HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-03/15/2023 Glenn Goldsmith,President �rjf S�(I/�y Town Hall Annex
A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice President ,`O� ��� 54375 Route 25
P.O.Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski Southold,New York 11971
Liz Gillooly G Q Telephone(631) 765-1892
Elizabeth Peeples • �O Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes " -�
Wednesday, March 15, 2023 MAY 1 8 2023
5:30 PMQ
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
March 15th, 2023 meeting. At this time I would like to call the
meeting to order and ask that you please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance is recited).
I'll start off the meeting by announcing the people on the dais.
To my left we have Trustee Krupski, Trustee Sepenoski, Trustee Gillooly and
Trustee Peeples. To my right we have attorney to the Trustees Lori Hulse,
we have Senior Clerk Typist Elizabeth Cantrell, we have 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. They are listed as follows:
Page five, number 2, 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
I
Board of Trustees 2 March 15, 2023
four piles; and to install four tie-off piles.
Located: 371 Hedge Street, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-7-18.
Page 12, numbers 24 through 26 and page 13, numbers 27
through 29:
Number 24, Michael Kimack on behalf of INN THE VINEYARD MATTITUCK,
LLC, c/o VERONICA NASARY requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built 18'x36'
(648sq.ft.) in-ground swimming pool, 1,179sq.ft. stone pool patio surround, and
4' high pool enclosure fencing with two (2) gates (281 linear feet); as-built 8'x4'
(32sq.ft.) landing to a 4'x12' (48sq.ft.) staircase to a 3'x66.83' (200sq.ft.) catwalk;
seven (7) as-built electric lights at pool and along walkway to floating dock to be
converted to Dark Sky compliant fixtures; and as-built 6'x40' (240sq.ft.) floating dock
with two (2) pilings to secure it in place, to replace in-kind previously approved
floating dock.
Located: 900 Fox Hollow Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-6-22.
Number 25, Joan Chambers on behalf of JENNIFER MAYE requests a
Wetland Permit to remove existing septic system and install a new sanitary system;
install an approximately 82 to 83' long, 4' high maximum retaining wall consisting of
the west section proposed at 39' to 39'6" long with a 3' return on the western end,
and an eastern section proposed at 37' to 376" long with a 3' return on the eastern
end; an estimated removal of fill to be up to 12 cubic yards with no new fill brought
onto the property.
Located: 910 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-4-22.
Number 26, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of MARK & ANN SCHAEFER requests
a Wetland Permit to construct a proposed 4' wide by 78' long fixed dock with
Thru-Flow decking; a 30" wide by 14' long aluminum adjustable ramp; and 6' wide by
20' long floating dock situated in an "L" configuration and supported by two (2) 10"
diameter piles;
dredge approximately 10 cubic yards of spoils from area surrounding proposed
floating dock to obtain a minimum of 36" of water at low tide and deposit spoils off-
site at an approved landfill.
Located: 2300 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-5.
Number 27, 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 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.
Number 28, 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 29, 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
1
Board of Trustees 3 March 15, 2023
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.
All of those are postponed, so we will not be having a hearing those tonight.
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 applications.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to have our next field
inspections on Tuesday, March 7th, 2023, at 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll rescind the motion for that. I'll make a
motion to hold our next field inspection, Tuesday, April 11th, 2023, at 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next Trustee
meeting on Wednesday, April 19th, 2023, at 5:30 PM, at the Town
Hall main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
III. WORK SESSIONS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next work
session Monday, April 17th, 2023, at 5:00 PM at the Town Hall
Annex 2nd floor Executive Board Room; and on Wednesday, April
19th, 2023, at 5:00 PM, at the main Town Hall meeting hall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of
the February 15th, 2023, meeting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 4 March 15, 2023
(ALL AYES).
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral V, Monthly report. The Trustees
monthly report for February 2023. A check for $6,653.04 was
forwarded to-the Supervisor's Off'ce for the General Fund.
VI. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's
Bulletin Board for review.
VII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VII, State Environmental
Quality Reviews, RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town
of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more
fully described in Section XI Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, March 15, 2023 are classified as
Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are
not subject to further review under SEQRA:
Edward & Meredith Rerisi SCTM# 1000-63-7-37
Nicole Eckstrom & Carlos Saavedra SCTM# 1000-104-5-22
Michael & Daniel Katcher SCTM# 1000-137-1-5.1
Peter& Maria Ganley SCTM# 1000-111-1-31
Shlomo &Alice Weinberg SCTM# 1000-116-7-6
John F. Hurley III, c/o Jack Hurley SCTM# 1000-107-7-10
Joel B. Singer SCTM# 1000-51-4-11
Browns Hills Estates, Inc. SCTM# 1000-13-1-12.1
Nancy Collins SCTM# 1000-35-5-20
Andreas Serpanos SCTM# 1000-51-1-17
Marie Romney SCTM# 1000-51-6-29
Rene Cardinale SCTM# 1000-111-14-31
Inn The Vineyard Mattituck, LLC, c/o Veronica Nasary SCTM#
1000-113-6-22
Jennifer Maye SCTM# 1000-137-4-22
Stephen E. Ravn, Daniella C. Ravn, Patrick Flanagan, Eva
Flanagan & Morton D. Dubin II SCTM# 1000-75-6-3.3 (Dominant),
1000-75-6-3.2 (Servient), & 1000-75.-6-3.1 (Servient)
Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC SCTM# 1000-45-6-8
Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC SCTM# 1000-47-2-9
Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC SCTM# 1000-47-2-10
Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC SCTM# 1000-47-2-11
Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC SCTM# 1000-47-2-12
Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC SCTM# 1000-47-2-13
Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC SCTM# 1000-47-2-14
Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC SCTM# 1000-47-2-15 as written.
Board of Trustees 5 March 15, 2023
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VIII. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Resolutions, Administrative Permits,
Number 1, CHARLES DISAPIO & XANNE PEREZ request an
Administrative Permit for a partial removal of existing gravel
driveway and plant lawn; create turnaround area north of
existing garage, material to match existing gravel. Turnaround
Area is 12'x18'.
Located: 5780 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 115-10-7
Trustee Goldsmith conducted a field inspection on March
13th, 2023, noting that there was a rock boulder retaining wall
on the plans in front of the driveway.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
I will make a motion to approve the application with the
condition that there is no turnaround in front of the framed
garage or boulder retaining wall as stated on the plans stamped
(perusing) -- so the plans that we have in the file, stamped
received March 15th, 2023. That is my motion. And subject to new
plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, WILLIAM A. ERHARDT & WILLIAM D.
BOLTZ request an Administrative Permit to remove/trim weeds and
brush, replace with native plants/grasses, remove existing
wooden dock; and for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to hand
cut Common Reed (Phragmites australis) to not less than 12" in
height by hand, as needed.
Located: 11985 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-5-46.2
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection March 6th, 2023. The notes
say to request increase vegetated buffer to 20 feet and supply planting plans.
So I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition to stipulate a 20-foot vegetated non-turf buffer in
accordance with the plans stamped received March 9th, 2023.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, Eileen Wingate on behalf of 165/175
DAWN DRIVE LLC requests an Administrative Permit to resurface
the existing 12.5'x47.5' rear deck and 45'x4' side deck; replace
Board of Trustees 6 March 15, 2023
the deck(s) handrails; replace doors and windows, eliminate a
set of doors on the east (rear) and realign the balance of
windows; removal of front entry deck and construct a 6'x4' entry
portico; installation of gutters to leaders to drywells;
clean-up and restore existing non-turf buffer.
Located: 165 Dawn Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-5-21
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
I'll make a motion to approve Number 3, as submitted.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4, SAMUEL SINGER requests an
Administrative Permit for an as-built 5' high, approximately
350' long wooden fence on south border of property adjacent to
dirt road right-of-way and 150' long on east side of property.
Located: 44030 Route 25, Southold. SCTM# 1000-75-6-6.1
The LWRP found this one to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency is the as-built was constructed without a Board of
Trustee review or permit.
Trustee Krupski conducted a field inspection March 12th,
2023, noting that the fence should be pulled back from the
wetland approximately 15 feet from existing on the south side.
I will make a motion to approve this application noting
that the fence to be pulled back 15 feet from the seaward end,
and revised plans submitted, thereby bringing it into
consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL YES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, PAUL LEARY requests an
Administrative Permit for the as-built wooden steps to beach.
Located: 780 East Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-110-7-21
Trustee Krupski conducted a field inspection March 5th,
2023, noting it is straightforward with the new description.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is the as-built was constructed without a Board of Trustee
review or permit.
I will make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, and thereby granting it a permit will bring it into
consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 7 March 15, 2023
IX. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: In order to simplify our meeting, the
Trustees regularly group together applications that are similar
or minor in nature.
As such, I'll make a motion to approve as a group Items 1
through 4 and 6 through 8. They are listed as follows:
Number 1, PAUL LEARY requests an Administrative Permit for
the as-built wooden steps to beach.
Located: 780 East Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-110-7-21
Number 2, Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc., on
behalf of DOMELUCA II, LLC requests a One (1) Year Extension to
Wetland Permit#9863, issued on April 14, 2021.
Located: 14895 Route 25, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-23-1-2.10
Number 3, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf
of 106 MULBERRY CORP., requests a One (1) Year Extension to
Wetland Permit#9873, as issued on April 14, 2021.
Located: 750 West Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-2-1
Number 4, DONNA E. ABRAMS & MICHAEL J. CORSO request a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#9817 from Vincent Matassa to Donna
E. Abrams & Michael J. Corso, as issued on February 17, 2021.
Located: 920'Sandy Beach Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-43-3-7
Number 6, En-Consultants on behalf of JOHN & STEPHANIE A.
VAN WIE requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#10284 from Robert
G. Schnoor, Gregory A. Schnoor& Christine E. Van Dyke to John &
Stephanie A. Van Wie, as issued on December 14, 2022. .
Located: 335 Soundview Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-3-5
Number 7, James Maye on behalf of JENNIFER MAYE & JOHN P.
BERNHARD requests an Administrative Amendment to Administrative
Permit#10086A for an as-built 4'6"x5'8" closet addition on north side.
Located: 2285 Little Neck Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-10-1
Number 8, En-Consultants on behalf of EVAN GEOFFROY
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#10223 to
increase the maximum height of the approximately 112 linear foot
long mid-level retaining wall from 2.3 to 3 feet, to better
match the existing landward grade.
Located: 2505 Wells Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-18
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Number 5, PHILIP & LIA CHASEN request a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#9-1-89-55-7-3 from Thomas Tyree to Philip & Lia Chasen,
as issued on December 22, 1989, and Amended on October 25, 1990.
Located: 1585 Long Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-55-7-3
Trustee Sepenoski conducted a field inspection February
23rd, noting that what is built or what is existing does not
match up with what was permitted. Therefore, since what is
Board of Trustees 8 March 15, 2023
existing does not match what was on the permit, I will make a
motion to deny this application for transfer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 9, JOHN F. BETSCH requests an
Administrative Amendment to Administrative Permit#7598A for one
(1) additional 10' section of two-rung post rail fence, seaward
of the existing, resulting in 34 feet of fence in total.
Located: 2325 N. Sea Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-4-24
Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection February 15th,
2023. The notes read: Need additional information and
dimensions from concrete monument to seaward boundary of the
property line. Proposed.fence extensions appears that it will
come close to or exceed the property boundary line.
The Trustees noted that this is a dunal area. Increasing
the length of the fence will have a negative environmental
impact on the dune. So as such, I will make a motion to deny
this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
X. MOORINGS/STAKE & PULLEY SYSTEMS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral X, Moorings/Stake & Pulley systems.
Again, as in prior meetings, we'll group together, I'll make a motion to approve as a
group Items 10, 11 and 12. They are listed as follows:
Number 10, LAWRENCE HEIT requests a Mooring Permit for a mooring in
Gull Pond for a 27' sailboat, replacing Mooring #12. Access: Public
Number 11, GERARD GORDON requests a Mooring Permit for a mooring in
Little Creek for a 13' outboard motor boat, replacing Mooring #17. Access: Public
Number 12, RYAN HICKEY requests a Mooring Permit for a mooring in Little
Creek for a 15' sail boat, replacing Mooring #61. Access: Public
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman number XI, Public Hearings. At
this time I'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting
agenda and enter into the Public Hearings.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a Public Hearing in the matter of the
Board of Trustees 9 March 15, 2023
following applications for permits under the Wetlands ordinance
of the Town of Southold. I have an affidavit of publication
from the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may be read
prior to asking for comments from the public. Please keep your
comments organized and brief. Five minutes or less if possible.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under Amendments, Number 1, AMP Architecture on behalf
of EDWARD & MEREDITH RERISI requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit
#10128 to include the installation of slab steps in rear yard; relocate pool
equipment and generator with screening; and to construct a 20x30' in-ground pool
in lieu of originally proposed 16'x28.5' pool; construct a proposed 724sq.ft.
(29.4'x39') pool patio/coping; construct a proposed 191 sq.ft. (22.6"x8.6') patio; a
proposed 20.3' long, 1' thick and ranging from 2.6' to 6' in height retaining wall;
proposed stair: 12-6" rise, 10, 1' tread with 4' landing; entry walkway from
driveway to second front entrance to be 343sq.ft. (33.5'x7'); 14 2'x3' and 3 3'x5.8'
stepping stones; 8-1'x5' stones, 2-1'x8' stones, 1-1'x11' stone, 2-3'x5- stone
and 1-5'x6' stone steps and landings in rear yard; and walkway from steps and
landing that lead to dock and shower area: Flat work of 160 sq.ft.
Located: 1515 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-63-7-37
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 7th of March and noted that
we would like to see a plan provided with an overlay highlighting the exact
differences and note all the changes, as-built fees, et cetera, reviewed at work
session.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. PORTILLO: Good evening. Anthony Portillo, AMP Architecture.
I just wanted to really address the one thing is the driveway on
our proposed amendment. We are actually going to be removing the
asphalt and putting gravel there. I apologize, that was kind of
an oversight on my part. But that is the plan.
So, for the record, that is going to be gravel. It's currently asphalt. It will be
like a border with pavers around that will be flush with the gravel. But we want
to put gravel there.
The request, I guess the largest request here that I think changed from our
original is wanting to extend that retaining wall and then putting a staircase down
from the existing deck.
I have some photos that I took at the site, if I could give those to you guys. Can I
bring these up?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you want. We were there and took photos, too. Unless you
feel it's something pertinent.
MR. PORTILLO: No, I just wanted to, it was just showing how the grade is really
just falling away at that location.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we did note that.
MR. PORTILLO: Okay, if there are any questions, I'm available.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
r"
Board of Trustees 10 March 15, 2023
(No response).
Or any additional comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application based on the
new plans stamped received in the office March 10th, 2023.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Under Wetlands and Coastal Erosion Permits,
Number 1, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of J. GEDDES
PARSONS requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit
to remove the existing 5'x81' fixed dock and piles (16), 3'x20'
ramp and 9'x18' floating dock; construct a proposed 5'x81' fixed
dock secured by sixteen (16) piles; install a 4'x16' adjustable
ramp; and install an 8'x18.5' floating dock situated in an'"I"
configuration and secured by four (4) piles; and to replace the
five (5) existing tie-off piles as needed.
Located: 515 Sterling Street, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-9-3.1
The Trustees reviewed the application for this particular
project on 3/7/23. Notes from our discussions, since we note
that we've reviewed the new project plan submitted to the office
stamped received March 3rd, 2023.
Prior versions of this application were considered by the
LWRP coordinator and marked as inconsistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection, therefore no recommendation was made.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding the
application?
MR. JUST: Good evening. Glenn Just, JMO Environmental
Consulting.
I would like to point out the project description has
changed a little bit since we met onsite and at the Board
meeting a couple months ago.
The existing 5x81 fixed dock, we agreed to cut it back by
eight feet, so the realistic number is 5x73, that we'll pull
back to within the pier line, as requested by the Board. And I
sent in those revised plans.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Those are the March 3rd plans we received,
right?
MR. JUST: Yes.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes, we reviewed those.
MR. JUST: Okay, I just wanted to point out in the project
Board of Trustees 11 March 15, 2023
description the slight discrepancy.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you. Anybody else?
Members of the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the new plans received March 3rd, 2023.
The Trustees, in this particular location, it's our policy to approve
docks with different dimensions given the specifics of the area on Fishers,
thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Under Wetland Permits, Number 1, J.M.O. Environmental
Consulting on behalf of MARY ANNE KELLEY & DIANE C. McKENNA requests
a Wetland Permit to remove existing dock and construct a new 3'x16' landward
fixed ramp to a 4'x60' fixed dock utilizing Thru-Flow decking; a 3'x18'adjustable
ramp; and a 6'x20' floating dock situated in a "T" configuration and secured by
two piles.
Located: 1775 Naugles Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-4-19
The Trustees most recently conducted an inhouse review on March 13th,
noting that we reviewed the new plans that were submitted after last month's
hearing.
The LWRP reviewed this application in February and found it to be inconsistent,
and they had questions about the length of the dock.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed the application
and resolved to support the application.
Since these reviews there have been new plans submitted
showing that the dock will be reduced by ten feet. And we are in
receipt of new plans stamped March 13th, 2023.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. JUST: Once again, Glenn Just, if there are any questions from the Board.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Had the homeowners given any thought to redoing
the staircase?
MR. JUST: Redoing the staircase?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes. Or was that going to be left until --
MR. JUST: The project is for sale right now and I'm sure that's going to be
one of the first things they are going to do as far as cleaning up the debris, we
are all in agreement.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: They seem open to that.
MR. JUST: Correct.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Are there any other questions or comments from
the Board?
Board of Trustees 12 March 15, 2023
(Negative response).
Anybody else wishing to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL YES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application
with the stipulation of removal of any garbage or debris within
a hundred feet of the wetland or within the wetland, and the
addition of a 30-foot vegetated non-turf buffer from the edge of
wetland, and with the new dock 4'x50' fixed dock, as shown on
the new plans received March 13th, 2023, thereby bringing it
into consistency see with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 2, AMP Architecture on behalf of ANDREAS
SERPANOS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 14'x35'
(490sq.ft.) In-ground swimming pool with spa; install a proposed
4' x 37.6' x 19.8' x 8.10' (320sq.ft.) stone pool patio; install
a proposed 8' pool drywell and pool equipment area; install 300
linear feet of pool enclosure fencing with gates; and to install
and perpetually maintain a 10' wide native vegetated non-turf
buffer along the landward edge of the top of the bluff.
Located: 19105 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-17
The Trustees most recently visited the site on March 7th,
and noted the pool was not staked. Replace native trees
one-to-one. Question the fence at the edge of the bluff.
The LWRP found this proposal to be consistent with their policies.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
this application, noting that the project is within a hundred
feet from the top of bluff and out of compliance with Chapter 275 of the
Town Code.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this application?
MR. PORTILLO: So we were called about the staking, and we went
out and staked it. Did you guys get a chance to see that?
(Affirmative response).
MR. PORTILLO: Oh, okay. So, in regard to the overall design plan
here, was we were four feet off the deck, the existing deck, and
really that's like the minimum for like a walkway. And then we
really considered the width of the pool. So it's at, you know,
14 feet with a one-foot surround.
So, you know, we did our best to really try to stay as far
away from the bluff based on our existing conditions.
So I'm here for any questions or comments.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Great. Thank you, very much. So when we were
Board of Trustees 13 March 15, 2023
there we noted there was a fence at the top of the bluff. And
understanding that that is there likely for safety concerns,
that is typically not something that we like to see located
there'right at the top. Due to the fact that you are installing
a pool fence now, obviously landward of the top of bluff, would
you be willing to remove that fence?
MR. PORTILLO: Sure.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. And then that you have already indicated
here, a ten-foot non-turf buffer, so then that would kind of,
you know, I don't know if there may be a benefit in increasing
that slightly to 15 feet. If that's agreeable. And then that
way we kind of, you know, clear up of the area there at the top.
MR. PORTILLO: Not a problem. There is, actually one thing, as
you mentioned, I had to go to Zoning for this application and
they actually requested that that would be a vegetated buffer.
So we would, we are going to do a vegetated buffer. So if it's
15 feet, that's fine.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: 15-foot vegetated.
MR. PORTILLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, great. Is there anyone here who wishes
to speak in regard to this application?
(No response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application
with the plans stamped dated February 7th, 2023 -- oh, I'm
sorry. Excuse me. I make a motion to approve this application
with the receipt of new plans to depict fence removal on the top
of the bluff and a 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer. That is
my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. PORTILLO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, AMP Architecture on behalf of
MARIE ROMNEY requests a Wetland Permit to install a proposed 16.5'x36'
(594sq.ft.) in-ground swimming pool with a proposed 717sq.ft.
stone surround and 4' wide path; reconstruct existing 12.9'x10.3' (234.6sq.ft.)
deck and enlarge the deck an additional 7.9'x10.3' (133sq.ft.) and 3.3'x8'
steps to ground; install a proposed 15.7sq.ft. pool equipment and A/C
condenser area; install 199 linear feet of pool enclosure fencing with
gates; and to install two 8' diameter drywells to contain runoff.
Located: 1485 Mill Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-6-29
The Trustees conducted a field inspection March 7th, 2023.
Board of Trustees 14 March 15, 2023
Notes say 1540ot vegetated non-tun`buffer is more appropriate here.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application.
We are in receipt of new plans stamped,received March 13th,
2023, that do show the 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. PORTILLO: Again, just, we have the revised plans, the client
is understanding the 15-foot vegetated buffer, they're okay with
all that, so if there are any questions I can answer, I'm here.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to
speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE"PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the plans stamped received March 13th, 2023.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. PORTILLO: Have a good evening. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 4, McCarthy Management, Inc. on behalf
of LAWRENCE & IRENE SCAVELLI requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 2,250sq.ft. dwelling with attached garage; construct a
second-story cantilevered addition onto dwelling; construct a
30sq.ft. covered un-enclosed front porch with foundation;
install two (2) new footings below an existing 353sq.ft. seaward
side deck and re-deck with new synthetic decking; construct a
350sq.ft. first floor deck roof over existing seaward side deck;
construct a 40sq.ft. second story balcony; removal of a
201sq.ft. seaward side deck and install steps from sunroom to
grade; abandon existing septic system andlinstall a new S.C.H.D.
approved I/A Nitrogen Reducing Septic System landward of
dwelling.
Located: 1010 Maple Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-5-27
The Trustees most recently visited the property on the 7th
of February and more recently discussed it at work session on
the 13th of March.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
the application due to,the lot coverage exceeding 20%.
It should be noted that this application was on last month
and there was discussion about not exceeding the pier line with
living space and an overhang. And I'm in receipt of new plans
stamped received in the office March 8th, 2023, and new project
Board of Trustees 15 March 15, 2023
description stamped received in the office March 10th, 2023,
that depict an overhang over the deck that does not exceed the
pier line with the neighboring properties.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. SCAVELLI: Thank you, for the chance to speak. Irene and
Lawrence Scavelli. We are just supplying you with your drawings
that we discussed last public hearing. We followed your
direction, we went through architectural modifications to give
you that cutback that we all agree with success that we should
be doing that. And we gave you everything I just, that we spoke
about, and I hope that satisfies the Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to
speak regarding this application or any additional comments from
the members of the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the new plans stamped received by the office March 8th,
2023, and the new project description received by the office and
stamped March 10th, 2023. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 5, Michael Kimack on behalf of SILVER
SANDS HOLDINGS I, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for an as-built
installation of a 6' high fence and gate for proposed trash
enclosure (260sq.ft.) as shown on Planting Schedule L-4-20; and
refurbish existing 8'x12' shed with new roof, fascia, siding,
removal of window and replacement of doors.
Located: 675 Silvermere Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-45-6-8
The Trustees recently discussed this application on
3/13/23, during our work session and inhouse review. Notes from
that meeting read: A non-disturbance buffer for entirety, and
shed is on Town property.
We also received plans stamped February 27th, 2023. I'll
say that there are several applications for this Holdings LLC
and they will each be reviewed individually. I ask that the
applicant or the representative limit their comments to five
minutes, if humanly possible.
MR. KIMACK: It's humanly possible. Mike Kimack, on behalf of the
applicant.
There are eight applications. We'll start with the first
one, which is Lot Eight, which is the 17.7 acre piece.
There are two components on there. I would guide you to the
planting plan L-4-20, which I made as part of the description,
Board of Trustees 16 March 15, 2023
to give you some guidance in terms of the landscaping.
But on this particular property we are proposing to put an
area that would be for trash containing, basically, and I have
submitted, based upon your comments, a new description, which
included around the path footing a 6 to 12-inch lip
independently poured around the outside to make sure that, on
three sides, to make sure that nothing goes toward the wetland
area. And that description, you should have.
Then as far as the shed is concerned, the only thing we are
doing there is just renovating it in place, new siding, new
roof, new shingles, et cetera. It's not adding on. It's just to
bring it up to current standards.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So you just mentioned the lip on the outside
of the trash enclosure. That reminds me of the LWRP findings
which found the project to be inconsistent. And it just
mentions the trash enclosure located as far from surface waters
as possible to prevent any pollution nearby the water.
MR. KIMACK: We are as close to the front road as we can be. We
are off I believe eight feet or so from the pavement of the Town.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And the lip of the trash enclosure, beneath
it will contain any spillage.
MR. KIMACK: Yes, I understand it will be six or seven inches
independently poured make sure nothing goes back to the wetland
area.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Can you address the second point raised on
our inhouse review, the shed partially on Town property?
The lines on the image of there may not be necessarily accurate, but if
you could speak to that.
MR. KIMACK: You know, it shows it on Town property partially,
primarily. It's been there, I would imagine, probably forever,
40, 50 years, forever, essentially like that. I'm not quite sure
exactly how you wish me to proceed with the shed.'I mean, in
essence we are not planning, hadn't planned to move it because
it's not that far away from the paved area as it now exists.,
primarily. It's just a matter the renovating what we have.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: There are environmental dimensions and legal
dimensions. This is one of the legal dimensions category for us.
I think we can --
MR. KIMACK: It's 8x12, if I remember correctly, if I remember
the size. A little under 100 square foot. So normally it would
meet that hundred square-foot cut off to begin with.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay.
MR. KIMACK: And also, if you can follow along with that,
primarily, that L-4-20 basically, if you look at the planting
plan, because they are broken down into different sections. The
L-4-20 is planned for that particular areas. In that particular
one. And that's pretty much it.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The Conservation Advisory Council also
resolved to support the application. So you've included the new
Board of Trustees 17 March 15, 2023
language in plan that is surveyed on the project description, as
you said.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
(No response).
We have a letter not in support of the project from
Margaret Rose de Cruz submitted Wednesday, March 15th, at 11:49.
And that letter has been entered into the record.
Is there anyone else?
MS. WADE: Randy Wade, 6th Street, Greenport.
This is the beginning of a series of fairly shocking
proposals that there had been rumors that I really didn't
believe them, that this developer had gone ahead and just put up
a fence so nobody could see what he was doing, and had heavy
equipment in there and was, you know, doing all sorts of things,
and then to see that they just had not thought about coming for
approvals until now, seems like I hope something can be done so
this does not set an example. This is exactly the opposite way
you would want to have anybody do work in Southold Town.
You know, I personally would deny every application at this
point. I think or, you know, certainly keep the hearing open
until more can be uncovered. I heard rumors that, um, that they
were hooking up to the sewer plant also, with the cottages,
which had never been hooked up before. And Greenport deserves
the fees. We all want sewer hookup, that this is just egregious
the way this proceeded. So I hope you'll do everything in your
power to make an example of this project. Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: State your name, for the record.
MS. MURRAY: Sure. Anne Murray, I live in East Marion, but I'm
here representing the North Fork Environmental Council.
And this goes to all the permits that are being requested
in this, tonight's meeting. As I said, I'm representing the
North Fork Environmental Council. We are a 50-year old local
grassroots environmental organization, and we have been
following this development of the Silver Sands motel site from
last year, actually.
From what I understand, the Building Department in February
said that the only work that was being permitted at this Silver
Sands site was for the motel. No permits were issued for the
cottages. Stop-work orders were posted there, issued by the Town
in September of 2022, and twelve black plastic walls surrounded
the cottage area.
From what we understand, despite the lack of any of Trustee
permits, the owners went ahead and began working in the
freshwater wetlands on this waterfront property. Now all this
work, including destruction of 1,230 square-feet of precious
freshwater wetland vegetation has been completed. This is
outrages and harmful.
When the Town Engineer reviewed the drainage plan submitted
Board of Trustees 18 March 15, 2023
by the applicant, he said they were not allowed because no sound
drainage design should involve the destruction of the natural
resource it is designed to protect.
The LWRP coordinator said the applicant's plans were
inconsistent and noted that there was no control over the
quality of the storm water coming from the French drain. He
recommended that a detailed remediation plan for the freshwater
wetland be required.
It was the responsibility of these owners to obtain the
relevant permits and protect the natural features of this
beautiful bay-front property. Instead, they proceeded with their
plans in pursuit of profit, showing an egregious disregard for
Southold's environment. They now request eight as-built permits
from the Trustees. We believe these permits should be summarily
denied. Thank you.
MR. KIMAC,K: May I make a recommendation, basically.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Kimack, just let the residents speak
first and then we'll address them, as opposed to going one by
one, please.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
MS. PERKINS: Are we going to go, like each item by item or--
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you, for your question. Your name?
MS. PERKINS: Mine?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes.
MS. PERKINS: Ashley.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Can you approach the microphone and ask your
question.
MS. PERKINS: Ashley Perkins, 775 Shore Road.
Are we going to go like point-by-point and then do you want
us to all like speak on each point, or should we -- like how do
we do it?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The way that I would suggest, and other
Trustees can weigh in on this if they wish. This is several
separate tax parcels. The Trustees have looked at these on a
case-by-case basis.
Now, you've heard Suffolk County tax map number
1000-45-6-8, and it has particular features on it that we
discussed, including the trash enclosure and the shed. So I
suggest that we proceed on a case-by-case basis.
Parcel-by-parcel. If these were all on one single property, then
I would suggest we take it holistically.
MS. PERKINS: I'll be back then.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: If possible, Liz, do you mind pointing out the
parcel we are looking at, at the moment on that map. That might
be helpful.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: In an effort to avoid confusion regarding the
Town engineer's comments on one parcel, right now we are
considering the parcel where Silvermere Road dead-ends at the
Board of Trustees 19 March 15, 2023
parking lot there.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you, Liz.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Does anyone else wish to speak regarding the
application.
MS. HURST: My name is Catherine Hurst. I live on the other
side. Just go across the way. I'm probably the closest person to
Silver Sands in that I live on that curve. I had found these
people to be the most helpful, caring people about that
property. I've lived there for 22 years. It's been a mess.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: You are speaking of the owners, the new
owners?
MS. HURST: I'm speaking of the new owners. The old owners did
nothing with that property for years. They have not ruined any
of the land that I can see. And I live there. They have been
more than helpful for any, and asked me about things before they
did them, which I thought was very nice.
I think they are doing a wonderful job, bringing back a
property that was horrendous. The land was beautiful, but the
property itself was disgraceful. Nothing had been done for 30
years. I've lived there 25. Nothing. I'm seeing roofs going on,
on buildings that were falling in. Not bad. Looks nice. Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you. Again, I appreciate your comments,
holistically, but also we are speaking to the Number 8.
MR. DWYER: Doug Dwyer, 69 Silvermere, Shore Drive.
That has been a disaster nightmare, that dumpster area.
Raccoons, rats, everything. I mean, I won't even walk my kids'
dogs over there because it's.infested with rats, traps. If
there anything they are going to do to clean that up, I'm in
favor of. Like Cathy said before. These guys are pretty good. I
mean, Alex Perros walks the neighborhood and he checks in
to see if it's too loud for construction or anything that they
are doing wrong, and pretty proactive with it. He's seen around
the neighborhood, so.
You know, it's a mess, it has to get cleaned up. I know
some of the environmental stuff, but, you know, eventually that
had to get cleaned up. It's a pretty dead area for certain
things and these guys have been doing a pretty good job.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you.
MS. WADE: I just have a question, since it's the road end, will
people be able to either with a Southold permit or not, be able
to access that? Can anybody speak to public access?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The road is a public road, a Southold Town
road.
MS. WADE: So anybody can drive on it.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes. The red highway barrel at the end of it
is a pretty good indication that you are on a public road end.
MR. STEINMULLER: My name is Richard Steinmuller, 75 Shore Drive.
