HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-12/14/2022 R
Glenn Goldsmith,President Town Hall Annex
A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice President 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski Southold,New York 11971
Liz Gillooly k §X
Telephone(631) 765-1892
Elizabeth Peeples ;;,D41- c L Fax(631) 765-6641
UNT1
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, December 14, 2022
F Ea 1 6 202�
5:30 PM
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,
December 14th, 2022 meeting. At this time I would like to call the -
meeting to order and ask that you please stand for the pledge of allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance is recited).
I'll start off by announcing the people on the dais. To my left we have
Trustee Krupski, Trustee Sepenoski, Trustee Gillooly, Trustee Peeples.
To my right we have attorney to the Trustees Lori Hulse, Senior Clerk
Typist Elizabeth Cantrell. Also with us tonight we have Court Stenographer
Wayne Galante, and from the Conservation Advisory Council we have John Stein.
Agendas for tonight's meeting are out in the hallway and posted on the
Town's website.
We do have a number of postponements tonight. The
postponements in the agenda, on page five, under Amendments,
Number 2, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of
FOUNDERS LANDING BOAT YARD, LLC requests an Amendment to Wetland
Permit#8666 for the as-built 68' long solid splashboard system
under the offshore fixed finger pier.
Located: 2700 Hobart Road & 1000 Terry Lane, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-64-3-10 & 1000-64-3-11
On page six, number 3, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on
behalf of J. GEDDES PARSONS requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to remove the existing 5'x81' fixed dock
Board of Trustees 2 December,14, 2022
and piles (16), 3'x20' ramp and 9'x18'floating dock; construct :
a proposed 5'x81' fixed dock secured by sixteen (16) piles;
install a 4'x16' adjustable ramp; and install an 8'x18.5'
oa ing do-ck situatedin-an 6onfiguration and secured-by-- --
four (4) piles; and to replace the five (5) existing tie-off
piles as needed.
Located: 515 Sterling Street, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-9-3.1
And number 4, 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 nine, number 11, 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 12, Patricia Moore,. Esq. on behalf of CAROLYN &
JOSEPH FERRARA requests a Wetland Permit for a proposed 3'x36'
fixed dock consisting of 4"x8" pilings with 4"x8" caps (CCA),
4"x8" (CCA) stringers, and open grade style decking within the
area of a private mooring lot and adjacent to bulkhead; and to
install a 4' wide path to the road.
Located: Property Off of Osprey Nest Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-7-1
Number 13, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of
CHRISTOPHER & ELIZABETH AUSTIN requests a Wetland Permit to
demolish existing dwelling, shed, and accessory structures;
construct a proposed two-story±39.5'x65' irregular shaped
dwelling with ±30.6'x±22.5' attached garage; a ±15.8'x±7.7'
front porch; a ±25'x±65' irregular shaped rear 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'±1 3'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; in a pool
drywell for backwash, and pool equipment area; install A/C
Board of Trustees 3 December 14, 2022
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 ithe 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 922" in
length and extends from the northeast, roadside of the property
and ends 8'0" past the southeast corner of the proposed
dwelling; the all then returns into the proposed 8'0" wide porch
from east side yard property line with a length of 20'0";
approximately 592 cubic yards of fill will be brought in and
used on the north, roadside of the property, within the
boundaries of the proposed retaining wall; the proposed
elevation of the street on the east side is 8', and on the west
side is 9'; the property to be graded from the street to the
retaining walls to be elevation ±8' and the grade of the rear
yard (seaward of retaining walls) will remain as is; with the
existing 10' wide non-turf buffer to remain.
Located: 2200 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-4-5.1
On page ten, number 14, 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 dependent vegetation to be planted; any tree to be
removed is to be replaced at a 1:1 ratio; and to install
Board of Trustees 4 December 14, 2022
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 15, 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
On page eleven, number 16, Young &Young on behalf of
STEPHEN &JACQUELINE DUBON requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 1,118sq;ft. one-story dwelling and for the demolition
and removal of certain existing structures (project meets Town
Code definition of demolition), within and outside of the
existing dwelling to facilitate construction of the proposed
additions and alterations consisting of a proposed 45sq.ft.
addition to northeast corner, and a 90sq.ft. addition to
southeast corner for a 1,195sq.ft. total footprint after
additions; construct a 1,195sq.ft. second-story addition; a
70sq.ft. second-story balcony; replace and expand existing
easterly deck with a 320sq.ft. deck with 69sq.ft. of deck stairs
to ground; replace and expand existing porch with a 40sq.ft.
porch and 20sq.ft. porch stairs to ground; install one (1) new
drywell for roof runoff; abandon two (2) existing cesspools and
install a new IA/OWTS system consisting of one (1) 500 gallon
treatment unit and 46 linear feet of graveless absorption
trenches and for the existing 84sq.ft. shed.
Located: 5605 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-4-3.2
Number 17, 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 18, BRIDGET CLARK requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 20'3"x22'4" (452sq.ft.) detached garage and to convert
it into an accessory apartment by replacing existing windows,
exterior door, add plumbing to connect to existing septic, and
install'a wall mounted electric heating unit.
Located: 7825 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-6-15
Number 19, 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
Board of Trustees 5 December 14, 2022
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.) wth rip-rap runoff area
(10'x20', 200sq.ft.), consisting of 50-150 Ib. stones set on
filter fabric; the storm washed sand area is to be restored to
the original grade line and the removed sand (90-100 cubic
yards) is to be used on site to restore the eroded bank area; on
all three properties, dredge a portion of Moyle Cove to deepen
channel in three (3) areas, AA, BB and CC to a depth of-4.00ft.
(Approx. 365 cubic yards), and area DD to a depth of-3.00ft.
(Approx. 85 cubic yards), for a total dredging of approximately
450 cubic yards; the dredge spoils is proposed to be spread on
the two Sauer properties (255 Wigwam Way, SCTM# 1000-87-2-40.1 &
175 Wigwam Way, SCTM# 1000-87-2-40.2), in an area of
approximately 8,000 sq.ft. and to a depth of approximately
1.5ft.; the dredged spoils placement area will be surrounded by
a silt fence with hay bales to be kept in place and maintained
until the spoils are de-watered.
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
And on page 12, number 20, 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-21, 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 22, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of
JUSTIN &ALLISON SCHWARTZ requests a Wetland Permit to construct
a proposed 4'x165'fixed pier with open grate decking a minimum of
4' above tidal vegetative grade; a 3'x16' aluminum ramp; a 6'x20' floating
dock situated in an "T" configuration;.and to install a natural path leading
from upland to fixed pier using permeable material.
Located: 2793 Cox Neck Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-8-7.6
Under Town Code Chapter 275-8(c), files were officially
closed seven days ago. Submission of any paperwork after that
date may result in a delay of the processing of the application.
Board of Trustees 6 December 14, 2022
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to hold our next
field inspection Wednesday, January 11th, 2023, at 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
11. ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our organizational meeting on
Thursday, January 5th, 2023, at 5:15 PM at the Town Hall annex 2nd floor
executive board room.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
III. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next Trustee meeting
Wednesday January 18th, 2023, at 5:30 pm at the Town Hall main meeting hall.
J TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. WORK SESSIONS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold next work sessions
Friday, January 13th, 2023, at 5:00 PM at the Town Hall annex
2nd floor executive board room; and on Wednesday, January 18th,
2023, at 5:00 PM, at the Town Hall main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of
November 16th, 2022 meeting.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Monthly report. The Trustees monthly report
for November, 2022. A check for$3,333.03 was forwarded to the
Supervisor's office for the General Fund.
Board of Trustees 7 December 14, 2022
VII. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's
bulletin board for review.
VIII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VIII, State Environmental Quality
Reviews, RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby
finds that the following applications more fully described in Section XII Public
Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, December 14, 2022,
are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to.SEQRA Rules and Regulations,
and are not subject to further review under SEQRA.
As written. That is my motion.
Steven Eisman &Valerie Feigen SCTM# 1000-17-5-3.2
M. Karan,Ahooja SCTM# 1000-51-4-5.1
PABLOPEG, LLC SCTM# 1000-79-5-23.1
16125 Soundview Realty, LLC SCTM# 1000-50-2-19
Angeliki Kazeros &George Plitas SCTM# 1000-78-1-10.20
Gary & Kathleen Zuar SCTM# 1000-53-4-9
Caroline Toscano SCTM# 1000-113-4-8
Joseph & Kristina Ottomanelli SCTM# 1000-90-1-9
Robert G. Schnoor,.Gregory A. Schnoor& Christine E. Van Dyke
SCTM# 1000-15-3-5
Richard & Jean Jung SCTM# 1000-70-4-4
Kathleen A. Heidt SCTM# 1000-126-11-22
Lawrence Kaplan & Denise Blesi-Kaplan SCTM# 1000-70-4-45.3
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IX. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Resolution, Administrative Permits. 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 4. They are listed=as follows.:
Number 1, Patricia C. Moore on behalf of GWEN.HYMAN
requests an Administrative Permit to replace existing sanitary
system with an Innovative Alternative Wastewater System.
Located: 4565 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-9-8
Number 2, MICHAEL & ROBIN COLAPIETRO request an
Administrative Permit to place concrete pavers on the existing
59'x28' concrete driveway; remove deteriorating 28'x8' asphalt
apron and install concrete slab with pavers on top.
Located: 3800 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-17-6.1
Number 3, Edward Viola,,on behalf of STRONG'S BROADWATERS
COVE MARINA LLC requests an Administrative Permit for the
existing 12'x10'x8' trellis and for the relocation of existing
Board of Trustees 8 December 14, 2022
5' x 52" sign located in right-of-way to be moved to another location.
Located: 8000 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-8-2.5
Number 4, Richard Cifarelli on behalf of BARBARA KOHN
requests an Administrative Permit to extend the existing deck
(16' 6" x 8') out towards water 16' keeping it the same width as
existing deck 8' wide with French doors leading onto deck entire
footage of deckwill be 24' x 166"; and to make the existing
roof over existing deck a new deck with dimensions 16' 6" x 8'
with French doors leading out onto new deck from master bedroom.
Located: 500 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-14-12
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY:.Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, CHITRANG PURANI &VEERA PURANI
request an Administrative Permit for the as-built mowing of beach grass and
application of sand within permitted mowing zone in the backyard.
Located: 835 Waterview Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-7-12
The Trustees conducted a field inspection December 7th,
noting that there was a change as a buffer when it was supposed
to be vegetated. As such, I will make a motion to deny this
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
X. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral X, Applications for
Extensions/Transfers/Administrative Amendments.
Again, in order to simplify our meeting.I'll make a motion
to approve as a group items 1 through 5 and number 7. They are
listed as follows:
Number 1, En-Consultants on behalf of ALISON M. BYERS c/o
ALISON M. BYERS, PsyD, VP requests a One (1) Year Extension to
Wetland Permit#9806, as issued on January 20, 2021.
Located: 10075 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-119-1-13.1
Number 2, Patricia C. Moore on behalf of JOEL SINGER
requests a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit#9832-and
Coastal Erosion Permit#9832C, both issued on March 18, 2021.
Located:, 20575 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000=51-4-11
Number 3, En-Consultants on behalf of TEAMC99A PROPERTIES,
LLC 'c/o CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH, MEMBER requests a Final (1) Year
Extension to Wetland Permit#9642, as issued on February 12, 2020.
Located: 980 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-1-6
Number 4, ROBERT J. & MARYBETH POLKE request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#635 from Michael Gill to Robert J. & MaryBeth
Polke,,as issued on October. 19, 1988 and Amended on April 17, 2013.
Located: 1325.Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-11-9
Number 5, THOMAS & CARYN MAZZARELLI request an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#9284 for the
Board of Trustees 9 December 14, 2022
as-built 3.5'x6' stairs to beach.
Located: 650 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-1-2
Number 7, Robert I. Brown, Architect on behalf of DAVID SCHWARTZ
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#10119 for the as-built
installation of two boulder retaining walls.
Located: 1015 Lakeside Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-4-5.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
.TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 6, STEPHEN MERKLE & ERIKA SHALETTE
requests an Administrative Amendment to Administrative Permit#9692A.
to construct an 8'x16' shed in lieu of the previously approved 8'x12' shed.
Located: 1800 Little Peconic Bay Road a/k/a 3700 Wunneweta Road,
Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-14-20
Trustee-Krupski conducted a field inspection December 7th, noting that it
was very close to the bank, the actual structure is within the bank, and it
was already approved for an 8x12, and we are looking to expand it to an 8x16.
Due to the fact there is already too much structure in the bank adjacent
to the wetland, I'll make a motion to deny this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
XI. WATERFOWL/DUCK BLINDS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral XI, Waterfowl/Duck Blinds.
I'lir make a motion to approve number 1, RYAN FLATLEY requests a
Waterfowl/Duck Blind Permit to place a Waterfowl/Duck Blind in
Downs Creek using public access.
Located: Downs Creek, Cutchogue.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
XII. RESOLUTIONS -OTHER:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral XII, Resolutions - Other:
Number 1, RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees
hereby REVOKES and VACATES Wetland Permit#9866 at the request
of the property owner IOANNIS JOHN ZOUMAS to demolish and remove
existing dwelling and detached garage; any excavation required
for the removal/demolition will be backfilled and compacted with
clean fill; existing water services-and sanitary systems are to
be disconnected and abandoned in place as per S.C.W.A. &
S.C.D.H.S. standards; construct a proposed 2,600sq.ft. two-story
residence with basement; 576sq.ft. detached garage; 2,800sq.ft.
stone driveway; 2,030sq.ft. paver patio; 390sq.ft. covered
porch; and a 720sq.ft. in-ground pool; connect proposed dwelling
to public water and underground electrical services; install a
S.C.D.H.S. approved I/A septic system; there is no expected fill
Board of Trustees 10 December 14, 2022
to be needed for this project due to how much material will need
to be excavated for construction; the total excavated material
is estimated at 850 cubic yards; any unused material will be
removed from the site to a suitable facility; the overall
disturbance for the project will be 30,500sq.ft. (0.70acres);
establish and perpetually maintain a 20' wide non-turf buffer;
and GRANTS the request for a new Wetland Permit to demolish and
remove existing dwelling and detached garage; any excavation
required for the removal/demolition will be backfilled and
compacted with clean fill; existing water services and sanitary
systems are to be disconnected and abandoned in place as per
S.C.W.A. & S.C.D.H.S. standards; construct a proposed
2,600sq.ft. two-story residence with basement; 576sq.ft.
detached garage; 2,800sq.ft. stone driveway; 510sq.ft. upper
paver patio; 390sq.ft. covered porch; connect proposed dwelling
to public water and underground electrical services; install a
S.C.D.H.S. approved I/A septic system; there is no fill needed
for this project due to how much material will need to be
excavated for construction; the total excavated material is
estimated at 850 cubic yards to which some was used for grading
purposes and the remainder unused material to be removed from
the site to a suitable facility; the overall disturbance for the
project will be 30,500sq.ft. (0.70acres); and to establish and
perpetually maintain a 20' wide non-turf buffer; and as depicted
on the site plan prepared by L.K. McLean Associates, P.C., last
dated December 6, 2022.
Located: 3915 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-1-5.1
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral XIII Public Hearings,
I'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and
enter into the Public Hearings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
XIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a public hearing in the matter of
following applications for permits under the Wetland 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 GOLDSMITH: Under Amendments, number 1, Michael Kimack on
behalf of STEVEN EISMAN &VALERIE FEIGEN requests an Amendment to
Board of Trustees 11 December 14,2022
Wetland Permit#9928 for the as-built widening of the driveway (D) to 12'
(4,415sq.ft.) with as-built perimeter 6"x6" pressure treated beams (2 high),
set Y-4" above finished grade (inclusive in 12' width), to prevent stone migration
(as required by DEC); all driveway repair and aggregate base course to be blue
stone blend (3/8" to 3/4"), on existing subgrade, 2" natural stone to match beach
stone; area southerly of driveway regraded to create berm to prevent stone
migration (DEC requirement), planted with American Beach grass (±1,900sq.ft.);
approximately 480 linear feet of as-built t3' high two (2) rail split-rail fence
installed with path down lighting at base of posts; cleared area.B north of
driveway replanted with native grass (2,190sq.ft.); cleared area C north of
driveway regraded and planted with a mixture of permitted grasses and'plants
(6,580sq.ft.); and the cleared area E north of driveway has as-built base of
concrete turf blocks filled and planted with permitted grass (1,970sq.ft.).
Located: 18603 Main Road, East Marion., SCTM# 1000-17-5-3.2
The Trustees conducted an inhouse review on December 7th, 2022,
noting everything seemed straightforward.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is
the as-built work was conducted without proper permits. Due to the location of the
access and dwelling. All work should be kept to the minimum level of disturbance
as stated in the issued permit..
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application.
And we also have in the file a letter'from Joanne and Candy Sonderborn,
who live in the neighboring area, who had some concerns, specifically with the
down-lighting and the proposed utility platform. That is in the record here.
We also have a letter from Adam and Lydia Irving, basically saying the
same thing, expressing their concerns.
And we also have a letter from Orient East Marion Park District expressing
their concerns about the lighting as well. ;'
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicants. There seems to be the
focus on the lighting. There is down-lighting along the split-rail fence but they are
all in conformance with down-lighting structures. There is no lighting with the
generator. I'm not quite sure exactly what their thoughts were.
The generator location, going back to the original one, remember we had
proposed moving it next to the pool, and.we had received the permit, and the
permitwas next to the house, at about, I;think about a 13-foot elevation. I think the
ground there is about fourelevation..Because 13 is roughly the AE zone through
that area. But there is no lighting on that particular platform.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
MR. IRVING: My name is Adam Irving, I live on Stephenson's Road,
adjacent to the applicant's property.
This location is very unique. It's all wetlands down to the beach.' It's also
an annual breeding ground for Plovers and,Lease Terns. It's also a
highly-visible location. The house is prominent in the public Sound view from,
you know, from the Orient-East Marion Causeway, the Orient-East Marion park
district. Frankly from Orient village. If you are ever in Poquatuck Park and you
want to look at the Sound, you are looking right at their. house.
It's also front and center for everybody on Stephenson's Road, on the hill,
and their Sound view. So the bottom line:is we all are paying close attention to
this.
Board of Trustees 12 December 14, 2022
1 read the amended application and I want to provide some background. I
think about a year ago, your group, the Trustees, initially granted permission
for the applicant to flush-cut vegetation and slightly widen the driveway. The
amended filing shows that the applicants went well beyond that. Um, the
application notes the rail ties, it notes the driveway stones, 480 feet of split-rail
fence, berms that were man-made on the creek side, on the east side of their
driveway, as well as newly-planted trees and grasses.
What is not mentioned in the application is they installed an irrigation system
the entire length of the property, so the 480 feet, whatever it is, and they also
brought in dozens of dump trucks to dump fill of some sort to effectively raise the
grade on kind of the Sound side of the driveway. None of that
was mentioned in this amended application.
They also didn't mention that they bulldozed all of the
original vegetation to essentially give themselves a blank slate
upon which they could work and, you know, put in what they want.
So that's the backstory. As for the application, you know,
I'm concerned about the light pollution. Everyone on Stephenson's
Road is a big believer in Dark Skies. We have a private road
that snakes through there. There is absolutely no lighting up,
down, zero. You know, our view of the stars, our view of the
Sound, is something that we are concerned is going to be impacted by
this project.
Individually, probably any one of these lights, couple feet
up, down lit, is not a big deal. But 31 feet of them over a
span of 480 feet to me gives kind of a runway effect, and we, and
everybody on Stephenson's Hill, is at a significant elevation
relative to the applicant's property, so we are going to be
looking right at this.
You know, when I go out to my front porch and want to look
at the stars with the kids, I'm going to be looking right at
this. We all see the driveway because we'are, you know, anywhere
from 15 to 30 feet elevation difference. So that is a concern.
I don't know if it would be possible for them to either use
less lighting or perhaps have lighting that is on sort of
short-term motion timers. But it really seems very out of
character with the landscape around Sound Beach, around
Stephenson's, to have 31 lights spanning,almost 500 on every
single night. It just doesn't fly.
For the same reasons, we were all a bit confused. The
notice that we got showed this raised platform as being north of
the existing swimming pool, but it sounds like perhaps that it
has already been denied. I don't know for sure. But we all want
to address it anyway.
Obviously that area north of the swimming pool would be the
same problem. It's right smack in everybody's Sound view, and if
the elevation of that property is, I think you said four feet,
you know, to have a nine-foot utility setup on stilts to me
seems incredibly out of character.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Not to cut you off, sir, but that has already
been denied, last month, on a separate application.
MR. IRVING: Okay. So, will that now be kind of blended into
Board of Trustees 13 December 14, 2022
their house, like sort of like sore-thumbish, if you will?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes.
MR. IRVING: All right, well, I'll skip that part.
You know, I think you get the idea. Whatever the outcome
is, what I would respectively ask is that the Trustees and the
Town make sure the scope of any work that is permitted is
followed to the letter. Because to date, that really has not
happened at all, and it's been a frustration for those of us in
the neighborhood. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir.
MR. KIMACK: Let me address that gentleman's concerns, now that
we have the raised platform out of the way.
Yes, the original permit required the expansion of the
driveway to 12 foot, and a clearing of all the property between
the driveway and the seawall. Basically, take all of them out of
there. There was no planting plan in place at that particular
time. And that had been done.
When he did begin to put the plan together, there was no
parking, et cetera, in areas that needed to have parking areas.
When we went to DEC, a lot of what is on the property now is DEC
requirements. They required the split-rail fence, they required
that raised berm between the split-rail fence and the road. They
required that, they were afraid that there may be migration of
the stone, topsoil, from the road into the wetlands, and
therefore if you look at it, that's why there's 6x6s on both
sides of the road. They were concerned about the material that
was already in the driveway. We did a composite sample and found
out that it composed asphalt, it composed RCA, it composed
pretty much everything that was in there, all the way down about
12 or 14 inches or so.
So in order to lock that in from any movement, that's why
the 6x6s were put there.
They did require the berm so that there would be.no
movement from any of the stones that would be placed on top of
that, towards there.
So, a lot of what is happening is we've got two masters. We
have your Board and we have the DEC. And the DEC does require,
did require the berm, did require the 6x6s, did require the
split-rail fence, in that particular area.
All the plantings that had gone in there, except those few
that were taken out, were all native, were all on the permitted
list, essentially, like that. But the parking areas that were
put down were all turf block. So they all look like grass.
They were not anything beyond that. So it looks as natural as it
can be, because there is, the uniqueness of that piece of
property, there is not any place to park. It just needs some area
with which to do that.
think the way that it's laid out now satisfies the DEC
requirements in terms of nothing from the driveway is ever going
to get into the wetland area:And even though the original
Trustees permit did require clearing, we did not go so far as to
Board of Trustees 14 December 14, 2022
indicate exactly what would be planted in that particular area.
So we are back, in a sense, we are giving you the planting plan,
which obviously is in place. You can see what has been placed
over there, all the way through.
As far as the lighting is concerned, they are all
down-lighting. They are not anything that will be seen.
Certainly you'll able to see some spots, but it's an area that,
at night time,just to drive in there and to make sure you are
staying away, because there is only a matter of about three or
four feet, in many places, from the split-rail fence to the
driveway. And with the lights there, it's a safety, to drive in
there at night time to make sure that you are not going to sway off.
I know you've got your headlights on, but, that's that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Kimack, did DEC say anything about the
irrigation, the purpose of the irrigation system?
MR. KIMACK: They did not, no.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this?
MS. GREENE: I do.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, ma'am.
MS. GREENE: My name is Beverley Greene, I'm speaking on behalf of
the Stephenson's Road LLC, to respond to the environmental review
of 18603 Main Road, East Marion, New York, a property owned by
Steven Eisman and Valerie Feigen.
This application, which seeks to amend permit#9928,
involves a number of activities, some of which have already
taken place on the property in question, without Town permission.
This property, which once contained an extensive area of
native bushes was completely clearcut, filled with many
truckloads of dirt and grassed over, removing an area of habitat
for local species which includes Piping Plovers, and added
vegetation which will now require fertilizer and watering.
Some of this clearing took place in summer, directly
interfering with nesting seasons and leading to Plovers walking
over neighboring properties to escape.
The unapproved addition of treated pine fencing also added
disruptive chemical elements to the local eco-system which
borders the Orient East Marion Park District and is not necessary. It
should never have been installed without Town permission.
The proposed addition of further pressure-treated pine
along the driveway would increase the amount of chemicals
leaching into the creek and surrounding eco-system immediately
adjacent to it, which includes.arsenic.
With regard to the 31 driveway lights the owner seeks to
install, we feel this is an excessive amount of light for a
property that is adjacent to Truman's Beach and very visible to
everyone in the community. Even if the lights are Dark Sky
compliant, this property is already bathed in spotlights that are
not Dark Sky compliant around it and around the pool.
Additional light will only serve to further disrupt the
local birds and wildlife that live around it, such as Osprey,
Board of Trustees 15 December 14, 2022
Heron, Red-Winged Blackbirds and Piping Plovers. It will also
further increase the ambient light obstructing star gazing by
neighbors and locals who frequent this beach.
Every right from the perspective of ownership of a private
road, we note that Stephenson's Road does not have any path
lighting for this reason. Headlights are sufficient,
particularly when many owners are only present for a small part
of the year.
It is probably most important for the Town to restrict
outdoor lighting for foreshore properties such as this one and
ours on Stephenson's Road as the amenity for nature and those
around us is so important.
Finally, we wish to query the proposed 8'x10' platform to
be installed at an elevation of 13'for the installation of a
generator. This is an abnormally large and high installation if
we compare its size.to that of other generators which power much
larger houses with pools and do not require such a-large platform.
It also seems to be an unusual location for a generator and
would be very unattractive and visible from the beach and the
Main Road, being so high. It is also in the coastal erosion
hazard zone and as such should be subject to DEC approval as
well.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Excuse me, ma'am.
MS. GREENE: We are opposed to this very visible installation --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sorry to cut you off. That generator pad was
already denied last month.
MS. GREENE: Okay. That I didn't know. Okay. We are opposed to
the very visible installation of the structure of this height
and size on the beach and perhaps it's possible to install it in
a different location near the house and mask it with some of the
plantings that are outlined in the plans.
Thank you, for involving the community in commenting on
these proposals. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response).
Mr. Kimack,just to confirm, most of the stuff in here was a DEC
requirement, and you are just coming back to us --
MR. KIMACK: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Any other questions or comments from
the Board?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just one question. Is the irrigation a
permanent thing?
MR. KIMACK: I think it was put in, obviously for keeping those
plants growing, Liz. I mean, if you wanted to make a curfew on
it, in like a year or two, I'm not quite sure how long it takes
those plants to basically secure themselves.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I would certainly prefer it to be temporary
irrigation in a sensitive area like that.
MR. KIMACK: I don't think they would have an issue with that.
But I would think that probably at least a two-year window to make sure
Board of Trustees 16 December 14, 2022
there is stabilization of the plants.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing no further comments, I make a motion
to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that the irrigation be removed within a
two-year time period, and also the removal of the down-lighting
at the base of the posts. And by granting it a permit will
bring it into consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion.
_ TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 1, under Wetland and Coastal Erosion
Permits, Michael Kimack on behalf of M. KARAN AHOOJA requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove 21 linear feet
of existing failed wood retaining wall; clear a ±600sq.ft. area of Phragmites
landward of retaining wall; fill cavity behind bulkhead with ±22 cubic yards
of clean fill and compact to 95 5 aahsto compaction standard; install 37
linear feet of new wood retaining wall utilizing pressure treated 6'x8"x8'
lumber set with 10" teflon screws at 2' on-center; install two (2) wood returns
running 20' up the bluff from the new wood retaining wall and constructed
with two (2) 3"x12" boards set vertically and at finished grade and supported
by 6"x6"x6' posts set a minimum of 4' @ 4' on-center secured with (2) Y2"x6"
galvanized lag bolts each board (40 linear feet total); regrade disturbed area
landward of new retaining wall, place erosion control blanket and
plant with Cape American beach grass 1' on-center(±600sq.ft.); install
1'x6'x12', 316 L stainless steel gabion mattresses filled with 4' to 8" rocks to
function as scour pad (260sq.ft.).
Located: 19965 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-5.1
The Trustees most recently visited the property on the 7th of December and
noted that it was reviewed at work session and..questioned the access for the
completion of.the project.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent, and noted that the
applicant should retain existing vegetation on the slope as much as possible.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not support the application because the
proposed gabions will not handle the wave energy in that area, and the existing
vegetation should remain.
'is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding the application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant.
I'm not quite sure if they really have a grasp of the gabions themselves. I
had proposed gabions to the DEC for slope restoration, which they are prepared
to do. These are 12 inches thick. They are 6x12 pads. They are 316L stainless
steel 90H. They lay flat, and their intent is to work as a scour pad. The
stones there are 48 inches and they weigh four tons each. They
are not going anyplace.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. I think there is probably a miscommunication
Board of Trustees 17 December 14, 2022
with that. But we read it on the plans as in place of what I would call a splash
pads, essentially.
MR. KIMACK: Yes, it functions as a splash pad, basically. Because given
What occurred, I mean; it took out, it gouged everything out originally. There
is no way to predict that wouldn't happen again behind it. ,So the only way
_to prevent it from happening is to put something of this nature in place. .
And this will secure it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak regarding this application?
(No response).
Any additional comments from the members of the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this application
for both Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permit.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES):
MR. KIMACK: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENO.SKI: Number 2, Young & Young on behalf of MKS
REALTY, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit to construct a two-story 2,445sq.ft. footprint dwelling
with garage; a proposed 21'10"x11'9" (253.5sq.ft.) seaward
bedroom balcony with railing system; a proposed 10'4"x20'2"
(191.7sq.ft.) mezzanine level bedroom balcony, railing system, a
privacy screen wall along west side, and a 6' wide spiral
T staircase to ground; a 1,218.8sq.ft. elevated deck with a
522sq.ft. pool on seaward side, privacy screening along portion
of east side, a 3'9" wide stairs with railings to ground to west
and a 3'6" stairs with railings to ground to east; proposed 10'
wide bar/grill area on pool deck; seaward of pool to the east
off pool patio,.a proposed 203.6sq.ft. elevated (ranging from
±7.5' to 10' above natural grade) catwalk leading to a
127.9sq.ft. open air gazebo with flat roof over, 36" wide
stairs with railings to ground, and 110.6sq.ft. storage area
under gazebo; proposed 663sq.ft. of non-pervious front entry
stairs; proposed 4,095sq.ft. of stone blend driveway; proposed
1,200 gallon underground propane tank; new I/A OWTS sanitary
system, i.e. one (1) 500 gallon wastewater treatment unit and
six (6) 8.5' long by 2' effect. depth sanitary leaching galleys;
public water service connection; new storm water control
structures for roof runoff and driveway runoff; approximately
690 cubic yards of clean material from the excavated areas will
be used to fill the site to the proposed grades; and all
mechanical equipment (i.e. A/C unit), to be located above the
second-story structure.
Located: 1925 North Sea Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-4-20
The Trustees most recently considered the application and
J I
Board of Trustees 18 December 14, 2022
all its materials on December 7th, 2022. The notes read that we
conducted an inhouse review at our work session Monday night.
We are in receipt of plans stamped December 2nd, 2022.
And just to reiterate, the Conservation Advisory Council
review of this application on August 10th, 2022, reads as
follows: They do not support the application. The proposed
setbacks are too close to the wetland boundary within the
primary and secondary dune and within a flood zone. This is an
environmentally sensitive area. Any development in this property
would deplete the natural habitat.
The LWRP coordinator did a review in August, on the 9th,
2022, and found the project to be inconsistent, for several
reasons: Chapter 268, waterfront consistency review policy
number four, noting the entire parcel is located within the
Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. And citing Chapter 111-4 of the
Coastal Erosion Hazard Area code, that, (b), they regulate
coastal areas subject to flooding and, (c), regulate new
construction or placement of structures in order to place them a
safe distance from areas of active erosion.
4.2, protect and restore natural protective features.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. LICALZI: Good evening. Ed Licalzi, for the applicant MKS
Realty.
As a continuation of our hearing from August 17th, 2022,
that now includes resubmissions based on subsequent comments
from the Trustees from prior work sessions, plans have been
modified and submitted to include all the latest mitigation and
recommendations that were possible.
The newly proposed dwelling is situated on an average
setback of 38.9 feet. The proposed side yards and-rear yards
exceed zoning requirements based on the district R40.
That being said, are there any questions with respect to the
placement, new placement of the dwelling as it's been submitted?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: We have several questions that came up during
the work sessions about the pier line. This is an ongoing
conversation between our Board and you. You have been working
with the Board to pull the structure back within the pier line,
just drawing an imaginary line between the adjacent structures,
the living structures, and one of the discrepancies that we
tried to look closely at here, was on this particular plan on
December 2nd, if you can scroll up a little bit, you can see the
adjacent property on the left, the Bombara application, a bit of
that structure is visible there. On this particular plan there
is no pier line drawn, and the house adjacent on the right-hand
side, the pier line is not connected to that living structure as
well.
And it appears on this plan that the house is still a
little bit seaward, further seaward, than other adjacent structures.
If you go down, please, Ms. Cantrell, to the next page
down. 23. It's difficult to see from your perspective, but
Board of Trustees 19 December 14, 2022
here, the adjacent property line, the living structure is drawn
over to this area here, but there is no adjacent house visible.
It appears'that this line slopes slightly upward to the right.
And then just a note on page 48, which is a previous
application, set of plans. On here, this is not the same plan,
obviously, but on here you'll see that same structure, Bombara,
on the adjacent property, the pier line goes over, and the house
appears to fall within that pier line.
So this will give you the opportunity to address that. It
seems to me an inconsistency with those first sets of plans.
Why is it we are not seeing clearly the adjacent living
structures and the pier line. And I ask because, as we
mentioned at a previous hearing, the neighbor, the Bombara
application, took eight years plus. In a previous hearing you
said I'm all for building this house, I just don't want to see
it one foot further seaward than my house.
MR. LICALZI: Okay,just in response to a number of those points.
The original drawings were based on an as-of-right application
based on the R40 zoning. And that obviously met with some
concerns by the Board.
We were then advised about a, basically a so-called pier
line that is not found really in any of the zoning ordinances,
although an interpretation was made and comments were made on -
field inspections that we needed to stay behind the pier line.
That would get us eventually an approval. Which I believe we are
all agreeable to.
Now, with that being said, there has been some then later
discussions as to how to lay out that pier line. And when you
go to the most recent submission of December 2nd, you'll notice
that the Bombara piece to the west, we've done exactly what was
asked. We plotted that pier line based on the most seaward
living space of that home. It's connected to the back corner of
the home. That line is drawn across to the neighboring lot, it's
on the east side, and we've done the same thing there. We've
actually connected it to the exterior living space of that home,
so therefore establishing the pier line for the living space.
If we go back to the pier line where it begins on the Bombara
piece to the west, you'll notice we connected a,line, pier line,
secondary pier line, because it doesn't make sense to rely on
one line, from where the decks protrude past the living space on
that existing home.
So with that methodology, we did exactly the same thing on
the east side. We connected it to the furthest-most point of the
deck. Originally we submitted it, but prior to that, to the
deck that protrudes out as a more of a ramp, but it's still a
deck. So then we have been following every recommendation that
this Board has been making with respect to specific information,
or at least as specific as it could be interpreted from work
sessions, and not obviously in front of the Board.
So we find ourselves in a situation here where we have
nowhere else to go. We have gone from a 50-foot setback as-of-right,
Board of Trustees 20 December 14, 2022
to a 38.9' average setback, which places us right in line
with the other adjacent homes, which I think is correct and I
think that was the interpretation by the Board to do such a
thing. And therefore we left ourselves with a very, very
shallow-depth house, which we had to sort of squeeze out left
and right. And we are still able to maintain the requirements of
the side yard on the east and the west, meeting or exceeding the
requirements. So therefore, without any more lot coverage than
what is allowed, I believe we are at 14%. We are allowed 20. We
stay under 20. 1 believe we have an application that should meet
with your approval. So we are sort of questioning where else
are we supposed to go with this or what other guidance are you
trying to suggest that we are not getting.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Let me ask you a question, sir. You said
that you clearly depict the pier line on this. I do not see the house to
the, I guess it would be to the east. Where is that one? You
have aline that goes from the house on this to the left, but
there is nothing to the right. You have a dash line that goes to
nothing.
MR. LICALZI: Mr. Goldsmith, I know the drawings I'm looking at
here, so I'm not sure what's there, because I can't see that
far. But we depict a dash line from both the corners of both of
the homes, the adjacent homes, for the living space, which we
are behind, in terms of the proposed dwelling, and then we have
a connection point between the properties to the east and west
of their decks. I could come up and show you what I have. I
believe it should be on that plan, if I can go a little closer.
If you don't mind if I walk closer.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sure.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Page 23.
MR. LICALZI: Yes. So the resolution obviously is not there. But
there clearly is, this is the pier line here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not on our paper copy either in our file.
MR. LICALZI: I'm sorry?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's exactly how it looks in our file is what
was submitted by --
MR. LICALZI: Mine are'stamped in as well. So I'm just wondering.
I believe it would be on our site plan, not necessarily on the
survey you are looking at.
AJ, does our handouts indicate them?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: As Trustee Sepenoski is showing you, this is
a paper copy that we received which is the exact same copy that is up
on the computer.
MR. LICALZI: So the dash line here is depicting the corner of
the deck to deck. And the dash line from the corner of the
building here, because it's the furthest seaward-most point
here. Again, to the seaward-most portion here. So they are both
depicted. And I'm sorry for the resolution not showing, but it
is clearly there. Whether it meets with your approval or not,
obviously that's the question.
I also have our environmentalist here that would like to
Board of Trustees 21 December 14, 2022
say a few words on behalf of the application, if that would be okay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes, sure. I just wanted to address a point
earlier. I know you have been forthcoming with all of our
requests, and it's just a matter of this public policy to have
these discussions and public hearing, so if some of these
questions seem redundant or quite frankly out of the blue,
it's because it's important to have them.
MR. LICALZI: It's quite all right. If we all end up in the right
place, I guess we'll be happy.
MS. ROSADO: Good afternoon, everybody. Kelly Rosado, with Land
Use Ecological Services, 570 Expressway Drive South, in Medford,
here representing the applicants.
We just wanted to point out a couple of things, I won't take
up too much of your time here, with regard to the existing
conditions and the proposed conditions. This site, you can't
quite see it on the board there, is a very deep property. There
are a couple of different zones, if you will, of some existing
conditions. The-northern approximately third, which really is
not shown on the screen right now, is unvegetated beach habitat,
approximately 100 feet wide. The central third or so is
vegetated dune habitat that will be preserved with this project.
So we have 200 feet wide, between the structures and mean high
water, if you will, that will be preserved both as beach habitat
and as dune habitat, that contains various native and non-native
vegetation. The southern third of the site is the portion that
will be developed, and the plan does show that even within this
southern third, essentially everything that is not structure --
driveway, house, deck, pool --will be revegetated with native
shrubs and herbaceous species. We did submit a planting plan
with the application that shows what is proposed and where. And
the areas that don't have shrubs'proposed include over the
sanitary system because the Health Department does not want any
root interference with those systems.
And the other thing I just wanted to point out-- and feel
free to ask questions --this area is and has been very stable
over time. We took a look back at aerials going back to 1957 for
this stretch along North Sea Drive, and noted that there really
has not been chronic erosion of this site. And even since
Hurricane Sandy when there was erosion, the beach has built
back, the dune system has actually migrated north, and that
includes development of North Sea Drive since 1957, and it has
not affected this area.
And then just, you know, generally speaking, they are doing
everything that they can to protect the natural features and
mitigate further projects, siting everything as far landward as
possible, preserving a 100-foot wide beach and 100-foot wide
vegetated buffer, re-vegetating the site with native species,
proposing a sanitary system, the Innovative Alternative systems
"that improve water quality, versus conventional systems by
treating nitrogen and installing storm water management systems.
So every point of mitigation that can be done is being done
Board of Trustees 22 December 14, 2022
at this property. They are really trying to develop it as
responsibly as possible.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
MR. KELLY: You're welcome. One other thing, I have the photos
that we submitted were mis-dated, so I just wanted to submit
them with the correct date. It's 2002 and it should be 2022.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just one quick question for you. The retaining
wall depicted in the front, is that for the IA system?
MS ROSADO: Yes.
MR. LICALZI: Yes.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: In going over this application in detail and
also reviewing the adjacent property and its history, to get
a better sense of what the process might look like; in 2011, the
Trustees considered the Bombara application and they called on
Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants to produce a report on August
25th, 2010, which was read into the record, or submitted to the
record in the 2011 public hearing by Trustee Bergen at the
time. And just to keep it simple, Mr. Bergen noted at the time
that Mr. Herrmann's findings said that any work within this area
would jeopardize the integrity of the beach ridge and should not
be permitted.
Of course, something was eventually permitted after a long
battle. And the real feature that is under question is the dune,
the primary dune that the house approaches. And so the primary
concern for me now that the house has been pulled back within
the pier line, is that primary dune structure, and how the
retaining wall, the deck and pool, affect that primary dune
system.
One thing that gives me concern is just how elevated
everything is.
Ms. Cantrell, if you can scroll a little to the left, bottom left corner
of this page.
Here you provided us with a cross section of what the pool,
deck, side yard would look like, with the tree for scale. The
top of the pool I believe is at 16-feet elevation. That's of
course considering that the beach starts at seven. So we are
talking a nine-foot elevation plus a three-foot glass wall fence
around the pool and deck, creating, I guess an 18-foot wall
around the property.
So forgive me if I seem a little bit incredulous that you've
done everything to mitigate the environmental impacts in the
area, when the size of the deck and pool structure are such that
they clearly encroach into the dune area.
MR. LICALZI: Well, if you don't mind to indulge me just a
moment. We have our geologist here also who took a very, very
close look at the dunes. I would just like him, Doug, to make a few
comments, maybe answer a few questions.
MR. ADAMS: Good evening. Doug Adams, Young & Young Associates.
I guess if you have any questions, I can directly answer them.
But just when you are speaking to the Herrmann, Rob came up with
Board of Trustees 23 December 14, 2022
a line on the Bombara project that was, um, and I believe he
related somewhat to both vegetation and elevation as related to
the dune ridge. And we tried to, if you go back to the Young &
Young Associates survey, a couple pages back--
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 21?
MR. ADAMS: That line is interpolated I believe the same way that
Rob did in the field stretching from one property to the other.
If you see the first one, you see going through the center
of the dune, there is the crest of the dune, it's labeled "crest of
dune." Can you zoom in on that at all?
MS. CANTRELL: It's zoomed in as far as --
MR. ADAMS: Oh, it is zoomed. Okay, so, if you move your cursor
down a little bit, you see the crest of dune right there, and then the
next line that you see that looks similar is the continuation of what
would be the, I think Rob called.it the landward toe of the beach ridge,
or something like that..And just based on topography and vegetation
and sort of the way that topography moves across the property and
the adjacent properties on both sides, that's where we
interpreted it to be. It is a little bit actually north of what
would be the, or used as a tree line in this project.
I think just to clear up some confusion with the two maps,
we didn't show the pier line on the survey only because we don't
have, our office didn't collect the information from the
property to the west. But it is on the architectural site plan
and, you know, from whatever printing problem, it didn't show up
on there. But it is behind, the main structure appears to be
behind that line.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: What is difficult is the Board of Trustees is
bound to bring a project into conformity with the LWRP. The
Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. And the concerns
outlined in the LWRP about structure and areas where it could
otherwise be prevented, we need to believe that the deck and
pools where they are, are unnecessarily seaward, and could pose
a potential hazard if they were to be wiped out in a storm.
That's the legal and environmental concern that we have
about structure seaward of the living structure.
MS. ROSADO: Just to respond to that. Two things. One, please
keep in mind, this property is twice the size of the Bombara
property. I'm sorry, three times the size. So proportionately
speaking, you know, the deck is in keeping with what was
approved over there.
With regard to concerns over the elevation or, you know,
potential for damage with flooding and storms, all of the
structures are designed to meet FEMA construction standards for
this flood zone. And that is the reason they are elevated. That
is the reason they are going to be built the way they are.
But the other thing is, again, there are 200 feet between
these structures and high water, and while we realize that high
water fluctuates, over the past 65 years, it has not fluctuated
that much. This is not a chronically eroding area. The dune is
actuality expanding seaward and getting bigger over 65 years.
Board of Trustees 24 December 14, 2022
l
It has not been affected by the residential development
that has taken place over the 65 years. The dune has maintained
its protective feature. The beach has maintained its value as a
protected feature, and so, you know, the structures that are
landward, landward of the line of development, typically when
DEC looks at these types of things, they don't just look at the
adjacent properties, they look at five-hundred feet on either
side. So if you were to do that, you would see that we are
significantly landward of the line of development when taking, you
know, with the greater number of properties along this stretch --
MS. HULSE: That's not the way our code reads, though.
MS. ROSADO: We could not find a pier line definition in the code
anywhere, so, you know--
MS. HULSE: There is one. 275.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Section 3.
MR. ROSADO: 275-3. Okay.
MR. ADAMS: And just to be helpful, the comment regarding the, on
the cross section looking at the pool, that isn't indicative of
what is around the whole property.
So to the east side where the sanitary system is, the
retaining wall would be from zero four feet high. It would be
highest along the Bombara property, sort of in the middle there.
We actually could have graded out the front with just
grading, it wouldn't have been problematic with the driveway. It's
only a couple of feet in the front.
So I think the more, the larger concern that you have is
just really on that west line.
Also this is a matter of a point of fact, this survey when we did it,
was, I'm not sure what the date of Bombara was, you guys have
that, but even the Bombara leaching has accreted about 50 feet
since we did that survey, since we did that project.
On the pier line, I was involved with the Bombara project
and I did not, we did not have dimension of the pier line on
that. I didn't know what it was myself. We could look it up and
see it, and it seemed to talk and be specifically more about, you know,
marine structures, you know, piers, groins, wharfs, things like
that. I have never seen it applied to houses before. It has been
now for quite some time, but I don't believe it was even part of
the record for the Bombara project.
MR. LICALZI: Members of the Board, if you don't mind, Patricia
Moore for the application.
MS. MOORE: To your credit, I lost my voice, so I'm going to be
very brief because, that's my reason for speaking roughly. But that's
the legal issue raised.
I pulled out both Betsch (sic) application and Bombara
applications. I read them both very carefully. And both,
primarily through the Town Board process that was probably
the most thorough-review that was done, and because it was a
coastal erosion appeal.
The issues of--were addressed through storm water, at
least through both those decisions, they found that storm water
Board of Trustees 25 December 14, 2022
controls addressed erosion and storm action, and that the FEMA
compliance was a direct way of addressing those issues.
I would also point out, and I know you can tell by the
date, the LWRP was done in August. The submissions since the
August review by both the Conservation Advisory Council and LWRP,
have, we have implemented for the most part all of your
suggestions and recommendations. And I think all of them,
actually. And that has mitigated and addressed the LWRP
comments.
So your point is well taken, but I think that the fact that
we are here and that we have actually addressed those comments
in today's December submission, I believe allows you to then
proceed a finding that we have met the, redesigned and met the
requirements that the LWRP recommended. So, thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I would like to make a few comments.
The note that the house is now three times the size of
Bombara is not necessarily a pleasant thing to hear.
MS. MOORE: No, not the house. The property.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: oh, thank you, for clarifying, because that was not
Something I thought should -- (multiple people speaking simultaneously)
something that I thought should be addressed on the record, that
is not necessarily looked upon favorably. That was just a side note.
The main thing I did, I'm going back to an e-mail that was
sent from the Trustees office on October 18th. And there were a
few items that we asked that were to be addressed, one of which
was the pier line. And everyone is putting them in air quotes,
which I know is not able to be picked up by the stenographer,
but it is actually something that this Board is very, holds very true to,
both with living structures and with docks.
So, in addition to the pier line, we noted that there were
several concrete pads beneath the structure, and understanding
that the height of that kind of first level of the home is due
to FEMA. But what we weren't able to see in these new
submissions was whether that had been addressed. Because I do,
in the elevation that Trustee Sepenoski referenced,'that shows
the almost ten-foot high pool, with a very large tree next to it
for scale, it seems that something like that might require a
little bit more structure that is on, directly on the ground, on
grade. So I don't know if that has been addressed.
Another question, we did.highly recommend pulling the pool
landward of the pier line. I understand that while our code does
not require that, that was something that was requested.
So just looking through the notes here. And then there was
a request that the entire property seaward of the living
structure be noted as non-disturbance. And I could have missed
in it on the plans, because there is a lot of great detail,
which we do appreciate, but I did not see that clearly noted.
MR. LICALZI: So let me start with the last one. In terms of the
non-disturbance, those are noted on the drawing. If there
needs to be more, we will. But I know it's been allocated onto
the site plan in a number of places. And I believe it's also on
V
Board of Trustees 26 December 14, 2022
the survey that was prepared by Young &Young. But again, if
there is something missing or we need more, we would be more
than happy to do that.
With respect to the height of the first floor, with relationships to
the street level, I mean you basically have a 7'6" height from the
garage area below to the underside of the floor deck structure. I'm not
sure that we could really mitigate that any more than we already have,
other than to basically looking at changing the composite deck in
some other structural fashion. But this is done conventionally based
on using pilings, typical floor joists and a very simple sheathing for
the first floor.
That particular floor then proceeds outside flush. So there
is no stepdown to the pool, and that's why you are seeing that
elevation. So therefore, if the grade elevations are changing as
you are looking more to the east or to the west, it's because of the
natural topography we are working with.
If it would help, we would be more than happy to add more
evergreens along both the front and the right-side elevation,
that will bring us up higher. If we have to put in something
that is indigenous but also more mature, we would be more than
happy to do that.
We showing that tree really as a red cedar that is currently there.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Eastern Hockley.
MR. LICALZI: If we needed to add more that are obviously
available, at higher heights, we could do that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, sorry to interrupt you.
MR. LICALZI: That's okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: While I am concerned, as Trustee Sepenoski
noted as well, about the height of that pool, because that is
fairly prominent, the question I was asking about the concrete pad
was,actually on grade.
MR. LICALZI: Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: There was a concrete pad in one of the previous
submissions.
MR. LICALZI: Well, the pad would be basically the bottom of the
pool. The pool probably would not be any deeper than six feet.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So that pad will go underneath the pool, so in
the whole area with the decking and the pool area, and also
underneath the living structure as well?
MR, LICALZI: There is a concrete pad only for the garage area to
enclose the vehicle. Everything else is left natural underneath
the house.
The pool only has a six-foot depth, as most inground pools
do have. And again, it's just because it's starting at an
elevation of the finished floor.
So structurally it's sitting on piles like the house is.
Nothing is different. Same type of construction. I mean, there
is always an alternate to a wood pier piling, could be a helical
of some sort, but structurally it's sound, and the perimeter
around the pool deck is screened with a wood screening material,
so you are not seeing anything underneath the pool, esthetically
Board of Trustees 27 December 14, 2022
speaking. And therefore the only thing left to mitigate maybe
any concerns would then be evergreens along the front of it and
along the side of it, as kind of we typically do.
I would be more than happy to add something more major or
something that is more mature.
f, TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Are there any members of the public who wish
to speak tonight?
MR. VOURNOU: Yes. How you doing, everyone. Tony Vournou, 1925
North Sea Drive. Nice to meet you, I don't think I met you
last time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Good to see you again.
MR. VOURNOU: Hi. I remember. Sorry.
In my professional opinion, you know, my background
is architecture, we moved the driveway, we really did, we
listened to everything. I was right there taking notes to
everything that was addressed, and I feel that we addressed
everything that you guys like. I don't want to go back and
forth, you know, a million times, to, you know, it's not fair.
You know, I ask to please approve this so it stops already. I
don't think anyone has an issue except for one person because
I'm blocking their view. And I feel bad for that, but what am I
going to do. I didn't- I don't know.
So if you guys can, please approve this and let's move on
with our lives please. I would like to build, you know, my kids
are growing up quick, I want them to enjoy the beach and the
house. That's it. You know, please don't mess with my
livelihood, 'cause we've come back so many times. We spent a
fortune on, you know, I know it doesn't matter, I'm not trying
to sound like a.sob story here. But, come on. Enough's enough.
Please approve this. You know, that's it. I want to make
everybody, you know, I don't want my pool on the side yard or
having a house that's freaking 20-something feet wide. Come on.
You know, I understand everyone is afraid of Bombara because he
might sue because the poor guy got tortured. You know, I get it.
But this is a different scenario. You know, I have an acre lot
here. You know, please. Leave me alone and let us build.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: It's not the one person whose'view is being
blocked-It's several thousand Southolders who elect this Board
to protect the natural features that are the common possession,
and their birthright as well.
MR. VOURNOU: 100%.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So those who are walking the beach, those who
are enjoying the vegetation. And no one has yet spoken of any of
the animals that, and other organisms that live in the area and
dunal system. And if that were, in a perfect world, we would
all enjoy the dunal system without any houses whatsoever. But
here we are.
So there is a lot of structure on the beach. You have
purchased a large lot, but it's still a lot of structure on the
beach.
Board of Trustees 28 December 14, 2022
J
MR. VOURNOU: It's not. It's not though. It's really not. That's
your opinion. It's not a fact, sir, with all due respect.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are not going to have a back and forth. It's
not going to happen.
MR. VOURNOU: I'm not going to -- I'm not trying to be anything.
I just listened, and we did exactly, you know, what we were
told. And now we're back again. And, you know what, we may
come back and then come back again. And that's, you know what,
not for nothing,, it's not fair. You know.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. VOURNOU: Sorry, guys. It's just, you know, I'm emotional
because, you know, it's my livelihood here.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Anyone else wish to speak?
MR. VERNI: Yes. Michael Verni, 2125 North Sea Drive. I want
these people to build their house. They have kids. I have a
kid. It would be perfect if they were able to play together.
First I want to say one thing, if you don't mind if I could
approach.
This is north. That's west. Just so we all know. 1960,
Hurricane Donna came through. Whatever buildings were on this
beach ended up in the woods across the street. Some of them
that were put together were able to be brought back and then
they were raised.
MS. HULSE: Sir, can you make your comments to the Board.
MR. VERNI: Huh?
MS. HULSE: Can you make your comments to the Board.
MR. VERNI: Sure. Sorry, I was --sorry. They were able to
brought back and then they were finally raised. Not the same
they were raised today, but they were raised.
Also, yes, thank God we have our beach back. We have a
beach and accretion finally. 2012, we lost 20 feet of beach, and
12 feet of dune. The dune is not back, but it's coming back. It
was five feet down, now it's only about three feet down.
Just to straighten out some points, it goes back and forth,
goes back and forth. I love the way this house looks. I love
that kind of house.
Um, the.pier line, it's always about the pier line. I don't
really know what I'm looking at, honestly, with plans like this.
But right now, when I look to my right, except the bench that's
on the end, I see nothing. Except when I'm on my deck, I see my
neighbor's deck. I don't see their house unless I look that
way. The other way. I walk outside, I see my neighbor's deck.
I don't see their house. I have a clear view straight to Kenney's
beach. I have a clear view straight to McCabe's beach.
So the pier line, whatever you think it is, it's like, to
me, it's like in my house, is lined up with the other houses
that are near me. The deck behind me is lined up with the other
houses that are near me. I just don't want to go outside. I
looked at a wall. That's all. And I'm not near them. And it's
not going to be that much of a wall. I honestly. It's there.
Board of Trustees 29 December 14, 2022
You know what I mean?
The only thing I can say is if it's not there, because I
don't know where the deck is. Is the deck behind the house? Is
the house lined up? That's the deck. Where is the deck to the
house next door?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It's on the other plan.
MR. VERNI: So it's there. So we are lined up. Aren't we lined
up? The decks line up, right?
MR. LICALZI: Yes. The neighbor's deck is not shown there.
Obviously it comes out and kind of covers the right side of
the pool there. You would not really be seeing it from your
property.
MR. VERNI: Yes. I hope they build a big enough pool to invite
the neighbors over.
MR. VOURNOU: Open invitation.
MR. VERNI: Nonetheless, as long as it's all lined up, and you
don't see any problems, if I look out my house and I don't see
the wall, and they look out their house and they don't see the
wall and the only reason is the deck, I don't think anybody has
a problem. You don't see anybody here, they are going to put in
regular vegetation, you know, indigenous. We are going to be good.
I think you should let them build their house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak?
MR. MASTRO: Louis Mastro, right next door to the project. And
we own this house since 1961. And in the 80s we put a small
'extension on this house and we had to respect that V line. We
couldn't go over that V line. We had to do our little project.
And it was actually diminished to to size, and we wanted to
square off the house but we couldn't. So we stayed behind the V
line. We have a little extension on the right-hand side of the
house. And our house is one of those houses that got knocked
off the foundation and thrown across the street, and was put back
on, and, you know, back on cinder blocks. So we have been there
since 1961. You know, 61 years.
And there is, one thing about the shoreline and the high tide
mark is this. That over the years it has rebuilt. But I don't
know if you are familiar with the jetty down at Goldsmith's. It
was determined that the jetty was pushing all the migrating sand
out, and if you have a nautical map you can see a big sand bar
out there. That sand is supposed to migrate down. And, yes, the
beach has healed up and we got a lot of, the high tide mark is
very far out. But that was not the case 20 years ago. 20 years
ago when the storms came, they eroded the parking lots at
Kenney's beach and'McCabe's. You go down on the beach 20 years
ago, you see big chunks of blacktop,just like Town Beach is
happening. But it has healed up. But the jetty was not
removed. They were supposed to take half the jetty off, then it
was all tied up in lawsuits. Because the people to the west
didn't want the jetty taken out. They got four-hundred feet of
land now. So the engineers want to take half the jetty off so
Board of Trustees 30 December 14, 2022
the sand can migrate down. But that was never done. But the
sand has healed up and the beach has healed up. But 20 years
ago, it was, the high tide mark was not.
So nobody knows what the high tide mark is going to be in
the future. Nobody here could tell. But I agree with Mike, I want
these people that are neighbors and I don't want no bad blood. I
want them to build it, but we are all concerned about this
gazebo and --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The gazebo is no longer a part of--
MR. MASTRO: It's out, right?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes.
MR. MASTRO: But we are still concerned because, as Mike said,
you can go out, you can see all the way down to Cutchogue and
Horton's Point. And, you know, if everybody stays in line and
respects that V line, you know, um --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is your house the house adjacent?
MR. MASTRO: No basement, it's got a crawl space. We are the
property to the right.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Your house is the second-story frame house to
the right?
MR. MASTRO: That's the one, yes.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: How high would you set to make your deck in
your rear yard, your seaward yard to be?
MR. MASTRO! It's only about five feet high. About this high
(indicating). It doesn't sit that high.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right, thank you.
MR. MASTRO: Like I said, with my, they are going to be my
neighbors, I don't want no bad blood, I want them to build. And
it is a beautiful piece of property, we are all going to enjoy, really
enjoy it. but we are concerned about--thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you. Other members of the public wish
to comment?
(No response).
Members of the Board have anything else to say?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just as one Trustee, as one Trustee, you know,
it appears this whole project is pushing everything to or past
the limit. And I appreciate that the applicant has worked with
us to try to bring this application under control, but, you
know, as someone with multiple environmental degrees, I think
it's a little shameful to insinuate that a project of this size
and scale would have limited environmental impact on a primary
dune.
I think there is obviously a good history of homes on this site
that certainly should not be there, but there's many homes on
the street. It's certainly a buildable lot. But I just, you
know, I think it should be low-impact home as much as possible.
And I don't think we've achieved that with this application.
MS. MOORE: I mean, I'm hearing what the client has to say and
listening to what the Trustees have to say.
I don't want to see you come to a denial because then I'll
be in an Article 78, and that's not going to get us anywhere.
Board of Trustees 31 December 14, 2022
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are not going to start threatening back and
forth. We are not going to do that.
MS. MOORE: No, I don't want that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, that's exactly what just happened. Thank
you. Thank you, for your comments.
MS. MOORE: No, my suggestion is, I think they have been willing
to listen. Maybe if you can give a little more input on what you
would find acceptable. Remember--
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Your client just said the opposite. Maybe you
should talk and get on the same page.
MS. MOORE: I know what he wants. He wants this house. And what
I'm saying is that if you are saying that you as one Trustee,
and there are others, but if the rest of you feel the same way,
that we close the hearing and then the decision is the denial,
then we have no recourse. That's, you know, there we are. That's
what-- I'm trying to suggest--
MS, HULSE: Your recourse would be to file something different.
That's your recourse.
MS. MOORE: No, we could adjourn in hearing to go back and say,
please, and, maybe, I don't know if you are willing, on a work
session or--
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Are you making a request to table this
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. That would be where we are.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's not what was asked for by the homeowner.
MS. MOORE: Pardon me?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's not what as asked for by the homeowner.
MS. MOORE: He's asking for this plan. And what you've just put
on the record that you as one Trustee feel that this project is
still insufficient to meet your environmental concerns --
MS. HULSE: Pat, I think if you are requesting to table right
after the owner just said, come on, I'm getting old, my kids are
getting old, make a decision, that is an incongruous statement.
So if you want to come back--
MS. MOORE: Well, that's --
MR. VOURNOU: I apologize. I was emotional—
(Multiple voices speaking at once).
MS. HULSE: Everybody is not talking at the same time. If you want to
finish your comments, finish your comments. But you are leaving
the Board with two representatives of the same application
saying completely opposite things to the Board. Go ahead.
MS. MOORE: However, I understand when the Board speaks, what
you're speaking. They don't. They are not familiar with your
terminology. And when I hear a Board member express a concern
that they have, that they are,not in favor of this application, that they
have not gone far enough in their redesign, I'm listening to
that. And my suggestion is that we adjourn and go back and try
to tweak the design a.little more.
MS. HULSE: This has been the back and forth for months, though,
Pat. That's the issue here. And I think that that was exactly
what was voiced in your client's statement to the Trustees,
r,
Board of Trustees 32 December 14, 2022
which is the Trustees had been working with you for months, and
this is what we have.
MS. MOORE: But you have half a house here from what the original
submission was. I pulled out the original plan, and the-original
plan is a completely different house than this.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: We understand that and we looked at that plan.
closely. The plan was way out of bounds with what we would
consider approving as a Board. And so here we are, one of the
Trustees voiced concern about there being too much structure. I had
voiced my concerns about there being too much structure on the
beach, primarily having to do with the deck and the pool area,
which are quite elevated and seems like a lot of concrete to
bring in to be able to swim just off your house when there is
the Long Island Sound, which I might add, was just given a clean
bill of health by the Save The Sound Foundation. To swim
elsewhere would be, you know, silly.
MS. MOORE: Well, I mean, I understand Bombara does have a pool.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: A small pool which might be called a cocktail
pool, a plunge pool, tucked in close to the house. This is not.
So, I'm afraid --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I'm prepared as well. I agree that this is
entirely too much structure for a very sensitive area.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And I would like to echo Trustee Krupski's
statement. It's not just one Trustee that feels that way.
MR. L'ICALZI: Not that I want to drag it along further. I know
you would like the comments to be done, but I think it's fair
for you to understand, we are.working in a vacuum here. As
mentioned, back in August, we were onsite and it was decided
that the house was not as important to you as to be behind the
pier line. It was made perfectly clear by the President of the
Board. Which we have done that. Of course the only difference
is, is that there was no definition with respect to the decks,
which is really contrary to what was approved, if we are going
to try to understand this, than what was done at Bombara's.
And that simple fact that the neighbor to the east also has
a deck that protrudes past it, it's really hard to understand
where the guidelines,are.
If I look at your code, I can read it, I can understand, I
can interpolate it, okay? But when it comes to a pier line, it's
clearly not there. The definition is there relating to
residential and home building. And I'm sure the Board is very much
aware of that. So therefore, if you thought that maybe we could
partake in a work session to work through some of this, just to
get this done. Short of that, like I mentioned before, we don't
seem to have a place to go. We would like a pool. But if you
look at the deck that is there now, you couldn't fit a deck on
the seaward side. We moved the pool that was originally in, on
the back of the house, we moved it to the side of the house to
again mitigate volume, the look, the privacy, any way you want
look at it, was mitigating your concerns. So if we are just
going to keep going back and redesigning and redesigning and
Board of Trustees 33 December 14, 2022
bringing things before you and we are not going to get anywhere,
we are just wasting everybody's time.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I agree, I don't want to do that. We bring .
our concerns to you, and you have conversation with your client
and try to find out what their desires are. So it's not
completely conforming to the Trustees' understanding of what
would be environmentally sound in this area. It's really trying
to find,a balance between what your client wants in a primary
dune area and what we want.
MR. LICALZI: You are absolutely correct. But I have to say, just in
defense of our application, I mean, we've got the finest people
on our staff working on,it. I think we proved to you that the beach
is going to remain undisturbed. The areas under the house itself
itself are to be undisturbed. If we are ten feet above the
permanent grades that are there, the topography that is there,
we are not interfering with anything. If we are re-vegetating
anything that is disturbed through construction, we are really
doing what you are expecting us to do, as you being stewards of
the DEC. We understand that.
The fact that we have maintained being back with the main
structure, you know, to align with the no further seaward than
the neighboring property, we've done that. And the same thing
holds true if you define the second pier line, which I guess we
have no choice but to put in because the comments that were made
in that last work session that was typed and sent to us,
specifically said bring everything back behind the pier line.
But then it almost ignores your decisions with respect to
Bombara's application, which we read entirely every page of the 12
years that it was involved, just to make sure we mapped this
properly. So we are being very respectful.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So the "operating in a vacuum" would not be
necessarily an accurate statement because you have context given
the adjacent property owner's long litigation with this Board,
the Town Council, the Coastal Erosion Hazard people, the DEC and
ultimately the State Supreme Court.
So we are now I think ready to move on this. I don't know
how much further back and forth would be beneficial to the
client or to this Board and the people of the Town of Southold.
I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. MOORE: We have a request for an adjournment, because if you
deny this we have to come in with a full new application and
start over. And honestly, we are,at the redesign stage not the
environmental submission stage.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The hearing is already closed.
MS. MOORE: Yes, but you didn't act on my request.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: We are not obligated to.
MS. MOORE: I believe you were requested to adjourn it. You are trying
to get to a no, correct?
Board of Trustees 34 December 14, 2022
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is not a conversation we are having right
now. Thank you.
MS. MOORE: That's what I'm hearing, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MS. MOORE: Assistant Town Attorney --
MS. HULSE: I'm not Assistant Town Attorney. That was long ago.
MS. MOORE: Oh. Madam Special Counsel.
MS. HULSE: I think they've heard your request to table and I
think what I've heard is they closed the hearing. So, it looks
like they are ready to proceed with a vote.
MS. MOORE: Okay, it's just more information to acquire.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to deny the application for a
Wetland Permit, Chapter 275 and Coastal Erosion Permit Chapter
111. It's a lot of structure on the primary dune area, with a
proposed deck and proposed pool encroaching seaward of the house
to an environmentally sensitive area valuable to the People of
the Town of Southold. Under Chapter 275-12, Standards For Issue
of a Permit, the application adversely affects the wetlands of
the Town, may cause damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation;
may adversely affect fish, shellfish and other beneficial marine
organisms, aquatic wildlife and vegetation or the natural
habitat thereof; increases the danger of flood and storm tide
damage, weakens/undermines the lateral support of other lands
in the vicinity; otherwise adversely affects the health, safety
and general welfare of the People of the Town, and adversely
affects the esthetic value of the wetland and adjacent areas.
This denial extends to Chapter 111-9, (a), (b) and (c),
which speaks to structure in the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area,
which could, if made smaller, move further landward, mitigate
any damage and damage to property of the adjacent properties.
I would also like to reference the LWRP, which cites
several points regarding the application before us and its
concerns with Chapter 268 and Chapter 111. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: 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 T 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.
Located: 1905 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-4-9.
The Trustees most recently visited the site on December 7th, 2022,
noting that they were concerned about proximity to wetlands with so much
additional structure.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be inconsistent.
Board of Trustees 35 December 14, 2022
Number one, the proposed design does not comply with the previous '
C&R filed in 2015 requiring a ten-foot wide vegetated buffer.
Number two, the setback is not identified.
And number three, the extension of the development of the lot further
seaward is not supported.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this application and
resolved to support it.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application, however the
open fire pit is too close to the bluff line, and the beach grasses and the paved
area should not extend beyond the existing deck area.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. At least
I don't have any pier lines within this, so we are okay with
that.
I hear your concerns. He has basically, he's got, from the
schedule here, he's got a non-turf covering half of it. I think
the concern is the other part, if you are looking at the water,
to the right of the staircase coming down, primarily.
The reason that he has this is it's an on-grade patio that
he would like to have that barbecue top over there. If the
concern is the fire pit, primarily, what I could recommend
basically is to simply take where the bar top is, the line, and
bring that across, and gain an extra five-and-a-half feet away
from the retaining wall, in a sense eliminating the fire pit
area. And then basically do a non-turf buffer obviously to the
right of the staircase coming down, equal in distance landward
to the one on the left-hand side of that.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think one of the concerns is that there is
already a ten-foot non-turf buffer in the C&R for this property,
and on this plan it doesn't reflect that at all. It says "lawn to be
graded as needed" here.
MR. KIMACK: I can see that, basically. In this particular case,
what I suggest, I think what you would like to see on the plan
is the placement of the non-turf buffer on there.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just an acknowledgment that the ten-foot
non-turf buffer already exists is one of the issues. I think we
are also concerned with just more structure here. There is
already a lot of structure very near a sensitive area.
MR. KIMACK: Well, the structure basically is an on-grade patio,
primarily. It doesn't add any kind of weight factor to any
retaining wall or any grade, essentially like that, from a
structural point of view.
I could go through this. We did it on-site. You know the
weight of ground, you know the weight of concrete. There is not
much of a difference between the two. You've got eight pounds
per each on soil, you've got 12-pounds per inch on concrete.
You've got overall, if you put the four inches of concrete down.
We could basically substitute the concrete for a bluestone
blend. It would lessen the weight a little built. It goes to
about maybe ten pounds per inch, where concrete is about 12
pounds per inch. Because bluestone blend would be about
t
Board of Trustees 36 December 14, 2022
110-112 pounds per cubic foot, in that particular range. That's a
possibility. And what we, we could substitute the, for that and
then put the bluestone blend underneath it. But any kind of
weight, when you are dealing with it, as we discussed, and I
don't want to take a lot of time, I know you have other cases
coming in, but the weight going down is always at a 45-degree
angle. So whatever concrete, whatever weight you put on this,
the 45-degree angle is never coming anywhere close to the
retaining wall to put any more pressure on that.
I did note someone indicated there might be a little bit of
a lean in the retaining wall, and I think there is, but there is
not going to be any increase in that as a result of putting the
patio down, whether it's concrete underneath it, or blended
bluestone.
But what I do suggest, perhaps, is to have an accurate
drawing, is to go back and take this drawing, I would then, and
then put on the non-turf buffer, which is actually on the site,
so that it's an accurate description of what is there.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Mr. Kimack, I appreciate your concern
about the weight of what this stone would add to the site.
MR.'KIMACK: I'm not concerned on the weight. It's not going to
contribute anything to the --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So, where I was going with that comment
was I appreciate you addressing that concern. I think that, from my
perspective, what is more concerning than the potential weight
factor is the fact that you now have this existing deck that is
quite elevated, with multiple steps down, and then there is this
hardened patio at the base of that. So what you are essentially
creating is a waterfall from the existing deck down to this new
proposed patio. And then that's just going to continue to runoff
into the wetland area. And from my perspective, that's the
concern that I have.
MR. KIMACK: That is a legitimate concern on that particular one.
I think taking these concerns into consideration, we can correct
that situation, if we have the deck running down the stairs, now
we have a solid patio out there.] could basically, we could
design in there a screen, basically, and put it into a drywell
system-so there is no additional rainfall would have been
created as a result of visa vie the steps of the patio that
would head toward the toe to ground.
So that under this situation I think I'm taking your
concerns into consideration. I would like to askfor a table
tonight so I can redesign this and resubmit.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just to speak a little bit more on that before
you go into.redesigning it. I think the premise of this project
is kind of what we are rejecting here. It's the idea of putting
the patio down right beneath this big deck and the hot tub and up
to the retaining. You know, it's a lot.
MR. KIMACK: Under what criteria are you judging it?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So under Chapter 275.
MR. KIMACK: Under what criteria of 275?
Board of Trustees 37 December 14, 2022
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So, specifically, it will adversely affect the
wetlands, it will increase the danger of flood and storm-tide
damage, it will weaken and undermine the lateral support of
other lands in the vicinity.
MR. KIMACK: Okay, now I just addressed the weakening of the
lateral. We talked about the weight factor.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: You talked about increased weight, and so
you are saying, at the same time you are saying it is heavier but it
won't affect anything.
MR. KIMACK: What I'm saying is if we have four inches of soil
that we take out, that's 32 pounds per square foot. And if I put
back concrete, it's 60 pounds per square foot. The difference
then if I used blended, if I used bluestone blend is 50 pounds
for'that particular four inches. The weight factor is not an
issue. If you look at any engineering book, essentially like
that, the pressure is always if you are putting any weight like
that down, it's always at a 45 degree angle on the edges going
down. So there isn't any pressure, if we put this concrete down
here that is going to be on the retaining wall, there is no
pressure at all.
The other concern is that there is going to be some impact
on the wetland area, but I can basically mitigate that by
putting up a screen and taking any water running off that patio
into a drywell. So I'm not quite sure what is left.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response).
Any questions or comments the Board?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Kimack, our concern is any further
seaward projection of any structure on this property, it's.a
pretty tight spot to begin with. So we are not looking too
favorably at extending anything further seaward than what is
existing. The weight issues, be that what they may. Just in
general, we would like to not see anything extending further
seaward, definitely anything non-permeable extending further
seaward.
MR. KIMACK: You mean anything more further seaward than the
bottom of the stairs.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes.
MR. KIMACK: Then I would request to table so I can discuss with
my client and'see whether I might be able to adjust it to meet
your concerns.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. I make a motion to table this J
application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 2, Michael Kimack on behalf of CAROLINE
TOSCANO requests a Wetland Permit to clear a 4'wide by 40' long
path through the landward 40' Non-Disturbance area, and a 4'
wide by 40' long path through the 25' Non-Turf Buffer, 25'
Board of Trustees 38 December 14, 2022
Non-Disturbance Buffer and wetlands (total wetlands disturbed is
t320sq.ft.); construct a 2'x4' set of steps on landward end of a
4'x64' fixed dock with nine (9) sets of 8" diameter pressure
treated pilings using Thru-Flow decking throughout; install a
3'x12' adjustable aluminum ramp; install a 6'x18.7' floating
dock with a 2'x4' bump-out for ramp situated in an "U
configuration and secured by two (2) sets of 8" diameter dauphin
pilings at each end.
Located: 610 Jackson Landing, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-1134-8
The Trustees most recently visited this site on December
7th and noted that this project is within the pier line and
seems to have adequate water depth for the float.
The LWRP proposed that this is inconsistent with Policy 6
and noted, with number one, the proposal includes a path through
a 25-foot wide non-disturbance buffer. The creation of the path
would be a disturbance and does not comply with New York State
DEC permit 1-4738-03928 and the filed C&Rs from 2021. If a path
was desired, an exclusion of both documents should have been
stated.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application with the condition that the docking facility does
not extend beyond the pier line.
And I'm in receipt of plans stamped and dated October 31st,
2022.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. I am
aware of the non-disturbance from DEC. Basically they have
their own, which was 50 feet from the highwater mark.
Your non-disturbance was 25 feet from the highwater mark,
as best as I can discern it from the description given. So there
was an overlap factor.
DEC does not, in past applications, even in a
non-disturbance zone, always allows a pathway through it in
order to get to the water. And past decisions that I have done
and past applications that I have handled, one I know of that
was on Wells Road, for instance, there is a three-lot
subdivision, there is a 50-foot non-disturbance that runs
through the backs of those, and you've got one of these in front
_J of you, basically.
We,were dealing with putting in a dock system there, which
the LWRP had a problem with. But the DEC did not. The DEC
granted me the approval to go through the non-disturbance to get
to the water, under that situation. Which would be the same
here.
So DEC would not be an impediment to having a pathway
through there. I suspect that in past decisions that this Board
has made, that there has always been an accommodation to go
through a non-disturbance area, whether it be a buffer or
non-disturbance to get to the water line. Presuming that you.don't
exceed the four-foot pathway.
Board of Trustees 39 December 14, 2022
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That is correct. We generally allow a four-foot
wide access path. But also, you know, the Trustees can be more
stringent than the DEC but not less.
And one thing that I kind of just want to review what I
perceive, when I went back to review the history of what this
buffer distance is, if you'll bear with me. It says the original
permit for the house was permit#9799, that was the original
house that was permitted in 2021, and then when I'm looking at
those buffers, and this more just"a clarification. It's not
necessarily trying to --
MR. KIMACK: No, please, because when I looked at it, it was .
difficult to perceive exactly, it's like who's on first on this particular--
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I completely agree with you. And I think that
the project description and what I'm seeing from the previous
permit application and then what you presented there, a little
bit incongruous, but I think we can sort this out to --
MR. KIMACK: I tried to sort out the,two. I was aware of that
overlap with DECs and yours --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So if you'll just bear with me here in reviewing
this. So from what I read from the original --actually, Ms.
Cantrell, do you mind pulling up permit#9799, please. And I'm on
page six.
Basically, the way I'm interpreting this is that there is a
wetland line that.has been defined, and then from there, there
is what they've noted as a permanent vegetated buffer zone of 40
feet from that flagged wetland line that goes landward of the
wetland line.
And then there is an additional noted 25-foot buffer from
the approved structure. So then we have 40-feet landward of the
wetland line, 25-foot seaward of the approved structure line.
And the way I perceive that is there is then an overlap of a total of
about 50 feet of a non-disturbance buffer.
MR. KIMACK: I read it somewhat differently, and I don't-have it
in front of me right now, but I went through the same thing, the
same document that you have, that gave the approval. It
basically, it didn't define where the beginning of the 25-foot
started along the water line. It basically talked about the land
between the Town and the homeowner. So you would assume, and
since the land itself is the highwater mark, the property line is
the highwater mark, I took the highwater mark at the beginning
of the 25 foot line and then went landward with it 25 foot from
there. But then that became somewhat moot because the DEC's
determination was it was a non-disturbance from the tidal
wetland line, not the highwater mark.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That's correct, yes.
MR. KIMACK: And that was six feet forward. So that is what we were
dealing with, primarily. So they had a different beginning point
than the Town did.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. So what your plans show is that
highwater mark.
MR. KIMACK: Yes
Board of Trustees 40 December 14, 2022
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And how did you come up with that 25 foot--
MR. KIMACK: That was in the decision. That was in the Trustee
decision on this property.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. Can you go to the, pull up the permit
please, page two.
(Board members perusing documents).
MR. KIMACK: I think part of the application is the notice coming
into the deed.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I feel like we are coming up with the same
number two different ways almost.
MR. KIMACK: I looked at the declaration of covenants when I gave
you a copy of it in the application. And I think that, if you
look at the whereas at the bottom over there, whereas the
condition of the granting of.the wetlands permit to undertake
regulated activity, the Trustees require that a 25-foot non-
disturbance buffer adjacent to and landward of Howard's branch
of Mattituck Creek.
Again, that's the commencement point. So I assumed that
that would be the property line between Mattituck Creek and that
which is the highwater mark.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I'm still finding a bit of discrepancy between
what is on the physical drawing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I just say--
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So regardless, the permit calls for a 50-foot
buffer.
MR. KIMACK: With DEC.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our permit. You can read it right there.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Landward of the existing DEC buffer.
MR. KIMACK: An extra 25 feet landward of the existing DEC
buffer. Okay. Well, the, yes, I think the question is could we
go through that with,a pathway to the water. I suggest DEC has
the permit, I submitted with DEC, they have not brought that up
as an issue. They brought some others up but not the fact that
we couldn't go through.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I guess the reason I was going along the lines
with this questioning is mostly for clarification purposes
because it is a little bit confusing but also --
MR. KIMACK: All I did was do the best I could. I submitted it--
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Also in the respect that while we would be
willing to grant that four-foot access path that the, you know,
the wanting to bring up the fact that it might require a DEC
amendment in order to allow the four-foot wide path through
their non-disturbance.
MR. KIMACK: Yes. It's interesting with DEC, there is a bit of
difference between the two. DEC allows a five-foot wide path,
but we have to go with the most restrictive, which is the
Trustees with four. But I've gotten other applications through
the non-disturbance area with DEC. And I suspect I will get that
this time.
The bottom line is if you do grant this, obviously, I would
Board of Trustees 41 December 14, 2022
need DEC to move forward anyway. So they are going to, you know.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think there is some confusion going back and
forth. But I think ultimately, I mean when we go out to inspect
this, there should be a 50-foot buffer,.with a four-foot wide
path through it, if we grant that path.
TRUSTEE'PEEPLES: That's my understanding.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the bottom line.
MR. KIMACK: That's the bottom line. It was hard given what the
construction of the site, essentially like that, and everything
else going on there, that exactly where`the beginning point was.
But we know where the highwater mark is, for the most part.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I think in summary, though, your client
probably has to do some planting.
MR. KIMACK: Oh, definitely.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's not grass.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So then if we are --then we're talking about a
non-disturbance.
MR. KIMACK: I was only concerned about going through a
non-disturbance area to get to the waterway. That's why I
presented it in my.application. And I think I worded it a
four-foot pathway through the non-disturbance area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can stipulate that. And I guess new plans
to follow.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: We've gotten down to semantics here.
With all that said, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that there is a 50-foot total non-disturbance
area and that pending DEC approval and/or amendment, whatever is
required for the area, that needs to, for the four-foot wide
path. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you, for patience, with this one.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, for your patience.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, Michael Kimack on behalf of
JOSEPH & KRISTINA OTTOMANELLI requests a Wetland Permit to
demolish existing dwelling and foundation; construct a new two-story
dwelling and attached garage with a 3,130.56sq.ft. footprint;
construct a 18'x38' (684sq.ft.) in-ground swimming pool; install
an 8'x8' (64sq.ft.) in-ground spa; construct a 21.25'x20'
(425sq.ft.) cabana with a 3'8"x4'4" outdoor shower; install an
I/A OWTS septic system on the landward side of new dwelling;
install seven (7) 8' diameter drywells to control stormwater
runoff and pool backwash; construct a berm of approximately two
(2)feet in height to level the area around the pool, spa and
cabana; install a 2,360.42sq.ft. raised paving stone deck around
Board of Trustees 42 December 14, 2022
the pool, spa and cabana with stairs to ground; install a fire
pit in the deck area; install 4' high pool enclosure fencing
with gates; and to install a pool equipment area, generator and
a/c unit(s).
Located: 250 Midway Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-1-9
The Trustees conducted field inspections December 7th,
noting recommending pulling the cabana back outside of Trustee
jurisdiction.
There were four cedars noted on the plans to remain, and no
trimming of Baccharis.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with a 15-foot non-turf buffer planted with native vegetation, a
drywell for the exterior shower, fencing around the pool,
pervious pavers around the pool and to retain the four eastern
cedars.
Anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. I did
submit a new site plan showing that the proposed cabana was
pulled back, if you have it in front of you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, sir. Sorry, I forgot to mention that. We do
have plans stamped received December 9th, 2022, that do show the
cabana pulled back as well as a ten-foot non-turf.
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 close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
application with the new plans stamped received December 9th,
2022, and the condition that those four eastern red cedars are
to remain.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 4, Martin Finnegan, Esq. on behalf of
16125 SOUNDVIEW REALTY, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove
the existing circular stone wall and pavers; remove 4'x8' stone
porch and relocate same to the northwestern side of dwelling;
construction of a 32'x16' (512sq.ft.) in-ground swimming pool
with a minimum depth of 42" and maximum depth of 96" (8ft.),
67.4'from top of bluff and 22' from existing septic tank;
install 709sq.ft. perimeter,pool patio at grade with 48" BOCA
compliant pool enclosure fencing; install an 8'x4' pool drywell
and 3'x6' pool mechanical enclosure on east side of dwelling.
Board of Trustees 43 December 14, 2022
Located: 16125 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-50-2-19
The Trustees most recently visited the property on the 7th
of December and noted that the property pitches away from the
bluff, toward the house. That it was staked this time around
and it was a straight-forward plan.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
And the CAC did not support the application due to the
proximity of the setback from the top of bluff.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. FINNEGAN: Good evening. Martin Finnegan, 13250 Main Road,
Mattituck, for the applicant. Before I get started, can I just,
Liz, give you the original --
MS. CANTRELL: Yes.
MR. FINNEGAN: (Handing). I believe it is a very straightforward
application. We already had presented the application to the
Zoning Board. You may recall when we did pre-submissions it was
originally a 20x40 pool in the presentation to them and in
additional discussions the applicant agreed to reduce the size
of the pool to 16x32, to reduce the bluff setback relief needed.
So the pool is really kind of tucked in as tight as it can go
behind the house. The house is 110 feet from the bluff. We'll
remove that existing patio and kind of put it in the area that
is already disturbed by that, and all of the other, you know,
related patio, mechanicals will be there.
We have that constraint of the existing sanitary system
being there, that also requires us to pull it in and therefore
making it a parallel configuration was not an option here.
So the ZBA did also require a 15-foot non-turf buffer as a
condition of their approval, which was interesting, but I don't
know if they'd gotten that from you guys, but they helped you
out there. So that is already a condition as well.
So with that,if there are any questions that the Trustees
have in regard to this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI:.Thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak regarding this application, or any additional
comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I feel that this project, it's important to
note that the applicant demonstrated an effort and followed
through to move this pool as close as possible to the house, and
that the property itself is pitched away from the bluff, which
really mitigates a lot of the environment impact of this
application. And then of course the buffer.
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the stipulation of new plans depicting a 15-foot non-turf
Board of Trustees 44 December 14, 2022
buffer.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 5, Jennifer Del Vaglio on behalf of
PABLOPEG, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 16'x36'
in-ground gunite swimming pool; a 1,006sq.ft. pool patio that
y includes a 24'x29' stepping stone patio; install 4' high code
compliant pool enclosure fencing; and install a pool drywell for
backwash and pool equipment area.
Located: 375 Reydon Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-79-5-23.1
The Trustees recently visited the site on December 7th,
2022. Notes from that visit read: Addition of non-disturbance
area at approximately 13 feet elevation line, and non-turf
buffer. Suggested locating pool or pulling back landward, and
reducing size. One-to-one tree replacement.
The Trustees are in receipt of a Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program memorandum stating that the project is
inconsistent with LWRP policies.
The four reasons: Vernal pools expand and contract with
the seasons. It is a benefit to water quality changes. It is
recommended the setback be increased.
Number two, the pool should be relocated to the north side yard
of dwelling or turn the pool. The location of the pool dryweil
and equipment, drywall and equipment, is very inefficient now
and should be closer to the pool. Any buffers should be
vegetated, and existing trees be preserved where possible.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
recommendation however noted that the recommendation is made to
move the pool landward ten feet in line with the screened-in
porch; and the size of the patio�reduced and constructed with
permeable materials.
The Trustee received the permit plans on December 12th, 2022.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. DEL VAGLIO: Good evening, Jennifer Del Vaglio, from East End
Pool King, on behalf of the applicant.
We did do the site inspection and thank you for your
feedback and your suggestions. We did adjust the size of the
pool. We adjusted the size of the patio, reduction of about ten
feet of space and lot coverage from the pool and the patio
in-kind.
We did.show the non-turf buffer and we did entertain the
idea of shifting the pool parallel to the house, and but in
doing so we feel strongly that there needs to be at least a
ten-foot setback from the screened-in porch because they have a
large family, lots of children, and we don't want to create a
dangerous situation with trying to get around that pool.
And then in doing so, with the patio on the other side
because of the grade change and the like constant slope down
toward the inground pool, we felt that we need to have a ten-foot
Board of Trustees 45 December 14, 2022
pad space that would be just grass after the pool. So in turn the
whole thing would really only gain you two extra feet away from
the vernal pool. So to move it parallel didn't really make a
lot of sense. It didn't get us to where you all wanted us to be.
In reaction to the CAC, we are happy to move the pool
equipment and the drywell. The only reason that we put it over
there is because the electric is already on that side. There is
the entryway to the basement. And there is also the
air-conditioning unit. So there is already a utility zone. So
we are happy to move those to wherever would be more appropriate
according to the Trustees, or the CAC. We can certainly put it
on the other side, it will take a lot more electric work, but we
are happy to comply. `
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Anyone else wish to speak regarding the
application?
MS. LAZIO: Hi, my name is Carmela Lazio. I've owned that lot
For about 25 years, and it's a vacant lot. (Handing).
MS. HULSE: Ma'am, what is it that you just handed up to the Trustees?
MS. LAZIO: Just that I support the approval of the pool.
MS. HULSE: So it's a letter of support.
MS. LAZIO: Correct.
MS. HULSE: Did you want to provide any other testimony?
MS. LAZIO: No, I just wanted to say that I approve of it.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: You are the adjacent property owner on the
side of the property the pool is on?
MS. LAZIO: Correct.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: (Reading). PABLOPEG LLC supports the
application. I own the vacant lot next to the property. Proposed pool
will be adjacent to my side yard. I support the approval.
MS. HULSE: Thank you.
MS. LAZIO: I received a certified letter, so I wanted to answer,
to be neighborly.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MS. DEL VAGLIO: Can I just interject a few more things. I wanted to
make a comment to the tree removal and the one-to-one ratio
putting it back. Unfortunately, if we did the one-to-one, it
would not be in keeping with the idea that we are going to go to
a solar panel system for the house, which is more energy
efficient, and already you saw how woodsy and over-covered the
property was. So in trying to be more energy efficient and doing
solar, we would really prefer not to do a one-to-one. There is a
bunch of trees coming down to make it so that the pool would be
warmer. We are happy to do evergreen screening, but I think
that, Mr. Krupski, you had mentioned you wanted it to be in-kind
the species we were taking down. So I'm wondering if there can be
some consideration so that we could do evergreen plantings
instead, that way we could keep them trimmed and keep them
managed. A lot of the trees that are going to be removed that
are in the pool area are very close to the house.
So in keeping and thinking of storms that could come
Board of Trustees 46 December 14, 2022
through, they could be damaging to the house structure, to the
deck, to the screen-in porch. So we want to kind of keep that in
mind.
Also, as far as the woodsy nature of the property, there are a
lot of ticks in that property and on that yard, so for us it's
important for us to have some area where we can actually
mow the lawn and kind of keep the ticks at bay as best we can.
When we were doing field inspection, Mr. May kindly suggested
that I check myself for ticks and I kind of shrugged it off and
looked down and there was a tick on my leg. So that's something
we would like to have taken into consideration as well. I think
that's it. I wanted to add that. Sorry.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Any other members of the public who wish to
speak regarding this application?
(No response).
All right. So we've reviewed the application in work session. We
have been out in the field to see it. We are also in receipt of
as-built permit applications for the screened-in porch and I
believe the deck as well, that were built without Trustee
permits and now they'll be going before the Trustees.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And I believe also the main living structure
that was built prior to Trustee permits.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you, for that. So at this point, I'm
looking at the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
recommendation, and I think that this is a classic case where it
would best to situate the pool in the side yard and go before
the ZBA to seek the variance that would allow the pool to be on
that side yard, push it back away from the wetland area and
therefore mitigate any impacts on that vernal pool.
There are not that many vernal pools in Southold Township.
To put additional structure closer to them, or trees closer to
them, it would just degrade the environmental benefits that we
see in the Town, located with these vernal pools.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: In addition to what Trustee Sepenoski
mentioned in regard to the as-built, as one Trustee I would have
appreciated the opportunity to contemplate the entire project;
the decks, the screened-in porch, the pool, the patio, all of the
additional structure that is seaward of the house, and to be
able to look at that as a comprehensive plan. And while I
understand that is not always possible, I feel like there was a
bit of, you know, there was a strident decision to add all of the
deck/porch area, which I completely understand. I live in a very
wooded area, which I appreciate, and that's part of why I
purchased where my house is located. We have a tick problem as
well. So, you know, the last thing we would want them to do is to
start spraying because of that issue. That is a Southold-wide
town issue.
This property, however, part of the beauty of it is that
it is densely wooded.
And so I feel that the decision to move forward with the
screened porch and the decking and then comeback later for the
Board of Trustees 47 December 14, 2022
pool, there was a little bit of a swap there. You know, you kind
of got the larger exterior deck structure in a spot where the
pool could have gone.
So I am in agreement with Trustee Sepenoski in terms of
pulling it to the side yard and pulling it landward of the `
structure.
MS. DEL VAGLIO: If you don't mind, can I just interject and make
just one comment.
The application for the permit for the deck and for the
screened-in porch went to the Building Department and was
approved through the Building Department. It was not disapproved
and they didn't suggest going to the Trustees. I was not
involved, so I was not able to connect with the client and
suggest that the client go to you as proper protocol. So I just
don't want you to take that and shade your decision on this,
because it really was not, you know, Paul and Peggy's fault.
They really honestly didn't know they were within your
jurisdiction, they were not advised to come here.
MS.. HULSE: It's your obligation to know. There is no obligation
to advise. I know what you are saying, but when you purchase a
property, it's your obligation to know what jurisdictions you are
in and what permits you need.
I think that was the point the Trustees were making.
MS. DEL VAGLIO: With all due respect, the Building Department is
supposed to say --
MS. HULSE: That's not the case. You are incorrect.
MS. DEL VAGLIO: Okay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: We all understand it's not your fault that
these, well, to us, however--
MR. MAY: May I speak?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Sure. As per recommendations from the
Trustees --go ahead.
MR. MAY: My name is Paul May, I am legally the managing member
of PABLOPEG LLC. I'm the Pablo, my wife Margaret is the Peg.
To reaffirm what Ms. Del Vaglio is saying, we submitted the
application for the permit and.did not have in mind at that time
an idea, I think you sort of referenced a holistic, entire
application. We didn't at that time have in mind a plan for a
pool. We only wanted to have the construction of the, which
actually was just replacing an existing deck. We made it about
18 inches longer that the old one. But it was not a new
structure.
Since that time, I'm sorry to report, that I was walking
across the street and didn't look both ways and so therefore I
now need, I spent eight weeks in the hospital, I now need
rehabilitation. I'm allowed to go to a pool, an aquacize pool --
aquacize is a term of art, I guess -- pool, to rehab my injuries,
but I can only go two days a week. So this pool was thought of
afterwards, not part of a whole plan that I was trying to, or
we, PABLOPEG LLC, was trying to pull one over on you.
We wanted to build a pool not only just for me but also for
Board of Trustees 48 December 14, 2022
our three kids and our six grandkids to play, you know, to swim.
But I don't want to give you the impression or have you leave with
the impression that this was some, you know, overarching scheme
that I was trying to hide a pool. We didn't have a pool in mind
three years ago when we submitted the building plans. And the
building plans were submitted by my next door neighbor,
actually, a Southold contractor, who knows the Town regulations
and did not submit it beyond the Building Department. And so
that's, I just want to make that clear. Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, for clarifying it, and sorry to hear
about your health concern. Thank you.
MR. MAY: I should have been more careful. Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: As one Trustee I'm not in opposition to a
pool on this property, I'm just concerned about the current
location as depicted on the plans. It sounds like a neighbor is
in support of a pool. I would hope that the neighbor would also
be supportive of your effort before the ZBA.
Is it your intention to proceed with this application as a
postponement, to table?
MS. DEL VAGLIO: Yes;we would like to postpone it and reconvene 1
and see if we can come up with something that is more compliant
with your wishes.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you. Any members of the Board
wish to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Hearing no further comments, I make a
motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 6, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
ANGELIKI KAZEROS &GEORGE PLITAS requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 4' wide by 134' long catwalk consisting of 6"
diameter,piles, steps to ground on landward side, steps to mean
low water on seaward side, and using Thru-Flow decking.
Located: 1395 Sleepy Hollow Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-1-10.20
The Trustees most recently visited this site on December
7th, 2022, saying we would continue to review prior history at
work session.
We are in receipt of a letter from a neighbor in support.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent. There are three bullets here for that.
Number one, the growth habit of Spartina Patens and
Spartina Alterniflora, cause die off each year and regeneration
each spring. The installation of pilings in a salt marsh results
in a permanent destruction of both of these species where
pilings are placed. Unless a path through the salt marsh is
trampled frequently, the harm of a foot path is less than that
of a permanent wooden structure.
Number two, the introduction of pesticide-treated lumber in
Board of Trustees 49 December 14, 2022
a living eco-system is not supported by Policy Six. The water in
this area is very shallow.
Number three, access for kayaks and other water-dependent
recreational activities can be obtained at the numerous launch
and access points throughout the Town of Southold designated for
this purpose.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this application
and resolved to support it.
Is there anyone.here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. We were
here last month, I believe, with a larger scheme -- I shouldn't
say scheme -- a larger project, which includes a floating dock
and a longer pier. We scaled it back considerably to just make
it an access to launch kayaks. That's the purpose of it from
the intended purchase of the property included to gain access to
the waters.
We have no problem modifying the proposal to utilize
non-treated lumber. We can go with all fully Greenheart. I did
scale down the size of the piles to limit any penetration
through the existing wetlands, to go with six-inch piles. So we
did modify the proposal to go Greenheart, six-inch piles. And
the catwalk itself is through-flow decking continuous, the
entire structure. And it will be four-and-a-half foot above the
wetland line, which is a requirement of the DEC and Army Corps
of Engineers as well, to allow all the obviously rainwater and also
sunlight to penetrate through it to continue with the growth of the
Spartina and Alterniflora.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding,this application?
(Negative response).
I think my-personal concern was the very sensitive area, we
rarely see a marsh as pristine as this marsh here in Goose
Creek..) don't think that this proposal addresses the issues
that we had, primarily with the structure going over the marsh
here.
Are there any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Wasn't there a similar application, I mean
going back, that was denied?
MR.,PATANJO: You mentioned that at the last hearing that I
presented. I was unaware of that application, and I thought that
was also for a larger scope with floating dock, with a long
projection, if I remember correctly.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It was on August 20th of 2008, was the
previous application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That was denied. So how does this one differ?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think the pool was approved and the dock was
denied.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: How does this dock differ from the one that
was previously denied?
MR. PATANJO: Don't know. That was a different Board and a
different time. I don't know.
Board of Trustees 50 December 14,2022
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That one was I believe 55 feet long, but it
actually, there was a wood chip path that has been kind of
turned into a dock.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So the one denied was 55 feet --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Of a catwalk, with a wood chip path.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And this is 134?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That's correct.
MR. PATANJO: However, if you look at it as a wood chip path,
that would be destroying a lot more wetlands than a six-inch
pile. So to avoid any disruption to the wetlands, the piles and
the height difference-above it would remediate any removal of
wetlands.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: While the applicant has addressed one of our
concerns, which was the hazards to navigation caused by the
dock, they have failed to adequately address the other concerns
that led to two previous denials.
The inconsistency pointed out by the LWRP includes that the
installation of pilings'in a salt marsh result in a permanent
destruction of Spartina, and is not supported.
The proposed action is located in Goose Creek, which is a
critical environmental area. We rarely see a marsh area as
pristine as this one.
This application fails to comply with the standards for
issuance of a permit in Chapter 275, in particular because it
will adversely affect the wetlands of the Town. It will
adversely affect fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine
organisms, aquatic wildlife, vegetation and natural habitat, and
it will also adversely affect the esthetic value of the wetlands
and adjacent areas.
For these reasons, I make a motion to deny this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 7, En-Consultants on behalf of
ROBERT G. SCHNOOR, GREGORY A. SCHNOOR, & CHRISTINE E.
VAN DYKE requests a Wetland Permit for the existing bluff stairs
consisting of a 7.8'x8' top landing, 3'x15' steps, 6.1'x8.2' middle landing
with two (2) benches, and 3'x14' steps to beach.
Located: 335 Sound View Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-3-5
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I'm going to recuse myself from this
application for business reasons.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: The Trustees most recently visited the site on
December 7th, and Trustee Sepenoski noted that the application
Board of Trustees 51 December 14, 2022
is straightforward.
The LWRP finds this proposal consistent.
And the Conservation-Advisory Council resolved to support
this application.
I'm in receipt of plans stamped dated October 31st, 2022.
And is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to
this application?
MR. HERRMANN: I'm afraid I came down on the wrong night.
Rob Herrmann, En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicant.
This is an existing bluff stair that predates all of the
Trustees regulations. It predates coastal erosion, predates
wetlands code, though it does appear on.some prior Trustee .
permits.
The parcel is being sold and so the owners would like to
get a wetlands permit for the existing stairs so that if it
needs to be, you know, maintenance or whatever could be done
so legally. .
So, I would agree with Trustee Sepenoski's assessment.
It's a straightforward application.
TRUSTEE PEEP-LES: Thank you, Mr. Herrmann. Would you be
agreeable to a non-turf buffer?
MR. HERRMANN: Because the property is trying to go into
contract, I would like to try to avoid that. I think it would
make sense for the buffer to be imposed at the time that the
stairway might need to be re-built, particularly in the event that it
would need to be moved and then you can make adjustments
accordingly.
In this instance there is no new changes in conditions
proposed here. The Board in the past would not normally impose a
buffer.
I don't know, do you have pictures of the site, Liz?
I'm pretty sure there is some buffer area that exists there
along the top of the bluff now.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So, to clarify, this is, in your wanting to
have a permit granted in order for the sale of the house.
MR. HERRMANN: Correct. It's basically, this is a situation
where when a property goes into contract, often times now because
so many people buy these properties and they find out that they
have docks or groins or stairs, whatever, that have no permits. And
technically the Trustees don't allow normal maintenance and
repair of these structures unless there is a wetlands permit in
the owner's name. So this really is just trying to permit that,
to create a record of wetlands permit for the existing stairs.
And again, functionally, there is in effect buffer
vegetation that is present there, so I don't think there would
be, you know, if there was a condition that there shall be no
additional seaward encroachment of the lawn, something like
that, that could just be attached to the permit, would be fine.
Otherwise it would be in a position where they have to go start
filing,covenants, which is going to further delay the sale, et
cetera.
Board of Trustees 52 December 14, 2022
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, for clarifying.
MR. HERRMANN: That would be my pitch.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Sounds familiar. We heard this from you
before. So all of that seems reasonable. I make a motion to
close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, Trustee Peeples.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 8, En-Consultants on behalf of
RICHARD &JEAN JUNG requests a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace.in-place and up to 12" higher approximately 99 linear feet of
existing timber bulkhead, ±13' westerly return, and ±4' easterly
return with vinyl bulkhead and returns; backfill with
approximately 25 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be trucked
in from an approved upland source; and to establish and
perpetually maintain a 12' wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 3675 Wells Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-4
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on December 7th,
noting increase the non-turf buffer to extend landward to the
crest of bank with natural vegetation approximately 25 feet.
The LWRP found this to be consistent, however there was a
note. It is recommended that the turf on the slope pitched
towards the surface waters be minimized. A buffer design to
capture and treat storm water runoff would benefit Policy 6.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with a 12-foot wide non-turf planted with native vegetation.
We are also in receipt of new plans that show a 25-foot
overall non-turf buffer, with a ten-foot pervious gravel buffer
just landward of the bulkhead to a 15-foot vegetated non-turf
buffer with a four'-foot wide paver stone path to access the
`
dock. '-
I's there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants.
Interestingly, I had not seen the LWRP report, but it sounds
like we may have hit that on the head with the revised plans
that we drafted in response to the Board's comments.
We did prepare a revised plan last dated December 12th,
which shows a generally 20 to 25-foot wide non-turf buffer
landward of the bulkhead to the top of the slope. There is some
slight variation in the depth to the top of the slope, but there
is a distinct pitch-in the lawn, and that's part of the reason
that they are raising the bulkhead is to match the height of the
neighbors and also to reduce that pitch. And so within that 20
to 25-foot non-turf buffer there would be a ten-foot wide
Board of Trustees 53 December 14, 2022
permeable gravel area adjacent to the bulkhead, and then like a
multi-plantings area landward of that between the gravel up
to the top of slope, just allowing for a four-foot path through
those plantings, and gravel down to the existing dock.
So with the hope that this revised plan does satisfy the
Board's request and satisfies the objective of the LWRP
memorandum, we would hope to get the Board's approval for the
revised plans.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. 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 close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the new plans stamped received December 14th, 2022, that
show a 25-foot wide non-turf buffer that consists of a ten-foot
pervious gravel buffer, immediately adjacent to the bulkhead,
with a 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer landward of that, with
the four-foot wide paver stone path for access to the dock.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 9, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of PHYLLIS SOUSA requests a Wetland Permit to install a
14'x38' swimming pool surrounded by a 58'x28' stone patio with
an 8'x8' spa along the pool's landward side; remove the existing
seaward deck stairs and install two 4'x4' wood stairs along the
easterly and westerly sides of the existing deck. Located: 4145
Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-12.6
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 12th --
hang on. (Perusing file). On the 7th of December, and discussed
different plans for drywells and buffers.
I am in receipt of-- all right. I would like to just
change what I said there. October 12th was the last time the
Trustees visited the site and requested the new plans.
I am in receipt of new plans showing drywells moved and a
30-foot vegetated non-turf buffer in place, stamped received by the .
office December 12th, 2022.
The LWRP found this to be consistent but referenced the
drywell.
And Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding the
application?
Board of Trustees 54 December 14, 2022
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Robert Anderson, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting. I just wanted to say I believe that as far as, to
my knowledge, we satisfied all the requirements as required by
the Trustees, and I believe we provided very decent buffer
plan. I did not include woody material in this plan because
there is obviously some very healthy, mature oaks in there we
would like to maintain.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like
to speak regarding this application or any additional comments
from the members of the Board?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just for the record, I would like to say I
like that sweater.
MR. ANDERSON: For the record, I appreciate that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hearing none, I make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
based off the new plans received in the office December 12th,
2022.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
J TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 10, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc. on behalf of KATHLEEN A. HEIDT requests a Wetland Permit to
reconstruct 43.5 linear feet of existing bulkhead in-place using
vinyl sheathing; reconstruct 43.5 linear feet of existing
retaining wall in-place using vinyl sheathing; and to remove and
replace existing deck and stairs consisting of a 4'x4' upper
platform to 4'x5.5' stairs to a 16'x16' deck to a 4'x5' lower
cantilevered platform with 2.5'x11.5' retractable aluminum
stairs to ground in-place and in-kind at the completion of the
proposed bulkhead/retaining wall reconstruction.
Located: 8530 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Mattituck.
SCTM# 1000-126-11-22.
The Trustees recently visited the site on December 7th,
2022. Trustee Goldsmith has written: Vegetated non-turf buffer
between bulkhead and retaining wall.
The LWRP found this to be consistent, noting that they
should minimize irrigation fertilizer-dependent turf landward of
the retaining wall.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Robert Anderson, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting on behalf of the applicant.
All I would like to mention is that we do desire to
maintain the existing deck and stairs and replace them at the
completion of the bulkhead/retaining wall restoration. In
Board of Trustees 55 December 14, 2022
keeping with what is existing, we would like to plant beach
grass 12-inches off center, provide a nice coverage and provide
similar to what is existing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay, if I'm correct we have a new project
description and new plans depicting the accurate length of the
bulkhead.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. My apologies for that discrepancy, there was
an issue with scaling and extrapolating that information. We have
since corrected that and the bulkhead does extend from the
;eastern property line to the western property line.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Anyone else wish to speak regarding the
application?
(No response).
Members of the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing no comments, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this
application with the plans stamped December 12th, 2022.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion to for adjournment.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
4Rspectfully submitted by,
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees