HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-01/18/2023 ��
Glenn Goldsmith,President Town Hall Annex� �' ��,
A. Nicholas Krupski,Vice President ¢ 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski , i Southold,New York 11971
Liz Gillooly
Telephone(631) 765-1892
Elizabeth Peeples Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes �n „
;
Wednesday, January 18, 2023 I '
5:30 PM F E S 1 6 2023
Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President
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
January 18th,-2023, meeting. At this time I would like to call the meeting
to order and ask that you please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance is recited).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 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 pro bono attorney to the Board, Lori Hulse, and Senior
Clerk Typist Elizabeth Cantrell. Also with us tonight we've got
court stenographer Wayne Galante, and from the Conservation
Advisory Council we have Carol Brown.
Agendas for tonight's meeting are posted in the hall and
also on the Town's website. We do have a number of postponements
for tonight. Postponements are in the agenda, on page four,
number 4, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of
FOUNDERS LANDING BOAT YARD, LLC requests an Amendment to
Wetland Permit#8666 for the as-built 68' long solid splashboard system
under the offshore fixed finger pier.
Located: 2700 Hobart Road & 1000 Terry Lane, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-64-3-10 & 1000-64-3-11
On page five:
Number 4, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of
J. GEDDES PARSONS requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Board of Trustees 2 January 18, 2023
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 secure_d by sixteen (16) piles; install a
------- -- --
4'x16'adjustable ramp; and install an 8'x18.5'floating dock-
situated in an "I" configuration and secured by four(4) piles;
and to replace the five (5) existing tie-off piles as needed.
Located: 515 Sterling Street, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-9-3.1
Number 5, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of
W. HARBOR BUNGALOW, LLC, c/o CRAIG SCHULTZ requests
a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the existing
6.5'x53' fixed dock with a 11'x11' fixed portion in an "L" configuration;
existing 3.5'x12' ramp and existing 8'x20' floating dock; the
6.5'x53'fixed dock and 11'x11' fixed portion in the "L"
configuration to remain; remove existing ramp, float and two
piles and install a new 4'x20' ramp with rails and an 8'x18'
floating dock situated in an "I" configuration secured by four
piles; and to install four tie-off piles.
Located: 371 Hedge Street, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-7-18
On page eight, numbers ten through 13, listed as follows:
Number 10, 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 wood retaining wall
all seaward of dwelling; remove existing cesspool and install a
new I/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
Number 11, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of CAROLYN &
JOSEPH FERRARA requests a Wetland Permit for a proposed 3'x36'
Board of Trustees 3 January 18, 2023
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 toy
install a 4' wide path to the road.
Located: Property Off of Osprey Nest Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-7-1
Number 12, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of LAWRENCE
KAPLAN & DENISE BLESI-KAPLAN'requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a proposed 465sq.ft. seaward side wood deck with steps
to ground; a proposed 453sq.ft. in-ground swimming pool; a
proposed 1,315sq.ft. permeable precast concrete pool patio
around the pool using a "hydroPAVERS" system; install 4' high
code compliant pool enclosure fencing with gates; install a pool
drywell for pool backwash; install a pool equipment area;
replace existing 185sq.ft. of concrete/bluestone walkway from
the pool patio to the water; replace existing 87sq.ft. of
concrete/bluestone walkway with new permeable precast•concrete
system from patio to rear basement stairs and new concrete and
stone walls around basement access raised 3'from grade as flood
barrier.
Located: 2225 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-45.3
Number 13, Young &Young on behalf of STEPHEN &JACQUELINE
DUBON requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 1,118sq.ft.
One-story dwelling and for the demolition and removal of certain
existing structures (project meets Town Code definition of
demolition), within and outside of the existing dwelling to
facilitate construction of the proposed'additions and
alterations consisting of a proposed 45sq.ft. addition to
northeast corner,-and a 90sq.ft. addition to southeast corner
for a 1,195sq.ft. total footprint after additions; construct a
1,195sq.ft. second story addition; a 70sq.ft. second story
balcony; replace and expand existing easterly deck with a
320sq.ft. deck with 69sq.ft. of deck stairs to ground; replace
and expand existing porch with a 40sq.ft., porch and 20sq.ft.
porch stairs to ground; install one (1) new drywell for roof
runoff; abandon two (2) existing cesspools and install a new
IA/OWTS system consisting of one (1) 500 gallon,treatment unit
and 46 linear feet of graveless absorption trenches and for the
existing 84sq.ft. shed.
Located: 5605 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-4-3.2
On pages nine and ten, numbers 14 through 19, listed as
follows:
Number 14, En-Consultants on behalf of ELIAS DAGHER
requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing wood platform, walk
and steps; construct a fixed timber dock with water and
electricity consisting of a 4'x74' fixed timber catwalk
constructed with open-grate decking; with two (2) 4'x6' steps
for beach access; a 3'x14' hinged ramp; and a 6'x20' floating
dock situated in a "T" configuration and secured by two (2) 8"
diameter pilings.
Located: 90 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-2-6
Number 15, BRIDGET CLARK requests a Wetland Permit for the
Board of Trustees 4 January 18, 2023
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 16, 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 17, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of SADIK HALIT LEGACY
TRUST requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built bluff stairs
consisting of the following: 4'x4' at-grade top landing to an
8,2'x9.5' upper platform to 18'x4' steps down to an 8'x3.8'
middle platform to 16'x4' steps down to a 19.4'x10' lower
platform to 14.5'x4' steps down to beach; all decking on
structure is of untreated lumber.
Located: 2200 Sound Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-33-1-16
Number 18, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of SCOTT &
LEA VITRANO requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing pier
and float; construct a proposed 4'x14' landward ramp leading to
a 4'x35'fixed pier with Thru-Flow decking a minimum of 4' above
wetlands; a proposed 3'x12' metal ramp; and a 4'x20' floating
dock situated in a "T" configuration and secured by two (2) 8"
diameter piles.
Located: 3875 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-15.1
Number 19, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of JUSTIN
&ALLISON SCHWARTZ requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
Board of Trustees 5 January 18, 2023
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
Under Town Code Chapter 275-8(c), files were officially
closed seven days ago. Submission any of paperwork after that
date may result in a delay of the processing of the
applications.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to have our
next field inspections on Tuesday, February 7th, 2023, at 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next Trustee
meeting on Wednesday, February 15th, 2023, at 5:30 PM, at the
Town Hall main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
III. WORK SESSIONS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next work
session Thursday, February 9th, 2023, at 5:00 PM-at the Town
Hall Annex, 2nd floor Executive Board Room; and on Wednesday,
February 15th, 2023, at 5:00 PM, at the Town Hall main meeting
hall.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The Trustees monthly report for December,
2022. A check for$26,811.08 was forwarded to the Supervisor's
Office for the General Fund.
V. PUBLIC NOTICES
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's
Bulletin Board for review.
Board of Trustees 6 January 18, 2023
VI. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VI, 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 IX Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, January 18th, 2023 are
classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA.Rules and
Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA,
as written.
Robert Karpas & Claire Aiosa-Karpas SCTM# 1000-80-5-3.1
Bim E. Strasberg &Alexandra M. Lewis SCTM# 1000-135-1-1
Hawkins Bioventures, LLC, c/o Daniel Hume SCTM# 1000-72-2-3
Hawkins Bioventures, LLC, c/o Daniel Hume SCTM# 1000-72-2-4
Elizabeth J. Homan Trust, c/o Kenneth James Homan SCTM#
1000-111-1-14
Robins Island Holdings, LLC SCTM# 1000-134-3-5
The North Fork Project, LLC SCTM# 1000-106-6-4.1
Karen &Anthony DeLorenzo SCTM# 1000-104-5-21.1
Megaloop Equities, LLC SCTM# 1000-90-2-17
Corbley Family Trust SCTM# 1000-104-7-3
Mark &Ann Schaefer SCTM# 1000-64-3-5
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VII, Resolution,
Administrative Permits.
Number 1, Karen A, Hoeg, Esq., on behalf of 500 SOUNDVIEW
DRIVE LLC requests an Administrative Permit to legalize and
replace/repair fence on western boundary line.
Located: 500 Sound View Drive, Orient. SCTM# 1000-13-2-8.2
Trustee Sepenoski conducted a field inspection on January
6th, notes fence along western boundary in Trustee jurisdiction
okay. Legalize repair and replace.