The one question you opened up. There is another road that
Board of Trustees 20 March 15, 2023
leads, I thought it was called Silvermere, that goes to the
beach, and then there is another road. Is that considered a
private road, or is that a, it's called a right-of-way on the
plans. I was just curious if that is a public road or private road.
MR. KIMACK: That's private.
MR. STEINMULLER: Okay. Because it says right-of-way on that, I
don't know what that means. You can see it on certain Google
Maps, it's open. So I don't know whether that was grandfathered
in by the previous owners. It's right there. You can see it.
It's on the left, branching to the pool there..
MR. KIMACK: It cuts across two of the lots, primarily. That's
why it's a right-of-way situation. It's a private drive that
goes to the boathouse.
MR. STEINMULLER: So that is a private road.
MR. KIMACK: Yes.
MR. STEINMULLER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this
particular application or, Mr. Kimack, do you want to address
any of the concerns?
MR. KIMACK: No, I think Eric basically correctly said we do it
one-by-one, and there were certain issues that will come up on
the other lots dealing with sewer or dealing with whatever else.
But on this particular lot there are no homes and there is no
sewer. It's just emptying the trash area, and that little shed,
on this particular lot. But it will change in terms of some of
the other questions that remain.
MR. LANIA: My name is Nick Lania (sic), I live at 775 Shore
Road. I know there's proposals for liquor license, possibly,
that the building, what's called the boathouse, could be a
restaurant?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sir, we are talking about the lot all the way
to the right.
MR. LANIA: Yes. So my concern is about how all the extra food
is handled with garbage.
MS. HULSE: That is not before this Board.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This one is about a trash area and a shed.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: In addition to that, this Board doesn't deal
with how structures are used, so that would not be a subject for
this Board to review.
MS. HULSE: The liquor license issues are a Town Board concern.
That is their purview. It's not this Board's purview.
MR. LANIA: Okay. The question specifically is if that, the
purpose of that trash that we are talking about on this property
and if it also could be used for food waste.
MR. KIMACK: The trash is primarily for the motel. It's a 21-unit
motel there. That's essentially where it's stationed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just address the Board, obviously, Mr. Kimack.
MR. KIMACK: I apologize. The trash is for that and also for the
Board of Trustees 21 March 15, 2023
cottages themselves, collections to put it all in one spot. We
found that is the most convenient place, the only place we
really have for the trash collection, because you can move a
truck and you can back it in off the town road and turn it
around on the property. That's really the only logical place to
put something like that. It's going to be well screened, you are
not really going to know what is behind that screen. A six foot
fence going all the way around it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And the rest of this property in its entirety
will remain as a non-disturbance area?
MR. KIMACK: Yes.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is there anyone else wishing to speak
regarding this application, or any members of the Board wish to
comment?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I will say for this specific tax lot, the
Trustees reviewed it in depth in the field and assessed that
there was no work done within the actual wetlands itself.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: In addition to that, and early-on, Trustees
did make calls to enforcement, law enforcement agencies
regarding some of the complaints. And any questions you may have
regarding the outcomes of those calls, I would suggest you make
your requests known to the police department or the code
enforcement officers.
Are there any other questions?
(No response).
Any comments or concerns regarding this tax parcel?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the'application
subject to new language describing a non-disturbance area
anywhere seaward of the driveway and trash enclosure to preserve
all native species and wetlands. Also subject to the permission
or authorization from the Town Board with respect on the shed,
because the Board of Trustees cannot encumber Town property. I
know it's a small piece, but it would be wise to seek permission
from the Town Board.
And are there any other (perusing). Noting that the trash
enclosure has a raised edge, that brings this project into
consistency with the LWRP's concerns, bringing hand stamped
plans dated February 27th, 2023, and the L-4-20 planting plan.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 6, Michael Kimack on behalf of SILVER
Board of Trustees 22 March 15, 2023
SANDS HOLDINGS I, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for an as-built
installation of two (2) 10'x2' drywells with approximately 24
linear feet of drain lines; place HVAC unit on concrete pad
(9sq.ft.) as shown on Planting Plan Schedule L-4-20; and
planting plan in accordance with a portion of Planting Schedule
L-4-20 attributable to Lot 9.
Located: 1155 Silvermere Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-47-2-9
For those looking, it is tax map Number 9.
The Trustees most recently conducted an inhouse review on
March 13, 2023, noting everything seaward of the 15-foot
non-turf buffer to be non-disturbance buffer, all existing trees
to remain.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent. The as-built was constructed without Board of
Trustee review or permit. The plans are unclear where the
drywell is located.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with the condition that the as-built are properly
addressed.
I am in receipt of a letter, the same letter from Margaret
Rose de Cruz questioning the as-built application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant.
It's, remember with this particular house, primarily, the
trees are going to remain in place. The only thing that is
occurring on there is the placement of two 10' diameter by
four-foot drywells. There are in the utility plans, which you
should have a copy of. I'm not quite sure why didn't it come up
to the LWRP. But those particular ones are shown on the utility
plan. And I think there is a concrete pad going in for the
heater/AC unit. That is it for that particular property.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: We have received a lot of paperwork on this
file. The utility plan is not something that I had previously
reviewed. Do you have a copy of that with you?
MR. KIMACK: I have a copy of that with me. You are going to get
a revised one tomorrow anyway. But I'll go through each one.
But you'll get a new one tomorrow with the new utility plan.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: What's the date on that?
MR. KIMACK: January 13th, 2023 is the date on this one.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, I do have a couple of questions about
this one. Is it the intention to pull or fill the septic, the
septic tanks that were there.
MR. KIMACK: I believe we are going to pull the septic out and
filling that.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I believe that's what we talked about in the
field. Okay. And filling that?
MR. KIMACK: Yes.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So we do have the planting plan. The utility
plan, unfortunately, was not in our file here.
Board of Trustees 23 March 15, 2023
On the planting plan we see the 15-foot non-turf buffer
defined around that house. But the way that it's hatched in that
area then not hatched seaward of it, it almost appears that one
area is non-turf and the other one, if you were just taking a
glance at it, you would not know immediately that the rest of
that is non-disturbance.
Sol think that for all of these applications, any areas
that are non-disturbance, we would like to see either colored or
hatched in a certain way. That just clearly defines it at a
glance. And then a separate, different hatching for non-turf
buffers. I think that is overall something we are looking to
see.
MR. KIMACK: I think if you look at it, the clearing, whatever
has been cleared already, has not changed. I don't think it was
any additional clearing in back of it. I think all of that, that
had been, as it was when the site was bought in terms of where
the trees were cut back.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: This is just in reference to like the future,
you know, what will run with the property. So the future
non-turf buffer and the future non-disturbance area.
MR. KIMACK: We can get to a more, a plan with a little more
clarification.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think also a separate, I think this might be
a heavy lift for you, but a separate plan for each file that
clearly defines each lot. You know, we see this master plan, we
kind of have to find the lines here. So I think it would be
helpful for the files to just know where the lines are clearly
defined. Does that make sense to you?
MR. KIMACK: It does. In a sense it became difficult because the
original submittal had been for the whole thing, then Lori in
her great wisdom said we couldn't do that. So, we broke it down
and basically referenced those plans that were relative to that
particular lot, but it certainly overlapped into other lots.
MS. HULSE: I think at the end of the day they are approving
subject to new plans. You can do that in your new plans that you
are going to --
MR. KIMACK: What you want to do is take the master plan and
break it down to original lots. Most of those are going to be
the landscape areas showing the jurisdiction line, primarily,
showing what is happening within the jurisdiction line.
Primarily.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: If you can enhance and embolden the lines, in
any kind of language, connected with a particular tax map
parcel. So it's clear when we look at this what tax parcel is
being applied for, what modifications are being made to it. And
soften all the others, if it's going to stay on the same page,
soften those so it's visually clear and punctuated.
MR. KIMACK: I know you got that as part, because I broke it down
when I submitted each one of the applications, I broke it down
Board of Trustees .24 March 15, 2023
by the planting plan as it appeared on the planting plan for
that specific lot.
It does overlap between a couple lots. It is not individual
per se. Like L-4-20 is for nine, ten and eight, for the planting
plan. And we have a second one for the motel. But -- you'll get it.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: The other question I have for you, in the
written description we have here on number six, you'll notice
that we don't have the building in the written description.
This building was never permitted previously, so the
dimensions of the building and the building require a Trustee
permit. This existed for a long, long time, we understand that,
but it still would have to get a permit for the structure.
MR. KIMACK: Then I'm a little bit confused. I didn't think that
the Board basically required permits for a building that had
been existing. Had the building existed before Trustees actually
came in. This building has been there a long time. And we are
just building within the same footprint. We are restoring it
within the same footprint. So why would it be any different
than any others?
MS. HULSE: Even if it's grandfathered in, if there is a
structure that is grandfathered in, you are still going to
include it in the plan because it's within their jurisdiction.
So when they are approving something, they are approving
something that looks like what is out there.
MR. KIMACK: Well, it's in the plans. It's in the landscape plan.
MS. HULSE: Right. So you have to include in your project
description. Because that is something you are requesting that
this Board approve.
MR. KIMACK: I was not under the impression I had to get the
approval of the individual buildings from the Trustees.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know why you wouldn't be.
MS. HULSE: I'm not sure why. In fact, I don't think the Building
Department will act on your pending applications until you get
the approval from the Trustees for those.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is not a point worth arguing. We are at
some point going to need a new description showing the
dimensions of the buildings as they exist in their current
state, and as you have shown on our plans.
MR. KIMACK: This is something that caught me a little bit off
guard because basically we were under the impression that since
the building did not require any Trustee action, it would not be
part of it. We are dealing with the ground disturbance, not the
buildings themselves.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: We always require permits, especially when you
are doing work on or near an area like this, and it's something
that we would have on file so if there was a storm or something,
that you would come back in and we would have a record of the
building here, so.
Board of Trustees 25 March 15, 2023
MR. KIMACK: I can change each one of the descriptions to include _
the square footage and the overall total square footage of each
building, and then add it to the description.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is anyone else here wishing to speak regarding
this application?
MR. STEINMULLER: I just -- what building are you talk about?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Liz, can you highlight Number 9, which is, see
in that corner there, that one.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's the cottage across the street from the
motel.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we had been looking at plans with the
non-turf and non-disturbance and then preserving all existing
trees and possibly adding two additional natives that fall in
there?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. Thank you.
MR. WYNJA: Nick Wynja. It's not also clear based on the plans,
as you said, the actual location or the purpose of the drywell.
It's unclear.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just to answer that for you, we regularly,
almost always, require drywells for roof runoff, so that is
something that we would have required and so -- '
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes, that's Chapter 236, storm water runoff.
All runoff onsite must be contained onsite.
MR. WYNJA: And would it be that the requirement it's on that tax
lot because that building is on that tax lot?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes.
MR WYNJA: Okay.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Any other questions or comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application
subject to new plans depicting all structures with dimensions,
with septic properly abated with a 15-foot non-turf buffer
around the house, and the rest of the property remaining a
non-disturbance buffer clearly defined on the,plans. The
location of the drywell clearly defined on same plans. And two
native hardwood trees to replace what is being cut. And by,
identifying the drywells, thereby bringing it into consistency
with the LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 26 March 15, 2023
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 7, Michael Kimack on behalf of SILVER
SANDS HOLDINGS I, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built
12'x12' (144sq.ft.) concrete pad with a proposed 6' high by 58
linear foot long fence and gate, total enclosure 210sq.ft.;
purpose of the concrete pad and fence enclosure is to place a
refrigerator/freezer unit for the motel; and for the as-built
8"x38 linear foot long (25.50sq.ft.) concrete "L" retaining
wall. Located: Silvermere Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-47-2-10
The Trustees most recently visited the site on March
13th --well, excuse me, that was our inhouse review on March
13th, noted cedars to remain, plant according to plans.
The LWRP finds this proposal to be inconsistent, stating
6.3, protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetland. And also
noted the as-built was constructed without a Board of Trustee
review or permit.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application with the condition that all as-builts are properly
addressed.
And also in receipt of the same e-mail Margaret Rose de Cruz,
received Wednesday, March 15th, 2023, who is not in support of
this application.
So this parcel is -- thank you, Liz -- is that really slim
one that only contains cedar trees.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. And you
are right about, it's a narrow, long lot, primarily, starting
with the retaining wall on one side and going along pretty much
used for parking and will be used for parking in the future.
All the way across, the trees that are on the back side of
the parking lot are protected and all wrapped at the present time.
And as far as the LWRP concern, the only thing I suggest is
it's not a freshwater, it's a tidal wetland in the back.
The concrete retaining wall was there and had existed,
primarily. I'm not sure how that came up as constructed. The
12'x12' concrete pad is for a refrigeration unit to be able to
maintain food supply for the motel.
And I would have you go to L-4-20 again to take a look at
the planting plan for that particular lot. There are no houses
on it other than just the 12x12, and other than the parking
area, which had always been there, with trees, it's going to be
maintained. The concrete L-wall which had already been there,
yes, there is an as-built 12x12 pad. And that's it for the lot
at this time.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, for clarifying. Looking at the tax
map, that only the trees that the plan does include all those
items that you just depicted.
MR. KIMACK: Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to
Board of Trustees 27 . March 15, 2023
speak?
MS. MURRAY: Ann Murray, again, for the North Fork Environmental
Council. I would just urge the Trustees to please require that
this wetland be restored as the LWRP coordinator suggested.
Thank you.
MS. WADE: I know it's not your jurisdiction, but has site plan,
have they gone to Planning for site plan review, or is this
coordinated with you?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That's not -- I have no knowledge of that.
This Board received an application, it looks it over. These tax
lots exist on the books.
MS. WADE: Yeah, um, because I feel like you should keep the
hearing open until we find out what Planning says because a
refrigerator freezer unit is for a restaurant. And I don't know
where that is, but I would think Planning would have to be
involved in that. Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to
speak?
(No response).
Are there any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that there is a non-disturbance buffer that
is inclusive of and seaward of the existing native cedars, and
conditioned that the line, those line of cedars, existing cedars
are to remain and that no existing trees are to be removed
further, subject to receipt of plans that show all of those
items, and an updated project description reflecting that. And
by granting a permit thereby bringing it into consistency with
the LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 8, Michael Kimack on behalf of SILVER
SANDS HOLDINGS I, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for as-built
replacement of approximately 570sq.ft. of concrete walkway with
wood walkway; replace approximately 1,192sq.ft. of existing wood
deck, and relocate 410sq.ft. with new wood deck as shown of the
planting plan; jurisdiction area/ground disturbance total area:
±9.900sq.ft.; for the buffer, place approximately 37 linear feet
of sand walk path (±465sq.ft.) set back 35' at closest point to
MHW line; existing sand to remain; planting plan in accordance
with a portion of Planting Schedule L-4.3 attributable to Lot 11
property; for the stormwater management system, install four (4)
Board of Trustees 28 March 15, 2023
10'x4' drywells for a portion of the motel, one (1) 10'x4'
drywell to be located within Trustee jurisdiction (all four
drywells to be located on Lot 12 property); four (4) existing
10'x4' drywells servicing the Motel inner courtyard area with
one (1) drywell and approximately 100 linear feet of existing
drain lines within Trustee jurisdiction; and proposed (3) 8'x4'
drywells to serve the easterly roof area of the motel not within
Trustee jurisdiction.
Located: 1400 Silver Sands Motel, Silvermere Road, Greenport.
SCTM# 1000-47-2-11
The Trustees most recently conducted an inhouse review of
the new plans on March 13th, 2023, noting there was no drywells
on the plans, and had a question regarding the private garden
beds are not in the description as well.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is the as-built was constructed without Board of Trustee review
or permit.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with the condition all as-builts are properly
addressed.
We do have the e-mail from Margaret Rose de Cruz objecting
to the proposed project.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding.this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. We are
still in the L-4-30 by now, which shows the planting plan.
As far as the drywells are concerned, let me walk up again.
I apologize for not bringing some additional ones. You have this
plan.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We did find one set.
MR. KIMACK: You also have this plan, primarily. This is the
motel. Most of the drywells are outside the requirements except
for this one and this one (indicating). Primarily. All the
others are within your jurisdiction. And it's, but you'll get
this again, revised, because when we get to lots 14 and 15.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Kimack, do you have a DEC permit for
this?
MR. KIMACK: Yes, we have a DEC permit for the motel. We also
have, we just received, and you should have in your file, a DEC
permit for the renovation of the deck, the wood deck that is in
the front.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So those are the plans stamped received March
6th, 2023; is that the latest and greatest?
MR. KIMACK: I believe so, yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, question. With those plans, it doesn't
show those private garden beds like in the previous stamped
plans. Stamped received February 27th, 2023. Is that still to be
included?
MS. PERROS: Alexander Perros. It seems the permit was for the
Board of Trustees 29 March 15, 2023
boardwalk, replacement of the existing boardwalk and just
relocating that one piece that is off to the east of it.
The side gardens were all at grade, and it's just, it's not
turf and it's planted. It's nothing, I believe, we didn't think
we needed any approval for. But it was included in our master
plans to this Board.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. If we do move forward on this, we'll
look for new plans that show everything; what was approved by
the DEC and also what was also on your February 27th plans, as
well as the drywells and everything, so everything is in one
sheet.
MR. PERROS: Understood.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
MS. WADE: Can you go ahead and -- it seems like you just
approve everything, they still have to -- Randy Wade -- so, they
don't, yeah, I'm just surprised at the process that they could
just go and they'll just say they'll come back with the right
plans.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: They do not get a permit until we get those
plans.
MS. WADE: So you approve it and then the permit comes later?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Subject to approval. If we request new plans
showing all that we ask for, once we get those plans, review
them, make sure they are what we are asking for, at that time
and only at that time will we issue a permit.
MS. WADE: And will that be this type of meeting or will there be
another public hearing when they do the updated plans?
How does that work?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No. So this is the public meeting. So it's
subject to those. So if we don't get them, they don't get a
permit. If we do get them, then they get a permit.
MS. WADE: At a work session or something?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It's just signed in the office.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we are closing the hearing, but it's subject
to. So until we receive what we are requiring. And that's a
standard practice for any application for a minor change, which
would be adding a buffer or providing the exact location that,
you know, we need for drywells.
MS. WADE: Great. Which lot is this?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is at the motel itself.
MS. WADE: The entire motel?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, ma'am.
MS. WADE: So that structure, is that going to be also in the
narrative description and all?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, ma'am.
MS. WADE: And is this the one that has sod in it?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Stay tuned.
Board of Trustees 30 March 15, 2023
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That's the next lot.
MS. WADE: Okay, thank you, very much. I suggest you reject this
as well.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, ma'am.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding
this application?
(Negative response).
Are there any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the submission of new plans showing the DEC approved deck
as well as the motel with full description, and also with the
condition that all the sand and beach grass that is adjacent to
that proposed deck remain, and if it is disturbed, to be
replaced in-place, in-kind. And by granting a permit will bring it
into consistency with the LWRP. And also to add to the project
description about the private garden beds, as shown on the plans
stamped received February 27th, 2023. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 9, Michael Kimack on behalf of SILVER
SANDS HOLDINGS I, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built
jurisdictional area/ground disturbance: Total area: ±7,800sq.ft.; for the
buffer, place approximately 80 linear feet of sand walk path (±900sq.ft.)
set back 16' at closest point to MHW line; existing sand to remain;
planting plan in accordance with a portion of Planting Schedule L-4.40
attributable to Lot 12 property; for the stormwater management system,
install four (4) 10'x4' drywells for a portion of the motel; one (1) 10'x4'
drywell to be located within Trustee jurisdiction.
Located: 1300 Silvermere Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-47-2-12
noting that this is the tax map immediately to the left of
the motel, or to the west of the motel. For anyone who can view
the projector.
The LWRP coordinator found this particular application to
be inconsistent. The inconsistency lies with a vegetated or
non-disturbance buffer should be established and labeled on the
plans. Species should be native salt and drought tolerant.
Survival parameters for the planted species to be required. And
it is unclear where the four drywells are.
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 13th
where we reviewed the application and noted limiting the sod on
this portion. And also concurred with the thought that the
Board of Trustees 31 March 15, 2023
drywells were a little hard, on this particular set of plans, to
understand. Understanding that there is a utility plan that was
not included in every file.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant.
On this particular lot, the frame building is just under
the jurisdiction line. As ] understand it, when we put together
the individual lots for you, with the planting done, et cetera,
and the dimensions and square footage of the building. We'll
also put on there are the individual drywells for each lot,
primarily. Rather than have a separate plan, it will be on that
particular one.
In this particular one, there is no drywell within your
jurisdiction. On this one. This is the jurisdiction line
(indicating). But, it will be on there anyway. It will show it's
on there. As far as the planting is concerned, I believe the
plants that were chosen are all salt tolerant. I think they are
all in the permitted plants allowed by both the DEC and the
Trustees. We were pretty cautious to make sure those plants
would in fact be sustainable and would be able to survive in the
area being planted.
And you'll note on this particular plan that is there a sand walkway
which basically creates that buffer zone, primarily, that you had
requested. It's the beginning of it, from the motel, and it will go across
12, 13, 14 and 15. But we are dealing with 12 right now. So, if you
look at the planting plan which is 440, you'll see that the sand and
everything seaward of that is all sand and just plantings and tall
grass. Most of this is going to be sand.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll just jump out ahead of any other comments
and say that the Trustees reviewed this, all of these plans in
depth. And because of how convoluted the plans are, I hope to
appreciate how much time was spent reviewing these in favor of
the environment.
The sod on this application going to have to be pushed
landward to some degree.
MR. PERROS: Alexander Perros, again. We decided to not do sod. I
think we discussed that on our walk through, that we would just
do seeding, natural grass seeding. So, no sod.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that for the entirety of this particular
application which is 12, Suffolk tax map 12?
MR. PERROS: Really throughout the property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. Thank you.
MR. KIMACK and that should be noted and will be noted on the
individual plans that will be submitted, as we break it down by
lot. So on each plan you'll have the landscape plan broken
down, the description of the plans going on a particular
section, which area, there is no grass, the dimensions of the
house, the location of the drywells.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone here that wishes to
Board of Trustees 32 March 15, 2023
speak regarding this application, which is Suffolk tax map 12?
MS. WADE: Randy Wade again. Why would there be no drywell for
the roof runoff?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to clarify, I know you don't have the plan
in front of you. There is a drywell. It's outside of our
jurisdiction. So it is on the plan and it is something that we
do want to see and we will have. If this were to be approved,
it would have to be on the plans.
MS. WADE: Thank you. I still say reject this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak
regarding this application? Or any additional comments from the
Board?
(Negative response).
All right, hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close
the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
subject to a new description with the cottage dimensions, and
calling out the native salt-tolerant vegetation; new plans to
show no sod on the entirety of this parcel; to depict the
drywells for the cottage on this parcel; again stipulating
native, salt-tolerant vegetation, and preserving all the
existing trees, thereby bringing it into consistency with the
LWRP coordinator. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 10, Michael Kimack on behalf of SILVER
SANDS HOLDINGS I, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built
jurisdictional area/ground disturbance: Total area ±8,350sq.ft.;
for the buffer, place approximately 80 linear feet of sand walk
path (±850sq.ft.) Set back 20' at closest point to MHW line;
existing sand to remain; place approximately 65 linear feet by
6' ± (390sq.ft.) sand walk path landward of buffer as shown on
Planting Schedule L-4.40; planting plan in accordance with a
portion of Planting Schedule L-4.40 attributable to lot 13.
Located: 1220 Silvermere Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-47-2-13
The Trustees reviewed the application, and in our most
recent work session, 2/7/23. Notes read: Delineate non-turf
buffer. This application file also includes the letter mentioned
prior, not in favor of the application.
The LWRP found the project to be consistent. The
inconsistency stems from a review of 6.3.
Comments from the LWRP coordinator read: A vegetated or
Board of Trustees 33 March 15, 2023
non-disturbance buffer should be established and labeled on the
plans; species should be native, salt tolerant, drought
tolerant. Survival parameters for plant species should be
required.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
This application also has plans stamped February 27th, 2023.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
particular application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. To add
to that a little bit, 13 is essentially a remake of 12 in terms
of the comments.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Correct.
MR. KIMACK: And all of the things that you are requiring of
Number 12 will apply to 13. Even though the building itself is
outside, the dimensions of the building, the description for the
drywell, are essentially like that. And to let you know these
buildings are also connected and have been connected to the
village sewer system.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: When was the connection made?
MR. KIMACK: They were made years ago, before we bought the
property. They are also, the lines were found in the ground.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is there anyone else wishing to speak
regarding the application?
MS. WADE: Randy Wade. I respectfully request that a test pit be
done to determine the age of the sewers that they claim were
installed years ago, because everybody knows that the cottages
were not hooked up.
MR. PERROS: I would like to speak to that. So there are S-9
letters from the Village of Greenport verifying the sewer
hook-ups that have been in existence for decades. I believe it
was back to 1985. And those S-9 letters from the Village of
Greenport sewer department were received by us in December for
the motel lot as well as all other lots on that property.
This summer, when Suffolk County water was replacing the
water main down Silvermere Road, they accidently hit the sewer
line, pre-existing sewer line that was crossing Silvermere,
going over to the private main, the pump station, they repaired
that. That is in Suffolk County Water's public, not public
records, that's in their report, as well as I have photographic
evidence that was the case. All of the sewers were pre-existing.
We did maintenance on these sewers, letters to that effect have
been submitted to the Village, and that is why they also
provided the S-9 letters.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
MS. WADE: What about the cottages that were purchased after the
initial sewer was approved in, I believe it was '87? Excuse me. '97.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is that cottage, the one you are speaking
about, the one on the tax map parcel?
Board of Trustees 34 March 15, 2023
MS. WADE: There is something like four cottages that came, that
were bought after they got-- they got approved to have sewer
hookups for the motel and the cottages, but then they didn't
have the money, so they only hooked up the motel. They didn't do
the cottages. And then they were able to buy after the
approval, they were able to buy four or five other cottages.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just generally speaking, ma'am, from our
perspective, it's an environmental benefit to get hooked-up to
the sewer as opposed to the septic system, so we see it as a net
gain.
MS. WADE: Yes, I agree. It's just that Greenport, it's a net
loss for fees, hook-up fees and for setting an example of how
you want development to happen in this town, to be going and
doing these kind of things without permits is really pretty
insulting to us.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, ma'am.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Anyone else wishing to speak regarding the
application? Members the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
(ALL AYES).,
1
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application
with the following stipulations:
New plans calling out the structure on the property,
dimensions, location, the drywells. The new plans will also
depict no sod on the entirety of the property and also indicate
that native salt-tolerant vegetation will be preserved or added
to the property. No trees will be removed. Thereby bringing it
into consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 11, Michael Kimack on behalf of SILVER
SANDS HOLDINGS I, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built
tidal wetland jurisdiction area/ground disturbance: Total area:
±10,200sq.ft.; for a buffer; place approximately 92 linear foot
sand walk path (±1,100sq.ft.) set back 18' at closest point to
tidal wetlands line; existing sand to remain; place
approximately 8 linear foot by 6' ± (40sq.ft.) sand walk path
continuing from Lot 13 landward of buffer to frame building;
planting plan in accordance with a portion of Planting Schedule
L-4.40/4.50 attributable to Lot 14; for the storm water
management system fresh water stone buffer/drain trench, remove
approximately 490sq.ft. of existing freshwater wetland
vegetation; construct a 180'x10' (1,800sq.ft.) drainage
trench/stone buffer as located on Utility Site Plan to
accommodate storm water from four (4) cottages and garage;
install approximately 330 linear feet of drain lines from the
Board of Trustees 35 March 15, 2023
four (4) cottages and garage to the drainage trench
(approximately 75 linear feet of drain lines on Lot 15); for the
fresh water wetland planting plan, install approximately
2,400sq.ft. of additional indigenous plantings between stone
buffer and freshwater vegetation line to further protect
wetland; additional planting area at approximately 5 to 1
greater than area removed; restore area from stone buffer within
Trustee jurisdiction in accordance with a portion of Planting
Schedule 4.40/4.50 attributable to Lot 14.
Located: 1100 Silvermere Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-47-2-14
The Trustees most recently conducted an inhouse review at
last work session on March 13th, noting the Town Engineer's
report against proposed drainage plan.
The LWRP reviewed this application and made some notes.
They found it to be inconsistent. Number one, comply with
Trustee regulations and recommendations as set forth in Trustee
permit conditions.
The applicant's agent indicated within the LWRP CCR form
that this application will have no impact on freshwater
wetlands, even though there is a proposal to remove
approximately 490 square feet of existing freshwater vegetated
wetlands. Construct 180 foot by ten foot drainage trench buffer
as located on utility site plan to accommodate storm water from
four cottages and garage. Install approximately 330 linear feet
of drain line from four cottages and garage to the drainage
trench, approximately 75 linear feet from drain line on lot 15.
The proposal does not protect freshwater wetlands onsite. And it
goes on.
A detailed remediation plan, not a landscape plan, for the
clearing of wetlands should be required. Survival parameters for
all plants and species should be set.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application, as long as all as-builts are properly addressed.
And the Town engineer per our request to review the drainage
plan, reviewed this application and found several issues with
the proposed drainage plan.
The drainage plan contains no storm water runoff
calculations, are hand drawn over a professional survey of each
lot and are not noted as being prepared by a licensed design
professional. Therefore, as submitted, the plans do not meet
with the requirements under Chapter 236.
The drainage plans proposed removal of the existing fresh
water wetlands to accommodate the installation of a stone buffer
drain trench to treat storm water runoff. This is categorically
not allowed.
The purpose of installing storm water controls is to
protect-the wetlands from runoff. No sound drainage design
should involve the destruction of natural resources in it, as designed.
The stone buffer drain trench is proposed to be located in
Board of Trustees 36 March 15, 2023
close approximately to the existing wetland boundary lines. This
is problematic for two reasons. First and foremost, storm water
treatment practices should be installed as close to the point of
origin and as far from the wetlands to be protected as possible
so that the maximum benefit is being obtained from the storm
water treatment practice.
Second, if installed adjacent to the existing wetlands, the
stone buffer/drain trench will likely be heavily impacted by
phragmites and other wetland growth, significantly reducing its
capacity to store and treat storm water runoff.
I would like to also note that this project description
does not include the structures, the living structures, on the
plans.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant.
To make it easy for the Board, when we submit the new
drawings, the individual lot drawings, the trench with the
buffer will be removed. So we are no longer dealing with it on
both 14 and 15. It's not part of this application. It will not
be there. It will be, the new drawings will not show it. We'll
put conventional drywells in for all buildings and the garage.
They will be eight-foot diameter, three foot deep.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
MS.-MURRAY: Anne Murray, North Fork Environmental Council. I
would urge you to turn this down. This is mainly what I was
referring to earlier when I began by giving my statement on all
these applications together. But this is mainly what I was
referring to. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak
regarding this application?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the way to handle something like this
would be to provide a rather large non-disturbance buffer in the
future, for that whole area. And that is what would really be
appropriate for the whole neighborhood and ecosystem there.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll reiterate what Trustee Krupski said. I
don't think we would like to see any turf go seaward of any of
those cottages. So keep the cottages in that fresh water
wetland as natural as they can get and/or vegetated non-turf
buffer and a non-disturbance buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A rather large non-disturbance buffer. Mostly
non-disturbance, I would say, given how close it is to the
wetland. Which is kind of some of the character of this
motel/cottage area. I mean it's a beautiful, natural place that
is supposed to work with the ecosystem, not against it.
MR. KIMACK: Would you consider for the non-disturbance, because
we have to resubmit the plans anyway, and the trench and the
buffer will not be on there, if you want us to put a
Board of Trustees 37 March 15, 2023
non-disturbance would you consider the non-disturbance to be
pretty much where the proposed buffer is at the present time?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I would think, speaking as one Trustee, it
would have to be significantly larger than that. If I'm
understanding you.
MR. KIMACK: It's getting pretty close to the cottages.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Looking at the plans, I think the northern
most cottage is closest to the freshwater wetlands.
MR. KIMACK: And the southernmost cottage, too.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. So that's why our thinking was to come
up with more of a non-turf buffer seaward of those cottages at a
certain distance, and then seaward of that being non-disturbance
throughout. So if we say, you know, and we didn't really discuss
this per se, but a 15-foot non-turf buffer seaward of those
cottages, with the remainder to be a non-disturbance buffer.
Some areas obviously the ones that have the cottages closer to
the wetlands, won't be as much, but those middle ones will have
quite a substantial amount --
MR. KIMACK: Essentially you are looking for that whole area
behind there to be non-turf.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. f
MR. KIMACK: Essentially. But the rest of it, that's not a
problem because we were going to do non-turf anyway, for the
most part. Then the question is where does the non-disturbance
begin.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Goldsmith pointed out, you know, about
15 feet. I was thinking about ten feet. Really just enough to
access and maintain the cottages, and then non-disturbance from
there. Basically in an effort to really protect that little
wetland there. It's a pretty unique piece.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think given the scope of the changes that we
are requesting, um, what we are talking about really is an
entirely different project than what has been proposed here.
In this project description it says: Remove approximately
490 square feet of existing freshwater wetland vegetation.
I think that is exactly the opposite of what this Board
tries to do. So I think that given all of that, I make a motion
to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL YES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: This.proposal does not conform with our
standards of issuance of a permit as it would adversely affect
the wetlands of the Town by removing freshwater wetlands. And it
would adversely affect the esthetic value of the wetlands and
adjacent areas.
For that reason, I make a motion to deny this application.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 38 March 15, 2023
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 12, Michael Kimack on behalf of SILVER
SANDS HOLDINGS I, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built
tidal wetland jurisdiction area/ground disturbance: Total area
±16,500sq.ft.; buffer: Place approximately 12,500sq.ft. of sand
from wood bulkhead to Trustee jurisdiction line as shown on a
portion of Planting Schedule L-4.50 attributable to lot 15;
existing sand to remain; place approximately 1,500sq.ft. of sod
as shown; planting plan in accordance with a portion of Planting
Schedule L-4.50 attributable to Lot 15; install 224sq.ft. of
non-permanent outdoor seating area; remove approximately
1,250sq.ft. of existing freshwater wetland vegetation; construct
a 265'x10' (2,650sq.ft.) drainage trench/stone buffer as located
on Utility Site Plan to accommodate storm water from two (2)
adjacent cottages on lot 14; install approximately 75 linear
feet of drain lines to serve the two adjacent cottages; install
approximately 3,800sq.ft of additional indigenous plantings
between stone buffer and fresh water vegetation line to further
protect wetland; additional planting area at approximately 3 to
1 greater than area removed; restore area from stone buffer with
in Trustee jurisdiction in accordance with a portion of Planting
Schedule 4.50 attributable to lot 15.
Located: 1135 Shore Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-47-2-15
The Trustees most recently held an inhouse review on March
13th and noted see Town Engineer report.
The LWRP,finds this project to be inconsistent, noting 6.3
protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. And the
as-built clearing and structure were constructed without a Board
of Trustee review or permit.
The applicant's agent indicated within the LWRP CCR form
that this action will have no impact on freshwater wetlands,
even though there is a proposal to remove 1,250 square feet of
existing freshwater wetlands vegetation, which has already been
removed.
The removal of approximately 1,250 square feet of existing
freshwater wetland vegetation, construct a 265'x10' drainage
trench stone buffer as located on the utility site plan to
accommodate storm water from two adjacent cottages on Lot 14,
and install approximately 75 linear feet of drain line to serve
the two adjacent cottages is inconsistent.
The proposal does not protect freshwater wetlands onsite,
and continues to list some reasons why.
Noted a detailed remediation plan, not a landscape plan for
clearing of wetland should be required. Survival parameters for
all native species should be assessed.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with the condition all as-builts are properly
addressed.
Board of Trustees 39 March 15, 2023
I'm also in receipt for this tax parcel the letter from the
Town Engineer, Michael Collins, which was would the same letter
that Trustee Gillooly read for the previous application.
I'm also in receipt of an e-mail from Margaret Rose de Cruz
who does not support this application.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. I'm
surprised that you are denying Lot 14 because we made, I made
the motion that we were removing what we had proposed in terms
of the trenches, so there would be nothing back there. I mean
the only thing you wanted us to add was a non-turf buffer and a
non-disturbance. And the same would apply here, where we are
removing it, so essentially nothing is going on back there, in
the northern side.
Now, if you want us to put a non-turf or non-disturbance,
that's one thing. But to deny it in its entirety is something
else. Where if it's not there, why would you deny it if we are
not doing anything to it. If we take it off the proposal for
the trench, where would the denial basis come from? If you want
us to put a buffer in, fine. If you want us to put a non-turf
in, but not a denial.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, Mr. Kimack. I would also note on
this application, for Lot 15, that the building and the pool are
not indicated as as-built on the this application.
And to address your question, the non-turf buffer, the
non-disturbance buffer that were discussed by Trustee Goldsmith
and Trustee Krupski are in fact something that would be much
more agreeable on this lot, with those modifications to what we
have here in front of us, in addition to increasing verbiage
within the project description and removing verbiage within the
project description, it's quite a'free design of the project.
MR. KIMACK: We would do the same thing on Lot 15 as all the
others, with the exception of taking off that entire trench .
system. So essentially these lots would be like 13 and 12. They
would have, with the drywells would be shown and dimensions of
the buildings would be shown, and the dimension of the pool
would be on there, essentially like that. And there would be no
disturbance. The drywell. I'm guessing we would make a
recommendation on the plans for you to review as to what the
non-disturbance would be from the freshwater wetland line and
how much the non-turf buffer would be. Then you would review
that and make a determination as to whether that would be
acceptable for that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to speak?
MS. MURRAY: Anne Murray, again. I would add that you deny this,
but if you absolutely can't deny it, at least have the
destruction that's already taken place restored. Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
Board of Trustees 40 March 15, 2023
MS. WADE: I think you should deny it and I applaud your denying
the previous one. You're right, if somebody is going to come
back with a new design, they should come back and bring that new
design. Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to
speak?
MR WYNJA: Thank you, again, for denying the previous one also.
And I ask that you deny this. It's a very important part of the
neighborhood, and kind of like the character, I saw mallards out
there this morning. Always kind of.a beautiful part. We back
right on to the north end of that. So also please don't, please
deny this one.
MS. PERKINS: Hi. Ashley Perkins. For this one also, I don't
know, I'm trying to keep up with everything, but I think on this
plan it also shows that there's like giant 14-foot arborvitaes
being suggested to be put in. And that totally does not fit
with the character of like what is going on in the neighborhood.
And also, from our back deck, well, before they put up the
plastic, but, you used to be able to see the water, and if they
put up these giant arborvitaes, like, I won't be able to see
that natural resource anymore. A lot of my neighbors won't be
able to as well. So that's like a huge part of,just the
landscaping in general that I personally have a bit of an issue
with.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to speak to that last statement. What I
would suggest to the applicant would be, for an application such
as this, would be, again, a very small non-turf area, given the
state of the fresh water wetlands, and then the rest to be
non-disturbance.
If the applicant, obviously the non-turf would be the
furthest point away from the from the wetlands and closest to
the living structures or the swimming pool there, the driveway.
If the applicant wanted to put some sort of screening or liner
tree there, far away from the wetlands, that would be an
appropriate place to put them. But I would suggest the rest of
the application closer to the wetlands and into the woods, and
the upland wetlands-type conversion area, be made
non-disturbance and left natural.
MR. KIMACK: If I understand your comments, basically, when you
look at that particular one, you are looking at where it has the
wood line, essentially like that, which is not the, we've got
the line for the tidal wetland line, and you would like to see a
good portion of that to be non-disturbance, and then some
non-turf distance from the back of each one of the cottages.
I do bring to your attention that, for Lot#15, with the
removal of what we are planning right now, there is not, you are
adding to our request because we are not going to be disturbing
that particular wetland, but you would like more protection on
the plan that we would be submitting, which would be fine.
Board of Trustees 41 March 15, 2023
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It really, if someone else, I mean, you know,
may or may not have good intentions, right, and it appears you
are trying to do the right thing environmentally, but if someone
else were to invest or buy this property in the future, we want
to make sure that that freshwater wetland would be restricted as
a no-clearing no-pruning zone.
MR. KIMACK: We understand that. I think basically that is --
MR. PERROS: We would definitely like to address that, and fully
agree with you about that. Any of the fencing we put up
currently is designed to protect the existing wetlands. No
existing wetlands, tidal or freshwater has been touched.
whatsoever, including the trees being put in, the arborvitae,
are approved, I believe in the Southold Town if not Suffolk
County, approved planting. We would not go all the way back into
the wetland. We stop them far short of that for exactly that
reason, and we'll also note that one on the other neighbors did
request, actually Richie and his wife Cathy who live right next
to the boathouse, did request that we put those in for privacy
screening. So this gets into a matter of personal taste. Some
people don't want it, some people do want it. What we are trying
to do is the right thing for the environment and provide privacy
for people when they want it. And we actually made other
adjustments for Richie and his wife, and they did want to
preserve their view at a certain point, and we are proposing
planting shorter plants to preserve their view. So we are happy
to work with any of the neighbors on that.
We tried to be good neighbors throughout this entire
process and like Cathy has said and Doug said, you know, I
routinely walk around and meet with everybody and make sure
their'concerns are addressed, so. But I want to make sure none
of the wetlands have been touched, and we've protected them and
we put barriers in place so we don't get close to them.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
MS. MURRAY: If I could make one more comment. I don't know if
it's usual for the Trustees to have this many as-built permits
to consider on one property or one project, but I kind of think
it's excessive, and it appears to be that the owners have gone
ahead and done this work without even trying to get Trustee
permits, so before they even came through, and I think it's
outrageous. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Ma'am, if I could just address that for one
second. These buildings were built long ago before there was a
requirement for Trustee permits, so that is why there are so
many as-built. Not because it just got built yesterday. It was
built prior to needing a Trustee permit.
MS. MURRAY: Well, does in a mean the wetlands were destroyed
before, you know, they were done before or were they done
recently? That's what I'm trying to get at.
Or the LWRP coordinator was referring to in the notes.
Board of Trustees 42 March 15, 2023
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We walked the site, personally I've been
there two times, maybe three. I did not see any wetland
disturbance, especially in this freshwater part that we are
talking about. There was ground disturbance, obviously, for the
water, and things like that. But there is a fence surrounding
that freshwater wetland and when the Trustees walked it, I guess
in February was last time we were physically on the property, we
did not see any disturbance. What was proposed with that trench
drain was going to essentially disturb the freshwater wetland,
but none of that work has taken place as of yet.
MS. MURRAY: Okay, so why is it described as an as-built permit
then?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because those buildings on the lot predate
Trustee permits.
MS. MURRAY: Just because of the buildings. So the work itself
has not been done. Okay. Great.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Excuse.me. One more comment. And the pool as
well. This lot includes the pool, and actually the buildings on
the property are closer to the bay. The freshwater wetland that
we are referring to does not have any structure except for the
pool.
MS. MURRAY: Great, thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And to further clarify, when you see an
as-built request, it does not mean the entire permit is
as-built. It's just the way that we classify the permit, it's
double the fees. This could be just for as-built ground
disturbance, they would have to pay those fees. So "as-built"
does not mean that every item in this permit has already been
built. Just for clarity.
MR. MURRAY: Thank you.
MR. PERROS: I just want to, again, just for clarity, thank you,
for clarifying, we have not built anything. Everything is
happening within the existing four walls of the building and
anything, any work that has been done has simply been roofing or
siding that would not require permits, as far as I understand,
and we have had multiple conversations onsite about that. That
falls outside of normal jurisdiction, and if it's not within a
hundred feet of the Trustees.
So, again, we have not made any extensions to the
buildings, we have not added square feet to the buildings, we
have not touched the wetlands. It's not our intension. To be
honest when we first bought the property in April, I was there
alone, I was in the salt marsh, the 18-acre salt marsh for a
week on my own, picking up trash, preserving these wetlands as
an essential part of our entire kind of reason for being here.
And I hope everybody can see, I know there is a lot of
nervousness, but I hope everybody can see we are investing a
significant amount of money into the landscaping and ecology of
this property, because it is essential for what we want to do here.
Board of Trustees 43 March 15, 2023
So a lot of other developers would come in, torn the whole
place down, put in the luxury condos, put in spa. We decided to
preserve what is there and work within the existing footprint
and try to preserve it lovingly. I have been there every single
day. And if there are issues, if you want a tour, I will welcome
anybody in, just like I welcomed you in. As soon as there were
complaints, you came in, Liz and Glen, you both came in, and we
walked around immediately: So anybody is welcome in.
Unfortunately, the fences have to be up because it's,a large
property, it's a construction site, and there is significant
insurance liability.
And I'll be honest, because this property meant so much to
so many people for so long, early on, I was finding people
breaking into the homes and taking Instagram pictures of
themselves. That is just a liability that we can't have, neither
for myself as the property owner or the Town, so.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. Anyone else?
MS. WADE: I may be going back because I'm very confused about
the lots, and I think you took care of it. But we were just
confused. We were talking, because this plan shows the frame
building on, just about on the property line that supposedly
going to be, and on this whole being like a sand area for like
an outdoor, is that what you just said it should be natural and
not a sand area?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Let me just help you clarify. Lot 15, parcel
15, includes two wetland boundaries. So there --
MS. WADE: I'm talking about the lower left.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. So there is a 100-foot setback from the
bulkhead on the bay portion of the parcel. And you are correct,
there is a large rectangular frame building and a deck that is
part of that. Like the corner of the frame building and the
deck, are within Trustee jurisdiction. And then there.is a
smaller 30-foot, 30.4'x26.4' frame building, and a little slice
of that is within Trustee jurisdiction. The rest of it is sand.
And then --
MS. WADE: But it's not there now.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. So to clarify, the bay side of those
buildings were non-turf buffer. So that's the sand.
MS. WADE: You are going to allow it to go from natural to sand?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is what is proposed for a non-turf
buffer on the bay side. And then on the freshwater wetland side,
north of that pool, is what we are talking about
non-disturbance. So leave it in its current state.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But just to clarify, the lawn area pictured on
the seaward side of those buildings is turf, and there is sod,
essentially, granted. It's not manicured and treated, but that's
not an environmental win whatsoever what is there now.
MS. WADE: So you want native like grasses or something, why have
Board of Trustees 44 March 15, 2023
the whole thing bare sand? It seems like --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: There is also a planting plan I'm looking at
here, L-4.5-0
MS. WADE: It's got little islands of sand. But this whole thing
is like a sea of sand that, um, that doesn't seem very
environmentally sensitive.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, I mean, the Board has not voted on this
application yet, but certainly, you know, the best thing is
undisturbed vegetation, then probably sand, woodchips, gravel,
and then sod or turf would probably be the worst environmental
thing, and that's what exists -- please just let me finish --
and that's what exists there now.
MS. WADE: Sorry. Okay, but what about native grasses?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I believe there is a callout for some native
grasses, and it could certainly be the purview of the Board to
require a larger native grass area. Is that what you're asking?
MS. WADE: Yeah, yeah, yeah. It seems just like a big open party
space on sand.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? Any
other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Again, I would just reiterate that a plan that
calls for the removal of freshwater wetland vegetation is
antithetical to what we do here. So to me, even revising the
plan, I do understand that you wish to make big revisions to
this plan. But the way that it was submitted is what we are
looking at here, and to me that is a bit beyond what we can just
stipulate.
MR. KIMACK: It shouldn't be. We have, we negotiate changes to
the plan all the time. We were telling you that we are removing
it, so therefore if we remove it and submit a new set of plans
that doesn't have it on there, with a non-disturbance zone and a
non-turf, that falls within all of the other requirements that
you requested of all the other lots, with the houses being
described, with the all the other information on there, with the
preservation of that.
So you are going to be looking at a plan that removes that,
that is not going to have that in there anymore. So it
shouldn't be part of your determination whether you approve it
or deny it. I think that is something in opposite to what we are
doing here, to what we are trying to achieve.
We understand what Mike Collins said. We looked at his
comments. We decided not to argue against that. We decided to
remove it from the conversation completely. And I don't think
really at this point you should tell me that you are going to
still be considering it after I made that concession. And that
the plan that you are going to be seeing, like all the others
that are not going to have it on there, with non-disturbance and
Board of Trustees 45 March 15, 2023
a non-turf buffer. Because now we are not talking about you
voting on a plan which had been changed and will be changed. And
we have to put it on the record that it's going to be
changed.
So to come back and tell me that at this particular time
all you are looking at is what was in the original description
-- descriptions change. You told me to change every single one
of the descriptions.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I follow your logic, Mr. Kimack. The
question is about thresholds and quantitative changes and
quality of changes that are not small in nature. And when the
public sees this particular application and goes on laserfiche
and reads the plans and studies them closely and comes to the
hearings and speaks in regard to the application before us, when
we stipulate significant changes to a plan, the public may not
be able to weigh in on those changes and be satisfied with what
has been proposed.
So in a sense, this is about transparency. To come back
before the Board with revised plans, to share with the Board
those in a particular way would be in the interest of public
transparency. That is I believe the argument being made right
now.
MR. KIMACK: We only received Mr. Collins' comments a few days
ago.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: They were submitted a week ago.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: The letter is incorporated in the file and
that's updated to laserfiche fairly regularly. And the date on
that letter is March 8th. And while I realize you may have not
known about it until just a few days ago, we did, when we were
all onsite together, we did mention that that was something that
we mentioned that would be forthcoming.
So, with, I mean, I think to everyone's point, just to kind
of summarize, while -- and I'm speaking as one Trustee here -- I
believe that there is something we can work out on this parcel.
Obviously there has been a lot of discussion and a lot of input.
What I'm seeing here in front of me on the dais is vastly
different than what we have been able to discuss here in this
hearing. And I think the discussion has been very productive.
So that's kind of the direction that this application is
going in, and as you mentioned, Lots 14 and 15 are linked
together, based on this continuity of this freshwater wetlands,
and what has been proposed as the drainage solution.
I think that there has been incredible positive
conversation about incorporating non-turf buffers off of the
seaward side of the cottages, and then non-disturbance seaward
of that non-turf buffer.
I think with the-receipt of new plans and a new project
description indicating all of that and incorporating the current
structure of the long, narrow, rectangular frame building, and
Board of Trustees 46 March 15, 2023
then the other cottage building as well as the pool, that that
would be something along the lines of what might be more
agreeable.
And then to the opposite comments, we do understand that
you have been very sympathetic to the environment and to the
community and the decisions that have been made outside of the,
you know, the actual construction that is going on. And we do
appreciate that.
And so with that, I would like to make a motion to close
this hearing.
MR. KIMACK: Can I make one comment?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Motion has been made.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to deny the closing of the
hearing. To reopen the hearing.
MS. HULSE: You can make a roll call vote.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roll call vote on closing this hearing
Trustee Peeples, do you want to close, say yea; if you want to
keep it open, say nay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I have made a motion to close it. Are we
talking about a new motion to --
MS. HULSE: No, we are talking about your motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Your motion has to be voted on.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Oh, well, I made a motion to close the hearing.
Aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Trustee Gillooly?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Trustee Sepenoski?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Nay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Trustee Krupski
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Nay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Trustee Goldsmith, nay.
Yes, Mr. Kimack.
MR. KIMACK: I want to bring to your attention, basically, that
we have a substantial planting plan going into place. All of the
plants have been ordered, primarily, and I would like Alex to
speak to that. If I may.
We have a planting window in there and the denial of these
permits is not going to allow us to do any planting at all in
that we have to get those plants in the ground within the month
of March and April.
Alex?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have multiple farmers up here. That's not
true. But, let's not go that route.
MR. PERROS: I might take a little different approach there, so.
Yes, we do have a planting window. Yes, we have secured plants.
Etcetera, et cetera.
I think I hear loud and clear, and again, I have not had
the opportunity to read Michael Collins' letter up until just
Board of Trustees 47 March 15, 2023
today, to be honest, which is why we made the move to remove the
swale. By the way, yes, we were proposing in that proposal to
remove a couple hundred feet of freshwater wetland, but we
proposed adding 3x that, to put that on the record. That is a
moot point now because we decided to remove that swale because
of the comments. So totally comfortable with that.
I think where we are is, I understand that there are
certain significant parts of the plan that need to be updated.
Mr. Sepenoski, per your comments, that makes a lot of sense, and
we will revise the utility plan, put the drywells back there.
I think what I would love to ask, if possible, there is,
you know, a lot of good things in the plan, especially as we get
toward the bay side of the property, where there is a
significant non-buffer, there are native plantings, native
grasses, et cetera, et cetera. We would request that is
partially approved. Again, I don't know if that is how it works.
But that part is partially approved so we can continue with
remediating the property, helping with the drainage issues, as
you know, we are sitting on 60 feet of clay, so all of those
drainage issues, getting the drywells in place, getting the
native plantings in place, getting non-turf buffers in place is
essential in preserving not just the property but the fresh and
tidal water wetlands.
So we request that we are allowed to go forward with those
planting plans that are around the existing buildings.
MR. KIMACK: We would request that, and, if you can, you have the
authority to split it to deny the trench, to deny that part of
it, and approve the rest of the application.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. For the record, I would like to
state that while I originally closed the hearing, I am in favor
of hearing your comments, because you asked to speak after I had
already made a motion to close. So I just wanted that to be
stated on the record that I do appreciate you wanting to make
additional comments.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I would like to state I was under the
impression something else was happening, so I was not trying to
close the hearing so you couldn't speak.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Then the other thing I wanted to note, to Mr.
Perros' point, when I'm looking at the plans, the drywells and
the drainage that you are referring to, are out of Trustee
jurisdiction. So it seems that that part of the project could
continue. That is not contingent on this, the approval for this
application.
MR. KIMACK: This is actually the amount of planting, it is sand,
that is within your jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That is correct, on the bay side.
MR. KIMACK: And you certainly basically approve certain aspects
of the project and denying other parts of it. And I would ask
you to consider denying the trench and approving the planting
Board of Trustees 48 March 15, 2023
plan as it pertains to your jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very much. I would like to just
comment that there has been a fairly heavy lift up here on the
dais as we are on the last application here. And I appreciate
all the comments from the public.
It is, we have dedicated quite an amount of study to all of
these applications, all of the separate applications, and how
they link together holistically, because they are part of a
larger picture here.
From my perspective as one Trustee, the modifications that
are being requested on this parcel 15 are quite extensive and so
I believe that you have received some great comments from the
dais and input from the public that could be incorporated into a
new design for this.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? Any other
comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing, again.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I make a motion to deny this application. This board is in the
process of preserving and protecting the wetlands. While I
appreciate that you have proposed to vegetate 3x, 3.5 times the
removal amount, which we know has been redesigned, fragmentation
of the wetland is still involved.
The proposed area for Lot 15 contains freshwater wetlands.
The previous lots discussed this evening contained tidal
wetlands, and the southern boundary of the property contours
long the Peconic Bay, which is the home to a vibrant oyster
farm.
Stating Southold Town Code Chapter 275-3(b): The wetlands
shall be regulated in order to maintain and contribute to the
following resource area values and attributes and functions they
possess. Protection of public and private water supply, ground
water, flood control, erosion and sedimentation.
I apologize, I was wanting to read another section of the
Town Code. 275-3(a): The Town Board of the Town of Southold
finds that rapid growth, the spread of development and
increasing demands upon natural resources, are encroaching upon
or eliminating many of its wetlands and patent lands, which is
preserved and maintained in an undisturbed and natural
condition, constitute important physical, social, esthetic,
recreational and economic assets to existing and future
residents of the Town of Southold.
The reasons for, additional reasons for denial, Chapter
275-12(a), adversely affects the wetlands of the Town. And (j),
adversely affects the esthetic value of the wetlands and
adjacent areas.
Board of Trustees 49 March 15, 2023
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 13, Michael Kimack on behalf of
STEPHEN E. RAVN, DANIELLA C. RAVN, PATRICK FLANAGAN, EVA
FLANAGAN & MORTON D. DUBIN Il,requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a fixed docking facility consisting of a landward
4'x2.2'x2.2'x4' trapezoidal landing (8.8sq.ft.) to 4'x4' steps
with four (4) treads and five (5) risers (16sq.ft.) leading to a
4'x126' fixed dock with staircase (504sq.ft.), raised a minimum
of 4' above wetlands and a continuous railing set at 3' on the
landward side; the decking shall be composed of Thru-Flow
continuous; the first 56' of dock to be supported with 4" square
green-heart pilings (24) set at 8' on-center and cross braced;
the remaining 70' of walkway to be supported with 8" diameter
pilings at 8' on-center; construct three (3) 4'x24' fixed docks
(288sq.ft.) off of 70' section of dock using Thru-Flow decking,
39-8" diameter pilings and one five-step float aluminum dock
ladders on each dock; total area of fixed dock is 792sq.ft.
Located: End of 10' Right-of Way at 625 Wells Road, Peconic
(Dominant), 325 Wells Road, Peconic (Servient) & 75 Wells Road,
Peconic (Servient). SCTM# 1000-75-6-3.3 (Dominant),
1000-75-6-3.2 (Servient) & 1000=75-6-3.1 (Servient)
The Trustees conducted a field inspection March 7th, 2023,
noting that the proposed location in the vital headwaters of the
creek, excessive dock structure as proposed.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies
are: Due to the environmental sensitivity of Richmond Creek, the
Planning Board requires certain protective clauses following the
covenants and restrictions. Extremely shallow water in the
upper reach of the creek caused the Planning Board to locate
common access to Lot 3. Access to the creek does not imply that
a dock should or can be constructed in the future.
Also violates Policy 6, protect and restore quality and
function in the Town of Southold ecosystem. The proposed action
is located within a New York State Critical Environmental Area.
At the.discretion of the Board of Trustees, any operations
proposed in critical environmental areas, may be subject to more
stringent requirements and details in this section. Such
requirements may include but are not limited to denial of
certain operations, shortening or reducing the size of structure
and increasing the width of non-disturbance buffers.
The water depth is shallow and will not support motorized
vessels. The tidal notes shown on the plan are confusing and not
calibrated to a specific location on the plans. They may be as
old as 2009. The tidal period for the sounding is not
identified. The proposed construction of a dock in ecologically
sensitive New York state critical environmental area with no to
Board of Trustees 50 March 15, 2023
highly restricted navigability during tidal regimes is
unsupported.
Further citing, where water depth cannot support the use
of a motorized vessel can lead to adverse impact on benthic
communities including bottom scarring from propeller contact and
species injuries. Turbidity also increases in these situations.
Further goes to it say net loss in public use of waterways
is expected as a result of the dock in/on public waterways.
Furthermore, proposed dock structure has the ability to
result in potential adverse impact to high quality tidal
wetlands and marine waters by construction and use in an area
with inadequate water levels to support a motorized vessel,
irrespective of the tides.
The construction of this proposed private residential dock
structure in public trust lands and/or waters will result in a
net loss of public use of such waters, and adverse impact over
long duration due: To inadequate water depth to safely operate
a vessel; impact on navigation affecting other user groups on
the public water body; impact on marine species habitat using
inadequate water depths and potential bottom scarring from the
operation of a vessel; impact on water quality from inadequate
water depths and the potential repeated suspension of the
sediment through operation of a vessel and the harming and
lovers of benthic marine life; impact on water quality through
the introduction of manmade materials; impact and interruption
of tidal flow in upper reaches of creek; and potential adverse
impact to high quality tidal wetlands.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Once again, Michael Kimack on behalf of the
applicant.
A little history on this one. This was a three-lot
subdivision back in the 1990s, something like this. The Planning
Board basically set up a 50 foot non-disturbance buffer along
the entire creek, and established a ten-foot wide right-of-way
along Lot#3, that came from the road as we walked all the way
back to the water.
I applied a few years ago for a dock on Lot#2, primarily,
that had, even though there was a non-disturbance, it had a
natural pathway through it. And that particular area was not
within the jurisdiction.
We received a DEC permit for a dock, a fixed dock, which
was further up than we are now. And where we are right now it
actually widens out, if you can look for the Lot#2 is almost
pretty much the end over there, the second one over there. And
DEC has permitted that.
As far as the dock design itself, the design was dictated
Board of Trustees 51 March 15, 2023
by the way that the lot was structured, and in order to meet the
requirements of both DEC and the Trustees in terms of how much
space you could take up across at low tide. And it's designed
for the 25% requirement of DEC, which it meets the 15-foot
setbacks on both sides. And even though it's in low water, it's
an all fixed dock and no floating docks, essentially like that,
and it is for three homes. I will try to make some corrections
in what LWRP said. This is limited to two boats per property. To
a maximum of six. You have a copy of the declaration that is in
there, primarily, that I'm not quite sure if Mark basically had
it, but we did a declaration and covenant for all three
homeowners to basically take a mutual responsibility for this
particular property. And they are limited to two, even though
the Zoning Board basically said you can't have more than three,
primarily.
Now as far as the depth of water is concerned, we know it's
shallow. I suspect it will probably need, there will be kayaks,
I would imagine. There could be sailboats because you can do a
raise keel situation. There may or may not be the motorboats.
They will probably float even with the motors up, essentially i
like that.
I'm not sure, you should have the declaration and covenants
within your package.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, we do.
MR. KIMACK: And if you can look on that particular one, look on
the#5, on the second page, and #9 on the second page. It
limits it to two boats apiece. I think what happened is LWRP
looked at the number of signatures on the document and found
five signatures and assumed it was five individual people, did
not realize it was only three lots and three properties. So that
was incorrect. It's limited now to six apiece -- on two apiece,
six maximum. That's what it was designed for, primarily, and
yes, it's shallow, but you, this Board has approved fixed docks
in shallow situations before, as long as we are not doing any
floating dock situations. And I would not necessarily want to
take up more of your time. I'm sure that you have others, but
if you go down the list of what the LWRP was basically saying,
on this particular one, as least, I think the first one he's
saying it's two more ten boats. That's incorrect. It's
self-imposed to two apiece. And the dock system was designed for
two each. And they each are going to have their own separate
area, primarily.
But I will tell you that at the last hearing that we had,
the LWRP that was written where the Trustees denied my permit
application, even though DEC approved it, it died on the basis
of the non-disturbance, we were instructed by the LWRP at that
time that you have a right-of-way on number three, and that's
where you get those. So I'm sorry that he's basically now taking
the position it didn't say you could, but he basically said that
Board of Trustees 52 March 15, 2023
if you are going to build a dock, that is where you are going to
put it. And that's the only place we can put it because that's
the opening to the waterway. Which was created by the Planning
Board to put a dock in.
And actually it worked out because it's in, it's in where
the mouth of the thing opens up. That's probably the widest part
of that particular. Yes, it's shallow, but it's downstream and
it allows to meet the requirements of both DEC in terms of
navigability of this particular one. This particular site. And
we do meet that requirement. The Trustees' requirement for that
is 25% at low tide across. It's all fixed. It's annual to be
able to take advantage from the design of that particular
configuration of the property, and configuration of the
waterway, primarily. But it is not anything that the Trustees
have not approved in the past in terms of being something that
might be put into a low water situation. Which we accepted. We
knew that was going to happen.
But they are entitled, I mean, the LWRP told us the lot
plan, the Planning Board, that this was set up for, to have a
dock situation for the three people, and that's what we did.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
MR. STEINMULLER: Richie Steinmuller. Can you tell me where we're
talking about, where is this location?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Wells Road, end of Richmond Creek.
MR. STEINMULLER: Thank you, very much.
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore, on behalf of an adjacent property
owner. The property owner is Dirt Ridge LLC. Scott Murphy is
actually here, it's individual.
I have a great deal of history, I know that Mike probably
saw my name all over the place on this file. I represented John
Scott on the subdivision of this property, and it took us
three-and-a-half years to develop essentially two lots.
And I was very curious, I looked in the Town's records. I
didn't see the LWRP report. It must have come in and not been
scanned in time. But I was very curious to hear what Mark Terry
would have to say on this because Mark and I, politely, battled
through three years of trying to get through the subdivision
process, and one of the things that was very important to the
Planning Board and to the LWRP was the access, the common
access, only one, only one access, through the right-of-way to
access the water for all three lots. And throughout the process,
um, it was not so clear whether or not a dock could be placed
there. It was a water access. So kayaks, certainly, to the water
access, we were very insistent that these lots, because of the
non-disturbance buffers that ran along the entire length of the
waterway, the creek. We wanted to retain some form of access to
the water, and that was honored by the Planning Board, and
that's what Mike Kimack has shown you.
Board of Trustees 53 March 15, 2023
I did pull out from the Town's record of the Planning
Board, a letter that I received in 2008 while we were reviewing
the covenants, because actually I tried to put in to the
covenant the access, the ten-foot pedestrian access easement on
lot three with natural walkways or catwalks, and that was
stricken by the Planning Board. So there would not be an actual,
it would be up to the Trustees, certainly, as far as what the
improvements would be. But there was no guarantee as far as a
dock, a fixed dock.
So, certainly, when my client showed meet the proposal, and
I have for the Board, I guess I'll give it to you now. It's
just copies of things. The first one is the Planning Board
record where the language was stricken from the proposed
covenant.
So the first document I pulled out was the letter regarding
the C&Rs when we were in the process of reviewing the C&Rs. I
provided the Planning Board resolution which was the sketch plan
review in 2006, and the little check marks that are in the
record must have been done by the Planning Board. It wasn't me.
So it's just identifying the right-of-way.
The next document is the survey of the parcel and where the
right-of-way is, and I know that certainly this has been shown
to you.
I wanted to show you the next page is the proposal, and I
highlighted in yellow my client's property and the house. So you
can see that the triangle from the location of the access point,
east or south, is all directly in front of my client's property.
When we were going through the subdivision process, the owner at
the time came in and was requesting that we please honor their
privacy, and the right-of-way was angled so that it would not
be, because our initial design would have taken the right-of-way
along the property line, which is usually how Planning Board
design rights-of-way, would have extended the right-of-way all
the way to the east at the base of the triangle.
The owner at the time, and we respected his request, to
move the right-of-way and access further toward the northeast,
to prevent the interference with the privacy of that homeowner.
My client is now the owner of that property.
You can see that the proposal, and it was interesting, the
Board's comments, which was extensive, that was my reaction,
too, because it's like, wow, for six boats, um, for once, I'm
actually, usually fighting with you, but this time I'm in
agreement. And again, the LWRP comments were pretty much on
point because I know what we went through when the subdivision
was being proposed.
Whether or not a catwalk would be permitted here would be
up to the Trustees. Certainly the way it's angled and the way
it's infringing on that triangle is certainly offensive to my
client. And the catwalk, typically structures have to be at
Board of Trustees 54 March 15, 2023
least 15 feet from the property line, but you can see here, the
property line is at the end of the triangle and this, the dock
is designed so it goes the entire length in front of the
property and terminates, the last fork of the fixed dock is
directly at the corner of the property line.
So it's, design wise, it doesn't even match what the
Trustees generally require with respect to dock design.
The next page that I included was my client's property, so
can you see it's a very unique, it's a large piece of property,
but the waterfront is along Richmond Cree, and the triangle is
the, I highlighted. Please excuse, it is not intended to be
directly to scale. I drew it the best I could to try to figure
out where it sat in relation to the overall survey of my
client's property. I highlighted in yellow the triangle, and I
tried to locate the fixed dock where it sat in relation to the
property line.
I am certainly not a surveyor, it is not to scale, but it
is as close as I could do.
And then finally, the next to last document is Mr. Raven's,
Ms. Raven's, excuse me, has been asking for things that, when
John Scott actually sold the property to them, and we were very
clear, we provided all the covenants, all the restrictions.
This was a very restricted parcel. It went through an extremely
complex review process with the Planning Board. As I said, it
took quite a long time. And they have been pushing the envelope
throughout. And this is just one more example of pushing that
envelope.
The last two pictures'are pictures from my client's house
where you can see what the impact would be of having, what is
essentially a marina in front of the waterway of this property.
So we would concur with your comments that have been made
so far on the record, we certainly agree with the LWRP comments,
because Mark Terry, as the LWRP coordinator, he and I worked
very hard on this subdivision.
And from the start of even doing archaeological assessments
to scenic viewshed analysis, and then finally the covenants for
the limitations on clearing and access.
I do agree with Mr. Kimack that this is the common access.
But I would not agree that this is what was certainly
contemplated by the Planning Board, by my client or anyone.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
All right.
MR. KIMACK: Can I make further comments?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sure.
MR. KIMACK: It's an unusual piece of property, and I understand
Pat basically saying we are in conformance with the side yard,
Board of Trustees 55 March 15, 2023
basically, because the way you would extend it, the way you
would extend it, from the, if you will look here, you have to
extend this line out this way. That's the property line --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Walk that down and show the rest of the Board.
MR. KIMACK: You would extend this line this way. The gentleman's
house is here. But your requirements are 15, at least 15 feet
off of the property line, which goes this way. And you can see
the way this has been angled. The same thing on this one, if you
bring this all the way across, we are within that zone,
primarily. So it meets your requirements of 15 feet from the
property line. That shouldn't be an issue.
There is nothing within Planning, and I appreciate Pat's
comments. But there is nothing, the right-of-way was created,
to get to the water. There is nothing within Planning that
prohibits a dock, primarily, within any of those documents. It
doesn't say take your four foot pathway to the water but you
can't do it any further than that.
The dock design has been laid out, so it's not on the
property, it's all within the waterway. Because we cannot be on
a vacant lot. It would be nothing on that vacant lot. So
everything on there is beginning at the high water mark, which
is the property line, and it moves to the water from there.
The only place we can put that dock is in this area because
it happens to be the only place that we can, well;we have to
work off the right-of-way, is the place for the water that
Planning basically gave us. They said nothing about prohibit a
dock. That falls under your purview in terms of whether the dock
design meets your criteria. It falls within the 15-foot of both
sides. There is no floating dock. It's a fixed walkway.
I do understand that the other individual may be looking at
that situation, but it's not on his property. It's across the
way.
And the last argument that was made before this Board,
obviously, which was a different Board, by the LWRP, if you want
a dock, they said we couldn't build it on Lot#2, you can go to
Lot#3 because that is where your right-of-way is.
So in a sense they acknowledge the fact that they are not
against the dock. He's concerned about its location in terms of
critical path. Because if DEC was willing to approve a dock,
which you have in the old record, further up the stream, DEC
doesn't have a concern about having a fixed dock within this
waterway. And you should not either.
As long as it meets your, it meets the navigation
requirements, it's not a floating dock, it meets the side yard
setback. Yes, it's large, but only because we have three lot
owners on one dock system, which limits them to two boats
apiece.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, very much, Mr. Kimack. Is there
anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application?
Board of Trustees 56 March 15, 2023
(Negative response).
Are there any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: What can I say that has not already been
said. The water is very shallow. Docks protrude into an area
where there are no other docks in the vicinity. It's already
been stated on the record by you, Mr. Kimack, that they would
like to launch kayaks and possibly sailboats in this area and
not bring larger vessels in there unless they're at.the last
minute churning up their motor and dead reckoning toward the
dock. It just seems like an inappropriate location for such a
sizeable amount of dock even though it is a fixed pier.
It seems more appropriate for this Trustee, as a small
fixed pier that allows safe access to the water for said kayaks.
If anything. And I can't believe I find myself agreeing. I'm
making light of a situation. It's only my first year as a
Trustee. I'm sure we'll agree to many more given time. That's
just one Trustee's point of view.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other comments from the Board?
MR. KIMACK: Could I then ask to table this to give me an
opportunity to look at the design based upon the comments,
And perhaps resubmit?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Like we have seen tonight, you know, when
it's a very substantial change, the public, the neighbors, have
been notified based on the application before us. So a change of
that magnitude would basically constitute a new application.
So hearing no further comment I'll make a motion close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, Chapter 275-12(a), adversely affects the
wetlands of the Town; (b), cause damage from erosion, turbidity
or siltation; (d),,adversely affects fish, shellfish or other
beneficial marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and vegetation of
the natural habitat thereof; (e), increase the danger of flood
and storm tide damage; (f) adversely affect navigation on tidal
waters or the tidal flow of the tidal waters of the Town; (g),
change the course of any channel or the natural movement or flow
of any waters; and (j), adversely affect the esthetic value of
the wetlands and adjacent areas.
For all of those reasons stated, I'll make a motion to deny
this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time we'll take a five-minute recess.
(After a recess this proceeding continues as follows ).
Board of Trustees 57 March 15, 2023
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under Wetland permits, number 14, Ryall
Sheridan Architects on behalf of NICOLE ECKSTROM & CARLOS
SAAVEDRA requests a Wetland Permit to renovate existing
20'9"x22'2" detached garage by renovating existing garage
without any increase to footprint, and removing areas of pitched
roof and replacing with a flat roof deck area, remaining roof
area to be replaced; demolish existing attached seaward side
sunroom and concrete slab and construct a new 16'5"x8'10"
screened porch with stone pavers set in sand flooring; remove
existing 208sq.ft. of concrete walkway and masonry steps;
construct a proposed 289sq.ft. concrete ramp and steps; remove
asphalt driveway and install a new 2,450sq.ft. gravel driveway;
install a drywell on landward side of garage to contain roof
runoff; and to maintain existing electrical, and no plumbing
proposed.
Located: 590 Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-5-22
The Trustees most recently visited the property on the 7th
of March, and noted that we would need new plans to show
containment of roof runoff on all property buildings, with
gutters to leaders to drywells, and install ten-foot vegetated
non-turf buffer from the wetland line landward.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. CARROLL: Niall Carroll, for Nicole Eckstrom and Carlos
Saavedra. I have to add to the description, to add drywells to
the description and submit new plans. But I'm here to answer any
questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sorry, did you say you submitted new plans with
drywells?
MR. CARROLL: No, but we will.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh, okay. And then do you have any issue with
adding a vegetated non-turf from that flagged wetland line?
MR. CARROLL: Not at this time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, is there anyone else here that wishes to
speak regarding this application, or any additional comments
from the members of the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
subject to new plans showing gutters to leaders to drywells on
the entirety of the property, a 15-foot non-turf vegetated
buffer from the wetland line landward, and stipulate that there
are no bathrooms or plumbing in the structure.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
Board of Trustees 58 March 15, 2023
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 15, Christopher Dwyer on behalf of
MICHAL & DANIEL KATCHER requests a Wetland Permit to construct
an 801sq.ft. (18'x44.5') in-ground pool with spa (5'x11');
install a surrounding 1,137sq.ft. pool patio; construct a
120sq.ft. (6'x20') cabana with '/2 bath and unfinished pool
storage space that is to be serviced by underground electric
from dwelling and the bathroom connected to existing I/A OWTS
system; install an outdoor shower against cabana; install an 8'
diameter drywell to contain runoff for cabana, outdoor shower
and patio; construct a ±205sq.ft open-air pergola attached to
cabana; install an underground drainage pool for pool backwash;
280sq.ft. of existing concrete ramp/slab to be removed in the
area landward of the existing 20' wide non-turf buffer area with
the rest located inside the buffer to remain; install
approximately 430 linear feet of perimeter fencing with gates;
install a combination of landscape vegetation and lawn to occupy
the area landward of the non-turf buffer; and install some
vegetation within the established 20' wide non-turf buffer area.
Located: 3915 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM#
1000-137-1-5.1
The Trustees most recently visited the site on 3/7/23. The
notes from our visit read cabana should be moved, deck to comply
with pier line and viewshed, drywells pulled back landward of
the pool. New plans.
The LWRP coordinator found this project to be consistent
with Chapter 268.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
And the Board is in receipt of plans stamped received March
14th, 2023, indicating changes that bring this into conformity
with what our field notes have requested with respect to the
pier line and the other items I mentioned.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding the
application.
MR. DWYER: Christopher Dwyer, I'm just here to address any
questions you may have.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Any other questions or comments from members
of the public or from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the new plans stamped received March 14th.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
Board of Trustees 59 March 15, 2023
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 16, Jennifer Wicks on behalf of PETER &
MARIA GANLEY requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
1,653.9sq.ft. Dwelling; existing 390.5sq.ft. carport; existing
143.6sq.ft. brick pavers on grade; existing 365.8sq.ft. north
deck; existing 153.6sq.ft. south deck; existing 536.8 upper
south deck; remove outdoor shower; construct a 22'11"x17'3Y2"
second story addition and a 12'x15'7" second story addition to dwelling.
Located: 785 Fisherman's Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-1-31
The Trustees most recently visited this site on March 7th,
2023, noting pull stone out and expand non-turf area on bay side
of the house. To be planted with beach grass on eastern side.
Allow for sand area around fire pit. Plans to show gutters and
leaders to drywells on house. As-built and proposed second story
okay.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be both
inconsistent and exempt. The inconsistency was that the as-built
structure was constructed without a Board of Trustee review or
permit. And the second story is exempt by the LWRP.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this application
and resolved to support it with the condition that the sanitary
system is in compliance with the Suffolk County Department of
Health. Is there anyone here wishing to speak?
MS. WICKS: Hi. Jennifer Wicks. They already have an application
in with the Health Department for the IA system, so we are just
waiting on approval for that. And, um, that's about it.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Do you believe the clients would be amenable
to extending their non-turf buffer to be adjacent with the
neighbors?
MS. WICKS: I don't know where the neighbors is. I just can't
speak --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So, basically from the back of where the fire
pit is, leading straight cross, would be consistent with the
neighbors' non-turf buffer.
MS. WICKS: I don't see it being a problem. I don't think they
have plans to do anything there anyway, so.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay. And -- all right. Are there any other
questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
Any comments from the public?
(No response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application,
with the stipulation of aligning the buffer with the adjacent
Board of Trustees 60 March 15, 2023
buffers consistent with the landward edge of the fire pit, at
least 50% of which should be vegetated with American beach grass
on the east side, and with gutters and leaders to drywells. And
by giving it a permit, will thereby bring it into consistency
with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 17. Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of SHLOMO & ALICE WEINBERG requests a Wetland Permit to
expand the existing deck (732sq.ft.) By 1,151sq.ft. (1,883sq.ft.
Total); install a 4'x6' staircase with locking gate and 4'x4'
platform along the southerly side of the proposed deck; install
a railing around the perimeter of the proposed deck to serve as
a code compliant pool barrier; within the proposed deck install
a 12'x8' spa and 12'x30' swimming pool; install an 8' diameter
by 4' deep drywell for pool backwash; and install a 4'x8' pool
equipment area.
Located: 1425 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-116-7-6
The Trustees most recently visited the site on March 7th
and noted to move the pool closer to the house.
The LWRP finds this proposal to be consistent with their
policies. Noting that, number one, the Wetlands permit 5040
required a 20-foot wide non-turf buffer on the parcel in 1999.
Number two, establish the buffer as a vegetated buffer,
retaining the large trees to site.
Number three, require that the buffer be shown and labeled
on the plans and memorialized in a covenant and restrictions.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application, and we are in receipt of plans stamped and dated
March 6th of 2023.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Robert Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
on behalf of the applicant, here to answer any questions the
Board may have.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. The first question, and this kind of
addresses the comments that the Board made when we were out
there in the field. There is already a raised deck off of this
house, and then the proposal is to increase the depth of that
deck and install a pool and a hot tub.
Would your client be amenable to sort of pushing, I guess
the seaward edge of that deck back closer to the house.
Essentially what is depicted here in the plan is taking the
existing footprint of the deck and then adding the area for the
pool. Would they be amenable to sort of in a sense overlap those
areas so that the pool kind of visually overlaps on to what was
existing there.
Board of Trustees 61 March 15, 2023
MR. ANDERSON: If I'm understanding correctly, so you want to
have the swimming pool up against on top of where the existing
deck is now?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Well, it seems the existing deck would be
rebuilt. Or at least be resurfaced.
MR. ANDERSON: All the members of the existing deck structurally
are sound. They are proposing to use the existing and expand
upon that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Which makes complete sense. I think what we are
asking is could that pool just sort of be slipped back.
MR. ANDERSON: I would have to talk to the owners. In speaking
with the contractor on it, the owners have made it clear they
would like to have a little bit of area to move around on the
other side of the pool between the house and was just thinking
it would probably be a little easier for them to do outdoor
recreation there, around the pool being a seating area. To push
it up against the house, I don't see that is really achieving,
it's just cutting back on the deck.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think part of the reason for that comment,
and what we noted in the field, is that, you know, there is
quite -- it's noted in the LWRP letter-- that the area seaward
of this has some really beautiful trees and it is essentially a
non-turf area already, which is very nice. There is a pretty
extensive turf lawn on the, I guess the side yard of that, so it
seems that they would have that area to, you know, utilize
outdoor space. It's not necessarily around the pool, but they've
decided also to install a raised pool. And I think that then
brings me to my second question, which is the, what would the
elevation of that pool, you know, in its current state, what
would the elevation be off of the ground?
MR. ANDERSON: The current deck is about four feet off the
ground. We would maintain that plane going outward. I can't
imagine it increasing it by more than a foot. The grading is
not that steep.
I would also like to mention all of our proposed structures
are within an area that is not inhabited by these large mature
trees, and there is no intention to remove, displace or change
any of the native environs that's there. They simply want to
replace the lawn area with the swimming pool area.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. And thank you, for clarifying that. The
area I was referring to is outside of the proposed area. So,
yes, thank you, for clarifying that. I think part of that is we
definitely want to maintain that area. So also in regard to the
LWRP about, I guess there is already a buffer that was intended
to be there, 20-foot buffer. That is not depicted on the plan.
MR. ANDERSON: I was not aware of that going into this. But I'm
sure we would be more than happy to increase that
non-disturbance buffer if that would be amenable as opposed to
reducing the size of the proposed. I think that would be a very
Board of Trustees 62 March 15, 2023
reasonable mitigation, extending that buffer and further
covenanting as well.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: While I don't think it's an even trade, I
believe increasing the buffer would be good for this property.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay, I'm just trying to understand what the
benefit would be cutting back the deck, even though we are
covering the existing lawn space, which will reduce the amount
of fertilizable lawn area. That's another added benefit of
keeping the larger structure, reducing it, keeping more lawn.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Sorry to interrupt you.
MR. ANDERSON: That's okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: One thing that we had started to notice
recently, and this is my observation, I won't speak for the rest
of the Board, but I believe we all sort of noticed the
applications coming in with raised pools, which is, you know,
typically pools have been inground, and while they do disturb
the ground it's not considered, you know, a significant
structure,on the property. So I think that was part of the
request. And, you know, by increasing the depth of that deck,
to your point, there is a slope down so then it is about five
feet, potentially six feet off of grade and so all of a sudden
you are kind of increasing the structure that is off of the rear
of the primary structure.
MR. ANDERSON: I understand that. I'm just trying to gauge an
understanding of what we would be achieving by pulling it back,
other than just less structure. You want just less. That's just
all there is. As far as I can tell. You just want to reduce the
structure. If we were to reduce it, how much further would we be
reducing it by?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I'm looking at the plans. I don't see any
dimensions on here. It's a little challenging without
dimensions but, you know, five feet or so? I mean, I'm throwing
out a number. I think it's something that might need to be
massaged a little bit within the plans.
MR. ANDERSON: What about reducing the coping on the outside, on
the seaward side of the swimming pool and spa, to make it an
infinity edge, maybe, even, or because reducing the coping, the
coping was pretty expensive. Maybe we can cut back on that and
find different ways to maintain the pool again. I would have to
refer to the client to see what kind of practical changes that
they want to make, because they have gone back and forth several
times with the contractor developing a plan that would work
practically, as well as achieving all of the standards that we
are looking for here.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. Understood. Is there anyone else here
wishing to speak in regard to this application?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I would just make one comment that. We would
like to see what that edge facing the wetland is going to be, so
when you do, if that's the way this goes, with submitting new
Board of Trustees 63 March 15, 2023
plans, I think that would be important see what the elevation is
going to be from the pool deck on the side facing the wetlands.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And to clarify what Trustee Gillooly just
stated, I think what we have seen in recent proposals, and
while I don't want to compare applications, it's something that
we are just currently now aware of, is that we would like to see
that maintained as a deck and not sort of a solid wall that is
on the --
MR. ANDERSON: I'm just trying to understand what the difference
would be between having a deck that is completely latticed off
and having a perfectly comparable impervious structure to go
through. I don't really see the difference as far as what the
effect would be on the environment as far as say having a deck
that has everything closed off underneath, so you don't want
critters crawling under there, or little kids, versus having a
swimming. I don't understand.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why don't you want little kids crawling under
the deck?
(Board members laughing).
I don't think we are going to take you to environmental school
tonight. I think what the Trustees are trying to achieve here,
and I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, is pulling
structure back as far away from the wetlands as we can, and
limiting the exposure, I mean, we certainly are trying to limit
hard and fast cement walls facing creeks that kind of adversely
affect the esthetics and the entire neighborhood, and, you know,
all in all, the best practice is to move it as far back as
possible. And if there is anything you can do to that effect I
think would be appreciated.
MR. ANDERSON: Speaking to those points, I mean, visually you
can't really see this from the road. It's very well vegetated by
a lot of natural plantings as well as landscaping going up to
the road.
Again, the outside of the deck would look very similar to
what it looks like now. The cement wall that we are talking
about would be the swimming pool, and that's within that. You
would not see that from the outside. I would not imagine that
would be very esthetically pleasing for anyone.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak?
(Negative response).
So in terms of moving forward with this application, it sounds
like you need to speak with your client.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, so would it make sense to request to
table?
MR. ANDERSON: Why don't we table it.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very much. I make a motion to table
this hearing.
Board of Trustees 64 March 15, 2023
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 18, David Bergen on behalf of BROWNS
HILLS ESTATES, INC., requests a Wetland Permit to remove
existing bluff stairs located to the immediate east of proposed
bluff stairs and to re-vegetate any disturbed areas on the
bluff; construct 186' of proposed bluff stairs consisting of 4'
wide stairs, six (6) 4'x6' (24sq.ft.) platforms with the last
set of stairs to be aluminum retractable stairs to bottom/beach;
elevation of stairs to be at least 3' above grade; support posts
and support materials to be constructed with treated lumber; all
stair treads, benches and railings to be untreated lumber;
project includes benches located on platforms, handrails plus
two fall protection railings on each side, and an access gate at
top of stairs and lower platform.
Located: Off of North View Drive, Orient. SCTM# 1000-13-1-12.1
The Trustees conducted a field inspection March 11th,
noting straightforward. We also reviewed the plans at our work
session.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
We also have submission of a permit from New York state DEC
for the project dated March 6th, 2023.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, on behalf of Brian, Browns Hills
subdivision, and I'm just here to answer any questions you might
have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. 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 this hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted with the plans dated February 16th, 2023.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 19, David Bergen on behalf of NANCY
COLLINS requests a Wetland Permit to replace 144' of existing
bulkhead including a ±17.4' long south return in-place using
Board of Trustees 65 March 15, 2023
vinyl sheathing, 10" diameter pilings 6' on center, 6"x6"
whalers, 16' tie-rods leading to vertical deadmen with
horizontal lay logs, and a non-treated timber cap; temporarily
remove and replace one (1) existing 4'x8' cantilevered platform
to existing north 2'2"x10' aluminum ramp with handrails to
existing 6'x18' floating dock, and existing south 2'3"x10'
aluminum ramp with handrails to existing 6'x18' and 6'x20'
floating docks; replace in-place 4' wide by ±126' long detached
non-treated wood walkway with 4"x4" posts (walkway approximately
6" landward of bulkhead); install water and electrical
connections; remove existing southerly retaining wall and
contour land to match adjacent; reclamation dredging to a
maximum of 4' depth at mean low water along entire length of
bulkhead, to extend to a maximum of 10' off bulkhead resulting
in ±10 cubic yards of material to be placed behind bulkhead; and
to install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer
(including 4' wide non-treated wood walkway) along the landward
edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 305 Dawn Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-5-20
The Trustees most recently visited the property on the 7th
of March, and questioned will the bulkhead be raised.
The LWRP coordinator found the bulkhead and other
activities to be consistent, but found a replacement of the
cantilevered platform, aluminum ramp and handrails and floating
dock and existing aluminum ramp with handrails, and existing
6x18 and 6x20 floating dock is recommended as inconsistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding the
application?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, on behalf of Nancy Collins. And I
imagine that inconsistency has to do with non-permitted
structures. Could you tell me what the inconsistency was for?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The inconsistency I believe has to do with the
multiple platforms and floats.
MR. BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you just speak to that?
MR. BERGEN: Yes. They have been there pre-existing
non-conforming for years, and that's why, one of them, one of
the 6x20 floats does have a permit on it. And one of the, I
believe one of the catwalks does. But they have been there for
years, pre-existing nonconforming, like many others in the creek
there. That's why we are just going to leave them there during
construction. We are not going to take them out.
We are noting, or we hopefully note there that the, what
appears to be lifts that are there, those were actually lifts
for the docks, and we are removing those lifts, and we are
removing the retaining wall to the south part of that property,
just to reduce structure there also.
Board of Trustees 66 March 15, 2023
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(No response).
Are there any additional comments from the members of the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
stipulating silt controls during construction and recognizing
that through the March field inspection by the Trustees that
there is a precedent for above-average size docks in this
canal/creek system, thereby bringing this application in
consistency with the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. BERGEN: Thank you, very much. Have a nice evening.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 20, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of
JOHN F. HURLEY III, c/o JACK HURLEY requests a Wetland Permit to
replace 100' of existing bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; construct
12 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead return on north side of
property, and to connect to adjacent bulkhead on south side of
property; remove existing dock and construct a new dock
consisting of a proposed 4'x63' fixed dock using flow-through
decking at 15' from north property line and elevation 4.5'
(@2.5' above MHW elevation); remove and replace existing ramp
and floating dock with a new 30"x16' aluminum hinged ramp to a
6'x20' floating dock situated in an "I" configuration and
secured by two (2) 10" diameter OCCA piles.
Located: 1535 West View Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-7-10
The Trustees visited the site on 3/7/2023. Notes from our
site visit read straightforward.
The LWRP found the project to be consistent with Chapter
268.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application.
We have plans on the survey stamped received February 24th,
2023. 1 would like comment from the public.
MS. MOORE: Yes. Thank you. Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr.
Hurley. Mr. Hurley is here as well.
Thank you. We were at the field inspection. One thing that
we did not realize, and only because I didn't see it from
originally, there is a set of steps that presently come off of
the dock and run parallel to the bulkhead. If it will cause any
delay, we will come in with an amendment, but if we can have
this approved subject to the drawings with the access steps, we
Board of Trustees 67 March 15, 2023
would appreciate it, as Mr. Hurley can't get down off of the
property because of the bulkhead and the water and the beach
are, there is a significant difference in height. So that is
our only request.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay. Are there any other comments from the
public or members of the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with the stipulation that the stairs be depicted accurately on a
new set of plans, and also described in the new written
description.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. MOORE: So you want me to resubmit with the stairs added?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes, just draw them in the plans and put them
in the written.
MS. MOORE: Got it. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of JOEL B.
SINGER requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing 26'x16.1'
detached garage and construct a proposed 28'x30' 1 & '/z story
detached garage with a 6'x4' outdoor shower enclosure with a
gravel base, and a proposed pool equipment area on a 3'x14' pad
at grade with a 36" high fence enclosure; construct a proposed
18'x45' in-ground pool with an 8'x8' hot tub enclosure inside
the pool and new 48" high, 47'x98' pool enclosure fencing with
gates; install a drywell for pool backwash; install a 48" wide
by 55 linear foot long walkway; and existing gravel driveway
with a proposed 30" maximum driveway retaining wall, beginning
at steps, 9' northerly, 29' on the curve running 28', and 19'
parallel to property line, to retain existing grade of the lawn.
Located: 20575 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-11
The Trustees most recently visited the site on March 7th,
noting straightforward proposal.
The LWRP found this proposal to be consistent with Chapter
268.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to
support the application because the proposed location of the
swimming pool is out of compliance with the setbacks.
We are in receipt of plans stamped received in our office
January 23rd, 2023, and I invite comment.
MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. Singer. I also
have the architect here in case there are any questions, Mr.
Kuhn (sic) who very kindly brought original stamped sealed
Board of Trustees 68 March 15, 2023
plans. It doesn't change the description. We had them by e-mail
but due to the weather and availability, he just drove them out
here for this meeting.
So I'll just submit them for the record. They are sealed,
identical to what you have already reviewed and approved. I just
want to make sure you have the accurate.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application? .
(No response).
Questions or comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application
with the plans stamped March 15th, 2023. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 22, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of M&R
NORTH FORK PROPERTIES, INC., c/o MARK SCHILL requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a proposed 3,960sq.ft. Total (2,051 sq.ft.
first floor footprint and 1,909sq.ft. second floor) two-story
single family dwelling with varied dimensions of 49.0'x48.0'
with a 5.5'x7.0' front covered porch, 3'x12' front steps,
10'x33' covered rear porch with 4'x14' steps; install a proposed
generator on a 3'x5' concrete pad; install a/c units; install a
buried 1,000 gallon propane tank landward of dwelling; a
proposed I/A type sanitary system will be installed landward of
dwelling and in accordance with S.C.H.D. standards;
approximately 300 cubic yards of clean fill to be added and
graded surrounding the proposed dwelling to raise the grade;
install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff;
install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide Non-Disturbance
Buffer along the landward edge of the wetland line and a 10'
wide Non-Turf Buffer to be installed and perpetually maintained
along the landward edge of the Non-Disturbance Buffer; and a
silt fence to be installed and maintained surrounding the entire
work limits until area is fully stabilized.
Located: 500 Lakeside Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-3-4
The Trustees most recently held an inhouse review on March
7th and noted that we would review further at work session.
The LWRP coordinator submitted a letter and found this
project to be consistent. The recommendation was made with the
following considerations:
Number one, the dwelling is partially in a FEMA AE
elevation 6' flood zone, and will be designed accordingly. An
Board of Trustees 69 March 15, 2023
IA/OWTS is proposed in the front yard and the ability to
relocate the dwelling outside of the flood zone is low. Drywells
are proposed.
Number three, a non-disturbance buffer is proposed. Verify
that the 300 cubic yards of fill added to the property will not
adversely impact adjacent property.
We received a note from the Chairman of the Conservation
Advisory Council, noting that the Conservation Advisory Council
supported this application as submitted. Dated March 15th, 2023.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant, here to
discuss some of the comments addressed, I believe it was the
LWRP, regarding the fill. No fill will be distributed off of
this site. As you see on the proposed concourse, we utilized the
existing surrounding topography. Unfortunately it's not shown
on this plan that was submitted to the Trustees. But we met the
existing contour lines with the proposed contour lines on our
site. Our proposed contours meet the existing contour lines on
the adjacent site, so no disturbance to the neighboring
properties.
It is correct that there will be, there is no other
possibilities for the installation of the IA sanitary system. To
move the house any further to Lakeside Drive due to the area
that we would require to install the sanitary system and the
leaching galleys disposal system. And any other questions, I
would be happy to answer.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very much. I just want to confirm,
the plan that is most recent is the one dated January 25th of
2023. I'm sorry, received by us, let's see, the date on here may
be January 5th, 2023, is the latest date on there?
MR. PATANJO: That is on older plan.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, so --
MR. PATANJO: We actually dropped off the most recent revised
plan, which should be February 8th, and those were dropped off
to the Board by the applicant. We deleted the garage and the
proposed house is 112 foot away from the tidal wetlands,
actually from the mean high water line, which is actually the
tidal water wetlands line. It should be 2/8/23.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, it's in my other folder.
MR. PATANJO: I'll be honest, we had seven revisions on the set
the plans to accommodate all the different agencies and reviews.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think I have about three folders here and a
big beefy set. So thank you for clarifying.
MR. PATANJO: Yes, we revised the entire site. We pushed the
house further outside of, we are outside of jurisdiction lines.
We did the IA system. We removed the garage. We meet all the lot
coverage requirements, and we have DEC permits as well. So we
met, you know, we are trying to meet everybody's requirements on
Board of Trustees 70 March 15, 2023
this project.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. Thank you, for working with us on all
that.
MR. PATANJO: No problem.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: This looks like what I've seen most recently.
February 28th is received, and dated February 27th of'23.
MR. PATANJO: You have a later one than we have. Better than
mine, so.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. So it appears to address the comments of
the LWRP. It appears there are drywells located here. Gutters
to leaders, I'm hoping. The IA was reconfigured. And then also
there is a note about non-disturbance, but there is a ten-foot
non-disturbance here and a ten-foot non-turf.
MR. PATANJO: Yes, we have a total of 20 feet.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. Okay. All seems good. Is there anyone else
who wishes to comment, or any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the plans stamped dated February 28th, 2023.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 23, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of RENE
CARDINALE requests a Wetland Permit remove and replace 225
linear feet of deteriorated bulkhead in same location as
existing using vinyl sheathing, and raise the height of the new
bulkhead an additional 18" above existing bulkhead elevation;
and to install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide Non-Turf
Buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 4306 Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-14-31.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection March 7th, 2023,
noting the bulkhead replacement appears straightforward. Save
the trees if possible.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with the condition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer, and trees
removed to be replaced in-kind/in-place.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. We
approve of your comments.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response).
Board of Trustees 71 March 15, 2023
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion to approve this application with the
plans stamp received January 18th, 2023, noting the ten-foot
wide non-turf buffer, as well as condition a one-to-one native
hardwood tree replacement for any trees that are disturbed or
removed during construction.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees