspool and install a new-1/A system landward of dwelling; install a 4' wide permeable sand path from rear deck to existing boardwalk; remove existing turf grass and install native, non-fertilizer depended vegetation to be planted; any tree to be removed is to be replaced at a 1:1 ratio; and to install drywells and trench drains to contain stormwater runoff; and a Bioswale/rain garden proposed to address runoff on east side of property. Located: 1065 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue., SCTM# 1000-137-4-24. On page 15, numbers 27 through 31, listed as follows: Number 27, Martin Finnegan, Esq. on behalf of 16125 SOUNDVIEW REALTY, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing circular stone wall and pavers; remove 4'x8' stone porch and relocate same to the northwestern side of dwelling; construction of a 32'x16' (512sq.ft.) in-ground swimming pool with a minimum depth of 42" and maximum depth of 96" (8ft.), 67.4'from top of bluff and 22' from existing septic tank; install 709sq.ft. perimeter pool patio at grade with 48" BOCA compliant pool enclosure fencing; install an 8'x4' pool drywell and 3'x6' pool mechanical enclosure on east side of dwelling. Located: 16125 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-50-2-19 Number 28, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of PHYLLIS SOUSA requests a Wetland Permit to install a 14'x38' swimming pool surrounded by a 58'x28' stone patio with an 8'x8' spa along the pool's landward side; remove the existing seaward deck stairs and install two 4'x4' wood stairs along the easterly and westerly,sides of the existing deck. Located: 4145 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-12.6 Number 29, 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 Number 30, 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 Board of Trustees 5 November 16, 2022 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 31, 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 On page 16, numbers 32 through 35, listed as follows: Number 32, 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 33, 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 lb. stones set on filter fabric; the storm washed sand area is to be restored to the original grade line and the removed sand (90-100 cubic yards) is to be used on site to restore the eroded bank area; on all three properties, dredge a portion of Moyle Cove to deepen channel in three (3) areas, AA, BB and CC to a depth of-4.00ft. (Approx. 365 cubic yards), and area DD to a depth of-3.00ft. (Approx. 85 cubic yards), for a total dredging of approximately 450 cubic yards; the dredge spoils is proposed to be spread on the two Sauer properties (255 Wigwam Way, SCTM# 1000-87-2-40.1 & 175 Wigwam Way, SCTM# 1000-87-2-40.2), in an area of approximately 8,000 sq.ft. and to a depth of approximately 1.5ft.; the dredged spoils placement area will be surrounded by a silt fence with hay bales to. be kept in place and maintained until the spoils are de-watered. 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 34, 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 Board of Trustees 6 November 16, 2022 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 35, 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. And on page 17, number 36, 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 So all those are postponed and we will not be having a hearing on them this evening. Under Town Code Chapter 275-8(c), files were officially closed seven days ago. Submission of any paperwork after that date may result in the delay of the processing of the application. I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: , At this time I will make a motion to have our next field inspection Wednesday, December 7th, 2022, at 8:00 AM. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: I'll make a motion to hold our next Trustee meeting on Wednesday, December 14th, 2022, at 5:30 PM, at the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). III. WORK SESSIONS: I'll make a motion to hold our next work session Monday, December 12th, 2022 at 5:OOPM at the Town Hall Annex 2nd floor Executive Board Room; and on Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 5:OOPM at the Main Town Hall Meeting Hall. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 7 November 16, 2022 V. MINUTES: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of the October 19th, 2022, meeting. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for October 2022. A check for $9,231.75 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. VI. PUBLIC NOTICES: - Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. VII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section XI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, November 16, 2022 are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: Daniel Hume SCTM# 1000-72-2-5 Rachel Levin Murphy SCTM# 1000-135-1-7. Kimogenor Point Company SCTM# 1000-116-6-24.1 Pillar K. Willumstad SCTM# 1000-53-5-10 Deborah L. McKeand & Shannon Goldman SCTM# 1000-68-3-11.1 Robert E. & Laura C. Johnson SCTM# 1000-87-5-3 Daniel & Suzanne Diviney SCTM# 1000-43-5-8 Paul & Debra Lamaida SCTM# 1000-122-4-31 Bruno & Olivia Annicq SCTM# 1000-117-7-29 40200 Main, LLC SCTM# 1000-15-9-8.1 16125 Soundview Realty, LLC SCTM# 1000-50-2-19 John Nastasi SCTM# 1000-35-4-18 Brett O'Reilly SCTM# 1000-70-6-29.1 Barbara A. Pagano SCTM# 1000-37-4-9 Christopher& Elizabeth Austin SCTM# 1000-123-4-5.1 Philip & Debra Rybecky SCTM# 1000-137-4-24 Satwant Narula SCTM# 1000-88-5-66 Jacqueline Hollander SCTM# 1000-87-1-4 Treasure Island Cove, LLC SCTM# 1000-23-1-2.9 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). 'Board of Trustees 8 November 16, 2022 VIII. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VIII, in order to simplify our meetings, the Trustees regularly group together applications that are similar or minor in nature. As such I'll make a motion to approve as a group items 2 and 4, listed as follows: Number 2, WAVES PROPERTIES LLC requests an Administrative Permit to install a total of 233' of 4' high split rail fence along the southern and western property lines. Located: 2388 Hyatt Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-1-5 Number 4, IRENE MOSHOURIS requests an Administrative Permit to replace in kind existing 18'6"x38'6" on-grade brick patio with 36" masonry steps. Located: 755 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-11-4.1 TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, LISA BROWN requests an Administrative Permit to install 50' of 4' high split rail fence on the southern border of property. Located: 2382 Hyatt Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-1-2. Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection November 10th, 2022, noting: Measured the stake at the top of the bluff, came to approximately 30 feet, terminating in the swale. The Trustees do not allow fences within 20 feet of the top of the bluff. Ten feet of fence is okay. We did not get an LWRP on this. As such, seeing as how we like to leave at least 20 feet of room between the top of the bluff and the fence, I'll make a motion to approve this application with the following stipulation: That the fence be ten feet instead of the 50 feet as listed. That is my motion. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, SAMUEL SINGER requests an Administrative Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to remove invasive species i.e., Russian Olives and Black Locusts which are growing along the permitted deer fence area. Located: 44030 Route 25, Southold. SCTM# 1000-75-6-6.1 The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is limit the clearing to specified invasive species. The proposal needs to be more specific, and gives certain species as an example. The vegetation serves as a buffer to the wetland, filtering out sediments and pollutants from runoff. Clearing should be minimal. There are large trees located,south of parcel that provide important buffering properties. Trustee Krupski conducted a field inspection November 15th, Board of Trustees 9 November 16, 2022 2022, noting condition no clearing past the berm. No cedars to be cut or removed. No native hardwoods to be removed. No clearing within ten feet of wetland line. No protected species to be disturbed. So I will make a motion to approve this application with the following conditions: No cedar trees are removed or trimmed. No native hardwood shall be removed. No trimming shall take place on seaward side of the existing berm. No New York State DEC protected species, including but not limited to Baccharus, to be disturbed. No trimming shall take place within ten feet of.the wetland line or the top of the precipitous slope. Thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, MARCUS R. BRYAN REVOCABLE TRUST c/o MARCUS R. BRYAN requests an Administrative Permit to remediate clearing by the planting of native shrubs, including rosa rugosa, bayberry and milkweed; and for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit for the removal of invasives. Located: 155 Glen Court, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-83-1-2' The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is the clearing of vegetation was conducted without a wetland permit and Board review. Trustee Krupski conducted a field inspection November 6th, noting re-vegetation plan. This is a re-vegetation plan for that violation. There is not much needed. Some.natives to be planted. Recommend as straightforward. I will make a motion to approve this application as submitted, again noting that it is a re-vegetation plan for the clearing, which will therefore bring it into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). 1 IX. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral IX, Application for Extensions/Transfers/Administrative Amendments. Again, in order to simplify our meeting, I'll make a motion to approve as a group items 1 through 7, number 9 and number 12. Listed as follows: Number 1, En-Consultants on behalf of NORTH FORK HAVEN, LLC requests a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit#9814 and Coastal Erosion Permit#9814C, both issued on February 17, 2021. Located: 8871 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-83-1-34.1 Number 2, En-Consultants on behalf of EVAN M. & ELIZABETH Board of Trustees 10 November 16, 2022 A. MINOGUE requests a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit #9786, issued on December 21, 2020. Located: 5650 (a/k/a 5550) New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-10-6 Number 3, Michael A. Kimack on behalf of JOSEPH M. SILVESTRO requests a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit #9789, issued on December 21, 2020. Located: 265 Elizabeth Lane, Southold., SCTM# 1000-78-5-5 Number 4, BRIAN M.. CLEARY requests a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit#9754, as issued on November 18, 2020. Located: 5875 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-7-7 Number 5, Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc., on behalf of 40200 MAIN, LLC (ORIENT BY THE SEA) c/o RWN MANAGEMENT, LLC requests a Final One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit#9582 & Coastal Erosion Permit#9582C, as issued on November 13, 2019. Located: 40200 Route 25, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-9-8.1 Number 6, Patricia C. Moore on behalf of DONALD & GLENNA RYAN requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#10097 from James W. Kophen Trust c/o Glenna Ryan to Donald & Glenna Ryan, as issued on March 16, 2022. Located: 760 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-1-3 Number 7, Martin D. Finnegan, Esq. on behalf of JOSHUA & KERRY FRUM requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#E-145-4-18 from Dorothy Gannon to Joshua & Kerry Frum, as issued on December 21, 1992. Located: 350 MacDonalds Crossing, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-145-4-18 Number 9, Martin D. Finnegan, Esq. on behalf of JOSHUA & KERRY FRUM requests a Transfer of Administrative Permit#7872A from Margaret Gannon to Joshua & Kerry Frum, as issued on August 22, 2012. Located: 350 MacDonalds Crossing, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-145-4-18 And number 12, Steven Affelt, AIA on behalf of DOMELUCA II, LLC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9863 for a 14'x82'1" swimming pool in lieu of the previously permitted 18'2"x82' swimming pool and to construct a 23'-8" x 14'-8" underground vault for the pool filter equipment. Located: 14895 Route 25, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-23-1-2.10 TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 8, Martin D. Finnegan, Esq. on behalf of JOSHUA & KERRY FRUM requests a Transfer of Wetland.Permit #7690 from Margaret Gannon to Joshua & Kerry Frum, as issued on November 16, 2011, and Amended on December 12, 2012. Located: 350 MacDonalds Crossing, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-145-4-18 Trustee Goldsmith conducted a field inspection November 6th, 2022, noting that the plans showed a plus or minus 3'x29' wood walk that was never reconstructed. I will make a motion to approve this application with the condition that the plus or minus 3'x29' wood walkway be removed Board of Trustees 11 November 16, 2022 from the permit, since it was never constructed. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 10, Michael A. Kimack on behalf of STEVEN EISMAN &VALERIE FEIGEN requests.an Administrative Amendment to Administrative Permit#9980A to exclude the installation of the 4'x4' raised platform for air conditioner and to relocate proposed raised steel platform for generator to be set adjacent to pool and increase size to 8'x10' in lieu of previously approved 36"x60". Located: 18603 Main Road, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-17-5-3.2. Trustee Sepenoski conducted a field inspection November 7th, 2022, noting concerns about the size of the proposed structure in the new proposed location. The original location is suitable. See field report from August 30th, 2021. Due to the noted negative environmental impacts from this larger structure in the different location, I'll make a motion to deny this application as submitted. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 11, MICHAEL P. & SUSAN CAVOUNIS request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9986 to build a 1,245sq.ft. grade level masonry pool patio in lieu of the previously approved 1,005sq.ft. patio; with the relocation of the pool equipment to the side of garage; install an unroofed outdoor kitchen area; the removal of two (2) trees located near pool area; and to exclude the proposed 60sq.ft. attached storage garage previously approved. Located: 3475 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-9 The LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council supports application with the condition the pool is located a minimum of 50 feet from the bulkhead. Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection November 2nd, 2022, noting that the application was straightforward, with the addition of sound attenuation around the pool equipment. I will make a motion to approve this application with the condition of the sound attenuation around the pool equipment, and also one-to-one tree replacement with two to three-inch caliper native hardwood for any trees that are removed seaward of house. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 12 November 16, 2022 X. RESOLUTIONS - OTHER: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral X, Resolutions - Other, Number 1, RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees hereby REVOKES and VACATES Wetland Permit#10201 at the request of the property owners JOSEPH F. & LINDA SCIOTTO for the existing 2,011sq.ft. two-story dwelling with a 400sq.ft. second floor balcony, a 7'x24' west side porch, a 3'4"x10' stoop on seaward side, an existing 6'8"x6'7" outdoor shower, and an existing 6'x7'4" Jacuzzi; remove existing garage and shed; construct a new 1,166sq.ft. two-story addition onto the landward side of existing dwelling on top of a 4" reinforced concrete foundation slab with a proposed one-story 10'x12' shed attached to landward side of addition; the existing 14'8"x15'4" front porch to be expanded an additional 8'2"'x10' to connect to new addition; and to install gutters to leaders to drywells for the addition; with the condition that any trees removed are replaced with a one-to-one native species tree replacement; and grants the request for a new Wetland Permit for the existing 2,011 sq.ft. two-story dwelling with a 400sq.ft. second floor balcony, a 7'x24'west side porch, a 3'4"x10' stoop on seaward side, an existing 6'8"x6'7" outdoor shower, existing 6'x7'4" Jacuzzi; and existing 14'8"x15'4" front porch; and as depicted on the site plan prepared by Mark K.'Schwartz, AIA dated June 15, 2022 and stamped approved on August 17, 2022. Located: 8380 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-126-11-20 That is my motion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: (ALL AYES). XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral XI, Public Hearings, at this time aye make a motion to go off of our regular meeting agenda and enter into you public hearings. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: 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. WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits. Number 1, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of DANIEL HUME Board of Trustees 13 November 16, 2022 requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to install 246.7 linear feet of rock revetment (includes two (2) 15' returns), along the existing toe of the bluff at no more than 2.5 tons per linear foot and within the property boundaries; construct a new 4' wide by 105' long staircase down the bluff, 3' above grade to replace the existing damaged staircase; backfill the rock wall with 295 cubic yards of clean up-land fill; place 300 cubic yards of clean up-land fill on the bluff face to fill in gullies and grade to support the new coir log terracing; plant the backfilled area and bluff face with native grasses and shrubs. Located: 14216 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-72-2-5 The LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application as it goes against the mission statement of the Conservation Advisory Council. The Conservation Advisory Council requests this area of shoreline be classified as a sensitive area, referencing the Starvation of Southold Beaches, prepared"by former Conservation Advisory Council member Doug Hardy, dated January 14th, 2013. The Trustees conducted a field inspection on November 9th, 2022, noting that the bluff was heavily,eroded. There was also a plan to install a rock revetment on the neighboring properties, so this one would tie in. It's straightforward. And to stipulate access for equipment and material from Duck Pond Road Extension ending. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MS. COSTELLO: I am Jane Costello, agent for the applicant, and I'm here to answer any questions that the Board might have in addition, or the public. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just, I know we mentioned on the field inspection, we said the neighbors are also planning on doing one, so this will just tie in. MS. COSTELLO: That's correct. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Any other questions or comment from the Board. (No response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve both the wetland Permit and the Coastal Erosion Permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: (ALL AYES). MS. COSTELLO: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 2, 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 Board of Trustees 14 November 16, 2022 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 reviewed this application on the 9th of November, noting that we had new plans which would need further review. Prior to that work session there was a public hearing on this in which the Trustees were looking for an additional buffer on the plans for this property, as it is a steep slope. The LWRP found this to be consistent but noted that no boulders naturally occurring on the beach shall be used for the revetment. And the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with retractable steps off the bottom of landing and parallel to the shoreline, and installation of a buffer planted with native vegetation. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MR. ANDERSON: Robert Anderson, Suffolk Environment Consulting, on behalf of the applicant, here to answer any questions the Board may have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak regarding this application or any additional comments from members of the Board? (Negative response). Hearing no additional comments, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL YES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application based on new plans stamped received by the office October 12th, 2022, and with the stipulation that no current and existing boulders found on the beach be used in the revetment construction. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 3, En-Consultants on behalf of RACHEL LEVIN MURPHY requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct approximately 201 linear feet of steel bulkhead with a 12' easterly return in place of existing 133 Board of Trustees 15 November 16, 2022 linear feet of fiberglass bulkhead and approximately 69 linear foot portion of existing ±73 linear foot concrete seawall; install reinforced concrete anchor at property line on landward side of±4' portion of concrete seawall to remain; remove existing concrete steps to beach; backfill with approximately 50 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source; construct 4'x43' wood boardwalk between existing stone steps down embankment and proposed 4'x6' wood landing and 2' wide retractable stair to beach; maintain 10 foot wide Non-Turf Buffer (sand and/or gravel "splash pad"), along landward side of new bulkhead; and restore disturbed portions of naturally vegetated embankment with native grasses as needed. Located: 21695 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-135-1-7 The Trustees most recently visited the site on 11/9/22. Notes from our visit read: Include non-turf buffer atop of slope to match house permit, minimum ten feet. The LWRP found this project to be consistent. Consider integrating the splash pad along the entire length of the bulkhead in the design to prevent erosion during high energy storm events. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application, noting this is an environmentally sensitive area. Based on past experience with storm events we must recommend that the agent indemnify any future damage to neighboring properties resulting from this construction. The Conservation Advisory Council recommends the steps are retractable and parallel to the shoreline and a non-turf buffer planted with native vegetation. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. HERRMANN: Good evening. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. It is a relatively straightforward application that includes the replacement of a previously permitted fiberglass bulkhead and a portion of a pre-existing concrete seawall. There was a7rustees permit that was issued in 2009 for the fiberglass bulkhead that is there, unfortunately the fiberglass and corrugated vinyl bulkheads have not held up quite as well against the elements of Long Island Sound as some had hoped and so the proposal here is to replace existing bulkhead with steel. There probably will be some incorporation of that stone splash pad behind the bulkhead. We've indicated on the plans one way or other that will be a non-turf buffer, and also indicated that the vegetated slope would remain as a vegetated buffer. We did talk a little bit about that buffer along the top of the bank, but we did find that the permit that was issued for the house includes that non-turf buffer, and I think we agreed that it was best to just leave that associated with that permit. And.so with that, I would ask if the Board had any further questions. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Rob, are you talking about the September 26th plans? September of 2022? MR. HERRMANN: I don't follow your question, Eric. Board of Trustees 16 November 16, 2022 TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is that the plans you are referring to about the non-turf buffer on the September 26th plans. MR. HERRMANN: Oh, yes. Yes. The plans that were submitted originally with the application dated September 16, indicate along the bulkhead, if you look at the first page, on the left-hand side, proposed ten-foot wide non-turf buffer and/or gravel splash pad. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you. MR. HERRMANN: You're welcome. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Any members of the'public wish to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Any comments or concerns from the members of the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve this application with the plans stamped received September 26th, 2022. That is my motion. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: 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 Trustees most recently visited this site on September 7th, noting wait for DEC, no higher than 12" above existing grade. We are in receipt of DEC approval, dated November 9th. The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be exempt. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support-this application. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Any questions/HOR 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 with the condition that the new jetty is not to exceed 12 inches above existing grade. 'TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? Board of Trustees 17 November 16, 2022 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE PEEPLES: 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# 1.000-123-8-10 The Trustees most recently visited this site September 7th, and noted wait for DEC permit, and then also construction should be no higher than 12 inches above existing grade. We are in receipt of the DEC permit, dated November 9th. And the LWRP finds this is inconsistent, noting that the loss of function of the subject jetty reveals that the sand capture is minimal under the jetties to the east and west provide stabilization of the beach. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this application? (Negative response). Any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). With that, hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application with the stipulation that the construction is no higher than 12 inches above existing grade. And with the Trustees review onsite during field inspection and receipt of DEC permit, I grant that would bring it into consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of BARBARA A. PAGANO requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 1,319.45sq.ft. 1 Y2 story dwelling with existing 157.25sq.ft. raised stone patio; reconstruct the existing 485sq.ft. seaward side deck; reconstruct the existing 191 sq.ft. landward side deck; and modify the entrance to dwelling by relocating the existing 4'x4' outdoor shower along the southeasterly side of the dwelling over existing stone patio. Located: 2435 Cedar Lane, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-37-4-9 The Trustees conducted a field inspection November 9th, noting straightforward, and to-install gutters to leaders to drywells. LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is the as-built structures were built without obtaining a Board of Trustees regulatory permit. Board of Trustees 18 November 16, 2022 The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, Robert Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of the applicant, here to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The only note we have was the gutters to leaders to drywells. MR. ANDERSON: Correct, that has been requested'from the surveyor. It's in the works right now. I was hoping we could do a conditional approval based on submitted plans. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application With the condition of gutters to leaders to drywells, with new plans to be submitted showing as such, and thereby, by granting a permit will bring it into consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion. . TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 4, En-Consultants on behalf of KIMOGENOR POINT COMPANY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a continuous 189 linear foot long vinyl bulkhead in place of, and partially landward of±59' and ±130' sections of existing timber bulkhead to be removed, and permanently remove ±2' section of existing timber bulkhead to eliminate "bumped out" portion of bulkhead; excavate up to ±18"wide, approximately 100 sq. Ft. area between existing 130' "bumped out" section of bulkhead and proposed vinyl bulkhead to a maximum depth of 4 MLW to match existing seaward grade; use approximately 25 cubic yards of . excavated on-site material and approximately 50 cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an approved upland source as backfill; remove and replace existing ±65 linear foot long timber jetty with vinyl jetty; and remove and replace in-place existing 16'x16.5' fixed dock platform (using untreated decking). Located: 50 Jackson Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-116-6-24.1 The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 9th of November, noted that it should be stipulated thru-flow decking on the dock/platform. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent but Board of Trustees 19 November 16, 2022 required turbidity controls, reduce CCA-treated materials during construction, and incorporate native vegetation and design. _ And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding the application? MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of Kimogenor Point Company. The larger assaults up here are from Kimogenor Point. This is a straightforward bulkhead and jetty replacement application. The only difference in the condition, as I discussed at field inspection, is there was once along the existing bulkhead to be replaced an 18-inch seaward replacement which is going to be pulled in. So that whole bulkhead now will just be one continuous line, and that bump out into the channel there will be removed. And there is also the in-place replacement of the existing dock platform by the clubhouse. The plans do indicate that it will be untreated material. The Board had indicated you would likely condition a permit that that untreated material be open-grate, which I believe Bill at field inspection indicated was acceptable. So I don't have anything else. I'll leave it to the Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this application, or any additional comments from members of the Board? (Negative response). Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application with the stipulation of thru-flow decking on dock/deck, and the use of turbidity controls during construction. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 5, En-Consultants on behalf of PILLAR K. WILLUMSTAD requests a Wetland Permit to install vinyl sheathing on the landward side of approximately 135 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead and ±6' and ±12' timber returns; backfill with approximately 15 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead. Located: 1280 Sage Boulevard, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-5-10 We are in receipt of a letter from the neighbor at 1280 Sage Boulevard, stating they have no objections to the proposed project, but they would like to understand the potential effects Board of Trustees 20 November 16, 2022 of raising the height or length of the bulkhead. The Trustees most recently visited this site on November 9th, 2022, noting that we discussed a non-turf buffer at ten feet, and enhancement with salt-tolerant plantings. 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? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicant. This is another straightforward bulkhead maintenance application. Here the existing bulkhead will remain. It is proposed to be re-sheathed on its landward side. In response to the comment from the neighbor, there is no proposed change in length or height of the existing structure. The landward sheathing, re-sheath, will also be at the same height and length as existing structure. And we had discussed in the field the originally submitted plans showed a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer along the landward side of all the bulkheading that is to be re-sheathed. And the Board had asked if that non-turf buffer could be extended to the easterly property line along the tidal wetland boundary where there is no bulkhead to be replaced. The owner was understanding of that and had no objection to it, and we submitted revised project plans dated November 11th, showing that additional non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And was the owner open to a vegetated non-turf buffer? MR. HERRMANN: Well, what we had discussed I think, was exactly what Trustee Krupski had asked, was his recommendation that both buffer areas be enhanced with salt-tolerant vegetation. And I think that recommendation is well received. I don't know if the expectation would be that that would be a completely, you know, wall-to-wall vegetation, but that there would be the use of salt-tolerant vegetation in that area, particularly where there is no bulkhead and the tide is not as contained as where it is by the bulkhead. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Any other comments from the public? (Negative response). Any questions or comments from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: 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 with the new plans received November 14th, 2022, with the buffer extending across the entire property; with the condition that -- let me see Trustee Krupski's wording. That the buffer is enhanced with salt-tolerant plantings. Board of Trustees 21 November 16, 2022 That is my motion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 6, En-Consultants on behalf of,DEBORAH L. McKEAND & SHANNON GOLDMAN for a Wetland Permit to remove and replace (in-place, with pergola above and new steps), 172sq.ft. previously roofed-over waterside deck attached to existing 1,045sq.ft. one-story dwelling (to remain with interior renovations; remove exiting 210sq.ft. slate patio and 120sq.ft. attached deck and stairs; install an A/C pad on west side of dwelling; install a 4'x8' outdoor shower enclosure (over pervious gravel bed, piped to proposed drainage system); install 1,000 gallon underground LP tank; construct 20'x22' one-story accessory detached garage; remove existing asphalt driveway and install new pervious gravel driveway (with associated fill/re-grading, 2'-4' high landscape retaining walls, and steps); replace existing conventional septic system with new I/A sanitary system (with associated fill and 4' high max. Concrete retaining wall; place approximately 480 cubic yards of clean fill to achieve proposed grades associated with proposed driveway and sanitary system; install stormwater drainage system; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 5'to 10' wide, approximately 1,035sq.ft. Non-turf buffer along the top of bluff and bank. Located: 100 Salt Marsh Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-68-3-11.1 TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Because of my personal relationship with the applicant, I'm recusing myself from this application. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Noted. The Trustees most recently visited the site on 11/9/22. Notes from this visit read: Stipulate one-to-one tree replacement, and screening the front of retaining wall. The LWRP found this project to be consistent. They make two points. One, preserve existing vegetation seaward of the house as vegetated buffer due to the insufficient setback to the top of bluff. And number two, the retaining wall should be evaluated for its impact on the neighbors. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicants. As we discussed at field inspection, the work that will occur closest to the top of bluff here is the in-place replacement of an historically existing deck on the waterside of the house. While it has been a previously roofed deck, the roof had to be removed due to storm damage last year. And the roof Board of Trustees 22 November 16, 2022 will not be replaced, rather there will be a pergola atop the deck. There are various other improvements that are proposed, including the installation of an IA sanitary stem that is being proposed in connection with interior renovations associated with the house. I did mention at field inspections obviously the other superficial exterior improvements in terms of siding. There is already the new roof on, windows, et cetera, but there is no other footprint expansion. In fact the only other structural work is actually the removal of an existing deck and stairs that is on the lake side of the house. There is a proposed accessory garage that is located just outside the 100-foot freshwater wetlands jurisdiction associated with Autumn Lake. We did talk about a couple items there. You mentioned the landscaping in terms of screening the retaining wall associated with the sanitary system, and also the one-to-one tree replacement of any trees being removed. We did submit and you should have now with you a landscape plan prepared by the applicants themselves that do show vegetated screening all around the entire concrete retaining wall, and other retaining walls associated with the proposed grading. And it also shows -- oh, I know one thing that I had to bring to your attention. So what that landscape plan shows that does not show on the plan before you is there was a decision made after the rather extensive staking that'the Trustees witnessed in the field. A desire to push that driveway entrance that is proposed along Huntington Boulevard about 20 feet to the north. Without getting into excessive details it just seems to them, based on the lay of the land and based on how lights and things from cars might be shining on the houses that are down in lower elevation,that the driveway would be better suited to be moved up. That driveway location is shown on that landscape plan, and I also have three site plans here that show that change in the driveway design. Otherwise the plan remains the same. Let me get up, I have three copies to give you. So you get at least one in front of you. I'll give these to Liz. And you can see, just in terms of where the driveway entry is, it's moved about 20 feet to the north. There is a retaining wall that is aligned with that, with the proposed garage, which actually decreases in length by about four feet. It reflects the location of a relocated utility pole, Verizon pole, and a change in the total square footage of the pervious gravel driveway from 3,273 square feet to 3,740 square feet, mostly due to some just additional gravel space next to the garage. Again that is just beyond the hundred-foot freshwater wetland jurisdiction. And then some adjustments for the locations of the storm drywells. But the drainage capacity for the drywell system remains unchanged. The grading is obviously adjusted accordingly, but the volume calculations don't change for the.fill material. So a positive that comes from the staking that they required. And Eric, just remind me, there were two -- oh, the Board of Trustees 23 November 16, 2022 one-for-one tree replacement. That is also noted on that landscape plan. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Excellent. MR. HERRMANN: So those two comments were addressed. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Just one comment that I have. I think based on the new plans and the severe slope of the site, I think it would be appropriate that if we do move forward with this application tonight, that we at least stipulate approval based on a letter of approval from the Town Engineer for drainage. MR. HERRMANN: So, that is, I don't know if that's a complicated request or not because these are both private roads, and for the work that will be done in connection with the driveway, I don't think a building permit is required. But they can certainly present the plan to the Town Engineer to look at. I just don't know whether they would comment or not. It's a little out of my bailiwick, so I'm just not sure. There is a building permit. So in terms of building permits, the one for the deck will not go in, probably, for a while. And the building permit application, you know, the Building Department is now backed up about eight weeks. So there is a building permit application pending for the garage. So, Deb, are you here? Yes. So maybe what we could do is you could present this most recently revised site plan to the building department in connection with that pending application to make sure that the engineer sees that, so that you could then satisfy what the Board is suggesting, is the request that prior to construction you just get a sign-off on the Town Engineer that the grading and the drainage that is proposed here is adequate. Am I hearing you right, Nick? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would just need some sort of-- MR. HERRMANN: Some documentation from the Town Engineer that they bless this design. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: However you go about it would be fine. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That's fine. So the other small thing that is the extent of the planting plan. I just want to note that there is one species on here that is Mexican grass. Mexican feathergrass. And we are not all botanists, but I'm pretty sure that's probably not a native species. Native to the southwest of Argentina perhaps, but not to the North Fork. I think a simple substitution will be Panicgrass, Panicum virgatum, which is similar in look and native to this area. If that's amenable to your client.. MR. HERRMANN: Or a little bluestem, or something that's native. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes. ,MR. HERRMANN: I did see that at the last second, but trying to get this in here in time, I might, it went by the wayside. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Any other questions or comments from the public? MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, Eric. MS. KRAMER: I have one comment. My name is Meryl Kramer, I'm the architect on the project, but I did not prepare the site plan. Board of Trustees 24 November 16, 2022 The engineers prepared the site plan. But the only thing I was going to say was just to, in anticipation that there is any coordination problems with the engineer, because, the town engineer, because I know there is an overload of applications right now. I'm wondering if we could get the engineer to give criteria that she used to do the calculations because I know she was very strict in how she calculated the slope to make sure that it was less than a certain percentage slope, and also to make sure that she handled the runoff properly. And there are runoff calculations there, and she did do that according to the Town standards. And I'm just wanting to make sure that we don't have a delay for the approval because of the Town's -- TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think the Engineer should be able to look at it pretty quickly. MS. KRAMER: Okay. I just wanted to offer that as an option, in case. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right, are there any other comments from the public? (Negative response). Questions, concerns, from members of the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve this application with the following conditions: One, a letter of approval from the Town Engineer about the drainage on the driveway. One-to-one tree replacement. And the planting plans showing Mexican feathergrass substituted with native species of the client's choice. And with the plans stamped November 16th, 2022, and the planting plan November 14th, 2022. And site plan 11/14/22. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 7, En-Consultants on behalf of ROBERT E. & LAURA C. JOHNSON requests a Wetland Permit to raise in-place by up to 3.3 feet (to proposed FEMA compliant FF elevation of 9' NAVD), onto piling foundation, an existing one-story, 1,113sq.ft. single-family dwelling with 76sq.ft. attached deck and 3'x6.4' steps in place of existing 3'x1.6' steps; remove existing conventional septic system and install farther from wetlands a new I/A OWTS sanitary system; backfill proposed leaching field with approximately 37 cubic yards of trucked in ratable sand in place of existing soil material, and raise grade around proposed sanitary system less than one (1) foot using on-site material and 16 cubic yards topsoil; remove existing drinking water well from potable service and install Board of Trustees 25 November 16, 2022 new public water service; install stormwater drainage system; and establish and perpetually maintain a 5 foot wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead. Located: 430 Koke Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-5-3 The Trustees most recently visited the site on November 9th, and Trustee Peeples, myself, noted that to add a non-turf from the bulkhead to the house, to increase it, and stepping back to a ten-foot non-turf buffer at the property line. Based on our conversation at the site, we received new plans stamped and dated November 14th, and that does show an expanded ten-foot wide buffer, but it also then expands 16 feet along the seaward edge of the house. The LWRP found this proposal consistent, and noted to require the 167foot buffer to be planted with native vegetation. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this application? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicant. Also, Bob Johnson, the owner, is here. - Elizabeth, I just want to make one point which is kind of an odd coincidence, but there is, on the LWRP report, the LWRP has not seen this-latest plan based on field inspection, so the description and plan they have was for a five-foot buffer. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Correct. MR. HERRMANN: So when they say they want the 16-foot buffer planted, that's a typo. It's probably a leftover from a different application, because that predates this plan, which just happens to show that the maximum width of the buffer I think is 16 feet or something like that. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: 16.2. MR. HERRMANN: Right. Anyway, on that note, we did talk about expanding what was the originally proposed five-foot non-turf buffer to a buffer that extended to the waters edge of the house, and we did give you a revised plan from Sherman Engineering showing the width of the buffer expanded from five feet to ten feet, and then tapering back to the house as,we discussed during field inspections. Otherwise, the application basically entails the raising of a FEMA non-compliant house to a FEMA-compliant elevation, removal of a conventional septic system located only 33 feet from the bulkhead, to an IA system. The leaching galleys are located more than 92 feet from the bulkhead, as far from the wetland as possible on this property. There is also a storm water drainage system proposed. So this application really brings with it a pretty substantial environmental improvement to the site, and now that the revised plans submitted to you pursuant to our discussion at field inspection, enhances that further with a wider non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. Any other questions or comments from Board of Trustees 26 November 16, 2022 the public? (No response). Any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application with the plans stamped and dated November 14th, 2022, and noting the description to be modified with the note here which has been revised to depict a ten-foot wide buffer expanding to a width approximately 16-feet along the seaward edge of the house to be raised. That is my motion. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. TRUSTEE PEEPLES. Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 8, En-Consultants on behalf of DANIEL & SUZANNE DIVINEY requests a Wetland Permit to demolish and remove existing 1,345sq.ft. two-story dwelling with attached deck, and remove existing shed; construct a new two-story, single family dwelling with a 1,516sq.ft. footprint and 341sq.ft. attached garage with 39sq.ft. concrete apron, stoop and steps beneath 92sq.ft. front roof overhang, 410sq.ft. deck (with balcony above), and 4'x4.25' steps, 123sq.ft. screened porch (with balcony above), and 4'x4.25' steps, and 112sq.ft. second-story deck/balcony; install 112sq.ft. pavers-in-sand patio, 4'x4' outdoor shower enclosure over gravel (piped to proposed drainage system), .HVAC, and buried utilities, replace existing concrete driveway with pervious gravel driveway; remove existing septic system and install new I/A OWTS sanitary system; install a stormwater drainage system; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 10 foot wide, approximately 1,385sq.ft. Vegetated buffer adjacent to the tidal wetland boundary (including existing vegetation to remain undisturbed). Located: 400 Bay Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-43-5-8 The Trustees conducted a field inspection November 9th, noting the project seemed straightforward. Awaiting plans depicting a non-disturbance buffer, and a proposed ten-foot wide non-turf buffer along the wetland line. The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is increase in structure in the FEMA flood zone is not supported by Policy 4. The structure is located in an AE elevation 6 flood zone. Structures in special flood hazard areas should be minimized to less the impact and loss from repetitive storm events. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with the condition the structures don't exceed 20% Board of Trustees 27 November 16, 2022 of the buildable lot coverage. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicant. I think the owner is also here somewhere. Sue, are you here? Sue and Dan Diviney are here. So we did talk during field inspections about the fact that the new house will actually increase the existing wetland setback by about four feet. There is an IA sanitary system proposed as far from wetlands as possible. There is a storm water drain system proposed. There is an existing shed that is currently the structure located farthest toward the Gull Pond Inlet from the road, which is to be removed. And per the Conservation Advisory Council comments, the proposed lot coverage is just under 18%. So we are below the 20%, and compliant with the Town's lot coverage limitations. We did talk onsite about a dual buffer that would include two parts. Basically all of the existing,natural vegetation between the wetlands boundary and the existing edge of lawn is to remain undisturbed, and would remain permanently established as a non-disturbance buffer, and also there was an area throughout, I would say about 75% of the property, where the lawn goes right down to natural vegetation that is located sort of it's narrowest distance from the wetland boundary before the natural vegetation and shrubs and trees comes back toward the road on the north end of the property. Which is actually almost identical to another property that we did up the road a few months ago, where we were going to add to that non-disturbance buffer a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer in place of the existing lawn. In order to depict these buffer areas, we had to have the surveyor go out and locate the existing edge of lawn, which they did. That was sent to Robert Brown, the project architect. That edge of lawn, as you can see on the plan that I just handed up to you, which is last revised November 16th by Robert I. Brown, Architect PC, shows the existing edge of lawn. It now shows the project limiting fence running around the landward edge of the existing edge of lawn. And the entire natural vegetated area between that edge of lawn and the wetland boundary is marked with the label "existing natural vegetation adjacent to wetland boundary to remain as non-disturbance buffer."Then there is a label identifying a proposed ten-foot wide, approximately 800 square-foot non-turf buffer adjacent to the that edge of lawn where we were standing and talking. So I hope you'll find the plan meets with your intent, but if not, I'm here to answer any questions. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (No response). Mr. Herrmann, can you just clarify what the inconsistency from the LWRP, about the structure in the FEMA zone? Are you Board of Trustees 28 November 16, 2022 raising it to FEMA-compliant elevations? MR. HERRMANN: The new house would of course comply with flood zone requirements, yes. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application with the new plans stamped received November 16th, 2022, that show the new ten-foot non-turf buffer as well as the non-disturbance buffer seaward of the existing edge of lawn, and also noting that the project will bring it to FEMA-compliant elevations which therefore will bring it into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 9, En-Consultants on behalf of PAUL & DEBRA LAMAIDA requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place approximately 138 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; remove and replace in-place ±10' timber return with vinyl return; and backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source. Located: 4440 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-31 The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 9th of November, and noted that a 50-foot non-disturbance buffer needs to be reestablished. Needs to delineate the edge of the non-disturbance buffer. Rest of the work looks straightforward. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent with the requirement of turbidity control. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with a non-turf buffer installed. It should also be noted that I am in receipt of new plans showing a four-foot wide access path which was discussed at work session to navigate through the non-disturbance buffer. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. I think the applicants would want to go with the ten-foot non-turf buffer-- I was rushing -- by the Conservation Advisory Council. But as we discussed there was a 50-foot non-disturbance buffer that was established by the Trustees permit back in 2002. The mature trees had never been Board of Trustees 29 November 16, 2022 removed. I think the owner had understood that. And there is not a whole lot that seems to want to grow down there, but obviously it can't be mowing in that area. So in accordance with our conversation, I have prepared a revised plan. The bulkhead replacement portion of it is the same. It's the same bulkhead, same length, same location, same height. There is no change in condition there. But I did propose a six-inch high landscape edge to be maintained along the limit of the buffer in order to create actually, you know, a firm line for compliance that the Board can verify is being adhered to or not. And the plan that I revised further to show the pathway, you'll notice I did show the pathway leading to the closest point, at the half of the boat basin that this applicant shares, and then also running along the bulkhead, um, to have a non-disturbance buffer right up to a bulkhead that is used for dockage, it seems a little unusual to me. It's almost, you know, this is 20 years ago, was probably an oversight by the agent or, you know, maybe staff when they looked at it at DEC originally. It seemed like the buffer originated with the DEC and then the Trustee permit followed. You'll have probably a foot-and-a-half to two-foot cap along the bulkhead anyway, so we are just trying to create a safe walking area along that bulkhead that you can actually get to boats. So that's why I have drawn the path the way I've drawn it. I hope that is acceptable to the Board. Remember, again, I don't know how much is going to grow right along that edge anyway, but the idea is just to keep safe access along the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this application? (No response). Or any additional comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this application with the new plans stamped received by the office November 16th, 2022, showing a six-inch high landscape edge to be maintained along the line of the non-disturbance buffer, to be planted with native grasses with a four-foot access path to and along the bulkhead. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 10, Cole Environmental Consulting on behalf of GERARD & KAREN DIFFLEY requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing dwelling, deck, driveway and curb; construct a Board of Trustees 30 November 16, 2022 new±48'6" x±61'2" two-story irregular shaped dwelling (±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 The Trustees most recently visited the site on 11/9/22. The notes from that visit read: Inhouse review, new plans show non-turf buffer seaward of proposed pool fence. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support the application because the inadequate setbacks of the proposed swimming pool and dwelling. The proposed structures are too close to the wetland boundary and not in compliance with the LWRP. Those comments were made August 10th, 2022. The LWRP, on the same day, August 10th, 2022, found this project to be consistent. Three recommendations followed. Due to- the size of the property the room needed for an IA/OWTS, even though the structure is more seaward than the existing one.. Consider requiring vegetated non-turf buffer to mitigate the shift of the structure seaward. Retain trees and existing vegetation within the buffer. And the question on everyone's mind, where will the outside shower drain. So is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MR. COLE: Chris Cole, Cole Environmental, agent for the applicant. And the homeowner is here as well. We took into consideration Trustees comments the last time around, and we increased the buffer from ten-foot to going all the way up to the pool fence. So the buffer is now approximately 20 to 30 feet and follows the natural vegetation line along the slope. We have added the sound-deadening enclosure that was requested, and according to previous Trustee comments, we've requested, noted, that all trees to be removed are going to be replaced with a one-to-one native species, and we are able to move the sanitary system further away from wetlands on the other side of the property and we are able to save some additional trees. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And the drywell as noted on the plans stamped November 4th, 2022, that drywell will contain the runoff from Board of Trustees 31 November 16, 2022 the outdoor shower. MR. COLE: Yes. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Anyone else, members of the public, wish to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve this application with the plans stamped November 4th, 2022. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. COLE: Thank you. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 11, David Bergen on behalf of BRUNO & OLIVIA ANNICQ requests a Wetland Permit to replace in-place ±31' of failing bulkhead with new vinyl sheathing bulkhead to match adjacent-bulkhead using 10" diameter pilings 8' on-center, three 6"x6" timber whalers, one inch tie-rods to helix screw backing system, and fiberglass cap; for the existing 34"x108" stairs to beach off bulkhead; relocate existing fence on south side of property to the south side property line; remove one tree and additional invasive plantings; and re-vegetate disturbed areas with native plants. Located: 1230 First Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-7-29 The Trustees most recently visited this site on November 9th, 2022, noting straightforward, stipulate all of property to remain non-turf and permeable, with the exception of the patio. At work session, a question came up regarding seeking Town Board approval for this project, since it is adjacent to Town-owned property, and we are in receipt of a letter from Town Attorney John Burke, saying that they are not opposed to the bulkhead. The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be consistent, but it pose five questions. Number one, require turbidity control. That's not a question. It's a statement. Number two, where does the outside shower drain into? Number three, what is the purpose of removing the tree. Number four, will overland access be used to construct the bulkhead. And, number five, preserve the Spartina to the north of the parcel. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application with the recommendation of retractable steps parallel to the shoreline. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? Board of Trustees 32 November 16, 2022 MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen here representing the applicants. This is this what is better known in New Suffolk as the Sugar Shack, and back when Hurricane Sandy hit, the bulkhead was replaced around two-and-a-half sides of three sides that needed bulkheading of the property. So now they are just finishing up with the replacement of the bulkhead and approximately 30 feet: And'as you noted, there is a letter, excuse me, an e-mail from the Town Attorney saying the Town Board did approve this. Regarding, I was trying to get the comments down there. The LWRP comments: Turbidity control. The majority of this is going to be above the intertidal zone,,this construction, so I'm not sure what type of turbidity control is needed since it's a majority of it is all above the intertidal zone. The tree that has to come down, that is a tree that is, I think in some of the pictures you would have seen, is wedged in between-the bulkhead and the house itself. And there is no room to perform the construction without taking that locust tree down. The interesting thing is about a third of that tree came down when a truck ran into that tree about a month ago and took the telephone pole down and took about a third of the tree down. So about a third of it is removed already. Access to this will be via the Town road end immediately adjacent to the bulkhead. And, yes, absolutely, we will do everything we can during construction to preserve the Spartina. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, thank you. Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application with the stipulation that the remainder of the property, except for the patio, remains non-turf and permeable. That is my motion. TRUSTEE PEEPLES:-Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 12, Graham Associates on behalf of 40200 MAIN, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove one (1) existing 1,000 gallon above ground diesel tank; install one (1) 12,000 gallon double wall fiberglass tank split 8,000 diesel.and 4,000 gas underground; install new leak detection system, piping, alarms, and dispenser. Located: 40200 Main Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-9-8.1 This was reviewed in the field by Trustee Sepenoski on November 8th, and he noted that it was straightforward. Board of Trustees 33 November 16, 2022 The LWRP finds this proposal to be consistent. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this application? (No response). Any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? - (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application with the plans stamped and dated September 23, 2022. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 13, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of JOHN NASTASI requests a Wetland Permit to install a 1,465sq.ft. elevated terrace with.stairs to ground; install a 519sq.ft. in-ground swimming pool; install pool enclosure fencing; install a pool drywell for backwash; and install a pool equipment area. Located: 706 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-18 The Trustees conducted a field inspection November 9th, noting straightforward. Asks for one-to-one tree replacement of the two trees being removed. The LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application because the application was incomplete. A complete review requires an updated survey and certified engineered architectural plan. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MR. CHICANOWICZ: Dave Chicanowicz, Creative Environment Design, representing Nastasi, to answer any questions. We did have,a site meeting last week and I think one of your concerns was that it wasn't on the original permit is we were requesting two trees to be removed, and we agreed to put two additional trees in place. The owner is absolutely fine with that. No problems. So if there's any other questions you might have, I would be happy 'to answer them. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sorry, with that note, we do have new plans . stamped received November 9th, 2022, that do show those two trees, two new white oak trees, two to two-and-a-half inch caliper. MR. CHICANOWICZ: Correct. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak to this application? (No response). Board of Trustees 34 November 16, 2022 Any other 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 GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application with the new plans stamped received November 9th, 2022, that do show the two new trees and the one-to-one tree replacement. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 14, Charles Thomas, Architect on behalf of BRETT O'REILLY requests a Wetland Permit to install a 20'x40' in-ground swimming pool located 597' away from the existing bulkhead at its closest point; install a grade level bluestone pool patio around the pool extending 3'0" to the west side of the pool, 3'0" on the seaward side of pool, and 10'0" on the east and.south sides of pool located 567' away from existing bulkhead at its closest point; install 4' high pool enclosure fencing around patio perimeter; install a pool drywell for backwash, and pool equipment area; demolish existing dwelling, wood decks and concrete ramp; for construction activity within 100' from the landward edge of wetlands for a proposed two-story dwelling with attached garage located 108'0" away from the bulkhead at its closet point, and seaward side porch and covered porch located 100'0" away from the bulkhead at its closest point; abandon existing sanitary system and construct new I/A OWTS system landward of dwelling. Located: 505 Lighthouse Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-6-29.1 The Board most recently visited the site on the 9th of November, recommended in the field a one-to-one tree replacement on the entire property, one to three-inch caliper; install silt fence and hay bales for construction; and they would like to see the pool drywell moved landward to be at least inline with the pool if not landward of the pool. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with pool enclosure fencing, and trees to be replanted. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. THOMAS: Good evening. Chuck Thomas, Architect. I have the homeowner here as well. So, listening to the recommendations, we are, the homeowner absolutely agrees to do a one-to-one replacement of the trees. I absolutely will slide that drywell back. I just thought it was inline, parallel with the dock, but it can slide-back without a problem. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Board of Trustees 35 November 16, 2022 MR. THOMAS: And we did have a glass pool enclosure, so it does have that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Great. Thank you. Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this application? Please approach the dais and state your name. MR. POLLARD: Fred Pollard. It's just a process question. So are the Trustees approving the pool but not the house as proposed? Just because the house is going to be more than 100 feet from the water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct. The house is outside of our jurisdiction MR. POLLARD: So this is just approval for the pool. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct. MR. POLLARD: Okay, because its interdependent to the house, if there is a change to the house plans, would they come back because the construction would to some extent impact the area control of the Trustees? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So what the Trustees typically do, if there is a house outside of our jurisdiction, but there will still be construction activity within our jurisdiction, we'll review that application and usually do an Administrative Permit, so that would have been the case except that they were applying for the separate pool and patio. So we are reviewing the pool, patio, drainage and drywell and construction activity for this property, and taking that into account, which is why we are going with the silt fence and the hay bales for a little extra support. If there are any changes, they would have to come back to us, technically, I guess, for a full wetland then. If the house were to come into our jurisdiction. If it were to go forward. If it was a change to the pool or anything in this application, it can be done during an administrative amendment. MR. POLLARD: Okay. So is who is the body that approves the proposed house construction, is that the -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Building Department. MR. POLLARD: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application or any additional comments from members of 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'll make a motion to approve this application with the stipulation of new plans that shows silt fence and hay bails, show a native, a one-to-one native hardwood tree replacement with one to three-inch caliper, and it shows drywells even or landward of the pool. That is my motion. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? Board of Trustees 36 November 16, 2022 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 15, Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc. on behalf of TREASURE ISLAND COVE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for bluff vegetation restoration consisting of removing Privet (Ligustrum vulgare) within the approximately 127 linear foot long by 115 linear foot wide (overall size is 14, 947sq.ft.) area; and where vegetation is removed various plant species will be planted including Northern Bayberry, Beach Plum, Groundsel Bush, Switchgrass, Little Bluestem Grass, and Sweetfern; this project has been presented as a phased project, applicant is to contact the area Trustee for review at the completion of each phase with supplemental plans to be submitted to the Board upon.completion of each phase; with the condition that a silt fence/hay bale line is used throughout the entire process to prevent any run-off into Dam Pond and the surrounding wetlands; a bulldozer is not used to regrade the area; and to establish,and perpetually maintain as a Non-Disturbance Buffer area the area seaward of the silt fence. Located: 14911 Route 25, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-23-1-2.9 The Trustees most recently visited the site 11/9/22, and noted inhouse review, further review planting plans at work session. The LWRP found the project to be consistent. There are a number of notes. According to the DEC Article 24 permit, required no disturbance of native vegetation. Further, a qualified ecologist shall monitor and flag any plants within the management area to avoid cutting. The plans submitted and approved by the New York State DEC cover the entire project scope and phases. It should be noted that this application adjoined by several others that follow in the public hearing. A question. Will fertilization be applied to the planted vegetation. Fertilization of the areas adjacent to marine and water bodies contributes to degradation. Question: Will irrigation be used. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. Also in receipt of a letter stating support for the . application and asking that pre-existing shrubs and trees along the property line, shared property line, not be cut. However, according to legal counsel, the Trustees cannot require the applicant to not cut that vegetation. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MR. WALKER: Tim Walker, Inter-Science. This is a project that was approved in 2019. The DEC permit is still active. The property owner's got another set of permits from the Board of Trustees and is working on that project now, and that is the impetus of finally doing this bluff restoration. There's three properties involved. I'll speak once or Board of Trustees 37 November 16, 2022 twice or three times, your prerogative. But we are removing privet and we are planting back native trees, shrubs, wild flowers and native grasses. Typically with native plants, you do put bonemeal and dehydrated cow manure in the hole when you pocket plant plant materials. But no other fertilizer is used on this type of a project. Temporary irrigation is usually kept in place for one year. It's pretty hard to keep plants alive in July and August if you don't. So our general thing is we agree to remove irrigation after a single season. Plans are then able to survive without irrigation. These planting plans were reviewed at length three years ago. We were approved in phases. The phases will be done and planted one after the other. The project should be able to be finished in one season, and then the irrigation can be removed. The project sponsor has hired summer help, landscape, who is a landscape contractor that I'm familiar with that specializes in native plants. So we think it's a good match and it will be visible from the road. And that part of the shoreline will start to look like the other parts of the shoreline around the pond. And that's it. Unless you have specific questions. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: At some point reviewing this application, I thought I saw something about deer fencing. Can you speak to whether or not there is deer fencing proposed for this area? MR. WALKER: The fencing was reviewed at length during the prior proceeding. They are building a pool house at the top of that little circle, driveway circle. And at that time, the fencing, some of the Board members were here. Jay Bredemeyer asked us to do certain things with the fence, and that is what is being installed. It should be installed as soon as they start to take privet out. It is required to be a certain fence with holes every eight feet to allow turtles and rabbits and something like that. It's part of the other permit. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKL That's where I saw it. MR. WALKER: And it's going to be maintained in that manner. I think there is one fence that is allowed to stay, and the rest of the fencing has to be removed after, again, a single season. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Single season. MR. WALKER: But that's part of the other permit. The pool house with IA system and all the other things that go with that were approved last year. That's what they are starting on. They started the demolition there, if you went to the site, that's what you see. The old barn that-was falling in, those things are starting to get rectified. So this project that was approved in 2019 is finally going ahead, and that's pretty exciting. The contractor is a local contractor that-we know well and his son plays baseball with my son, so I can ride herd on him pretty well to make sure that he behaves himself up on the Board of Trustees 38 November 16, 2022 bluff. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: It's a really iconic property and visual joy for all who pass by and enjoy that area, so. MR. WALKER: It's a nice property. If the neighbors are worried about trees and shrubs that are going to be removed, there will be trees and shrubs planted back. And they should do quite well. Better than the privet. Although the privet'grows really thick there. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: It's really thick, almost impenetrable and has no habitat value. MR. WALKER: It's the strangest bluff I have ever seen. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (No response). Members of the Board? (Negative response). Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application stipulating the irrigation to be removed after one year, deer fencing to be removed as mentioned earlier, after a deer season, i after a year, and with these plans stamped received October 6th, 2022, describing the landscaping for this particular parcel, and as per survey dated September 30th, 2022. That is my motion. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 16, Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc. on behalf of DOMELUCA, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for bluff vegetation restoration along the irregularly shaped sections of the bluff and property, specifically the 113'x68' (7,294sq.ft.) Eastern area, a 65'x75' (6,372sq.ft.) area closest to the pool, and a 41'x190' (4,741sq.ft.) area closest to the water where existing Privet (Lingustrum vulgare) is to be removed and re-vegetated using native plant species such as Northern Bayberry, Beach Plum, Groundsel Bush, Switchgrass, Little Bluestem Grass, Sweetfern and Shadbush; and the existing intact Eastern Red Cedars will be retained; and the existing intact Eastern Red Cedars will be retained; this project has been presented as a phased project, applicant is to contact the area Trustee for review at the completion of each phase with supplemental plans to be submitted to the Board upon completion of each phase; with the condition that a silt fence/hay bale line is used throughout the entire process to prevent any run-off into Dam Pond and the surrounding wetlands; a bulldozer is not used to regrade the area; and to establish and, perpetually maintain as a Non-Disturbance Buffer area, where Board of Trustees 39 November 16, 2022 only invasives can be removed. Located: 14909 Route 25, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-23-1-2.8 This is connected to the previous hearing. The Trustees most recently conducted an inhouse review on November 9th, and raised questions about the deer fencing. We are in receipt of a review from the LWRP, which found it to be consistent, with the same notes that were just mentioned, including the question about fertilization and irrigation. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. Is there anyone here wishing to speak? MR. WALKER: Jim Walker, from Inter-Science. Same presentation that I just made. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, great. Any other questions or comments? (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 with the stipulation of temporary irrigation and deer fencing to be removed after one year, with the plans stamped received in the office October 6th, 2022. And striking from the written description "where only invasives can be removed." That is my motion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 17, Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc. on behalf of DOMELUCA II, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for bluff vegetation restoration along the irregularly shaped sections of the 36'x94' (2,837sq.ft.) northern area and 326'x95' (48,770sq.ft.) shoreline area consisting of removing Privet (Ligustrum vulgure), and within the areas where vegetation is removed various plant species will be planted including Swamp Red Maple, Scarlet Oak, Eastern Red Cedar, Northern Arrowwood, Northern Bayberry, Beach Plum, Inkberry, Groundsel Bush, Switchgrass, Little Bluestem Grass, Sweetfern and Shadbush; and the existing Eastern Red Cedars will be retained; this project has been presented as a phased project, applicant is to contact the area Trustee for review at the completion of each phase with supplemental plans to be submitted to the Board upon completion of each phase; with the condition that a silt fence/hay bale line is used throughout the entire process to prevent any run-off into Dam Pond and the surrounding wetlands; a bulldozer is not used to regrade the area; and to establish and perpetually maintain as a Non-Disturbance Buffer area the area seaward of the silt fence. Located: 14895 Route 25, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-23-1-2.10 The Trustees most recently had an inhouse review of this Board of Trustees 40 November 16, 2022 application on November 9th, and noted will further review plans at work session. The LWRP resolved this proposal to be consistent, with the same notes. This application is connected with number 16 and number 15, the two previous hearings, with the same notes that there is a DEC permit issue, and will fertilization be applied to planted vegetation, and will irrigation be used. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. And we have plans stamped and dated October 6th, 2022. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in regard to this application? MR. WALKER: Jim Walker, from Inter-Science. Same presentation. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. Anyone else? (No response). Any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I'll make a motion to approve this application with the stipulation that there is no use of,fertilization and that the removal of the deer fence and irrigation after one year. That is my motion. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. WALKER: Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 18, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of MATTHEW GLASSMAN &TRACY HELLER requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling, foundation, decks, patios, walkways, pond, sanitary system, etc. And remove all debris from site; fill all voids left with 30 cubic yards of clean granular fill from upland sources; topsoil and seed entire work limits and install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer area along the landward side of the top crest of the bluff. Located: 3450 Private Road #13, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-105-1-4 The Trustees conducted field inspection November 9th, noting straightforward demo with no rebuild, to increase the width of the proposed non-turf buffer. The LWRP found this be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. We are in receipt of new plans stamped received November 14th, 2022 that show a 25-foot wide vegetated non-turf buffer along the top of the bluff. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, any questions, I would be happy to Board of Trustees 41 November 16, 2022. answer. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I make a motion to approve this application with the plans . stamped received November 14th 2022, that have a 25-foot vegetated non-turf buffer at the top of the bluff. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 19, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of MIKHAIL &JENNIFER RAKHMANINE requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing 22'x22' detached garage, concrete patio, and portions of driveway; demolition (project meets Town Code definition of demolition) and reconstruction of existing 40.2'x44.2' one-story dwelling and construct a 14.5'x27.4' one-story addition attached to existing dwelling and new 21.5'x31.3' two-story addition connected to new 21.5'x22.4' two-car garage; proposed 21.5'x13' rear patio and 5'x14.5' front patio; abandon existing rear yard sanitary system and install an I/A low-nitrogen sanitary system in the front yard. Located: 685 Bungalow Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-3-9 The Trustees most recently visited this site on the 9th of November, noted that there are gutters, leaders to drywells'on the plan, and a one-to-one tree replacement should be required. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application and recommended a permeable patio. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. The client has no problem with doing a one-to-one tree replacement for any trees removed during the project, and a permeable patio is also agreed upon, if that's a condition to the permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this application, or any comments from the Board? (No response). I'm going to personally avoid the permeable patio, I think that's a dangerous term because I don't know if-- a permeable patio is pretty hard to come up with. So I think in this case, based on our observations, we are far enough away from the wetland that do not require a permeable patio, or storm water mitigation, which was already done with the buffer with the Board of Trustees 42 November 16, 2022 prior work of this project. To repeat, is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Hearing no additional comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application with new plans showing a one-to-one tree replacement of native hardwood. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We'll take a five-minute recess. (After a brief recess, these proceedings continue as follows). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All right, we are back on the record. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 20, 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) dauphin piling. Located: 1475 Waterview Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-7-20 The Trustees on 11/9/22, filled out a field inspection report, noted inhouse review. Will review new plans at work session. The LWRP, on September 12th, found the project to be inconsistent. The applicant has not demonstrated the following dock standards pursuant to 275-11. Construction and operation standards have not been met. The pier line is not shown. The plans are deficient. The CAC resolved to support the application, but there is concern with the depth of water and size of the vessel. Since those comments were made the Trustees have been in receipt of new plans stamped November 4th, 2022, and the plans demonstrate a significant reduction in the size of the dock. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. Yes, there is. I think it went from 162 feet to 48, if I remember correctly. Although I'll point out the disparity between the fact the.,DEC approved 162 feet. One of these days we may be able to work in concert, but I doubt it. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Not with that much disparity. MR. KIMACK: I think the recommendation, I never thought he would Board of Trustees 43 November 16, 2022 try to move it, but the 18-inch depth seems to be fairly consistent with some distance. So I pulled the design back so, as close to the shoreline as possible. It only goes out, I think 48 feet, and then the rest of it is for the boat in front of it. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay. MR. KIMACK: And it's a fixed dock. Obviously it does not meet the requirements that you have. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: A quick question about the access path. We noted that it was much wider than normal four-foot access path. MR. KIMACK: Yes, the DEC pointed that out, too, basically, they like five feet, you guys like four feet. So, we don't mind. It's all phragmites. The crazy thing about it is I could put in a requirement for us to cut it but I think we can lower it back to four feet. If you want to make a condition on that. If you.look back on the old aerials, they let that phragmites grow probably 100 more feet landward than originally. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: It's a very deep yard, yes. Any other comments from the public? (No response). Comments concerns from the Board? TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I just want to mention, I noted the height of the dock is over eight feet, I believe. I don't have it in front of me. And that was based on the DEC -- MR. KIMACK: Yes, the DEC likes to see four foot underneath the wetland portion, primarily, to the bottom of the --then I drop it down, basically, to 5.5. Because I found that particular height is good to be able to get into boat for both the high water mark and low water mark, primarily, based upon where most boats sit in terms of the depth of water, where the gunwales actually sit, you can get into it, you are not that far down. But I have to start high, and then you'll see it slopes down. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I did notice that. If there is any way to minimize that height. MR. KIMACK: Not according to DEC. And I shaved 120 feet off. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: You did, and we do appreciate that. Thank you. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Any other comments or concerns from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this application stipulating that the four-foot wide access path be re-established by allowing the vegetation around it to grow back, and noting that the plans stamped received November 4th, 2022, bring the LWRP into consistency. That is my motion. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. (ALL AYES). MR. KIMACK: Thank you. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 21, Michael Kimack on behalf of SATWANT Board of Trustees 44 November 16, 2022 NARULA requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing wood bulkhead, dead men and stairs to beach; install new 112 linear foot long vinyl bulkhead in place and a same height as existing with the exception of the easterly side that will be relocated (10 linear foot and 6 linear foot section) to allow for the proposed cantilevered triangular landing with 12sq.ft. Stairs to beach to be within property line; and to install and perpetually. maintain a 10'wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead. Located: 1195 Watersedge Way, Southold. SCTM# 1000-88-5-66 Mike The Trustees most recently visited the site on November 9th, 2022, noting to maintain plus replant 30 linear feet of vegetation landward of bulkhead at ten feet deep, and remaining to be non-turf. The LWRP reviewed this application and found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with steps parallel to the shoreline. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. I apologize, I finally got the new drawing in that would reflect that putting back the American beach grass today. You've got that. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I should have noted that. We received that November 16th. Today. MR. KIMACK: And I believe that's what you were looking for. Any other questions I would be glad to answer them. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Are there any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Okay, 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 with the stipulation that at least 330 square feet of the non-turf buffer remains American beach grass. That is my motion. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 22, Michael Kimack on behalf of JACQUELINE HOLLANDER requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built 170.64sq.ft. deck with stairs to ground; as-built hot tub on top of 78sq.ft. deck; remove existing septic system in accordance with Suffolk County Health Dept. Standards and install an VA OWTS system; install Geomat disposal trenches to serve both the Board of Trustees 45 November 16, 2022 primary residence and accessory building apartment; and for the existing 8'x12' shed. Located: 485 Old Wood Path, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-1-4 J The Trustees most recently visited the site on September 11th, and noted that the new updated plan with the IA trench to be submitted. I believe that was actually November 9th. Not September 11th. MR. KIMACK: That is correct. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: 11/9, not 9/11. Okay. So November 9th. Noted that the receipt of the new plans updated with IA trench to be permitted. The LWRP found this consistent and inconsistent. So the proposed upgraded sanitary system is consistent with the LWRP policies and with the LWRP. And the as-built structures are recommended as inconsistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. We were also in receipt of a few letters from neighbors. One received on November 16th, noting that we believe the approved septic system she is proposal to install on the property will be much improved and better for the environment. One received on November 15th, also in support of the new septic system in accordance with state and local regulations. And one received on November 10th, in support of this application to preserve our precious wetlands. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this application? MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. I apologize, I have not been able to get the new survey moving it up. I had sent it out to be, what a surprise, but I should be getting it soon, to locate it further uphill. And I wanted to put the distance on it also. To the inconsistency, the deck and the hot tub were there, they have been there for some time, when they bought the place, and it is landward of where the new line is going anyway. The new line is cutting down below it. For the pump. This is a pressure system from the IA, so that will be feeding into both of those trenches. It's almost like a balancing system, which I'm very familiar with. We see them a lot in Vermont. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, anyone else here wishing to speak in regard to this application? MS. WRIGHT: Shannon Wright, for the Conservation Advisory Council. Just the only thing in our notes was that they requested Dark Skies Compliant lighting around the patio. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, for bringing that to my attention. So the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application and they did want to note that they support the application with Dark Skies Compliant lighting around the patio. Thank you, very much. Anyone else? Any other questions or comments from the Board? (No response). Board of Trustees 46 November 16, 2022 Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just one quick comment. Dark Skies lighting is the law of the Town. Dark Skies Compliant lighting. So in effect all of the approvals that we make must be Dark Skies compliant. So I just wanted to note that. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I second the motion. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL YES). TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application with the condition of receipt of updated plans showing the landward movement of the IA sanitary system that is not underneath the shed, and then also I wanted to note that with the net gain of the IA/OWTS sanitary system and the Trustees granting the permit therefore bring it into consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. KIMACK: Thank you, very much. Have an enjoyable evening. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: You, as well. Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 23, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of JDK EAST ROAD, LLC, c/o JASON KOFINAS requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built 10'x12' shed with outdoor shower and 4'x4' platform located 5'from top of bank; as-built 9'xl 4'x9'xl 8' wood platform on-grade and landward of bulkhead/retaining wall; as-built 20'x20' wood retaining wall with 22'x20' play area with foam squares on-grade; as-built 6'x4' window well; as-built 4' high fencing and evergreens along top of bank; and as-built 15'x13' oblong patio on-grade. Located: 500 East Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-110-7-18.3 The Trustees conducted a field inspection November 9th, 2022, noting that some of the illegal structures on the site should be removed. The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies are the as-built outdoor shower and four4'x4' platform and other structures are inconsistent with Policy 6.3. The Drainage of the shower is unknown and inconsistent with Policy 4. The deck associated with the stairs is non-compliant with Policy 4. The structure is within a FEMA VE flood zone. The threat of waves with velocity during storms could result in repetitive loss. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application, however recommends removal of the existing shed located near the top of the bank, and out of compliance with setbacks as set forth in Chapter 275, and the lower deck should be reduced to no larger than 100 square-feet. " We also have a letter in the file here that has been reviewed. I'm not going to read the whole thing, from neighbors Louis and Sarah Gicale objecting to the project. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this Board of Trustees 47 November 16, 2022 application? MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore, on behalf of the applicant. This is Mrs. Kofinas, the grandma, is here helping me on behalf of the owners. And the neighbors that sent the letter are here as well. We had an opportunity to speak. Absolutely agree, the shed does not belong there. So that, right off the bat, the shed will be removed from its location. We have to figure out, if they are going to have a shed, where it can go, because it's, the placement of the shed is a little awkward because it's not supposed to be in the side yard, it can't be in the front yard. Well, it could be in the front yard but then it needs a front yard setback. Zoning placement of the shed is going to be an issue. I just don't know where ultimately it's going to be placed. So that issue is, as far as we are concerned, resolved. We apologize. It went there and shouldn't have gone there, and they learned. I tried to get an explanation, the outdoor shower. It's actually, he's got very young children. He's got a three-year old and an 18-month old. And the shower is just a platform with an outside shower, and they use it on, you know, sporadic, to rinse off the kids and that's it. It has no drainage, it's a passive outdoor shower. A little more elaborate than a hose. So that's that little platform that is to the seaward side of the shed. As to the deck down at the bottom, the code does allow a platform not exceeding 200-square feet under 275-11(b). In fact the size of this is 125 square feet because they used the bulkhead as the attachment. And they would have started at 100, but then it would have been in the sand, nothing to attach it to. So it was actually modified to make it sit along the edge of the existing bulkhead. So that is why it's the size it is, and we hope that that would, you would find that to be approvable. It is, again, it's an on-grade platform they use to sit on and watch the kids. We are in Justice Court, we have to get permits for everything before we return to Justice Court. So the Court has given us time to come before the Board to resolve all the issues. The only other thing is the playground area, but the Town does not.consider that a structure. They didn't realize it was as close as it was to the top of the bluff. It's, the only thing, it's the retaining walls are too close to the bluff as far as closer than 100 feet, but it's purely a playground area. So I think you saw that and you see pictures of it as well. The staircase was existing since the '80s, or at least my understanding is it was built by the prior owner, and it may have gone in there, from what I can tell, from the '80s. But the house was built in 1985-86, and when the house was built, the owner at the time put stairs down to the beach. So those, you could tell from the look of the stairs that Board of Trustees 48 November 16, 2022 they are the original stairs with just some repairs, boards that have been repaired over time. The property does have a very nice vegetated buffer at the top of the bank, the landscaping is very nice, it's very clean, and they would just ask that the Board approve what, you know, remains there, with the understanding that we will remove the shed as soon as we get somebody in to actually pick it up and move it. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Just one quick question. We don't have anything with the stairs in this description. MS. MOORE: I thought there was a permit for it but when I went looking today for it, I didn't see it. So I don't know if I saw it, I didn't print it, or it's not there. I usually, if I don't see a permit, I include it in the permit. If it's not too late, I would include it at this point. I'll give you the amended description, but if not, I'll amend the description to include it. I just don't have it memorized. I did this too long ago. It's been two months. So I just don't recall if there is a permit, an original permit for this. It probably, it was built in the '80s, it would not have been a permit required. That's my memory of the code. I defer to whatever you prefer. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? MR. GICALE: My name is Louis Gicale. This is my wife Sarah is here. We own the property adjacent at 160 East Road, which is west of the property, and we submitted that letter and opposed to that shed, and they indicated they are taking it down, so we're fine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, sir. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve the as-built 20'x20' wood retaining wall with 22'x20' play area with foam squares on-grade; the as-built 6'x4' window well; the as-built 15'x13' oblong patio; the existing stairs with new plans submitted showing the stairs and the dimensions; with the condition to remove the as-built 10'x12' shed with outdoor shower; and a 4'x4' platform located five feet from the top of the bank; the as-built 9'x14'x9'x18' wood platform on-grade and landward of the bulkhead retaining wall; and the as-built 4' high fence along.the top of the bank. And I also make a motion to deny the as-built 10'x12' shed without outdoor shower and 4'x4' platform located five feet from the top of the bank; the as-built 9'x14'x9'x18' wood platform Board of Trustees 49 November 16, 2022 on-grade and landward of bulkhead retaining wall; and the as-built 4' high fence along the top of the bank, thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. MOORE: There is no 4' high fence. It's a 2' high fence along the top. It was 2' high. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The hearing is closed. That's what it says on the description. But regardless, we did remove it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 24, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of CAROLYN &JOSEPH FERRARA requests a Wetland Permit for a proposed 3'x36' fixed dock consisting of 4"x8" pilings with 4"x8" caps (CCA), 4"x8" (CCA) stringers, and open grade style decking within the area of a private mooring lot and adjacent to bulkhead; and to install a 4' wide path to the road. Located: Property Off of Osprey Nest Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-7-1 The Trustees most recently visited the property and noted it was not staked. There were concerns over the neighbor's right-of-way, concerns with navigation hazards. The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The safe navigation of vessels needs to be further evaluated. In 1957 when the mooring laws were created the number and size of vessels would have been different from those today. Stakes were used to moor vessels. The owner would pull them into shore to board. The Conservation Advisory Council did not support the application due to the concerns of navigation around other docking facilities. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore, on behalf of the applicant Ferrara. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry. Can I interrupt you for one second. It should also be noted that I'm in receipt of some documentation that has been reviewed by the Law Offices of Wickham, Bressler& Geasa, specifically from Mr. Bressler, and has been reviewed against this application for the neighbor. Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MS. MOORE: Just to get us started, I have Mrs. Ferrara here. I also have William Moore, he's going to present the legal issues. He's my legal scholar. This application began some time ago. Is there a problem? MS. HULSE: It's just what you submitted is not timely. MS. MOORE: We are going to continue this hearing, I'm sure. MS. HULSE: Oh, okay. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean this is not timely either. That's yesterday. Okay, please continue. Board of Trustees 50 November 16, 2022 MS. MOORE: We are just going to be creating a record at this point anyway, so. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe. MS. MOORE: To begin with, this application began with a pre-submission inspection. It was done when Mr. Bredemeyer was on the Board. He came out, he met with Mr. Costello, who did the design plans for this. And as far as he could determine, he thought it was certainly an approvable application. So they proceeded to prepare the application that is, that actually was previously filed. The original application had the dock, as you recall, centered, and it was a fixed dock. We are dealing with the issues that the docks that are existing, I would dispute the conclusions, I don't know who made the conclusions of the size of the boats and things like that. The size of the boats, a certain size fits at this water body. It's a private marina, and the creation of the subdivision and the mooring parcels were designed very similar to a marina would be designed with slips. And that the intention of the development of this property and how it's been developed, beginning with the Town Board, a legislative body who gave you the jurisdiction to act on wetland permits, the Town Board issued the original wetland permits for the docks. Thereafter, the Town Board delegated the authority to this Board, and this Board has continued to issue wetland permits for the docks that are there. Mr. and Mrs. Ferrara are the last man standing. They are the last ones to come in. But that does not mean that they don't have a right, riparian rights and legal rights to put a dock on this property. The size of the boat that we are looking at for this property would be just a small 19-foot Boston Whaler that fits very easily within the design that Costello, Jack Costello, designed and was submitted to you for this application. Prior to this application, Mr. Ferrara met with the neighbors to the east, Fitzgerald and Chicarian (sic), I don't know how to pronounce his name, but anyway, the two owners. And they measured everything, they looked at it all, and they ultimately agreed on the placement of the dock that is before you at this point, which is moved over toward the east, giving the maximum separation to the Cooper property, and to the Cooper's dock. So, the plan that is before you has been very carefully considered, measured, with the input from the neighbor to the east. My clients tried to reach Mr. Cooper, was unsuccessful, did not get a return phone call. We actually tried through other channels to try to reach Mr. Cooper, unsuccessfully. Not me, obviously, we can't communicate directly. But there was an attempt to speak to Mr. Cooper and try to work this out. The bottom line is the Trustees want fairness. You don't want to be thrown into the middle of a fight. We understand that. Board of Trustees 51 November 16, 2022 Although they have been here, the Trustees have had to be in the middle of this fight many years ago. In the '80s, when the Israel family went to put a dock in, it was discovered that the docks had been shifting over the years, and many of the docks that were in place did not follow, did not meet the design that the permit showed. So ultimately, I believe it was Jim. King was the Trustee, the president at the time, and he sent a letter out to all the owners of the mooring lots, and said, hey, you know, go back, fix your docks, put them in the places that we approve, make sure that they are in their proper location. Ultimately, it all got resolved, the Israel family was able to put their dock in and life went on. MS. HULSE: Do you have a copies of that, those locations you are referencing? Because it's not in the file. MS. MOORE: The Jim King letter? MS. HULSE: Yes. MS. MOORE: It was in the Town's records. MS. HULSE: Right. But did you make it part of this file for this Board to consider? MS. MOORE: I can. I can provide it. That's not a problem. I mean, it's a Town record, so I'm taking -- MS. HULSE: It doesn't mean it's in the Trustee file that this Board is considering. There is a lot of things in the Town record that this Board doesn't consider as part of the public hearing. MS. MOORE: I'm more than happy to provide it. So, if there is anything else that you feel, if you want, you know, if anything comes up and you need additional information, we are certainly interested in providing it. So I'll get the King This was -- all of the communications regarding that, the dock, was associated with the Israel application, and it was historic surveys that were done of all of the docks and where they were located. So there is a lot of information in that file, and I'll make that file available for the Board so that you can see the history and how the Trustees intervened and the- property owners were able to get the docks. Again, the proposal we have before you is a three-foot wide fixed dock. That is really the minimum. Four feet is allowed. We are asking for three. A float is allowed. 6x20 is the standard float. Most if not all of the docks that are in place have floats. We are not asking for a float. We are asking for a fixed dock. All of this to accommodate one property owner who has a six-foot wide,by.I 'believe it's 40-foot long float. Dock, excuse me. Dock and float. Yes, we acknowledge that the permit was issued back in the 70s, but the point is that the Trustees retained jurisdiction, and if it's found that there's problems and issues of navigability, the Trustees retain that authority. Because Mr. Cooper's dock, its placement is based on'the proprietary rights of the Trustees, and the regulatory authority Board of Trustees 52 November 16, 2022 you have. The mooring lots are privately owned. They are individual properties, and it would be no different than a marina that owns the underwater land. In this case, the subdivision created these mooring lots where the individual property owners, by virtue of their upland ownership of properties, own the water called the mooring lots. By "mooring lots" it doesn't mean they are just entitled to a mooring. That's just the terminology that was used, clearly, because that was an issue that was thrown out in one of the letters. Oh, it's a mooring lot that means they can only have moorings. No, that's just a terminology. And since the beginning, again, the Town Board and the Trustees, have always issued docks on these properties. Not limiting it to moorings. So at this point you have a lot of the information already in your file. I'm going to ask Bill to step up and discuss the legal issues. MS. MOORE: Thank you. Bill Moore, I'm working with Pat. Nice to see you folks. I usually hide behind the scenes and stay in my office and don't show up in public very often. So it's nice to climb out from my dark spot and see you all. The simple point I want to make this evening is that we acknowledge a couple of basic principles, which are waterfront property owners and owners of underwater land have riparian rights. And they have the right to exercise those rights. An issue then comes to how do you to it in a reasonable and fair fashion. I submit to you it's not for the Board to-say no, no, no, you can't do it because of what we have done around here. We have to find a way to do it. State regulations are referenced in Mr. Bressler's letter, they are referenced in Pat's submission. We have given you copies of those. And they talk about any number of ways in which navigable waters and the riparian rights of upland owners are adjusted and allocated fairly. The most important thing is it's done fairly. It's not done in a way to foreclose or shut off and prohibit someone from using riparian rights. Now, if'I was Counsel to the Board] would say please, please, please, find a way to allocate the resource fairly. Pat made reference to the fact that the permits you issue include the ability, and I think it's condition number seven in the Cooper permit, that is the standard printed condition, when circumstances are such that navigable issues arise, the Trustees reserve the right to then go back to the permit holder, you've -got to fix this, you've got to change this. We've got to move things, it's not working. It's not to say to the last person on the block, as Pat said, sorry, circumstances are such you don't get to use it. You own the underwater land. You are the last person on the block. You don't get to have a dock. You don't get to have access to the water. Board of Trustees 53 November 16, 2022 She pointed out that they worked with their neighbors to the east, moving this dock clearly to one side. We would love to work with Mr. Cooper and his representative and say how do you adjust and how do you navigate this thing. This dock has been there for 50 years. I have not been there to see what its condition is. But the invitation is there to resolve this in a manner that this Board can grant a permit for a dock. Because no drawings reflect the effort to utilize the methodology that the state lays out in its regulations. The regulations state, by the way, it's not any one way. It can be any one of these, all of these, or a combination of them. And this is where reasonable people go out and say what are the circumstances, in this case you have a bowed waterfront. That requires adjustment. That requires computation and some flagging of analysis to show what can be done there. But it can be done. It's not for the Board to sit there and say no, you can't get there, there is no way. It can be done. Unfortunately, Mr. Costello couldn't be here. Family conflict. We would love to have him explain how the drawing came to be. But in this submission, that you've had already, we just repeated it, and Pat included it here, are the various drawings of Costello Marine, using the Fox survey, showing that in this case Ferrara owns the underwater land, and we are willing to say you can use it. They've got riparian rights and we've got to find a solution to that. MS. HULSE: Bill, I have a question for you. Is it your position that the adjacent owners' docks are located in accordance with their permits? MR. MOORE: That's a great question. It does not appear, I'm not a surveyor, this is something that has to be examined. It does not appear the Cooper dock is where it was originally permitted. It's a question as far as the utilization of the east side of the Cooper dock and the west side of the Cooper dock. A photograph was submitted showing a dock, a boat tied to the east side of Cooper dock as a justification saying, well, there is no way in the world Ferrara could put a dock in between their dock and the folks to the east. There are questions about how often that boat is actually there on the east side, but the offer stands to talk with Mr. Cooper and his representatives to say how do we resolve a fair utilization of a shared resource. It's not all or none. It's not a zero sum gain. And Pat expects, we do request, that the hearing be continued so we can get Mr. Costello in and explain those drawings to see if we cannot work with you to fairly allocate this resource. MS. HULSE: Do you feel you've exhausted the communications with the neighbors to the extent that you made attempts and that you have not been able to reach -- MR. MOORE: No, with Mr. Bressler here present, and we present. Board of Trustees 54 November 16, 2022 As Pat mentioned we have no ability to speak with Mr. Cooper directly. We can with Mr. Bressler. MS. HULSE. That's my question. MS. MOORE: Yes, we'd love to. MR. MOORE: Yes, we would love to do that. MS. HULSE: But it hasn't been done yet. MR. MOORE: It has not been done yet. We are extending that invitation. MS. HULSE: That would seem to be the obvious, attorney to attorney to attorney progression -- MR. MOORE: I agree. Thank you. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I like to see lawyers working as peacekeepers. That's their original intent. MS. MOORE: We try. MR. BRESSLER: Members of the Board, esteemed counsel and others. I'm here on behalf of the neighbor to the west. Robert Cooper. I was here once before, virtually, on the original application, and we filed objections. Now, several years later, they're back, and I have filed objections again. We think that our objections are well founded. If you look at what is shown.there, what you see is a uniform, more or Less -- if you can hear me without the mic. I thought so. Okay -- if you look at this, you see a more or less uniform development here. There is no more room for any docks there, There aren't. Other people along there have shared. Our dock has been there for more than 50 years. Contrary to the suggestion in Counsel's letter, it has not moved. Not one inch. My client is here, he confirms that. That dock has been there. It was legally put there. It was properly put there. And it is within the area of our foreshore. Now, when this application was originally made, and I say originally, I mean this one, but it applied equally to the earlier one, there was no discussion whatsoever of the issue that we heard about tonight, which is a division of the offshore areas and the extension of the property line between our lot and their I don't know what you want to call it. Their little 20 foot piece of whatever it is there. Okay? And we fully documented the two theories by which that could.be allocated. Now, for the first'time tonight, not surprisingly, I was handed a sheaf of paperwork, which for the first time the applicant purports to address that issue. I gave it a quick look. And my first request is, I would certainly like an opportunity to respond because I think it's inaccurate. So one of the issues that the Board has to confront is what about that. Just looking at this picture, it looks like the thread of the stream goes this way. Draw a line down there, to the thread of the stream. We also understand what I mean by the thread "of the stream," right? The center line of the stream of the body the water as it generally moves from one area to another, which would be something that looks like that. Which means the line perpendicular would look something like that. Board of Trustees 55 November 16, 2022 Now, I only looked briefly, but I didn't see anything in their paperwork that disputes that application. So, in the first instance, based upon the allocation, I don't think they've got anything. But I would like an opportunity to respond to that. Secondly, I would like to respond to the suggestion that my client refused to respond. He didn't refuse to respond. He was never even contacted. The most that we can tell is somebody reached out to his son, who is in the Merchant Marine, who said I can't talk to you, I'm shipping out. Nobody ever talked to this guy. It just didn't happen. An apropos question for the Board. Nobody ever talked to me. That prior application had been pending for two years. My opposition was in there. Not one phone call. Not one letter. Nothing. Of course we are always willing to talk, but I want to set the record straight. Nobody made an effort here. Okay, so, now we've got the troublesome matter of the Trustees own regulations as to where these docks ought to be. Our dock is in the right place, 15 feet away from the property line. Just where it's supposed to be. Now, I'm cognizant of the fact that due to these little peanut pieces of property, this creates a problem. Were the Trustees to have applied that regulation uniformly, nobody would have anything. Because it couldn't be done. So I think what happened here, although I'm not privy to those cases, but looking at the aerial, what it appears to me happened, was these people got together and they reached an accommodation, because many of these docks are common docks, as they have to be when you only have that small piece of property, which was denoted for mooring. And we all know the difference between a mooring and a dock. And that is what they did. Has the applicant exhausted that avenue? The applicant sayeth not. That is the solution here. How many of these little mooring lots are there? 20? But there certainly is not one for every lot. So that's another possible solution. Now, let's talk about the issue of riparian rights. The proposition has been advanced, at least the way I heard it, that there is an absolute right to this and you folks have to find a way to give them this dock. That is absolutely false. Everybody knows, and I can certainly provide you the case law given the opportunity, everybody knows that this Board and the DEC have the right to regulate. And I'm sure everybody is aware of the fact that DEC many times goes in and says no dock. You have to have a mooring. Or you can get out to water, you pull your dinghy up on the foreshore. A case in the eastern district of New York decided by Judge Hurley, affirmed by the second circuit, found that the DEC is replete with decisions like that. So the choice for you is not to carve this out or necessarily grant a dock. The choice for you is among a series Board of Trustees 56 November 16, 2022 of alternatives. Can they share? Do they have to pull up something on their sand and attach it to the bulkhead?There's lots of different ways to skin the cat here. But one of the ways not to skin the cat is doing what they proposed. Because their proposal, as everybody pointed out: The Trustees report, CAC, LWRP. Their plan does not work. Aside from that, we have been there a long time, and that gives rise to another whole panoply of legal issues, okay? We are not the problem to navigation here. They are going to create the problem for navigation here. That is what is going on here. So, in short, I would like the opportunity to address what I looked at for the first time tonight. Like I said, I'm a little distressed that I was not presented at any time on the first application. It was not addressed on this application until I raised the issue. So I think it's only fair that we be given a shot at what we are looking at for the first time. I would also undertake that if the applicant's attorneys are amenable, we are always amenable to talk. Always. Some of you know that personally. MS. HULSE: I was going to say that. MR. BRESSLER: Yes. We are always amenable to talk. Like I said, I don't know where they were two years ago, I don't know where they were before they came back and they filed this. I would have gone. They knew who I was. I would have gone to me. As distasteful as that might have been to them. And so let's sit down and have a conversation about this. MS. HULSE: It sounds like both attorneys have made that point tonight. MR. BRESSLER: Yes. So, you know, regardless of the timing, um, yes, I'm willing to do this. I don't think the Board should make any decision on this. I think it should be adjourned. I respectfully ask for an ability to respond to what I was just handed tonight against the possibility that we don't reach some sort of an agreement. Which, by the way, is subject to your approval in any event. You know. So, that's what I have to say tonight. So the requests are adjourn it, give me an opportunity to respond, and in return I will undertake to speak. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak regarding this application? (No response). Just for clarification of the record, Ms. Moore, as you were originally carrying the application, you were requesting to table? MS. MOORE: Yes, we had. We understood. Absolutely. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just clarifying the record. Thank you. MS. MOORE: Yes. I mean there is a lot of information. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I hope everyone can get in a room together and . t Board of Trustees 57 November 16, 2022 come up with a solution. We mentioned skinning a cat, but if we have to split the baby, so be it. That being said, I make a motion to table at the applicant's request. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make the motion for adjournment. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). ,Respectfully submitted by, Glenn Goldsmith, President Board of Trustees