This is to remove the fence along the bluff edge.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
So I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition of the removal of the fence section along the top of
the bluff as well as the condition that it is subject to
Planning Board authorization. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Number 2, Tyler Lademann on behalf of MICHAEL LADEMANN
requests an Administrative Permit for the as-built 14.6'x15.6'
Board of Trustees 7 January 18, 2023
deck, 88"x88"x40' hot tub and 10'x12' sunshade.
Located: 1625 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-1-19.6
Trustee Krupski conducted a field inspection January 2nd,
2023, noting straightforward.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is: As-built structures were constructed without Board of
Trustee review or permit; the setback is not supported by Policy
6. It is close and erodes the function of adjacent upland
ecosystems and wetlands; and natural buffer is not proposed.
Again, Trustee Krupski noted during field inspections that
there was existing vegetation seaward of the proposed hot tub.
As such, I'll make motion to approve this application with
the condition that the existing vegetation to remain, and by
granting it a permit will bring it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, Zackery E. Nicholson, AIA on behalf
of MICHAEL GIACONE requests an Administrative Permit for the
as-built 15'11'x W' deck with T wide stairs and 3'11"x9'4"
front porch with 5' wide stairs.
Located: 270 Park Avenue Extension, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-8-2
Trustee Goldsmith conducted a field inspection January
11th, 2023, noting it is straightforward, as built.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent.
The inconsistency is the as-built structures were
constructed without Board'of Trustee review or permit.
I'll make a motion to approve this application and thereby
granting a permit will bring it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4, Michael A. Kimack on behalf of
PAUL & CONSTANCE CONNOR requests an Administrative Permit for the
as-built 10'x12' shed and for the installation of a proposed
14'x10' on grade patio with 4" sand base with stone laid on top
(without mortar).
Located: 830 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-12-12
Trustee Goldsmith conducted a field inspection, January
11th, 2023, noting it was straightforward.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent and consistent. It
doesn't state why it's inconsistent, but I believe it's because
the as-built shed was constructed without a permit.
So thereby I make a motion to approve this application and
by granting it a permit will bring it into consistency with the
LWRP.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 8 January 18, 2023
VIII. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral VIII, applications for
extensions, transfers and administrative amendments.-
In order to simplify our meetings, the Board of Trustees
regularly groups together actions that are minor or similar in
nature.
Accordingly, I'll make a motion to approve as a group items
1 through 6. They are listed as follows:
Number 1, ORIENTAL UNICORN, LLC requests a One (1) Year
Extension to Wetland Permit#9833 & Coastal Erosion Permit
#9833C, as issued on March 18, 2021.
Located: 860 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-2-47
Number 2, David Bergen on behalf of MARTINDALE REALTY, LLC
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#9985 from Leonard
Rosenbaum to Martindale Realty, LLC as issued on September 15,
2021 and Amended on April 14, 2022.
Located: 520 Snug Harbor Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-5-34
Number. 3, Jacqueline Morley on behalf of CHARLES DiSAPIO &
XANNE PEREZ requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#1767 from
Andrew T. Fohrkolb to Charles DiSapio &Xanne Perez, as issued
on November 7, 1983.
Located: 5780 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-10-7
Number 4, PETER BURTON & CAROLINE BURTON request a Transfer
of Wetland Permit#9808 from Michael & Ellen Carbone to Peter
Burton & Caroline Burton, as issued on January 20, 2021; and a
One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit#9808, as issued on
January 20, 2021.
Located:, 1580 North Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-12-34
Number 5, FREDERICK B. POLLERT & ELIZABETH BUZASH-POLLERT
requests an Administrative Amendment to Administrative Permit
#10114A for the as-built raised planters constructed around the
perimeter of the 44'x20' stone patio.
Located: 375 Lighthouse Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-6-29.2
Number 6, Martin D. Finnegan on behalf of 16125 SOUNDVIEW
REALTY, LLC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit#10283 for a 4' wide path allowing access to beach stairs.
Located: 16125 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-50-2-19
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All-in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral IX, public hearing. At this
time I'll make a motion to go off the regular meeting agenda and
enter into public hearings.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 9 January 18, 2023
(ALL AYES).
This is a public hearing in the matter of the following applications for
permits under the Wetlands Ordinance of the Town of Southold. I have an
affidavit of publication from the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence
may be read prior to asking for comments from the public. Please keep your
comments organized and brief. Five minutes, or less if possible.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under Amendments, number 1, David Bergen on behalf of.
MARTINDALE REALTY, LLC requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#9985 to
install a ±40' long northern retaining wall, and a ±100' long western retaining
wall with a 6' wide by 5' long access stair using untreated hardwood lumber
sheathing, 8" pilings 6' on-center, two 6"x6" whalers with tie rods to lay-logs;
existing non-turf buffer to remain.
Located: 520 Snug Harbor Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-5-34'
The Trustees recently visited the site on the 11th of January, noted that
they would like to discuss the height of the retaining wall in proximity to the wetlands.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application:
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, on behalf of Martindale Realty. And
this is a, you just transferred a permit into Martindale
Realty's name, the bulkhead, so this is an amendment for that
permit to put in a retaining wall of approximately 100 feet in
front of the pool and running the same direction as the
bulkhead, and then replace the retaining wall that is between
the neighboring property to the north.
So, I'm here to answer any questions you might have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I think one of the main concerns in the
field was, and this has been going on for a couple of years now,
is we are trying to avoid large walls and hard,structure that
close to the wetlands. And obviously you have a pre-existing
condition there, with a pool.and how close that house is, and
it's been there for a long time, pre-existing nonconforming. We
understand that.
But it appears from the plans that it's a four-foot wall
and we would like to see that lowered and then just stipulate
some plantings in front of it. And then you can kind of grade
the property down to that a little bit as it has been, not as
much other grades that you would have to put in, but that is
mainly our concerns with the application.
MR. BERGEN: Okay. Well, first off, we are trying to maintain
the grade of the pool so that the area between the pool and the
top of the retaining wall remain at grade, just where it is
right now. So that's where the retaining wall is at when the
measurements were taken for the height as listed in the plans.
That's why that was listed.
If you want to lower the retaining wall there is a
possibility otthat but then .you are going to have a slope from
the pool going down, which could be problematic with runoff
Board of Trustees 10 January 18, 2023
down. The proposal for around the pool area is, well, first off,
between the retaining wall and the bulkhead is already a
non-turf buffer, and we are looking to keep it as a non-turf
buffer. If you would like some minor plantings in there, I'm
sure my client will have no problem with minor plantings in there.
So again, that is why we had the height, so it maintains
the same height as the top of the pool. And so to lower the
retaining wall will create a bit of a challenge.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I can appreciate that and the hardships. But
even if it was a stepdown, and I understand it's an existing
situation there, but there is nothing there now.
So I think if you could work with us come up with some sort
of stepdown and bring that down. We don't want to put a
four-foot wall right on the creek there. There is already a
bulkhead. We don't want to double that up in that location.
MR. BERGEN: All right. So, what would be your suggestion?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, in an ideal situation I'd rather see it
go down to 24 inch and then sloped up. However because you have
that pool in the proximity of the house so close, it might be
most appropriate to do some sort of a stepdown there. I'm, you
know, certainly open to your and your client's suggestions.
MR. BERGEN: The distance, as can you see, between the pool and
I'll call it the corner of the retaining wall there, that is
just landward of the boat basin, is not a lot of room in there.
Now, to put a stepdown in there, again, it's going to be
challenging because we don't have a lot of room to work with.
But I can certainly work with the client and contractor to see
if we can do maybe a foot down or something like that. A
two-foot stepdown, it might be pretty challenging because of the
distance between the two.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Mr. Bergen, if I may, not trying to design the
project for you, but as Trustee Krupski referenced the idea of a
stepdown. by utilizing the terracing of that area,you
actually, it presents then an opportunity for some native
plantings that could be incorporated into that area.
I'm not sure what the plans were for that area within, on
the landward side of the retaining wall, but it would be a nice
opportunity to incorporate something like that, if you did kind
of a two-foot terrace and another two-foot terrace.
MR. BERGEN: That was going to be pervious throughout there.
There was no intention of putting sod in there. It was going to
be pervious.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the main concern of the Board at this
point, is that we are trying to avoid everywhere in Town
straight walls. And everyone is faced with a rising tide issue,
but here we are already pretty high in elevation with the
bulkhead. And we are not trying to put in a solid four-foot wall
right on the creek. A second solid four-foot wall, I should say.
MR. BERGEN: Well, let me go back to the contractor. Are you then
suggesting in essence two walls; one at two-foot elevation and
then you need another one, going from obviously seaward up.
Board of Trustees 11 January 18, 2023
Two-foot elevation and the second one at four-foot elevation.
Essentially two walls. Just to get to the same height.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's certainly 1ian option, but it would be
considered terracing, like we do really on any bluff or larger
bank.
MR. BERGEN: Okay. I think that will be challenging, but we'll do
as you ask. Because you have a very small spot in here, and now
you are asking for double the structure, two retaining walls
instead of one.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not really double the structure. And
honestly I would rather stipulate to an 18 to 24-inch wall and
grade, too, it's sort of a self-imposed hardship here. But it's
existing. So I think the Board is looking at it a little
differently than, I mean, if it were a new building it certainly
would not even be looking at considering a four-foot structure
that close to the wetland.
MR. BERGEN: Okay.
MR. GERACI: Excuse me. I can't hear. There's people in the
hallway.
MR. BERGEN: This is Anthony Geraci, the principal from
Martindale Realty.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Great. Is there anyone else that wishes
to speak regarding this application?
(No response).
At this point do you wish to table?
MR. BERGEN: Yes, we'll table this so we can come back with a new
set of plans depicting what you are asking for.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 2, Michael Kimack on behalf of
GARDINERS BAY ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#10172 to remove floating
dock fingers B, C-and D (168sq.ft. total); replace all three (3) with
new floating docks consisting of dock finger B: 4'x20'
(80sq-.ft.), dock fingers C & D: 4'x16' each (64sq.ft. each);
maintain existing width of 76' and space floating dock finger B
& C equal distances at 20.67; replace existing floatation
system on existing 4'x76' floating dock and floating dock finger
A with new rubber floatation units; remove existing wood decking
on existing 4'x76' (304sq.ft.) floating dock and on floating
dock finger A, and replace with marine grade decking; provide
marine grade decking for floating dock fingers B, C and D; the
total floating dock area is: 304sq.ft. + 80sq.ft. + 80sq.ft. _
64sq.ft. + 64sq.ft. = 592sq.ft.
Located: End of Dogwood Lane in Spring Pond, East Marion.
SCTM# 1000- 37-4-17 & 1000-37-1-23 J
The Trustees most recently reviewed the application, on
Board of Trustees 12 January 18, 2023
1/11/23. Trustee Goldsmith has written it may need ZBA approval.
The LWRP memorandum finds this project inconsistent on two
counts. First is the extension of the dock structure is further
into public waters to accommodate larger and larger vessels is
not supported.
Second, the applicant fails to prove that the proposed dock
meets the following requirements, 275-11, Construction and
Operation Standards, (c)(2)(d) of the Southold Town Code.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make a ruling on
the latest proposal but did weigh in on a prior proposal, and is
not supportive of a full extension of all dock fingers to the
20-foot length.
I'll just note the Trustees reviewed several proposals by
Mr. Kimack in an effort to extend those fingers to all 20-feet
to being larger dock fingers, and advised Mr. Kimack to pull
some of those fingers back.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant.
It's always divergent between DEC's approach to the
criteria and the Trustees, and those of us who have to basically
work both sides of the ship, basically, to try to come to a
resolve.
I will point out that I had submitted it to the DEC before
I submitted to the Trustees. And DEC had approved all 20,foot,
on each, primarily.
You had a concern, which meant that basically as far as the
DEC was concerned, it was not a navigational hazard. Because
they look at that same criteria as you do, primarily.
Having said that, having said that, I recognize that you
had a concern about going 20 feet closer to the mouth of that
little thing, and as we had discussed, I pulled back the two
closest to that to 16 feet. The furthest one away is 20 feet
anyway. That's the one that exists at the present time. And
that had been granted a permit the last time, actually, to 22
feet. So we were cutting that back to 20 feet. So that was
really reduced by two feet.
And then the next one, we had talked about leaving at 20,
and then the two closest to the canal would be 16 feet rather
than 20 feet. And-that's how it's been presented on the revised
plans.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Our conversations in the field found as much.
We recognize that the 20-foot finger on the right there,
depicted in the image, was fine. We did not see a significant
navigational hazard posed by the slight extension of the other
finger closest to the homeowners association access ramp.
So,just for the record, on the plans stamped December
20th, 2022, we have Finger A at 20 feet; we have Finger B at 20
feet'. We have Finger C at 16; and we have Finger D at 16.
MR. KIMACK: Just to point out, Finger C is already 16 feet. We
are going from 6 by 16 to 4 by 16 on that one. So that is not
Board of Trustees 13 January 18, 2023
being extended any more. And then Finger D is going out an extra
couple of feet to match with Finger C.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right, anyone else wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Members of the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further wish to speak, I make a motion to close this
` application.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application
stamped December 20, 2022, noting that with the present plan's
stamped December 20, 2022, showing the different dimensions of
the fingers, at not exceeding the pier line, will bring,it into
consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 3, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of
ROBERT KARPAS & CLAIRE AIOSA-KARPAS requests an Amendment to
Wetland Permit for the as-built structures consisting of at top
of bank a 4'x6' platform with 18"x6' cantilevered benches on
east and west sides of platform; 4'x14' steps to a 4'x7' walkway
landward of bulkhead with a 7'x12' platform on west side of
walkway; a 4'x5' cantilevered platform north of and at top of
bulkhead with 4'x7' stairs to beach facing a westerly direction;
and for as-built water (hose bib) and electricity (GFI outlet)
landward of bulkhead.
Located: 350 West Shore Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-80-5-3.1
The Trustees most recently visited the site on January
11th, 2023, noting to request details on hot tub to include as
as-built in permit.
Since that time we have received a new drawing and a new
description to include the hot tub..1 will read that addition to
the description, reading the addition only, which should go
right at the end after"bulkhead."
Hot tub located on patio, 84-inches wide by 84-inches long
by 38-inches height, on seaward side of the house.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent. The as-built structures were constructed without
Board rof Trustee review or permit.
And the Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this
application and resolved to support it.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with'the condition the size of the lower platform is reduced to
conform with LWRP, and any lighting is Dark Sky compliant.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
Board of Trustees 14 January 18, 2023
application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of the Karpas family.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Great. I think we have gone over all the
necessary changes.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak.regarding this
application or any questions 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 GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application
with the new project description that I already read into the
record, that we received on January 11th, 2023, and by issuing a
permit the Trustees will thereby be bringing this into
consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL YES).
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Under Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits,
number 1, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of BIM E. STRASBERG &
ALEXANDRA M. LEWIS requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit to install rock armoring in front of existing ±50 linear foot long steel
bulkhead using 1 '/z to 3 ton stone, not to exceed 2.5 ton per linear foot.
Located: 21225 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-135-1-1
The Trustees have recently visited the site on January 11th and noted that
existing natural rocks must be left and not to be used in this project.
The LWRP finds this proposal to be consistent, and does note that, number one,
it is recommended that no boulders on the beach be used to construct the revetment.
Number two, the hardening of the toe with boulders will accelerate the erosion of
the beach over time.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak in regard to this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore, on behalf of the Strasberg Lewis
family.
This is a continuation. We received, I was the agent on
Abdel Nour, which is the adjacent property, and the rocks would
be a continuation of that project, all being done at the same
time by the same contractor. So it was recommended that this
work be done.
The Strasberg property went through some storms in Sandy,
it was restored, the bulkhead was put in. It was quite an
achievement, but it was all very difficult, so they are very
anxious to be able to preserve the property and protect it at
this point, and the rocks will add to the protection of the
property, so.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. So the project that you referenced
that was previously permitted is the one to the west of this
Board of Trustees 15 January 18, 2023
property?
MS. MOORE: Yes, it shows, is it Peterson, David Moore. But it's
Abdel Nour is the adjacent property owner. You just approved it
I think last month.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes, that is correct. And then I noted that
. . there is already some armoring on the property to the east. So
all of that would connect together then.
MS. MOORE: Correct, that's the goal.
TRUSTEE, PEEPLES: Great. Thank you, for clarifying. And then
one thing we do did note when we were in the field, as Trustee
Gillooly noted on the inspection report, is that there are
existing boulders there on the beach, which actually have kind
of"retained some of the sand and the beach for the homeowner.
So we would like to make sure that none of those boulders are
going to be incorporated into the project.
MS. MOORE: No. The DEC permits always specify that. But; no. And
I have Mr. Costello here, and Jack can confirm it if you need it
on the record. Remember this one?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. I wasn't paying attention, I'm sorry.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES; Okay, and also, what is the plan for the
access? This may be a Mr. Costello question.
MS. MOORE: No, thank you. This is access, I did get
confirmation, access by water.
TRUSTEE.PEEPLES: By barge?
MS. MOORE: By barge, yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay.
MS. MOORE: That's why the goal is to do it all at the same time,
since the barge is going to be a challenge with the rocks that
are there,.so.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. It sounds like a good plan, so work
together with the neighbors.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak?
(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 29th, 2022, with the
condition that no boulders on beach are used to construct the
revetment, and the access is by barge.. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, Costello Marine Contracting Corp.
on behalf of HAWKINS BIOVENTURES, LLC, c/o DANIEL HUME requests
a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to install 187'10"
linear feet of rock revetment along the existing toe of the
Board of Trustees 16 January 18, 2023
bluff at no more than 2.5 tons per linear foot and within the
property boundaries; install two (2) 15-foot returns and
backfill the rock wall with 245 cubic yards of clean upland
fill; place 200 cubic yards of clean up-land fill on the bluff
face to fill rills and gullies to match existing grade; install
coir log terracing and plant the backfill area and bluff.face
with native grasses and shrubs.
Located: 14032 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-72-2-3
The Trustees conducted a field inspection January 11th,
noting the project seemed straightforward. Clarify the access,
stipulate no clearing on property at top of bluff, and no access
from the top of the bluff for the project.
The LWRP found this to be consistent. A couple of notes:
Hardening of the toe with boulders will accelerate the erosion
of the beach'over time. The action includes a vegetative
restoration plan. The maintenance and survival rate of plant
species to be included in any permit.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, on behalf of the applicant. Just if
you have any questions about it. It is straightforward.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Access?
MR. COSTELLO: Via barge or Duck Pond Road. Mostly everything
will be via barge.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And with the LWRP's question about the
survival rate, that's included in your DEC permit, correct?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And no clearing on the top of the bluff.
MR. COSTELLO: There won't be any need for that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, is there anyone else here to speak
regarding this application?
(No response).
Questions or 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).
I make motion to approve this application with the
condition of no clearing on the top of the bluff, and access
will be via barge.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 3, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on
behalf of HAWKINS BIOVENTURES, LLC;'c/o DANIEL HUME requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to install 204'6"
linear feet of rock revetment along the existing toe of the
Board of Trustees 17 January 18, 2023
bluff at no more than 2.5 tons per linear foot and within the
property boundaries; install two (2) 15' returns and backfill
the rock wall with 295 cubic yards of clean upland fill; place
300 cubic yards of clean upland fill on the bluff face to fill
rills and gullies to match existing grade; install coir log
terracing and plant the backfill area and bluff face with native
grasses and shrubs.
Located: 14124 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-72-2-4
The Trustees most recently visited the property on the 11th
of January. Questioned the access and also bluff cutting or
clearing.
The LWRP found it to be consistent but questioned the need
for toe stone and boulders which could accelerate the erosion of
the beach over time. And also was curious-about a vegetated
restoration plan to include larger shrubs with deeper root
structure.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR.-COSTELLO: Jack Costello, on behalf of the applicant.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, same as the last one, it's going to be
barge or Duck Pond Point Road access.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, very much. Is there anyone else here
who wishes to speak regarding this application?
(No response).
Any additional comments from the members of the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing no additional comments, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the stipulation that all access will be barge or from Duck
Pond Point Road and not over the bluff, and that no clearing
shall occur at the top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH:,All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Under Wetland Permits. Number 1, Michael
Kimack on behalf of GARY &KATHLEEN ZUAR requests a Wetland
Permit to construct an on-grade 468sq.ft. stone patio on
concrete base adjacent to the existing staircase to accommodate
a 2'6" deep by 13'9" long by 36" in height (34.38sq.ft.) bbq
island, a 3' wide by 10'6" long by 3'6" in height (31.5sq.ft.)
bar serving structure, and a 5.4' diameter(23sq.ft.) circular fire pit.
Board of Trustees 18 January 18, 2023
Located: 1905 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-4-9
The Trustees most recently visited the site on 1/11/23.
Trustee Goldsmith has written: Should have French/trench drain.
The LWRP found the project to be inconsistent on three
points: The design does not comply with previous C&R filed in
= 2016, requiring a ten-foot wide vegetated buffer.
Number two, the setback is not identified.
Number three, the extension of development on the lot
further seaward is not supported.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application, however the open fire pit is too close to the bluff
line and the beach grasses, and paved areas should not extend
beyond the existing deck area.
We have plans stamp dated received January 4th, 2023.
Is there anyone here wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant.
. The new plans do not include the fire pit, as we discussed
on site. The Trustees do not want to see anything further
seaward from the bottom of the stairs, and it was designed in
accordance with that, to stay:on that particular line. And it's
.even with that, basically, which we just moved it over. And I'm
not quite sure, I gave a new description in and just redid the
calculations on it for you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right. So discussing the LWRP's concerns
about the ten-foot wide --
MR. KIMACK: That's already in place.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Do you see the vegetation on either side of
the access point to the beach there?
Looking at the photographs from our site inspection, I just
have a couple of questions. Is the patio that is currently there
going to be removed, and then for the installation of the new
patio.with the concrete under-footing.
MR. KIMACK: Probably, yes, because I think it would put a little
bit more firmness underneath that for the equipment, essentially
like that, to have that patio on one side.
Are you discussing that the length of the ten-foot wide
doesn't go all the way across? Because I thought it did.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: From the photographs it appears to go across.
MR. KIMACK: There is an opening for the staircase, obviously,
but other than that I thought it went across. That was part of
the original plan. I had done the original permit for this.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Right. That's already listed in the C&Rs.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes, it's in the C&Rs. I think that's been
addressed.
MR. KIMACK: Yes. And we kept everything back as you had
requested us to do, even at the bottom of the stairs.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right. So the other question is about the
drain. So if you are going to put this new patio in with the
concrete under-footing, our concern is that you are going to have
a lot of runoff in a heavy rainstorm, and we would just like to
Board of Trustees 19 January 18, 2023
address that by having a French drain or trench --
MR. KIMACK: I can do a French or, actually, I can probably do a,
off the top, we don't have much room on that particular line. I
can do an actual French drain right off of it in the swale and
drop it down into a smaller drywell. That's not a problem.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Great.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And you'll have the drywell be adjacent or no
further seaward, if possible?
MR. KIMACK: If we can, I would probably, I could probably put
the drywell under the patio, basically, collect it off of it in
the swale and then just bring it back into the drywell.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right. Anyone else wishing to speak
regarding the application?
(No response):
Members of the Board have any comments?
(Negative response).
All right, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with the following stipulations:, That.the stone patio be
removed to make way for the new patio; that a French drain be
installed on the seaward side of-the patio, and have that drain
to a drywell adjacent or landward of the structure; and new
plans depicting those stipulations..
MR. KIMACK: Okay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thereby bringing this project into
consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you, have a good night.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 2, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on
behalf of ROBINS ISLAND HOLDINGS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit
to construct an approximate 158' long rock revetment utilizing
various rocks ranging from 1 to 3 tons; construct an approximate
134' long single rock retainer utilizing 1 ton rocks and to
reset existing rocks 50' landward in-kind and in-place.
Located: Robins Island, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-134-3-5
The Trustees most recently visited this site on January
14th, 2023, noting that the project's need is apparent, and it's
a straightforward proposal.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
consistent. With two bullet points here. One is, it is
recommended that no boulders on the beach be used to construct
the revetment.
And number two is, the hardening of the toe with boulders
will accelerate the erosion of the beach over time.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this application
Board'of Trustees 20 January 18, 2023
and resolved to support it.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. JUST: Good evening. Glen Just, agent for Robins Island
Holdings.
- -- - None of the boulders on the beach will be used for the
revetment. All the work will be done by barge. And what was the
second comment from the LWRP? J
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: That the hardening of the toe with boulders
will accelerate the erosion of the beach over time. Which is --
MR. JUST: Okay. And, again, I want to point out once again, the
purpose is that Breeder's Pond is a regulated freshwater
wetlands, and the purpose of, again, the project, is to protect
that so it doesn't get breached by tidal waters which just
changes the whole biology, for lack of a better term, of the
pond.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak or 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 GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, with the plans stamped received in our office
November 21, 2022.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you. Good evening.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 3, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on
behalf of ELIZABETH J. HOMAN TRUST, c/o KENNETH JAMES HOMAN
requests a Wetland Permit to remove and dispose of existing 101'
long bulkhead; construct new 101' long bulkhead in-place using
vinyl sheathing; construct a 4' wide walkway along the landward
side of the entire bulkhead; install a 3'x10' aluminum ramp
leading to a 5'x20'floating dock secured in-place by two (2) 8"
diameter anchor piles.
Located: 430 Fisherman's Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-1-14
The Trustees most recently visited the site on January
11th, and noted that the application is straightforward.
The LWRP finds this proposal to be consistent with the LWRP
policies, and noted the following:
Number one, turbidity controls are required.
Number two, note the dock must be 15 feet from the side
property line unless determined otherwise. This recommendation
was made considering that the dock exists is not large and does
not unreasonably, protrude into public waters.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application, and did note =-the Conservation Advisory Council
wrote: Supports the application with a five-foot non-turf
Board of Trustees 21 January 18, 2023
buffer planted with native vegetation along the landward side of
the walkway.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, on behalf of the applicant.
This is straightforward, and there is no non-turf buffer
included in this, because there is just no room for it. It's
only about 1,1.00 square feet back there and, you know, they have
two little kids, and there is just no room for a non-turf buffer
in this situation. It's just a bungalow really.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And there is a, looks like there is kind of a
catwalk that runs along the bulkhead. What is the substrate of
that catwalk?
MR. COSTELLO:.It's going to be a tropical hardwood, you know,
Purpleheart, something like that. It will be untreated tropical
hardwood decking.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Great. And underneath that?
MR. COSTELLO: It will be, you know, regular CCA stringers, stuff
like that, same as the rest of the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Basically it serves as a non-turf buffer, in
a sense.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That's kind of the direction I was going. So,
thank you, for clarifying that.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak?
(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 17th, 2022.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. COSTELLO: Thank you. Have a good night.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4, En-Consultants on behalf of
THE NORTH FORK PROJECT, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to
maintain the existing as-built 17'x20.3' one-story garage which was
reconstructed in the same footprint as previously existing
one-story garage.
Located: 5670 West Mill Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-6-4.1
The Trustees conducted a field inspection January 11th,
noting the project was straightforward.
LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is
the as-built structure was constructed without Board of Trustee
review or permit.
Board of Trustees 22 January 18, 2023
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application, however there is a concern with the lack of an
access door to the garage.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. ROJOHN: Tyler Rojohn, for En-Consultants, on behalf of the
applicant. The owner Anthony Martignetti is here as well for
comment.
I'm sorry, what was the first comment?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You're good. It was just that it was
constructed without a Board of Trustee review-or permit.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
(No response).
(Off the record comments by the Board members).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Right now there is a mix of weeds and we just
want to be sure it's not going to be turf.
MR. ROJOHN: Yes, I understand that. Mr. Martignetti is willing
to maintain that as a non-turf buffer. Anything on the property
that's not pavement or building.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions or comments from the
Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
and by granting it a permit will bring it into consistency with
the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 5, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of TOWN CREEK REAL ESTATE, INC., c/o MICHAEL LIEGY
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a proposed 25'x50'
two-story, single-family dwelling with attached 20'x20' garage;
install a pervious driveway; install a new I/A OWTS system; and
to install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof
runoff.
Located: 480 Ackerly Pond Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-69-3-13
The Trustees most recently reviewed this application on the
11th of January and then following that.on the 13th for a work
session. It should be noted there are new plans in the file,
stamped received December 29th, 2022.
Some of the Board's concerns were addressed with the
distance to the wetlands and the proximity of the rest of the
structure at that time.
The LWRP found this to be consistent, noted that a 50-foot
non-disturbance buffer is approved when the initial wetland
Board of Trustees 23 January 18, 2023
permit was passed. And also noted that there should be care
taken with native American and colonial artifacts during the
work.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
the application due to the setbacks of Chapter 275. The
Conservation Advisory Council will defer to the findings of the
LWRP. It should be noted though when they made that
determination they were looking at the original submission from
the applicant.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Robert Anderson, on behalf of the applicant. I'm
hopeful that we've now come to a more acceptable plan than we
have seen in previous renditions. My observations, we are going
from a 52-foot setback to a 70.3-foot setback. We have fallen in
line with the pier line drawn from the habitable living space
adjacent to the subject parcel. And we also included a physical
demarcation in the form of a fence line along the landward side
of the 50-foot buffer and 30-foot no-work zone to the east.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I appreciate you working with us on
this one. I know it's been many months of going back and forth
and trying to figure out a plan here, in kind of a sensitive
area. And, you know, the changes are appreciated. It certainly
seems like we headed, we went in the right direction.
So just to be clear on this plan, 50-foot non-disturbance,
which brings us to a split-rail fence?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And then the Board was just, the remainder of
the property going to the house, would be non-turf, which I
don't think is listed, but I think that is where the Board is
looking there.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. I can have that done. Between the face of
the house to the actual fencing?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
Okay. Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(No response).
Or any additional comments from the Members of the Board?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I just want to echo your comments and thank
you for working with us. I know that this was submitted in June
and we have gone back and forth. So I really appreciate all the
efforts that you've made to mitigate, especially with brand new
builds on lots that have never been built on before. I think it
does require a little bit of extra review and I appreciate your
efforts.
MR. ANDERSON: I appreciate the Board's concerns on those
matters. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is no one else additional that wishes to
speak to this application?
(No response):
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
Board of Trustees 24 January 18, 2023
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the plans stamped received December 29th, 2022, with the
stipulation there is a 50-foot non-disturbance, with a -
split-rail fence, and that it is non-turf between the split-rail
fence and the house. And that there is no patio or hardened
structure in the rear yard.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much..Have a great evening.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 6, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
CORBLEY FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to dredge
approximately 80 cubic yards of material from boat basin; dredge
spoils to be disposed of at an upland location off-site; the use
of a silt-boom to be installed surrounding dredge limits during
dredging until turbidity ceases.
Located: 680 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-7-3
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I'm going to recuse myself from this
application because of business reasons.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The Trustees most recently visited the site
on 1/11/23. Trustee Krupski's written do not disturb any
vegetation during the process. ,
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application contingent on approval by the New York State DEC.
The Trustees are in receipt of plans stamped November 16th,
2022.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant, happy to
answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: From where I sit, the project looks
straightforward. I do want you to address the concern of the
Conservation Advisory Council that you get DEC approval.
MR. PATANJO: It may have been obtained. If not, I'll send it as
soon as it is obtained.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right. Any members of the public wish to
speak regarding this application?
(No response).
Additional comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this
application pending approval from New York State DEC.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
Board of Trustees 25 January 18, 2023
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 7, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of MARK &
ANN SCHAEFER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a proposed
4' wide by 78' long fixed dock with Thru-Flow decking; a 30"
wide by 14' long aluminum adjustable ramp; and 6'wide by 20'
long floating dock situated in an "L" configuration and
supported by two (2) 10" diameter piles; dredge approximately 10
cubic yards of spoils from area surrounding proposed floating
dock to obtain a minimum of 36" of water at low tide and deposit
spoils off-site at an approved landfill.
Located: 2300 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-5
The Trustees most recently visited this site on January
11th, noting a question: Dredging for water depth.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent. The inconsistencies are as follows: The applicant
fails to prove that the proposed dock meets the following
requirements: Construction and operation standards of the
Southold Town code. Review and approve all dock applications
before issuing a permit for a dock structure, the Trustees shall
consider whether the dock will have any of the following harmful
effects: A net loss of public usage of waterways is expected
due to construction of such structure in/on public waterways.
What is the expected draft of a vessel moored at the proposed
dock? Insufficient water depth could result in bottom scarring,
turbidity and loss marine species. The introduction of a dock
structure piles will result in a net loss of shellfish habitat.
An answer to the question has not been provided. And two more.
The construction method has not been identified. And whether
adequate facilities are available to boat owners and/or
operators for fueling and discharge of waste and rubbish, and
electrical service and water services. The answer to this
question has not been provided.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application contingent on approval by the New York State DEC.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. It's the
same as the last application, as soon as a DEC permit is
obtained we will forward it to the Board for their consideration.
The dock, in general, meets all the requirements which is
standard for the Town of Southold, which is not exceeding the
pier line, four-foot wide in width. The entire dock is going to
have through-flow decking, which would allow sunlight through
and rainwater through. There are no wetlands --there are
wetlands at the start of the dock, which will not be damaged
during construction.
All the work will be done through, by way of a barge, so
there won't be any vehicle traffic or any foot traffic really on
the wetland area. And dredging is minimal. Very minimal
r
Board of Trustees 26 January 18, 2023
J
dredging. I think we have it here (perusing). It's very
minimal.I don't see quantity. Did I even indicate dredging on
here? I have it on the plans but I didn't indicate dredging.
So, we need - I did. Here it is. I'm sorry. Ten cubic yards. I
didn't see it here.
So we only have ten cubic yards of material coming out. If
you look at the far end, the seaward end of the floating dock,
its in about 28 inches of water. And on the interior side it's
about, say, it's in about 18 or 19 inches of water. So we are.
try to get to 30 inches of water at low tide. So it's very
minimal dredging on this project, and it is to bring it into
conformance with the requirements for the 30 inches of water at
low tide.
But other items, it meets all standard requirements for
other projects that have been approved in the past.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. While I personally don't have any
issues with a dock in this location, I do think that a fixed
dock is more appropriate here given'that you do not currently
have the water depth for a floating dock'r and the amount of
maintenance dredging that would be required and the potential
of, you know, damaging the bottom, I think this would be a less
impactful solution for the wetlands.
Would your client be opened to a fixed dock?
MR: PATANJO: They are really strong for getting a floating dock,
just for ease of docking a boat. You know, the up and down
movement, so you don't have it tie it'off. So I'm going to say
we want to continue with the floating dock application here,
just because it's a very minimalistic dredging quantity here.
The neighbors also have floating docks and it's consistent with
the area and the entire, you know, neighboring properties.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the main issue is, you know, the
Trustees are very familiar with this creek. You know, from, and
have a really working knowledge of the waterfront over here. And
I wish that Mr. Costello had not left because he's also had a
lot of work done on this creek. And quite frankly what we are
trying to do with the fixed dock, I mean, you know what we are
trying to do. And the boats are just going to sit on the bottom
and even very shortly after that dredging activity that hole
will be filled.
So while I appreciate your activity, I just don't think
it's going to work in this site. Unless we were to dredge the
whole creek, which I'm not opposed to, but I don't think
creating a depression in that one spot. When just up the creek
we have been dealing with horrible littoral drift there. And, I
mean, it's going to fill in, I mean, like in a day probably,
over there. So.
MR. PATANJO: Would the suggestion be to --so, insight, as far
as the option of going with a fixed dock, does that seem to be
the Board's ideas of a more suitable method for proposing a dock
here?
Board of Trustees 27 January 18, 2023
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think yes, that's right. And I appreciate
that you drew the pier line on here. So if you want to
reconfigure it so that it's just a fixed dock up to the pier
line, I think that would be acceptable to me, and I believe the
Board is in agreement, so.
.MR. PATANJO: At the request of the applicant, I would like to
table this application.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Any other questions or comments?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: While there are discussions, we've been
consistent. I think you have had other applications on this
creek in the immediate vicinity where we have been consistent
with the fixed dock if there is less than 30 inches of water. So
I don't think we are inclined to start dredging to get that
artificial depth, if you don't have it.
MR. PATANJO: Understood. The intent here is such a minimalistic
quantity. It's ten yards. It's a little pile here. It's not a
lot of dredging material. And it's something that has been
approved of in the past.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: As Trustee Krupski said, if you dredge today,
it will be filled tomorrow.
MR. PATANJO: Understood. As to any dredging, there is no
guarantee it will remain dredged. That's why we were going with
ten years.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Bear with us as we try to obtain a measurement
here.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Hearing no other comments from the public or
the Board, I make a motion to table this application at the
applicant's request.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 8, Cole Environmental Services on behalf
of MEGALOOP EQUITIES, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing ±83' long wood groin to be removed and replaced in the
same location with a ±63' long low profile vinyl groin; top of
groin to be 18" above grade and using 6"x6" timber whalers, 10'
diameter pilings to be installed 6' on-center; and Shoreguard
9900 vinyl sheeting.
Located: 650 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-2-17
The Trustees most recently visited the site on January
11th, 2023, and noted, requested a reference point for the
height of the groin off the bulkhead. And I would want to make
mention that we did find that measurement in the plans, 44
inches. So.
And the LWRP proposed this application to be consistent.
They did note that a 2013 C&R applies to the property that
requires a 15-foot, 20-foot wide naturally-vegetated embankment,
be maintained in a naturally vegetated embankment. In quotes,
non-turf buffer. The C&R runs with the land and.applies.
They also noted existing vegetation in this area and on the
Board of Trustees 28 January 18, 2023
beach should not be disturbed.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
'MS. RUMMEL: Kate Rummel, on behalf of the clients.
This is a straightforward project for replacing the
existing groin with a low profile coming back about 20 feet to
terminate at mean low water. It's comparable to other groins in
the area.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You have the DEC permit for this already,
correct?
MS. RUMMEL: Correct. You should have it on file.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I forgot to mention that. Yes, you do have it
here in the file. So, thank you, for taking care of that in
advance. Then what is your plan for the access?
MS. RUMMEL: Oh, it has to be by barge.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Fantastic. That speaks to the concerns of the
LWRP.
And I did note that that vegetated embankment is fairly
lush and seems to be in good condition. So, again, that is
something that we want to maintain. So access by barge sounds
like it's a good idea for this project:
Okay, does anyone else wish to speak?
(No response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: No, just that this is a lovely property. The
house is scaled appropriately to the size of the lot. It's got a
nice,.vegetated buffer. It is really a great example of what
the shoreline deserves.
MS. RUMMEL: I shared your comments with the client and he was
very happy to hear that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, for doing that. It's a pleasure
seeing that. Thank you, for your comments.
Anyone else?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the 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 received on November 14th, 2022.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 9, 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
Board of Trustees 29 January 18, 2023
±15.8'x±7.7' front porch; a ±25'x±65' irregular shaped rear
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
103'2" 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 92'2" 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
The Trustees conducted a field inspection January 11th,
2023, noting concerns about the height of the retaining wall;
check on the pier line,;_concerns about the pool; increase the
width of the buffer.
We do have new plans stamped December 14th, 2022.
The LWRP found this to be consistent, provided the
following is considered: The parcel is located within the FEMA
flood zone AE Elevation 6. The structure should be minimized and
setbacks maximized in hazard areas. Where is the existing
sanitary system and the new sanitary system located. Minimize
the turf adjacent to the Wetland. And require that the non-turf
buffer be vegetated with native vegetation to further Policy 6.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application,
however recommends the pool be moved closer to the house,
outside of the flood zone, in compliance with Chapter 275, and
requests clarity of the limit of moderation action.
We also have in the file a number of letters of support for
this project. We have one from Maria Santagatte (sic). We have
one from Samuel DiMiglio, Jr. (sic), and there is.another one
from Phillip Tienman (sic).
Board of Trustees 30 January 18, 2023
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. COLE: Chris Cole, Cole Environmental, on behalf of the
applicant.
We are taking down a currently-existing house, bringing the
living structure back behind the pier line. We are putting in a
new IA sanitary system. And then to reference to the comment,
it's going to be maximized to the furthest away from the
wetlands that it can be on the property on the northeast corner.
We are adding new storm drainage to drywells. We conform to
the setback codes. And we are making the house FEMA compliant.
We met the Trustees onsite and discussed the floodwaters
and potential of a storm coming.in. We are willing to replace
the patio in between the pool and the house into a deck to
potentially allow for floodwaters to kind of surround the high
point in the property and be able to kind of disperse it a bit.
And we are willing to offer vegetated buffers on both sides of
the property, five foot in width by about 50 feet on the west
side, and about 65 feet on the east side. And the buffer right
now is gravel. We are intending to replace that to mainly a
vegetated buffer with some sandy areas.
So we are asking if these changes would be acceptable to
the Trustees to grant an approval. And the owner is here as
well. Chris Austin.
MR.-�AUSTIN: Hi. Christopher Austin. I just want to add, too, we
are also going to do the plantings seaward of the bulkhead,
which would be the coir logs, the Spartina grasses that we spoke
about at the first pre-site submission meeting back in June. So
the grasses seaward, the grasses on top and then grasses and
bayberries going down both the property lines to about the 50
and 65-foot mark.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Can you address for us, we
discussed in the field a little bit, the height of those seaward
retaining walls?
MR. COLE: So the retaining walls, and Chris, you know these
well. I believe they're going to be four feet high, the top of
--they are above ground, but we are also proposing to raise the
bulkhead two feet. So, by the'time the bulkhead is raised, the
elevations above the ground will be less.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Now, is that bulkhead raising on this
application?
MR. COLE: It is not. It's on a subsequent application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Even if the bulkhead gets raised two feet, I
don't think that this Board is going to be in favor of raising
the grade behind that bulkhead said two feet.
You know, I don't want to jump ahead of ourselves and talk
about something that is not in front of us, so we won't even
discuss that bulkhead at the moment.
You know, our concerns, and again, we discussed this in the
field, and, you know, the LWRP also made note of it, that this
Board of Trustees 31 January 18, 2023
is a floodplain. So our concerns are in a storm or an event,
the water is going to come up, those retaining walls are going
to just push that water on to the adjacent properties, creating
further damage to them, which is what we don't want to see.
,We get the need for the retaining wall around the septic
system to get the proper grade, but we discussed again the
lowering of the retaining wall height on,the seaward end.
MR. AUSTIN: Yes, I think per our last discussion onsite,
actually, the discussion before the last discussion-onsite, we
did lower the retaining walls on the east side of the property
to be 18 to 24 inches above the current grade. That is the
highest point on that side. And then in front of the pool area
is a high point of eight-foot elevation, natural grade based on
the submission from Chuck Thomas, on his site plan, which you
have a natural elevation, kind of a crest in the middle of the
property right before, seaward, of the pool.
So you would have that natural dispersion of water, which
is why are going to change to a deck so the water can then
circle the pool, go under the deck. And really it's far beyond
the limit of moderate wave action. So I don't see that we are
going to have water coming up beyond the retaining walls, as you
are talking about, Glenn. Maybe in my lifetime, but probably
not.
I do think it's important to note that the elevation of the
retaining walls are 8.2 feet, and the grade on the east side of
the property is already at five-and-a-half. So that wall is
only two-and-a-half-ish exposed face on the seaward side.
On the west side of the property that retaining wall would
be about four-foot faced. And we are, noting here that we are
doing plantings, vegetations around now would be the deck, the
pool and now down both sides_of the property line to alleviate
some of that water flow.
Obviously I don't want to have a new house that is flooding
with water as well, so we are going to do everything we canto
alleviate that concern.
We did step in the retaining wall on the west side to
accommodate for some privacy trees for the neighbors to
alleviate, from looking at a concrete wall. Obviously we want it
to look as natural and lush as possible when it's all done.
MR. COLE: And the plantings in front of all the retaining walls,
from a visual standpoint, are blocking the face of the walls
from anyone in the creek or across the creek.
MR. AUSTIN: And now proposing down both the sides of the
property, with a five-foot wide buffer 50 plus or minus feet,
depending on which side we are talking about, east or west, and
now taking the gravel buffer out and adding quite a bit of
vegetation, which we do have a plan in place on that, which
we'll submit with the bulkhead. But we can move that and submit
it.
We are going to retain a gravel area where the beach is and
another gravel area where the proposed new dock would come off,
Board of Trustees 32 January 18, 2023
J
like a seating area. Nothing expansive. There will be a lot of
plantings.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And another thing we spoke about in the field,
I don't believe it's been touched on this evening, is lowering
the height of the pool.
MR. COLE: We did discuss that. We want to maintain the height
for safety and accessibility concerns for children, lines of
site from the pool from the house, and elderly grandparents and
whatnot. So we won't have multiple steps coming in and out
between the deck and the house.
MR. AUSTIN: Yes, I mean, we talked about it, I went home and
thought about it, just the fact we have two young toddlers
running around the house and possibly who knows if more will
come in the future, and-with elderly grandparents, to have steps
coming in and out of the house or steps going down to the pool
being wet, would really be a-safety concern.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: My concern with that, too, is, you know, you
talk about a safety concern, but we have a top of retaining wall
at 82" elevation and the grade is 3'6" elevation. You have a
four-and-a-half foot drop off a retaining wall, and I don't see
any proposed fence or anything like that. If I'm not mistaken,
you said the height of that retaining wall was in lieu of a
fence for the pool?
MR. AUSTIN: Well, the pool height is 48 inches high, and the
deck has railings going down both sides of it toward the patio
now on the proposed plan, which wrap up to the edge of the pool,
and the pool would have a four-foot face minimum to maintain the.
safety for the children so we would not have essentially the
need for the whole property to be fenced in.
In the current plans proposed you should see the fencing
going down the side of the decks.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The other thing that we had discussed, and I
know it's a question for this Board going forward, is when is a
pool really not a pool anymore, and when does a pool become a
structure. A pool that is at eight-foot whatever elevation, I
don't know if we can consider that in the same way that we would
a pool that is on grade.
Again, from the storm water aspect, from the threat to
adjacent properties, if it was an on-grade pool, water goes in,
the water recedes. But when you have an eight-foot elevation on
a pool, that water only has one way to go, and that's to the
neighboring properties.
MR. AUSTIN: I think it's important to note, again note, that the
elevation is five-and-a-half feet in front of the pool. So the
pool is set at nine-and-a-half foot elevation,so you have a
four-foot face for the safety of not having to have a fence
around the property.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: But also on the west side --
MR. AUSTIN: That would be the patio. There is a dotted line that
shows-the ending of the pool which would have about a
four-and-a-half foot exposure.
Board of Trustees 33 January 18, 2023
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The LWRP also noted that this is in a
floodplain elevation six. So even if you have an elevation 5.8
in front of the pool, you know, if you are in a storm elevation
six, that means that the water will be hitting that pool during
a storm event.
MR. AUSTIN: And ideally circling around and now going underneath
the revised proposed deck instead of a patio.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Just to clarify visually what we are talking
about here, since you asked to proceed with this hearing so that
we could have this conversation, but we are not in receipt of
plans that indicate kind of what you are referring to. So I
just want to clarify.
You have the house and then seaward of the house there is
now going to be a deck on piles, correct?
MR. AUSTIN: Correct.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And then seaward of that is kind of
incorporated into that, is the elevated pool that includes a
structured wall.
MR. AUSTIN: Correct.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. So you're kind of primary structure, more
open, and then structure again.
MR. AUSTIN: And this was, obviously we've been working on this
together for a long time, and I appreciate everyone's patience.
You know, we've read the code, you know, it says pool and
related structures. It didn't reference inground pools or
aboveground pools.
And we massaged this. We pushed the pool back over these
revisions. The pool is now 64 feet back now from the bulkhead.
We are way behind the limit of moderate wave action. So we
really had tried every adjustment along the way to make this
more suitable for the Board of Trustees.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. I think the thing that we kind of
noticed, what we noticed is that originally the retaining walls
were further seaward. Once they were moved back landward, all of
a sudden it kind of exposed that structure. And so while I
understand the fact that this has kind of been on the plans from
the beginning, it almost revealed itself to us when the
retaining walls were pulled back, which is something that we did
request, because there is a concern about the retaining walls as
well.
So I think what we are responding to is the fact that the
pool as structure, has become something that is more frequently
in front of this Board, and as Trustee Goldsmith mentioned, that
while the code says one thing, it's referring to kind of a
different animal, which is an inground pool versus something
that could be conceived as a primary structure, in a way,
because it is rather substantial. Pools are meant to be
enjoyed, you know, on a larger scale. So it's not just a small
piece of structure on the property.
MR. AUSTIN: Can I make a suggestion. I was looking at this
honestly for hours and losing sleep over it. But if we were to
Board of Trustees 34 January 18, 2023
-- and I don't know if you guys have the site plan in front of
you. If we were to rotate the pool, essentially, 90 degrees, and
put it into the pocket of the cutout of the current deck, or
patio that will become a deck, and I can come up, Glenn. I
don't know if it's easy for me to point at it.
MR.-COLE: On the east side corner, where the steps are.
MR. AUSTIN: Kind of like this "L" of the patio, if we were to
rotate the pool and stick it back in that "L,"the majority,
over 70% of the pool would be outside that flood zone. The
dotted line shows the flood zone. Would that alleviate a lot of
concerns of the Trustees?
MR. COLE: And the only, the face becomes from 32 feet to the 12
feet, but shifted much further away from the water, from the
flood zone.
MR. AUSTIN: Can I come up and show you?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think that would be helpful. Thank you.
MR. AUSTIN: I feel like I'm in court. If we were to take this
whole pool, we would have to change the sides of the patio, take
the whole pool and put it back in here. Some of it would still
come out obviously to here, but the whole pool would be moved
like that. So essentially it would alleviate a lot, it takes the
face and it puts it here, per se, and now this is the flood
zone, so this whole section of the pool would now be outside of
the flood zone. There would still.be a portion of it in.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And this would be open deck.
MR. AUSTIN: There is still decking all the way here, you would
have to cut this back a little bit to accommodate the width of
the pool. This is eleven feet. We would probably do a 13x30 or
13x28. Shrink the length of the pool to squish it in there, if
you will.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: You are still seaward of the pier line. The
Pool. ,
MR. AUSTIN: Yes. I mean, it's just the way the house and, I
mean, and this deck here, I would bring attention, the neighbor
has a deck elevated at 15 feet on this property. Two level. Or
is it 20 feet. And this deck is elevated at five-and-a-half feet
with a hot tub in it. Both beyond the 50-foot line.
So, again, we are willing to move this in. And then I
think with all the natural grasses and plantings down the side,
visually, and around the outside, it really is going to look
more natural than everyone thinks.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. You know, but,just because we are
fixated on it at the moment, we are discussing in the field
notes about the pier line. So this is what, we can see what we
are talking about, and that line is coming down the middle of
the deck. It should go to the edge of the --
MR. AUSTIN: It goes to the edge the covered deck. This is a
covered deck. Two-tiered covered deck. I think we spoke to Nick
about adjusting the pier line to accommodate. This is a covered
deck. So we have a covered deck that would essentially line
up.
Board of Trustees 35 January 18, 2023
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. And one of the other things that we had
discussed in the field, and Mr. Cole, I believe you brought it
up, was vegetation, whether you call it a swale, a rain garden,
or whatever, to essentially mitigate against that future storm
that we are worried about and damage that that may cause, so if
-you can come up with a vegetation plan to maybe minimize that, - —or maybe account for some of the flooding. You know.
MR. COLE: Could that be in the five-foot on either side, to
depress it and encourage water or--
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Actually, we need a little bit more than
that.
MR. AUSTIN: I think the natural buffers we are talking about
would keep all the water on our own property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would just want to see them engineered that
way, I think. Not just-- like a five foot buffer-- right, if
we say a five-foot vegetated buffer, right, you can just throw
in a line of Leland's and that is not going to be the same as if
you engineered some sort of a swale with some native plantings.
Do you understand where I'm going with that?
MR. AUSTIN: Yes. Just having young kids, I don't want like
standing water around.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no. Not,like that. Do you know what a rain
garden is?
MR. AUSTIN: Not 'really.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's essentially a depression to take the rain
without going through French drains and drywells. It's a natural
way to mitigate. There is no standing water.
MR. AUSTIN: Well, I think the other thing, if we were to rotate
the pool, as we were just kind of going over briefly, it would
open up the front of the deck area landward of the 50-foot
setback to put in maybe some more drainage either for the pool,
for the yard, but whatever, it would need to accommodate, but we
have more space to do that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, just looking, I want to give this back
to you, I know it's just a sketch, but looking at this, I like
the direction you are heading in with it. I think I would like,
I would prefer to see the pool to go no forward than the
proposed pool, if possible.
MR. AUSTIN: Okay. Yup.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I'm just speaking as one here, but, you
know, I would want to see a little bit of a planting plan to
mitigate some of the walls a bit, but it does seem in my mind
you are pulling the structure back to some degree there and you
only have 12, you know, 12-foot of face sort of.sticking out. I
mean, I think it's a little easier to work with than 30 feet.
Less than half.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That in conjunction with more of a vegetated
buffer/swale area in front, that could address some of the
concerns.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: One more,question. If this was resubmitted as
a brand new project, would it be subject to the (inaudible)
Board of Trustees 36 January 18, 2023
legislation?
MR. AUSTIN: That's a great question. I have no idea.
MR. COLE: I do not believe so. We were told that once an
application is submitted --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: No, I mean the proposal, as a new proposal.
MR. COLE: Not sure. I addressed that with Mike Verity before we
got started, making sure that it was going to accommodate all
the current building codes.
MR. AUSTIN: I would also just like to point out, too, that
repositioning the pool brings it to the natural high point of
the property. The higher point of the property is that eastern/
southeastern side of the property, where the house, current
house currently sits. It's the high ground, if you will.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So I too am open to this proposal that you
indicated for the pool. Is that when you were talking about the
retaining walls prior, the one on the eastern side of the
property, I think you said you had a visible face of about two
feet, something along those lines?
MR. AUSTIN: Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So are we talking about now that the pool would
have a visible face of approximately two plus two, maybe up to
three feet? Or-- it just seems
MR. AUSTIN: It depends on how the slope of, the grade is on the
property. It depends. If the yard slopes down, some of it would
be less, some would be more.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So then in a way that addresses the question
that we had about lowering the pool when we were onsite speaking
being that.
MR. AUSTIN: Correct. Exactly.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, I appreciate you working with us. We
put a lot of time and energy into this, and I know you put a lot
of time and energy into this.
Just one other point, you mentioned keeping the gravel, and
I don't know if that's part of this or the next one. It's not,
the gravel is not necessarily a requirement. If you wanted to do
sand there instead. It's just, you know, I mean we would like to
see some plantings, and I don't know if that's now or the next
one, like I said. But just so you know, because you mentioned
gravel, but that is not necessarily a requirement of that area.
MR. AUSTIN: Would you like to see the idea since we are here or
no?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that for the next application, you were
saying?
MR. AUSTIN: Well, I was going to include it in this one so that
we understand what the point is to do it.
TRUSTEE.GOLDSMITH: And just for point of clarity, is there any
reason we are not including the bulkhead replacement on this
MR. AUSTIN: Everyone is backed up doing the plans for the
bulkhead and the dock. I would say we are motivating them as
quickly as possible.
MR. COLE: And when we get the dock, we are bringing in the Army
Board of Trustees 37 January 18, 2023
Corps of Engineers and Department of State as well, so. And the
DEC. So this proposal is just the Southold Trustees. The dock
would be many other agencies.
MR. AUSTIN: This would be the vegetated buffers on both sides,
then we were thinking about keeping either sand or pea gravel
where the beach is, and then doing vegetation in between.
This is the proposed new pier, you don't have it yet. And
then this is the Spartina grasses in front of 80% of the
bulkhead. That doesn't exist right now except for over here. We
are kind of rebuilding the wetlands to slow down that water
flow. And so this where we are going with it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Basically just reconstructing the
existing buffer in different ways.
MR. AUSTIN: Exactly. Making it kind of more natural and lush.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Just for clarification, the issue would
be the dock with everyone else? I mean, could you just put the
buffer and the bulkhead on this application and leave the dock
out as a potential that--
MR. COLE: Potential that brings the DEC into the picture.
MR. AUSTIN: We don't have the DEC right now.
MR. COLE: We have a letter of non-jurisdiction right now for the
property. It's the timing of it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you involve them with the bulkhead it would
slow the house down.
MR. AUSTIN: It seems everyone is on a different timeline.
MR. COLE: Right. The DEC, it can be very difficult to get hold
of them, to push them. So that was the original intention to
have it separate.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, then we probably shouldn't discuss that.
Okay, thank you.
MR. COLE: Just to clarify, we will kind of reconfigure the pool
to be in the pocket area on the eastern side, we'll be changing
the patio to a deck, and we'll be vegetating both sides of the
property. And on the western, southwestern side we'll be
figuring out some sort of swale planting area to handle
stormwater.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I believe you are also going to look at the
size of the pool when you relocate Was well.
MR. COLE: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table this hearing for
submission of new plans.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion for adjournment.
Board of Trustees 38 January 18, 2023
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
0
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees
f
1