HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-05/17/2023 Glenn Goldsmith,President �QF so�ly 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
RECEIVED
Minutes
Wednesday, May 17, 2023 JUN 16 2023
5:30 PM SOUthO►d Town Clerk
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, May 17th, 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, and with us
tonight is Court Stenographer Wayne Galante.
And from the Conservation Advisory Council we have Carol Brown.
Agendas for tonight's meeting are posted on the Town's website and are located out in the
hall.
We do have a number of postponements tonight. The postponements are in the agenda on
page nine, number 12; page 13 numbers 12 and 13; and page 14, numbers 14 and 15. They
are listed as follows:
Page 9, Number 12, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf'of W. HARBOR
BUNGALOW, LLC, c/o CRAIG SCHULTZ requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit for the existing 6.5'x53' fixed dock with a 11'x11' fixed portion in an "L" configuration;
existing 3.5'x12' ramp and existing 8'x20' floating dock; the 6.5'x53' fixed dock and 11'x11'fixed
portion in the "L" configuration to remain; remove existing ramp, float and two piles and install a
new 4'x20' ramp with rails and an 8'x18' floating dock situated in an "I" configuration secured by
four piles; and to install four tie-off piles.
Located: 371 Hedge Street, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-7-18
Il
Board of Trustees 2 May 17, 2023
Page 13, number 12, Joan Chambers on behalf of JENNIFER MAYE requests a Wetland
Permit to remove existing septic system and install anew sanitary system; install an
approximately 82 to 83' long, 4' high maximum retaining wall consisting of the west section
proposed at 9' to 39'6" long with a 3' return on the western end, and an
eastern section proposed at 37' to 37'6" 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.
Page 12, number 13, Karen Hoeg, Esq. of Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin &
Quartararo, LLP on behalf of BRENDAN &SARA OSEAN requests a Wetland Permit
to demolish and remove existing foundation and structures; construct a new two-story,
single-family 40.5'x46.9' (1,495 sq .ft.) dwelling with a 42 sq. ft. front entry with steps; a
42 sq. ft. side entry with steps; a seaward 16.5'x13.3' (±219 sq. ft.) deck over a screened
porch with railings; a seaward 14.3'x6' (±86 sq. ft.) deck over porch with railings; a
seaward 19'3"x6' (±116 sq. ft.) deck over porch with railings; install a new I/A sanitary
system; and install and perpetually maintain a 10'wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 12632 Main Road, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-14-8.2 '
Page 14, number 14, Michael Kimack on behalf of GEOFFROY L. PENNY
requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing staircase, fixed catwalk, ramp, floating
dock and pilings; construct a 4'x6' (24 sq. ft.) landward fixed ramp to a 4'x32' (128 sq .ft.)
fixed catwalk using Thru-Flow decking, a 3'x14' (42 sq. ft.) aluminum ramp, and a 6'x20'
(120 sq. ft.) floating dock with marine grade decking situated in a "T" configuration;
install five (5) sets of 6" diameter greenheart pilings at 8' on center for fixed catwalk and
two (2) 8" diameter greenheart pilings to anchor floating dock.
Located: 1010 Fisherman's Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-1-21
Page 14, number 15, 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
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
Wednesday, June 7th, 2023, at 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 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 Wednesday,
June 14th, 2023 at 5:30 PM at the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 3 May 17, 2023
III. WORK SESSIONS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold next our work sessions Monday,
June 12th, 2023 at,5:00PM at the Town Hall Annex 2nd floor Executive Board Room,
and on Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 5:OOPM at the Main Town Hall Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of the March 15th, 2023
meeting.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The Trustees monthly report for April 2023. A check for
$16,996.55 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office 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: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section X Public Hearings
Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, May 17, 2023, are classified as Type II
Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA:
Mikhail & Jennifer Rakhmanine SCTM# 1000-123-3-9
Stella Lagudis SCTM# 1000-30-2-84.1
Lee & Robyn Spirer SCTM# 1000-30-2-85
Diane Giacalone & Cornelis Ruigrok SCTM# 1000-21-5-1
Helen Bouklas SCTM# 1000-21-5-2
George &Anna Mesaikos Revocable Living Trust SCTM# 1000-21-5-3
Stephan Segouin SCTM# 1000-21-5-4
Staphane Segouin SCTM# 1000-21-5-5
William & Marie Theresa Austin SCTM# 1000-21-5-6
Nancy & Philip Weber SCTM# 1000-21-5-7
Andrew J. Grover& Daniel J. Mazzarini SCTM# 1000-21-5=8
Abby Rosmarin & David Ross SCTM# 1000-99-3-4.1
Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC SCTM# 1000-47-2-14
Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC SCTM# 1000-47-2-15
Board of Trustees 4 May 17, 2023
1160 Snug Harbor, LLC, c/o John Lupovici SCTM# 1000-35-5-39.1
Anthony & Karen Delorenzo SCTM# 1000-104-5-21.1
North Road Hotel, LLC SCTM# 1000-40-1-1
Dianne Myers 137-4-36
Andrew&Andrea Weisbach SCTM# 1000-76-1-15.3
John Elenterio & Juan Jaramillo SCTM# 1000-37-5-21
Brendan & Sara Osean SCTM# 1000-31-14-8.2
Geoffroy L. Penny SCTM# 1000-111-1-21
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VIII. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman number VIII, Administrative Permits. The Trustees
regularly group together items that are similar and minor in nature, so I will make a motion to
approve as a group Items 1, 2 and 4. They are listed as follows:
Number 1, ROBERT N. HULSMANN TRUST &ANN HULSMANN TRUST request an
Administrative Permit to remove an existing block septic tank and one 6' deep leaching pool and
install in same location a HydroAction AN500 I/A OWTS, and a new 6' deep, 8' diameter
leaching pool.
Located: 1290 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-2-24
Number 2, GLENN KOOPERSMITH & EVE GREEN KOOPERSMITH requests an
Administrative Permit to construct a five (5) foot expansion of existing upstairs bathroom and
adjacent closet over the existing structure; with replacement of windows.
Located: 1630 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-3-18
Number 4, Jerry Cibulski on behalf of DAVID & MARY JANE CASSARO requests an
Administrative Permit to install a 5.6'x8' outdoor shower with fieldstone floor with installation of
a drywell.
Located: 2750 Minnehaha Blvd., Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-44.1
TRUSTEE.SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, HENRY HAWES BOSTIC III &AMBRIEL FLOYD
BOSTIC request an Administrative Permit for an as-built 10'x10' shed.
Located: 5305 Narrow River Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-27-2-2.3
Trustee Sepenoski conducted a field inspection May 14th, 2023, noting that the application
was straightforward.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is the as-built sheds do
not have a Trustee permit.
So I'll make a motion to approve this application and by granting it a permit will bring it into
consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 5 May 17, 2023
IX. APPLICATIONS FOR,EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral IX, Applications for Extensions, Transfers and
Administrative Amendments. Again, in order to simplify our meeting, I'll make a motion to
approve as a group Items 1 through 6 and 8 through 12. They are listed as follows:
Number 1, 1420 TRUMANS PATH, LLC requests a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland
Permit#9931, as issued on June 16, 2021.
Located: 1420 Trumans Path, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-12-12
Number 2, CHRISTOPHER MASOTTO requests a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland
Permit#9880 and Coastal Erosion Permit#9880C, both issued on May 19, 2021.
Located: 55915 C.R. 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44-1-17
Number 3, MICHAEL MONTEFORTE requests a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit
#9957, as issued on July 14, 2021.
Located: 4060 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck., SCTM# 1000-122-4-26.2
Number 4, CARMELA LAZIO REV, TRUST, CARMELA LAZIO, TRUSTEE requests a One
(1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit#9889, as issued on May 19, 2021.
Located: 250 Blue Marlin Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-56-7-21
Number 5, PAUL & SUSAN WACHTER request a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland
Permit#9871, as issued on April 14, 2021.
Located: 2295 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-4-15
Number 6, HILTON LIPSCHITZ &ATSUKO SHIO request a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#8740 from Firm Foundations Partners, LLC to Hilton Lipschitz &Atsuko Shio, as issued on
February 17, 2016 and Amended on March 23, 2016.
Located: 1060 Fox Hollow Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-6-23
Number 8, CHITRANG PURANI &VEERA PURANI request a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#6112 from Peter S. Ruttura to Chitrang Purani &Veera Purani, as issued on April 20, 2005.
Located: 835 Waterview Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-7-12
Number 9, WILLIAM & PATRICIA MOORE request an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit#8401 to add a 4'x4' platform with two (2) steps to the existing stairs in order to
gain access to grade.
Located: 850 Ruch Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-52-2-30
Number 10, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of DANIEL HUME requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#10248 and Coastal Erosion Permit#10248C to
construct a reconfigured staircase in lieu of the previously approved which will form a zig-zag,
starting at the top of bluff a 4'x9'6" (38 sq. ft.) platform followed by a 4'x31' staircase to a 4'x9'6"
(38 sq. ft.) middle tier platform to a second 4'x30' staircase run to a 4'x9'6" (38 sq. ft.) lower
middle tier platform to a 4'x17' staircase run to a final 4'x13' 8 %4"final platform to a fourth
4'x10' staircase run to the beach.
Located: 14216 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-72-2-5
Number 11, Michael Kimack on behalf of SILVER SANDS HOLDINGS I, LLC requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#10331 to construct an ADA compliant 273sq.ft.
wood ramp; remove 72 sq. ft. of existing 146 sq. ft. deck to result in a 74 sq. ft. deck.
Located: 1155 Silvermere Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-47-2-9
Number 12, SEAVILLE 641 LLC requests an Administrative Amendment to Administrative
Permit#10196A to replace the existing deck structure throughout and provide for all new
footings,joists, decking/floor finish and railings, in lieu of maintaining the existing deck as
permitted. Rear Deck: Is approximately 52'-6"x 13-9". New relocated stairs are approximately
6'5" x.4'8", total of risers 8 @7" (11" treads). Total area: 797 sq. ft.
Located: 1035 Sebastian Cove Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-100-3-11.14
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
Board of Trustees 6 May 17, 2023
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 7, CHITRANG PURANI &VEERA PURANI request a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#5942 from Peter Ruttura to Chitrang Purani &Veera Purani, as
issued on June 24, 2004.
Located: 835 Waterview Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-7-12
Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection April 15th, 2023, noting that the dock is in an (-
shape as opposed to an L-shape originally on the permit. We did not have a chance to convey
this to the applicant yet, so I will make a motion to table this application so that we can be in
touch with the applicant.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral X, Public Hearings, at this time I make a
motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and enter into public hearings.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a public hearing in the matter of the following applications for
permits under the Wetlands Ordinance of the Town of Southold. I have an affidavit of publication
from the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may be read prior to asking for comments
from the public. Please keep your comments organized and brief, five minutes or less if
possible.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under Amendments, number 1, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
MIKHAIL &JENNIFER RAKHMANINE requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#10130 to
construct a proposed 4' wide by 8' long section of fixed dock onto the exiting "T" section of the
fixed dock using Thru-Flow decking on the entire surface to match existing; and to install water
and electric out to the end of the fixed dock.
Located: 685 Bungalow Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-3-9
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent; whereas the applicant does not identify
the size of the boat, the draft in an area of low water. See water depths on plans.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with the condition of
Dark Skies compliant lighting.
The Trustees most recently visited this site on the 9th of May and noted that it was a .
straightforward, very minimal expansion.
Is there anyone that wishes to speak regarding the application?
(No response).
Any questions or comments from the members of the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 7 May 17, 2023
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Noting that on the Trustee inspection this is a very minimal change and
will have a very small impact to the structure and the environment, I make a motion to approve
this application, noting that this will bring it into compliance with the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 1 under.Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits,
REVISED PLANS & PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED ON 5/12/2023 Michael Kimack on
behalf of STELLA LAGUDIS requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to
remove top sandbag; install 122 linear feet of rock revetment seaward of the embedded
sandbags with a ten (10) foot return on westerly property line; the boulders will weigh a
maximum of 2.5 tons per linear foot for a total weight of 330 tons; install a stabilization fabric
under and landward of boulders; place approximately 830 cubic yards of clean fill to reconstruct
the slope and install one layer of jute matting, pinned with 6" fasteners and plant American
beach grass (o/e) at one (1) foot on-center; area of disturbance approximately 5,600 square
feet; construct a 1' high berm with approximate base of 5' at top of bluff; cover with one (1) layer
of jute matting (o/e); establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer landward of
berm; plant with native vegetation for berm and 10' wide non-turf buffer with substitution of sand
and/or stone for the 10'wide non-turf buffer.
Located: 760 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-30-2-84.1
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 9th. Notes from that visit read: 15-foot
vegetated non-turf buffer at top of bluff, landward of berm. Remove sandbags as part of
project.
The LWRP coordinator found the project to be inconsistent on several counts. First of which
is: Relocate the revetment to the toe of the bluff to protect public access.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application.
I welcome comments from the public.
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. Would it be judicious, since we have
ten applicants with essentially the same, they are all working in concert on this entire project,
that I can generalize for Lagudis, which would be essentially the same as everyone else. I think
it would be a little bit more helpful rather than going through ten individually.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think because they are each individual permits, we'll open and make
a motion on each individual, but if you want to provide summary comments at the top, I think our
stenographer will be very appreciative.
MR. KIMACK: I can summarize it at the present time. There are ten individual landowners, they
are all adjoining each other. They represent approximately eight-hundred linear feet of
frontage along the shoreline. They are providing, they want to basically do a rock revetment.
As you had indicated, the new plans that I had submitted took all the sandbags out, and they
also show the 15-foot non-turf buffer at the top of the plans as it is now.
The LWRP comments, when the sandbags were originally placed, they were placed
landward of the original toe of the slope in preparation that the stone where they would be:
placed would in a sense be able to align the original slope so that we could follow that particular
line.
If you take a look at the Lagudis drawing and you take a look at each one of those, you'll see
that the slope line, which runs about 28 to 30 degrees, follows pretty much the original line
coming down the hill to the top of where the stones are. We had prepared, when we put those
sandbags in, they weren't put at the toe at all. They were moved in about 10 to 15 feet
originally, from the original toe. But the details sheets that I had prepared, you'll see that almost
Board of Trustees 8 May 17, 2023
invariably when you see the new fill area, that it follows fairly closely in a line, so pretty much
with the remaining slope that is on the top coming all the way down the hill, basically. And, one
of the reasons that we wanted to keep it at that particular location, not only because it's the
original toe, but it keeps the slope line approximately 30 degrees on the average. That's
important because at the 30-degree line, we can, we don't have to deal with putting in the
facade of the hill, you put the 2x12 boards in, the CCA boards, and nail them down. They don't
work very well, the ones that I observed, over a two or three weeks seem to-come out of that.
We can hold that soil at the 30-degree line. We can't hold it at the 40 to 45-degree line. So
the LWRP talks about coming in to a reasonable slope line. We are at the original slope
line, but bringing it in further brings it up to a 40 or 45-degree angle and we won't be able to hold
that. Mother Nature, I mean the compaction factor alone would take years, and that would not
even necessarily keep it in place if we have a storm. But the shallower we are, the better
prepared that slope is to prevent further erosion. And that is why everything was in concert in
terms of where that particular stone face is.
And specifically then I'll address the Lagudis one? The descriptions are fairly detailed. There
is a 122-linear feet on the Lagudis line with a ten-foot return, primarily, at a 45-degree angle. As
was always the standard for the Board in terms of making sure that we have a right angle at the
end that might cause disturbance and have the water come around the other side. 2.5 tons per
stone per linear foot is the DEC requirement. That is the maximum we can,go. The base stone,
they're two to four tons. The top stone is one to two tons. And there is approximately 330 tons
of stone. On that one we've got about 830 cubic yards of fill to be put back in, and
approximately 5,600 square foot of restoration of the disturbed area.
If you look at each one of the detail sheets, they are broken down, I took the survey itself and
broke down that area which was not disturbed, which would not be disturbed, and then
that area which is the fill area, and it's broken down on the survey sheet for each one of them.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay.
MS. HULSE: Mr. Kimack, just for clarification, you wanted your preamble to be part of the each
of the ten applications; is that correct?
MR. KIMACK: Yes.
MS. HULSE: Okay, so just formally, for the purposes of your comments being included in all
those hearings, we'll open all ten hearings to ensure that that comment, that those comments
you just made are included in all of the hearings that are coming after this one. So it will be all
ten and that will be included in that. Just so you understand.
MR. KIMACK: That's perfectly fine. I did also submit with the application with each one of them,
the overall master plan for all ten lots because I thought it would be most helpful for the
Board to understand that each one of the lots was part of the overall project. And I also gave a
letter of designation to them which is also on the detail sheet, so that you know exactly
which detail sheet went with their location along that entire thing, which is a little bit more
representative of, a little familiar as to which one fits where.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That's appreciated. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: That's helpful.
MR. KIMACK: Do you have any other questions of me on the Lagudis?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Construction activities occur during the Fall to not interfere with the
bluff nesting birds, Swallows?
MR. KIMACK: It's not going to occur before that anyway, primarily. We are still waiting for the
DEC permit. They have, I have mailed out to them the exact changes that I mailed to
you. They had given me a roadmap exactly what they wanted which was immediately submitted
to them. So the changes had been mailed off to them last week. I expect to get some comment
back from them, but I don't think I'll get anything that will be amiss from what is before you at the
present time.
Board of Trustees 9 May 17, 2023
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All right, Mr. Kimack, usually the DEC permit would have some sort of
restriction in regards to the birds and the nesting.
MR. KIMACK: They would. I have had that before. By the time this is all organized -- it's a fairly
large project-- by the time we get the permits, hopefully tonight from the Board, and then the
DEC, and by the time the materials are all put together and everything is organized, I don't
really expect to be able to start much before September or October anyway. I think the
contractors are well aware of that. So our timing was done in order to get the permits in to allow
this to occur so that construction can occur. And quite frankly, there is so much going on.
There are a lot of other people from the association that use that beach, and it would not
necessarily be helpful if we ruined their summer by all of a sudden cutting down and bringing
everything in there.
So once the summer is over and once everyone is pretty much finished with the bluff, in the
middle of September, end of September, something like that. I think the Piping Plover-- is
that what we are dealing with?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: It's not the Plovers. It's nest location, it would be the bluff nesting
Swallows.
MR. KIMACK: Yes, I think September 1st might be the cutoff on that particular one, if I
remember correctly.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Mr. Kimack, in the field I think we discussed that the steps, the stairways
would be separately applied for, but in the plans here I'm seeing, are you proposing to extend
the steps on this application?
MR. KIMACK:-No, no. You mean the steps, basically those, those two or three that are still
intact, primarily, that are there, I think the rest of them have been pretty much destroyed all the
way across. It was from a practical point of view, it was very difficult for me to lay out a set of
stairs because I'm not quite sure exactly how they are going to be filled around, what
is going to be left, how high out of ground. Because in order to meet the standards, we've got to
be four-foot above grade.
So we don't know where the final grade is going to be relative to the stairs because the stairs
were built to a different slope line, those two or three that are there. So it would be best to
basically have it all finished and then those people who want to re-put the stairs or rebuild it,
then we'll resubmit the individual permits.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Access will be by community association ramp?
MR. KIMACK: Yes. As we walk down that area, that was off the side of the staircase there, it
has to be fixed up again, but that is where we got in to do the bags, primarily, from that location.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right. Any other comments or questions from the public who wish to
speak?
MS. BROWN: Thank you, for this opportunity. The Conservation Advisory Council was
extraordinarily pleased to review ten contiguous properties on The Strands in East Marion.
Reviewing individual applications on a fragile bluff would have given us cause not to support
any of the work done on)one property because one property impacts the neighbors' properties.
Many thanks to the group of ten for their foresight. The Conservation Advisory Council has
also been hoping that the Town at some point would declare fragile ecosystems as
ecosystems, and dune master plans as being done in this area, rather than, 800 feet rather than
100-foot sections. This will help in the attempts to mitigate the forces of nature on the
exposed bluffs en masse. Additionally, this type of a project is going to give the Trustees and
the Town the opportunity to assess the viability of the type of work intended. And I'attended last
week, after looking at the properties, I attended a DEC/Seatuck meeting, and speaking with all
the experts, the particular plan is the one that they are considering best practices.
Board of Trustees 10 May 17, 2023
So it would be nice over the next couple of years also to see the viability of these quote
unquote best practices. And I appreciate that concept of a master plan.
I'm going to say three or four things that are going to be probably for each and every one of
the ten. If you want me to come back up, I can. But we are very concerned about bringing
heavy equipment on to the beach, even though the HOA has given permission to use that boat
ramp. We feel strongly that all equipment, especially the heavy crane, should be done via
barge. Additionally, with the nesting Swallows along the bluff, all work should be done after the
nesting season to take this into consideration.
The several properties that have stairs down the bluffs, and we were considering that most of
those were going to disappear, except for the ones that are currently viable, and putting in any
new stairs is, we actually thought that everybody was then going to use the common area, the
community common area. So not only would we like to not see any new or reconstructed steps,
but we would'like to see what is there removed as part of the project. It's too dangerous to do it
without. There are ones that are hanging, there is one that has a little string across,it, and I
know that my grandkids and my dog would be dead by that time.
We also feel, we saw that one of the changes was putting in the berm, and the vegetated
buffer, and it said that the vegetated buffer could have, instead of native vegetation, it could be
stones or gravel. We feel strongly that the native vegetation is the way to go. And that the
stones and the gravel, we know that people are going to end up putting pesticides on that, so
we would like to see that not happen.
And again, we appreciate the access area of the ramp by the community ramp.
So, if you would like me to say these for each of them, I will. But again, I really, really, as a
long-term I'm personally environmentally concerned that you are looking at this as a master plan
for that whole area. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. For the court stenographer,just like we have all of them
open for Mr. Kimack's comments, Carol Brown's comments apply to all the open applications as
well. I '
MR. KIMACK: It seems feasible to bring everything by barge. The stone work is just too heavy.
As we did with the original sandbags, everything was repaired on the way out the door, and
you can see right now it's all put back, primarily, and repaired. So that would be part of the
contractor's responsibilities that as he worked his way back out again, everything would be
marched down, that whole thing would be reseeded, essentially like that, going up the ramp.
Individual staircases, they are not in here. The individual people would have to come to you
and apply, and to DEC also. I believe it's their right to do so. And I don't think, since it's not in
this particular, none of this, it's not before you, the staircases, to begin with, um, but when and if
they do happen, that will be an opportunity for you to look at them , but I suggest that the
homeowners have the right to put staircases down if they already had them.
And I do agree that we won't start construction until that particular nesting season is over.
-The berm of the material in the non-turf buffer, there has always been a selection, the Board
has always allowed plants or sand or stone. And that's all over the places. It's, as long as
it's not grass. There has been a discretion on your part to allow that. I would rather not restrict it
at the present time because I want to give the homeowners the opportunity to put in there what
they would like. It is within the decisions and policies this Board has already done. It's not
necessarily ever been limited. The berm itself will certainly have planting on it, primarily.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just for point of clarity, in different situations we have conditioned
different things. So it's not fair to say that we have never conditioned vegetated non-turf
buffers or the like.
MR. KIMACK: Well, when dealing with ten in a row, and essentially you have ten individual
people, if we were dealing with each one of them, the question would be what would you
Board of Trustees 11 May 17, 2023
allow each one. I understand that. In this particular situation you are looking at the whole,
essentially like that. Some people may want to put stone in there. If you are putting stone and
gravel, people are not putting in pesticides. I do bring a difference of opinion on that one.
The reason for the stone and gravel is they are not putting pesticides there as opposed to those
folks that have plantings also. So, that's it.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
MR. KIMACK: Oh, one quickie. DEC, on that 2.5 tons, that may be changing per foot. They just
made a decision on a piece of property up in Soundview, I won't say which, but they are
allowing rather than two to four-ton basis, they are allowing four to five-ton basis. And I don't,
under that scenario, I'm not quite sure if they'll be able to hold it at 2.5 ton, which I think will be a
help because right now it's limited, because you can't go up that high. And we are able to, in
this case, the top of the stone in this case is another point. I got it up to the VE line so that the
top of the stone when it's put in will hopefully take most of the energy out. It's angled at 25
degrees, so that if the water hits it,,keeping it away from the new toe that is being created is the
most important thing to allow it to grow in.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Please step up to the lectern.
MS. LAGUDIS: Good evening. I'm Stella Lagudis, so I'm one of the applicants. And I'm wearing
two hats tonight. The first hat is I'm Vice-President of the Pebble Beach Farms Property Owners
Corporation. And I can assure you that we have spoken with the contractor, and that job will not
start until the Fall. And the reason was what Mr. Kimack said is because we don't want to
cause any issue with our members.
So the second thing is, with respect to barging in the stone, I'm one of the three people that
got the ten together, and it took us a really long time, and this was a very big project, it's a very
expensive project. And to the extent you actually follow what the Conservation Advisory Council
recommended, which is to barge in, the cost of this project will increase exponentially, and then
I'm afraid the ten will fall apart because we just won't be able to afford it.
Similarly, if we have to remove the steps, we were fortunate enough to not lose our steps, so
if we have to remove them and then rebuild them, again, that's going to be a problem
financially. So I just ask you to kind of balance out the Conservation Advisory Council's
recommendation with kind of what we as the homeowners are looking at, which is a huge, very
expensive project. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. And thank you for getting the group together.
MS. LAGUDIS: Thank you.
MR. KIMACK: Kind of like the Blues Brothers, you got the band back together.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Would anyone else like to speak regarding this application, or any
comments or questions from the'members of the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comment, I make motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I live very close to this area and walk this beach very regularly. I have
seen the effects of storms, vis-a-vis on this coast line, so I understand the concerns.
I make a motion to approve this application with the following stipulations, conditions:
Removal of all sandbags currently located on this parcel; the inclusion of a 15-foot vegetated
non-turf buffer inclusive of berm; no use of native beach rock for the construction of the
revetment; access by land at the community association ramp; and I ask that where possible
and practical, that the revetment follow the contour of the toe of the bluff to bring it as far
landward as possible; and the condition of approval of this application upon inspecting and
i
Board of Trustees 12 May 17, 2023
confirming that these conditions have been met, thereby bringing it into consistency with the
LWRP.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 2, REVISED PLANS & PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED
5/12/2023 Michael Kimack on behalf of LEE & ROBYN SPIRER requests a Wetland Permit and
a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove top sandbag; install 70 linear feet of rock revetment
seaward of the embedded sandbags; the boulders will weigh a maximum of 2.5 tons per linear
foot for a total weight of 175 tons; install a stabilization fabric under and landward of boulders;
place approximately 365 cubic yards of clean fill to reconstruct the slope and install one layer of
jute matting, pinned with 6" fasteners and plant American beach grass (o/e) at one (1) foot on-
center; area of disturbance approximately 2,700 square feet; construct a 1' high berm with
approximate base of 5' at top of bluff; cover with one (1) layer of jute matting (o/e); establish and
perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer landward of berm; plant with native vegetation for
berm and 10' wide non-turf buffer with substitution of sand and/or stone for the 10' wide non-turf
buffer.
Located: 680 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-30-2-85
The Trustees most recently visited the site on May 9th, 2022, noting 15-foot vegetated non-
turf buffer on the top of bluff landward of berm. Remove sandbags as part of the project.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be inconsistent. In regard to shoreline
hardening, the beach's geology will change due to this revetment. The loss of beach over time
may occur due to the reduction of sand supply. Vegetated buffers are most effective in
stabilizing soil structure and.if this action is approved, no boulders naturally occurring on the
beach should be used in construction.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this application and resolved to support it. The
Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with a 15-foot non-turf buffer planted
with native vegetation; the crane equipment brought in by barge; the base of the stairs are
parallel to the shoreline; and the work is conducted in compliance with New York State DEC
seasonal bird nesting requirements.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Your notes from the last hearing will be added to this.
(The above-mentioned notes are included as follows):
MR. KIMACK: "I can summarize it at the present time. There are ten individual landowners, they
are all adjoining each other. They represent approximately eight-hundred linear feet of
frontage along the shoreline. They are providing, they want to basically do a rock revetment.
As you had indicated, the new plans that I had submitted took all the sandbags out, and they
also show the 15-foot non-turf buffer at the top of the plans as it is now.
The LWRP comments, when the sandbags were originally placed, they were placed landward
of the original toe of the slope in preparation that the stone where they would be placed would in
a sense be able to align the original slope so that we could follow that particular line."
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Do you have anything specific to this application you would like to add?
MR. KIMACK: Simply reemphasizing the fact that if you look at the drawing over there, I mean,
you look at the photos for the most part, which probably is as elucidating, even though there
seems to be a separation, when you stood on the sandbags, if you had a chance to look out, the
sand bags really all are landward of the original toe. And I do understand the LWRP's concern
they would like it as close as possible, but the location where those stones are going, basically,
represent at least a little bit more landward of the original toe.
Board of Trustees 13 May 17, 2023
And if you took a look at the Spirer drawing that I did, you'll see that the angle of repose on
the new soil is fairly close to the other, but it also represents about 28 to 30 degree slope in
there. And in order to keep that material in place, without having do go through the extra
expense of putting in the 2x12s every ten feet, number one, which really doesn't really hold very
well over a period of time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Mr. Kimack, I believe that's why the Trustees suggested to you that it go
as close as possible to the toe, right?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application?
(No response).
(CAC comments are included as follows):
MS. BROWN: "I'm going to say three or four things that are going to be probably for each and
every one of the ten. If you want me to come back up, I can. But we are very concerned about
bringing heavy equipment on to the beach, even though the HOA has given permission to use
that boat ramp. We feel strongly that all equipment, especially the heavy crane, should be done
via barge.
Additionally, with the nesting Swallows along the bluff, all work should be done after the
nesting season to take this into consideration.
The several properties that have stairs down the bluffs, and we were considering that most of
those were going to disappear, except for the ones that are currently viable, and putting in any
new stairs is, we actually thought that everybody was then going to use the common area, the
community common area. So not only would we like to not see any new or reconstructed steps,
but we would like to see what is there removed as part of the project. It's too dangerous to do it
without. There are ones that are hanging, there is one that has a little string across it, and I
know that my grandkids and my dog would be dead by that time.
We also feel, we saw that one of the changes was putting in the berm, and the vegetated
buffer, and it said that the vegetated buffer could have, instead of native vegetation, it could be
stones or gravel. We feel strongly that the native vegetation is the way to go. And that the
stones and the gravel, we know that people are going to end up putting pesticides on that, so
we would like to see that not happen.
And again, we appreciate the access area of the ramp by the community ramp."
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Any 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 motion to approve thisapplication with the conditions of a 15-foot
vegetated non-turf buffer at the top of bluff including the berm; removal of all sandbags with a
Trustee inspection after removal, prior to adding rock; bringing rocks as close to toe as possible;
no additional steps built within this permit; and subject to new plans depicting the requested
changes. All work to be completed after Swallow nesting season and no use of native beach
rocks. With the changes requested we will thereby be bringing this into consistency with the
LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 3, REVISED PLANS & PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED
ON 5/12/2023 Michael Kimack on behalf of DIANE GIACALONE & CORNELIS RUIGROK
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove top sandbag; install 68
Board of Trustees 14 May 17, 2023
linear feet of rock revetment seaward of the embedded sandbags; the boulders will weigh a
maximum of 2.5 tons per linear foot for a total weight of 170 tons; install a stabilization fabric
under and landward of boulders; place approximately 315 cubic yards of clean fill to reconstruct
the slope and install one layer of jute matting, pinned with 6" fasteners and plant American
beach grass (o/e) at one (1) foot on-center; area of disturbance approximately 2,700 square
feet; construct a 1' high berm with approximate base of 5' at top of bluff; cover with one (1) layer
of jute matting (o/e); establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer landward of
berm; plant with native vegetation for berm and 10' wide non-turf buffer with substitution of sand
and/or stone for the 10'wide non-turf buffer.
Located: 610 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-5-1
The Trustees recently visited the site on May 5th, and noted 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer
and removal of plastic sandbags.
The LWRP coordinator found this application to be inconsistent, noting to relocate the
revetment to the toe of the bluff; that the geology will change due to the revetment; vegetated
buffers are most effective in stabilizing soil structure; and no boulders naturally occurring to be
used in construction.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application, noting the removal
of the staircase, the crane equipment brought in by barge, the installation of a 15-foot
non-turf buffer, and that the work is conducted in compliance with New York State DEC
seasonal bird nesting requirements.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. And my general notes would be
attributable to this one also.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, Mr. Kimack.
(The above-mentioned notes are included as follows):
MR. KIMACK: "I can summarize it at the present time. There are ten individual landowners, they
are all adjoining each other. They represent approximately eight-hundred linear feet of
frontage along the shoreline. They are providing, they want to basically do a rock revetment.
As you had indicated, the new plans that I had submitted took all the sandbags out, and they
also show the 15-foot non-turf buffer at-the top of the plans as it is now.
The LWRP comments, when the sandbags were originally placed, they were placed
landward of the original toe of the slope in preparation that the stone where they would be
placed would in a sense be able to align the original slope so that we could follow that particular
line."
MR. KIMACK: And you do have the new plans I submitted on the 12th.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes, I do.
MR. KIMACK: It has the 15-foot and removal of the bank.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That's correct. And also the new project description stamped and dated
May 12th, 2023, as well.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak-in regard to this application?
(CAC comments are included as follows).
MS. BROWN: "I'm going to say three or four things that are going to be probably for each and
every one of the ten. If you want me to come back up, I can. But we are very concerned about
bringing heavy equipment on to the beach, even though the HOA has given permission to use
that boat ramp. We feel strongly that all equipment, especially the heavy crane, should be done
via barge.
Additionally, with the nesting Swallows along the bluff, all work should be done after the
nesting season to take this into consideration.
The several properties that have stairs down the bluffs, and we were considering that most of
those were going to disappear, except for the ones that are currently viable, and putting in any
Board of Trustees 15 May 17, 2023
new stairs is, we actually thought that everybody was then going to use the common area, the
community common area. So not only would we like to not see any new or reconstructed steps,
but we would like to see what is there removed as part of the project. It's too dangerous to do it
without. There are ones that are hanging, there is one that has a little string across it, and I
know that my grandkids and my dog would be dead by that time.
We also feel, we saw that one of the changes was putting in the berm, and the vegetated
buffer, and it said that the vegetated buffer could have, instead of native vegetation, it could be
stones or gravel. We feel strongly that the native vegetation is the way to go. And that the
stones and the gravel, we know that people are going to end up putting pesticides on that, so
we would like to see that not happen.
And again, we appreciate the access area of the ramp by the community ramp."
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application with the following conditions
and stipulations: That the removal of all sandbags at the toe; and that a Trustee inspection will
be required upon the removal of the sandbags; a request that the boulders follow the contour of
the toe of the bluff where possible; a 15-foot non-turf buffer with native vegetation inclusive of
the berm; and request no substitution of sand or stone. The buffer should be native vegetation.
No use of natural occurring beach rocks utilized in the project restoration; the access is by
community association ramp; and by granting this permit and these changes thereby bringing
into consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4, REVISED PLANS & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
RECEIVED ON 5/12/2023 Michael Kimack on behalf of HELEN BOUKLAS requests a Wetland
Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove top sandbag; install 66 linear feet of rock
revetment seaward of the embedded sandbags; the boulders will weigh a maximum of 2.5
tons per linear foot for a total weight of 165 tons; install a stabilization fabric under and landward
of boulders; place approximately 290 cubic yards of clean fill to reconstruct the slope and install
one layer of jute matting, pinned with 6" fasteners and plant American beach grass (o/e) at one
(1) foot on-center; area of disturbance approximately 2,800 square feet; construct a 1' high
berm with approximate base of 5' at top of bluff; cover with one (1) layer of jute matting (o/e);
establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer landward of berm; plant with native
vegetation for berm and 10' wide non-turf buffer with substitution of sand and/or stone for the
10' wide non-turf buffer.
Located: 530 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-5-2
The Trustees conducted a field inspection May 9th, 2023, noting the removal of the plastic
sandbags; 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies are relocate the revetment to
the toe of the bluff to protect public access. The LWRP policy strives to reduce shoreline
hardening. The beach's geology will change due to this revetment. The loss of the beach over
time may occur due to the reduction of sand supply from the eroding bluff. Sand scouring from
high energy wave events and sea level rise. Vegetated buffers are most effective in stabilizing
soil structure. If the action is approved, no boulders naturally occurring on the beach may be
Board of Trustees 16 May 17, 2023
used in construction.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. The Conservation
Advisory Council supports the application with the removal of the hazardous staircase, and use
of the community stairs to the homeowners association; the crane equipment is brought in by
barge; the installation of a 15-foot non-turf buffer planted with native vegetation; consideration of
a higher berm; and the work is conducted in compliance with the New York State DEC's
seasonal bird nesting requirements.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. I would like to have my general
comments included in this application.
(The above-mentioned comments are included as follows):
MR. KIMACK: "I can summarize it at the present time. There are ten individual landowners, they
are all adjoining each other. They represent approximately eight-hundred linear feet of
frontage along the shoreline. They are providing, they want to basically do a rock revetment.
As you had indicated, the new plans that I had submitted took all the sandbags out, and they
also show the 15-foot non-turf buffer at the top of the plans as it is now.
The LWRP comments, when the sandbags were originally placed, they were placed
landward of the original toe of the slope in preparation that the stone where they would be
placed would in a sense be able to align the original slope so that we could follow that particular
line."
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else wishing to speak regarding this application?
MS. BROWN: I don't have to come up each time. I'll be using my comments again.
MS. HULSE: All of his comments and all of your comments will be included in each of the ten.
MS. BROWN: Thank you, I just wanted to make sure.
(CAC comments are included as follows):
MS. BROWN: "I'm going to say three or four things that are going to be probably for each and
every one of the ten. If you want me to come back up, I can. But we are very concerned about
bringing heavy equipment on to the beach, even though the HOA has given permission to use
that boat ramp. We feel strongly that all equipment, especially the heavy crane, should be done
via barge.
Additionally, with the nesting Swallows along the bluff, all work should be done after the
nesting season to take this into consideration. , .
The several properties that have stairs down the bluffs, and we were considering that most of
those were going to disappear, except for the ones that are currently viable, and putting in any
new stairs is, we actually thought that everybody was then going to use the common area, the
community common area. So not only would we like to not see any new or reconstructed steps,
but we would-like to see what is there removed as part of the project. It's too dangerous to do it
without. There are ones that are hanging, there is one that has a little string across it, and I
know that my grandkids and my dog would be dead by that time.
We also feel, we saw that one of the changes was putting in the berm, and the vegetated
buffer, and it said that the vegetated buffer could have, instead of native vegetation, it could be
stones or gravel. We feel strongly that the native vegetation is the way to go. And that the
stones and the gravel, we know that people are going to end up putting pesticides on that, so
we would like to see that not happen. And again, we appreciate the access area of the ramp by
the community ramp."
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 17 May 17, 2023
(ALL AYES).
I make a motion to approve the application with the following conditions: Removal of the
sandbags with Trustee inspection; condition of a vegetated 15-foot buffer inclusive of the berm;
bringing the rocks as close to the toe of the bluff as possible; no construction during Bluff
Swallow nesting season; no naturally occurring boulders on the beach are to used; access is
via community ramp. And by doing all that will bring it into consistency with.the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 5, REVISED PLANS & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
RECEIVED ON 5/12/2023 Michael Kimack on behalf of GEORGE &ANNA MESAIKOS
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion.Permit to
remove top sandbag; install 75 linear feet of rock revetment seaward of the embedded
sandbags; the boulders will weigh a maximum of 2.5 tons per linear foot for a total weight of
187.5 tons; install a stabilization fabric under and landward of boulders; place approximately
370 cubic yards of clean fill to reconstruct the slope and install one layer of jute matting, pinned
with 6" fasteners and plant American beach grass (o/e) at one (1) foot on-center; area of
disturbance approximately 2,600 square feet; construct a 1' high berm with approximate base of
5' at top of bluff; cover with one (1) layer of jute matting (o/e); establish and perpetually maintain
a 10' wide non-turf buffer landward of berm; plant with native vegetation for berm and 10' wide
non-turf buffer with substitution of sand and/or stone for the 10' wide non-turf buffer.
Located: 450 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-5-3
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent, references the fact he would like to see
the revetment moved to the toe of bluff; and he would like to review shoreline hardening,
concerns over the geology change and the beach buffs over time; and noted that vegetated
buffers would be more effective; and that no boulders would be used that are existing.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application noting they would like
to see the removal of hazardous staircase; and use of community stairs with this; and that
equipment be brought in by barge; and installation of a 15-foot non-turf vegetated buffer.
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 9th of May. They noted there should be
15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer. That sandbags should be removed; and to review plans
further at work session.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant, and I would.like my general
comments made a part of the application.
(The above-mentioned comments are included as follows):
MR. KIMACK: "I can summarize it at the present time. There are ten individual landowners, they
are all adjoining each other. They represent approximately eight-hundred linear feet of frontage
along the shoreline. They are providing, they want to basically do a rock revetment.
As you had indicated, the new plans that I had submitted took all the sandbags out, and they
also show the 15-foot non-turf buffer at the top of the plans as it is now.
The LWRP comments, when the sandbags were originally placed, they were placed
landward of the original toe of the slope in preparation that the stone where they would be
placed would in a sense be able to align the original slope so that we could follow that particular
line."
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak regarding this
application or any comments from members of the Board?
(CAC comments are included as follows):
Board of Trustees 18 May 17, 2023
MS. BROWN: "I'm going to say three or four things that are going to be probably for each and
every one of the ten. If you want me to come back up, I can. But we are very concerned about
bringing heavy equipment on to the beach, even though the HOA has given permission to use
that boat ramp. We feel strongly that all equipment,,especially the heavy crane, should be done
via barge.
Additionally, with the nesting Swallows along the bluff, all work should be done after the
nesting season to take this into consideration. The several properties that have stairs down the
bluffs, and we were considering that most of those were going to disappear, except for the ones
that are currently viable, and putting in any new stairs is, we actually thought that everybody
was then going to use the common area, the community common area. So not only would we
like to not see any new or reconstructed steps, but we would like to see what is there
removed as part of the project. It's too dangerous to do it without. There are ones that are
hanging, there is one that has a little string across it, and I know that my grandkids and my
dog would be dead by that time. We also feel, we saw that one of the changes was putting in
the berm, and the vegetated buffer, and it said that the vegetated buffer could have, instead of
native vegetation, it could be stones or gravel. We feel strongly that the native vegetation is the
way to go. And that the stones and the gravel, we know that people are going to end up putting
pesticides on that, so we would like to see that not happen.
And again, we appreciate the access area of the ramp by the community ramp."
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application with the following conditions
and stipulations: The removal of all sandbags; stipulating a 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer
inclusive of berm to be included on new plans; no use of native beach rock; access by
community association ramp only; and no work is done during the Swallow nesting season;
thereby bringing this into consistency with the LWRP coordinator; and that the revetment be as
close to the toe of the bluff as possible. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 6, REVISED PLANS & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
RECEIVED ON 5/12/2023 Michael Kimack on behalf of STEPHAN SEGOUIN requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove top sandbag; install 75 linear feet of
rock revetment seaward of the embedded sandbags; the boulders will weigh a maximum of 2.5
tons per linear foot for a total weight of 187.5 tons; install a stabilization fabric under and
landward of boulders; place approximately 330 cubic yards of clean fill to reconstruct the slope
and install one layer of jute matting, pinned with 6"fasteners and plant American beach grass
(o/e) at one (1) foot on-center; area of disturbance approximately 3,300 square feet; construct a
1' high berm with approximate base of 5' at top of bluff; cover with one (1) layer of jute matting
(o/e); establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer landward of berm; plant with
native vegetation for berm and 10' wide non-turf buffer with substitution of sand and/or stone for
the 10' wide non-turf buffer.
Located: 380 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-5-4
The Trustees recently visited the site on our field inspection of May. Comments from the
field read that we will review further at work session; extreme erosion; bags should be removed;
recommend 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer.
Board of Trustees 19 May 17, 2023
The LWRP found the project to be inconsistent, noting that the project should be relocating
the revetment closest to the toe of the bluff to protect public access. The policies of the LWRP,
to reduce shoreline hardening, and that the loss of beach over time may change the geology of
the area, vegetated buffers are most effective in stabilizing soil structure; and no boulders
naturally occurring on the beach be in construction.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application, noting that the
hazardous staircase should be removed and the community staircase should be used via the
homeowners association access point. Crane equipment should be brought in by barge;
installation of a 15-foot non-turf buffer planted with vegetation is practicable, and the work will
be conducted in compliance with DEC bird nesting requirements.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding the application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. I would like my general comments
included in the application.
(The above-mentioned comments are included as follows):
MR. KIMACK: "I can summarize it at the present time. There are ten individual landowners, they
are all adjoining each other. They represent approximately eight-hundred linear feet of
frontage along the shoreline. They are providing, they want to basically do a rock revetment.
As you had indicated, the new plans that I had submitted took all the sandbags out, and they
also show the 15-foot non-turf buffer at the top of the plans as it is now.
The LWRP comments, when the sandbags were originally placed, they were placed
landward of the original toe of the slope in preparation that the stone where they would be
placed would in a sense be able to align the original slope so that we could follow that particular
line."
(CAC comments are included as follows):
MS. BROWN: "I'm going to say three or four things that are going to be probably for each and
every one of the ten. If you want me to come back up, I can. But we are very concerned about
bringing heavy equipment on to the beach, even though the HOA has given permission to use
that boat ramp. We feel strongly that all equipment, especially the heavy crane, should be done
via barge.
Additionally, with the nesting Swallows along the bluff, all work should be done after the
nesting season to take this into consideration. The several properties that have stairs down the
bluffs, and we were considering that most of those were going to disappear, except for the ones
that are currently viable, and putting in any new stairs is, we actually thought that everybody
was then going to use the common area, the community common area. So not only would we
like to not see any new or reconstructed steps, but we would like to see what is there
removed as part of the project. It's too dangerous to do it without. There are ones that are
hanging, there is one that has a little string across it, and I know that my grandkids and my
dog would be dead by that time.
We also feel, we saw that one of the changes was putting in the berm, and the vegetated
buffer, and it said that the vegetated buffer could have, instead of native vegetation, it could be
stones or gravel. We feel strongly that the native vegetation is the way to go. And that the
stones and the gravel, we know that people are going to end up putting pesticides on that, so
we would like to see that not happen.
And again, we appreciate the access area of the ramp by the community ramp."
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you. Any comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 20 May 17, 2023
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve this application with the following
conditions: That all sandbags are removed and Trustee inspection done thereafter to confirm;
15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer inclusive of berm at top of bluff; that access be via community
ramp for the Pebble Beach Association; no native rocks be used in the construction of the
revetment; that the revetment be constructed as close to the toe of the bluff as practicable; and
mirroring the contour of the shoreline where possible; and no construction be done during
bird nesting season. And one final point, because of the unique nature of this particular parcel,
is that no removal of trees be done during the process. That's my motion. O
Oh, one more. Subject to new plans depicting these conditions, thereby bringing it into
consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 7, REVISED PLANS & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
RECEIVED ON 5/12/2023 Michael Kimack on behalf of STEPHANE SEGOUIN requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove top sandbag; install 75 linear feet of
rock revetment seaward of the embedded sandbags; the boulders-will weigh a maximum of 2.5
tons per linear foot for a total weight of 187.5 tons; install a stabilization fabric under and
landward of boulders; place approximately 270 cubic yards of clean fill to reconstruct the slope
and install one layer of jute matting, pinned with 6" fasteners and plant American beach grass
(o/e) at one (1) foot on-center; area of disturbance approximately 2,700 square feet; construct a
1' high berm with approximate base of 5' at top of bluff; cover with one (1) layer of jute matting
(o/e); establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer landward of berm; plant with
native vegetation for berm and 10' wide non-turf buffer with substitution of sand and/or stone for
the 10' wide non-turf buffer.
Located: 310 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-5-5
The Trustees most recently visited this site on May 9th, 2023, noting 15-foot non-turf buffer
at the top of bluff and removal of sandbags.
The LWRP found this application to be inconsistent. Number one, relocate the revetment to
the toe of bluff: Number two, reduce shoreline hardening. Number three, beach's geology will
change due to this revetment. Number four, vegetated buffers are most effective in stabilizing
soil structure. And number five, if the action is approved, no boulders naturally occurring.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application, where the removal
of the hazardous staircase and use of the community stairs through the homeowners
association; removal of the existing platform and steps; the crane equipment is brought in by
barge; the installation of 15-foot non-turf buffer planted with native vegetation; and the work is
conducted in compliance with the New York State DEC seasonal bird nesting requirements.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. And I would like my general
comments included in the application.
(The above-mentioned comments are included as follows):
MR. KIMACK: "I can summarize it at the present time. There are ten individual landowners, they
are all adjoining each other. They represent approximately eight-hundred linear feet of frontage
along the shoreline. They are providing, they want to basically do a rock revetment. As you had
indicated, the new plans that I had submitted took all the sandbags out, and they also show the
15-foot non-turf buffer at the top of the plans as it is now.
The LWRP comments, when the sandbags were originally placed, they were placed
landward of the original toe of the slope in preparation that the stone where they would be
Board of Trustees 21 May 17, 2023
_placed would in a sense be able to align the original slope so that we could follow that particular
line:"
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Is there.anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application, or any questions or comments from the Board?
(CAC comments are included as follows):
MS. BROWN: "I'm going to say three or four things that are going to be probably for each and
every one of the ten. If you want me to come back up, I can. But we are very concerned about
bringing heavy equipment on to the beach, even though the HOA has given permission to use
that boat ramp. We feel strongly that all,equipment, especially the heavy crane, should be done
via barge.
Additionally, with the nesting Swallows along the bluff, all work should be done after the
nesting season to take this into consideration. The several properties that have stairs down the
bluffs, and we were considering that most of those were going to disappear, except for the ones
that are currently viable, and putting in any new stairs is, we actually thought that everybody
was then going to use the common area, the community common area. So not only would we
like to not see any new or reconstructed steps, but we would like to see what is there removed
as part of the project. It's too dangerous to do it without. There are ones that are hanging, there
is one that has a little string across it, and I know that my grandkids and my dog would be dead
by that time.
We also feel, we saw that one of the changes was putting in the berm, and the vegetated
buffer, and it said that the vegetated buffer could have, instead of native vegetation, it could be
stones or gravel. We feel strongly that the native vegetation is the way to go. And that the
stones and the gravel, we know that people are going to end up putting pesticides on that, so
we would like to see that not happen. And again, we appreciate the access area of the ramp by
the community ramp."
Hearing no one else, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application with the condition of a 15-
foot vegetated non-turf buffer planted with native vegetation at the top of bluff, inclusive of
berm; removal of all sandbags with the Trustee inspection after removal, prior to adding any
rocks; bringing rocks as close to the toe of the bluff as possible; and all work to be completed
after Swallow nesting season; no use of naturally-occurring beach boulders; and subject to new
plans depicting the requested changes.
With those stipulations we'll thereby be bringing this project into consistency with the LWRP.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 8, REVISED PLANS &PROJECT DESCRIPTION
RECEIVED ON 5/12/2023 Michael Kimack on behalf of WILLIAM & MARIE THERESA AUSTIN
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove top sandbag; install 75
linear feet of rock revetment seaward of the embedded sandbags; the boulders
will weigh a maximum of 2.5 tons per linear foot for a total weight of 187.5 tons; install a
stabilization fabric under and landward of boulders; place approximately 275 cubic yards of
clean fill to reconstruct the slope and install one layer of jute matting, pinned with 6" fasteners
and plant American beach grass (o/e) at one (1) foot on-center; area of disturbance
approximately 1,800 square feet; construct a 1' high berm with approximate base of 5' at top of
Board of Trustees 22 May 17, 2023
bluff; cover with one (1) layer of jute matting (o/e); establish and perpetually maintain a 10'
wide non-turf buffer landward of berm; plant with native vegetation for berm and 10'wide non-
turf buffer with substitution of sand and/or stone for the 10' wide non-turf buffer.
Located: 230 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-5-6
The Trustees most recently visited the site on May 9th;2023, and noted 15-foot non-turf
buffer at top of bluff and removal of sandbags.
The LWRP coordinator found this project to be inconsistent, noting relocate the revetment to
the toe of the bluff to protect public access. The beach's geology will change due to this
revetment and loss of beach over time. Vegetated buffers are most effective at stabilizing soil
structure. If the action is approved, no boulders naturally occurring should be used during
construction.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application, and noted that with
support it with a 15-foot non-turf buffer planted with native vegetation; crane equipment
brought in by barge; and the work is conducted in compliance with the New York State-DEC
seasonal bird nesting requirements. They noted that this property does not have stairs to the
beach. The property owners access the beach using the community access stairs.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant, and I would like my general
comments included in the application.
(The above-mentioned comments are included as follows):
MR. KIMACK: "I can summarize it at the present time. There are ten individual landowners, they
are all adjoining each other. They represent approximately eight-hundred linear feet of
frontage along the shoreline. They are providing, they want to basically do a rock revetment.
As you had indicated, the new plans that I had submitted took all the sandbags out, and they
also show the 15-foot non-turf buffer at the top of the plans as it is now.
The LWRP comments, when the sandbags were originally placed, they were placed
landward of the original toe of the slope in preparation that the stone where they would be
placed would in a sense be able to align the original slope so that we could follow that particular
line."
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, Mr. Kimack. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak?
(CAC comments are included as follows):
MS. BROWN: "I'm going to say three or four things that are going to be probably for each and
every one of the ten. If you want me to come back up, I can. But we are very concerned about
bringing heavy equipment on to the beach, even though the HOA has given permission to use
that boat ramp. We feel strongly that all equipment, especially the heavy crane, should be done
via barge.
Additionally, with the nesting Swallows along the bluff, all work should be done after the
nesting season to take this into consideration.
The several properties that have stairs down the bluffs, and we were considering that most of
those were going to disappear, except for the ones that are currently viable, and putting in any
new stairs is, we actually thought that everybody was then going to use the common area, the
community common area. So not only would we like to not see any new or reconstructed steps,
but we would like to see what is there removed as part of the project. It's too dangerous to do it
without. There are ones that are hanging, there is one that has a little string across it, and I
know that my grandkids and my dog would be dead by that time.
We also feel, we saw that one of the changes was putting in the berm, and the vegetated
buffer, and it said that the vegetated buffer could have, instead of native vegetation, it
could be stones or gravel. We feel strongly that the native vegetation is the way to go. And that
the stones and the gravel, we know that people are going to end up putting pesticides on that,
so we would like to see that not happen.
Board of Trustees 23 May 17, 2023
And again, we appreciate the access area of the ramp by the community ramp."
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I would like to make a note that I do applaud the master plan by all of the
neighbors in this community. It's great for us to see this in front of us and that something
holistically is being taken into account. Thank you, for spearheading that.
So any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application conditioning the following,
and with the receipt of new plans.
The removal of all sandbags with a required Trustee inspection upon removal. Request that
the boulders follow the contour of the toe of the bluff as possible. In this particular application,
there is a contour of the top of the bluff, so to utilize the landward most edge of the top of bluff
and follow top of bluff contour line to initiate the 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer that is inclusive
of the berm. No substitution for sand or stone on the buffer. Use of.no naturally occurring
beach rocks to be utilized in this restoration project. No construction during Swallow nesting
season. Access by community association ramp only.
,And by granting these changes will bring into consistency with the LWRP. That is my
motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 9, REVISED PLANS & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
RECEIVED ON 5/12/2023 Michael Kimack on behalf of NANCY& PHILIP WEBER requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove top sandbag; install 71 linear feet of
rock revetment seaward of the embedded sandbags; the boulders will weigh a maximum of 2.5
tons per linear foot for a total weight of 177.5 tons; install a stabilization fabric under and
landward of boulders; place approximately 395 cubic yards of clean fill to reconstruct the slope
and install one layer of jute matting, pinned with 6" fasteners and plant American beach grass
(o/e) at one (1) foot on-center; area of disturbance approximately 2,700 square feet;construct a
1' high berm with approximate base of 5' at top of bluff; cover with one (1) layer of jute matting
(o/e); establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer landward of berm; plant with
native vegetation for berm and 10'wide non-turf buffer with substitution of sand and/or
stone for the 10' wide non-turf buffer.
Located: 160 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-5-7
The Trustees conducted a field inspection May 9th, noting the removal of sandbags on
beach.
The LWRP found it to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies are relocate the revetment to the
toe of the bluff; strive to reduce shoreline hardening; beach's geology will change due to
this revetment; vegetated buffers are most effective in stabilizing soil structure; and no naturally-
occurring boulders on the each to be used in construction.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with the 15-foot non-
turf buffer planted with native vegetation; crane equipment is brought in by barge; consideration
of a higher berm; and the work is conducted in compliance with the New York State seasonal
bird nesting requirements.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
i
Board of Trustees 24 May 17, 2023
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant, and I would like my general
comments made part of the application.
(The above-mentioned comments are included as follows)
MR. KIMACK: "I can summarize it at the present time. There are ten individual landowners, they
are all adjoining each other. They represent approximately eight-hundred linear feet of
frontage along the shoreline. They are providing, they want to basically do a rock revetment.
As you had indicated, the new plans that I had submitted took all the sandbags out, and they
also show the 15-foot non-turf buffer at the top of the plans as it is now.
The LWRP comments, when the sandbags were originally placed, they were placed
landward of the original toe of the slope in preparation that the stone where they would be
placed would in a sense be able to align the original slope so that we could follow that particular
line."
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application?
(CAC comments are included as follows):
MS. BROWN: "I'm going to say three or four things that are going to be probably for each and
every one of the ten. If you want me to come back up, I can. But we are very concerned about
bringing heavy equipment on to the beach, even though the HOA has given permission to use
that boat ramp. We feel strongly that all equipment, especially the heavy crane, should be done
via barge. Additionally, with the nesting Swallows along the bluff, all work should be done after
the nesting season to take this into consideration. The several properties that have stairs down
the bluffs, and we were considering that most of those were going to disappear, except for the
ones that are currently viable, and putting in any new stairs is, we actually thought that
everybody was then going to use the common area, the community common area. So not only
would we like to not see any new or reconstructed steps, but we would like to\see what is there
removed as part of the project. It's too dangerous to do it without. There are ones that are
hanging, there is one that has a little string across it, and I know that my grandkids and my dog
would be dead by that time.
We also feel, we saw that one of the changes was putting in the berm, and the vegetated
buffer, and it said that the vegetated buffer could have, instead of native vegetation, it
could be stones or gravel. We feel strongly that the native vegetation is the way to go. And that
the stones and the gravel, we know that people are going to end up putting pesticides on that,
so we would like to see that not happen.
And again, we appreciate the access area of the ramp by the community ramp."
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: ,I make a motion to approve this application with the conditions of
removal of the sandbags with Trustee inspection to follow; the 15-foot non-turf buffer be
vegetated, inclusive of the berm; rocks be moved as close to the toe as possible to follow the
contour; no construction during the Bluff Swallow nesting season; no naturally-occurring
boulders on the beach to be used; access via community ramp; and project is subject to new
plans will bring into consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 25 May 17, 2023
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 10, REVISED PLANS & PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED
ON 5/12/2023 Michael Kimack on behalf of ANDREW J. GROVER & DANIEL J. MAZZARINI
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove top sandbag; install 62
linear feet of rock revetment seaward of the embedded sandbags with a ten (10) foot return on
the easterly side; the boulders will weigh a maximum of 2.5 tons per linear foot for a total weight
of 192.5 tons; install a stabilization fabric under and landward of boulders; place approximately
300 cubic yards of clean fill to reconstruct the slope and install one layer of jute matting,
pinned with 6" fasteners and plant American beach grass (o/e) at one (1) foot on-center; area of
disturbance approximately 2,700 square feet; construct a 1' high berm with approximate base of
5' at top of bluff; cover with one (1) layer of jute matting (o/e); establish and perpetually maintain
a 10' wide non-turf buffer landward of berm; plant with native vegetation for berm and 10' wide
non-turf buffer with substitution of sand and/or stone for the 10' wide non-turf buffer.
Located: 90 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-5-8
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency speaking to the, he
would like to see reduction in shoreline hardening; the geology maintained because of this
revetment; loss of beach over time; moving the revetment as close to the bluff as possible,
mentioning vegetated buffers are the most effective; and that no naturally-occurring stones
should be used or moved.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application with a 15-foot
vegetated buffer. And noted they prefer to see things brought in by barge and possibly a higher
berm. They also mention the seasonal nesting birds.
The Southold Town Trustees inspected the property on May 9th and noted would like to see
all the bags removed from the beach in this location.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. I would request my comments be
made a part of the application.
(The above-mentioned comments are included as follows):
MR. KIMACK: "I can summarize it at the present time. There are ten individual landowners, they
are all adjoining each other. They represent approximately eight-hundred linear feet of frontage
along the shoreline. They are providing, they want to basically do a rock revetment.
As you had indicated, the new plans that I had submitted took all the sandbags out, and they
also show the 15-foot non-turf buffer at the top of the plans as it is now.
The LWRP comments, when the sandbags were originally placed, they were placed
landward of the original toe of the slope in preparation that the stone where they would be
placed would in a sense be able to align the original slope so that we could follow that particular
line."
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak regarding this
application?
(CAC comments are included as follows):
MS. BROWN: "I'm going to say three or four things that are going to be probably for each and
every one of the ten. If you want me to come back up, I can. But we are very concerned about
bringing heavy equipment on to the beach, even though the HOA has given permission to use
that boat ramp. We feel strongly that all equipment, especially the heavy crane, should be done
via barge.
Additionally, with the nesting Swallows along the bluff, all work should be done after the
nesting season to take this into consideration. The several properties that have stairs down the
bluffs, and we were considering that most of those were going to disappear, except for the ones
that are currently viable, and putting in any new stairs is, we actually thought that everybody
was then going to use the common area, the community common area. So not only would we
like to not see any new or reconstructed steps, but we would like to see what is there removed
Board of Trustees 26 May 17, 2023
as part of the project. It's too dangerous to do it without. There are ones that are hanging, there
is one that has a little string across it, and I know that my grandkids and my dog would be dead
by that time.
We also feel, we saw that one of the changes was putting in the berm, and the vegetated
buffer, and it said that the vegetated buffer could have, instead of native vegetation, it
could be stones or gravel. We feel strongly that the native vegetation is the way to go. And that
the stones and the gravel, we know that people are going to end up putting pesticides on that,
so we would like to see that not happen. And again, we appreciate the access area of the ramp
by the community ramp."
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else that would like to speak in regard to the
application? Or any 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: Motion to approve this with the following stipulations: That all sandbags
are removed; stipulate a 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer inclusive of berm to be included with
new plans; no use of the native beach stone; access by land at community association ramp
only; no work to be done during Swallow nesting season; and that the stone is as close to the
bluff as possible. Thereby bringing this application in consistency with the LWRP coordinator.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 11, Patricia Moore, Esq., on behalf of ABBY ROSMARIN &
DAVID ROSS requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove the existing
12.3'x17.2' on-grade patio pavers and establish a 24'x19' non-turf area with crushed stone on
sand and on-grade; cut down existing landscape wall down to 24" in height in order to delineate
area north and east of the wall as vegetated area; relocate the east side of 24" tall wall a
minimum of 15' from the property line; establish and perpetually maintain a Non-Disturbance
Buffer area from top of bluff seaward; and establish and perpetually maintain a 25'wide Non-
Turf Buffer area from the top of bluff and landward of the Non-Disturbance area (approximately
15' of the 25' contains existing vegetation to remain).
Located: 640 Lloyds Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-3-4.1
The Trustees most recently reviewed the application, visited the location in the field on May
9th, 2023. Notes from the field read: Walls on bluff should be removed as well.
The LWRP coordinator found the project to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application.
I welcome comments from the public.
MS. MOORE: Yes. Good evening. Patricia Moore, on behalf of Ms. Rosmarin. She is here with
us today as well.
I wanted the Board to have our neighbor directly to the east, adjacent owner, in 2017 had put
in an application, Creative Environmental came in with the application, and they brought down
the existing, the backyard, they changed the grade. They brought down the grade and built up
the grade to create a rear yard. So I'm putting, I'm'giving it to you so you can see that what we
are asking for, is certainly a lot less impactful.
Board of Trustees 27 May 17, 2023-
So
023So you can see the neighbor, there has been no impact from their work, and my client, when
she was telling me, that when she bought the property, unfortunately the, there were, the
existing patio, the existing wall that was there, originally was built by Mihalios (sic), the prior
owner. There was an owner in between. And she was not aware that these did not have a
permit. So we dealt with that issue before.
What we were trying to do is come back and suggest a very minimal modification. We would
take out the patio stone, remove it all together, which was consistent with what the Board
wanted originally. And the fire pit that is there, if we could leave it, that would be great because
if you have a fire, it's certainly a lot more protected. You can see that next door they, the Board -
- not this Board, the prior Board -- had approved a fire pit. So it's very common on the homes
up here.
And what we had asked was that the original wall was two-and-a-half feet in height. What
she did is she covered it to make it look pretty, so it raised it some. She will remove all the
material that was covering the original, and bring it down to two-and-half feet. And that way it
would -- or 24 inches, excuse me. And what would be left would be a nice area to keep the
non-turf stone in place.
It's vegetated on the seaward side. She planted all the vegetation that you see there. She
enhanced what was there. And it's now vegetated right to the, to that wall. And then all the
vegetation that she has added -- is that the property?
Well, it's a very old picture of the property, I think, so. Yes, it is. The little sitting area is there.
I don't have my glasses on, but it looks like chairs, that's why it's white. Or covers of the chair,
so.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I just think for the record, that picture, is not what exists now. I think
what exists now is even larger than that photo that is on there. Based on our field inspections.
MS. MOORE: That is the original Mihalios (sic) filter, prior owner built, because there was an
owner between Mihalios and my client. My client use that same space, put a new cover material
on top of it, and then the arch, which has the fire pit around it, that's what she changed.
So the drawing you have is what is current. That is what was previously built out.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So they put more structure on the --
MS. MOORE: Well, it has like a circular, um, has like a rounded --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: More structure.
MS. MOORE: Well, all right. More structure. But it's, I mean, you guys have approved in the
past on-grade, non-turf material, which is, can sometimes be stone and sometimes be crushed
stone. It depends on the property and the circumstances.
So we, in this application, we are removing all that. That had stone on it. So what it was
originally was stone, um, the stone that was there was resurfaced with what is slate, I guess,
pavers. What you asked her to do was remove all that, which this application shows it, and just
leave it to be pebbles, you know, non-turf material.
So that is what we came in asking to do. Because the last time this was on hearing, I was
sick and didn't come, and she was here on her own. Which was certainly not fair for her.
So here we are, and it's an opportunity to discuss and give you on the record our thoughts
on the impact of this and our willingness to change it.
The wall, again, is very low, 24 inches. So it is, it's minimal. I think more disruption would be
removing it, but certainly that is something the Board has stated that they wanted to do, from
your field notes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So, Ms. Moore, the packet that you just handed to us, is the property to
the east.
MS. MOORE: To the east, correct.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So it appears both in the plan that you submitted and then also looking at
the Google Earth, that the structure that is present in this Google Earth image, currently
Board of Trustees 28 May 17, 2023
there is more structure, but it is also fairly seaward of the application and the information that
you just presented us with.
MS. MOORE: Well, you see the property to the east. What they did is cut their, the bank was
like this, and what they did is they cut this portion and filled that portion. So it was a much more
aggressive rear yard --that whole area where their fire pit is, there is, I believe that is the one
,wall is shown as where the lawn area ends.
So there is a portion there that is lawn area and a portion that is the stone wall. They had
asked for an arch in the stone wall, and I don't see an arch. It's a little bit octagonal. So I'm
showing it for purposes, it's so that the Board sees that there are walls that have been approved
and there are fire pits. Yes, I acknowledge that the fire pit that was put on there and that is
there, is more seaward and, but that is how she started with the structure. It was not hers. That's
how it was originally built.
So we are removing the portions that were not properly built. We've agreed to that. And the
plan that you have is showing removal of it. But that structure as it was built has walls on it. The
walls that are there are about two-and-half, three feet, and we are cutting them down to be the
bare minimum. 24 inches is a little higher than a tall curve. So 24 inches?
It's a little wall. .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So we spent a lot of time now discussing the property to the east,
which in my eyes looks quite different. I think the project before me is mostly a win for the
geology and natural landscape of the area, minus the walls. I don't really take a position on the
fire pit.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Would anyone else like to speak?
MS. MOORE: So, they don't like the walls.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The structure on the bluff, really on the crest of the bluff is just not a
good idea. It loads the bluff, in some cases it can trap additional water behind the wall and
create weight, downward pressure, and may result in the loss of and damage to the property
itself. So I don't think a wall is an appropriate structure this close where it's currently being
proposed.
MS. MOORE: I appreciate your comments. Thank you, for putting them on the record.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I like the non-turf buffer, the non-turf area that you've included in this
application, and that you are going to establish and perpetually maintain the 25-foot non-turf
buffer area landward of the, essentially crest of bluff, and a non-disturbance area seaward of the
crest of bluff. So it's natural --
MS. MOORE: Well, it's natural. As I pointed out, this was built by a prior owner and to remove it
at this point is, particularly the wall, it may be more disruptive than to leave it, just cut it down
rather than remove it. But that's --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Question, Ms. Moore. In the application, didn't you propose to remove
one of the walls and relocate it?
MS. MOORE: Well, the Board wanted the side one to be moved away from the property line, but
the only way to do it is to --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Which Board was that?
MS. MOORE: You. At prior application, the request was to move it away from the property line,
so that's why the, you wanted it at least 15 feet from the property line. So that's why it's being
proposed. We would prefer not to touch it, but from the field you can't really tell the property line.
It's very vegetated. So we had it based on the survey line. Everything is pretty natural over
there, and planted.
MS. HULSE: When you were referring to what the Board wanted, you are referring to an
application that was previously denied, correct?
MS. MOORE: A prior application. Yes, it was denied but --
Board of Trustees 29 May 17, 2023
MS. HULSE: It was denied, so anything the Board wanted or didn't want ended up in a denial.
MS. MOORE: I'm not really sure, when I read the decision, I thought it was denial of what we
asked for, but asking us to do the change. It made no sense, but as I said, I was not here
when I got the written decision, that's how I interpreted it, the wall that is closest to the property
line, you wanted moved, so. It may be that it's my misunderstanding of what the Board
wanted. It might have been in your field notes from the first inspection. I know that --we didn't
come up with it. It came from the Board. So.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think we can speak to a prior permit. It's a Iittle)confusing but I don't
think it makes sense to speak that into the record anyway. So maybe we can move on from
that point.
MS. MOORE: Well, when you asked about it moving, and we are moving it only because we
were told to --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I know you said it would cause more harm to move it yet you are
proposing to move it.
MS. MOORE: We don't have a choice there. You told us to move the one --
MS. HULSE: That's the point I'm making. That's not part of this record. That's not something
that was ever a decision made by this Board. It was a field note at a prior application that was
denied. It has absolutely no effect on this application whatsoever. You can't take anything that
was in a prior field note on a denial and then state it as if it is something that this Board was
asking you to do with this pending application, because that's simply not the case.
MS. MOORE: We tried to follow the Board's instructions.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak regarding this application?
(No response).
Comments or questions from the members of.the Board?
(No response).
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion
Permit with the condition to remove the existing 12.3'x17.2' on grade patio pavers and establish
a 24'x19' non-turf area with crushed stone on sand and on-grade; remove existing landscape
walls; establish and perpetually maintain a non-disturbance buffer area from top of bluff
seaward, and establish and perpetually maintain a 25'wide non-turf buffer area from top of bluff
and landward of the non-disturbance area, approximately 15 feet up to 25 feet contains existing
vegetation, that's to remain. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Under Wetland Permits, number 1, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of
1160 SNUG HARBOR, LLC, c/o JOHN LUPOVICI requests a Wetland Permit to demolish
existing dwelling with wood deck and raised concrete patio, remove spa on a concrete pad,
remove shed on east side of property, and a gravel driveway on west side of property; construct
ry
new two-story dwelling with a 2,445 sq. ft. first floor and 2,025 sq. ft. second floor and attached
522 sq. ft. two-story, two car garage; a 405 sq. ft. covered porch with 80 sq. ft. basement
staircase; a 407 sq. ft. seaward stone patio on grade on west side; a 105 sq. ft. seaward stone
l
Board of Trustees 30 May 17, 2023
patio on grade on east side; a walkway from covered porch to 42 sq. ft. outdoor shower on west
side; install A/C mechanicals and a generator on east side of dwelling; install a new I/A sanitary
system landward of dwelling; on the west side install a walkway that leads to a 980 sq. ft. gravel
parking area and gravel driveway; on the east side install a walkway from front door to 1,258 sq.
ft. gravel driveway; for the existing TF wide stone splash pad along the landward edge of the
bulkhead to be established as a non-turf buffer area; and to install and perpetually maintain a
10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward of the edge of wetlands.
Located: 1160 Snug Harbor Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-5-39.1
The Trustees most recently visited this site on May 9th, noting remove up-lighting, finger on
south end to be non-turf and not staked.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this application and resolved not to support the
application. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application because the
proposed construction does not meet the 100-foot setback requirement in accordance with
Chapter 275.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. Patricia Moore on behalf of Snug Harbor LLC and the Lupovici
family.
The proposal, as you know, there is an existing house on this property, that's actually closer
to the water, to Gull Pond, than the proposed construction. The client took many, many
months to try to work with the architect to try to keep everything, in particular landward of the
ten-foot contour so as to not have issues with the DEC. Our adjacent area is from the
adjacent wetlands rather than this property is bulkheaded since prior to '77. Most of the area of
Gull Pond has prior bulkheads.
This particular property is a combination, a merging of, I believe two-and-a-half properties in
total from the subdivision, so it's a very generous-sized property. The house size is
meeting the zoning regulations with respect to front yard. We could not meet the hundred feet
otherwise we would have tried to do it. The size of the house is for the most part pretty
reasonable, as a footprint. The footprint is I would say about 2,500 square feet plus 500 for the
garage.
I didn't quite understand, when I was reading your field notes, we do have a non-turf buffer
that we extended. There is an existing stone splash pad when the bulkhead was replaced, so
that's a non-turf area. We added non-turf in the areas where we are adjacent to some of the
natural wetlands on the east side. Excuse me, it's upside down. West side and east side.
I was not sure the peninsula, whether you were asking for more non-turf or, because most of
it is already vegetated. There is a very small area that is grass which is where there is a
gravel fire pit.
So if you need additional vegetation I did ask the client and he didn't really have an issue. He
said there is not much grass there as it is.
This project will require an entirely new sanitary system. That has all been placed on the
Snug Harbor Road site, and I'm here to answer any other, any questions you might have, but it's
a pretty straightforward application as far as new construction is concerned.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application?
(No response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to reaffirm from what we looked at in the field, just making the non-
turf buffer a little larger and, you know, continuous, and maybe remove the lighting was I think
what we had discussed in the field.
MS. MOORE: I asked them about lighting, he said that it's, I don't think he said it's up-lighting.
He said it's down-lighting. Does that make sense?
Board of Trustees 31 May 17, 2023
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not when the bulbs point up.
MS. MOORE: I didn't notice the lighting, to be honest with you. So I read it, I was like, okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It looks like it was surrounding one of the larger trees that was close to
the water there.
MS. MOORE: All right.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Several trees. And speaking of trees, it would be nice if they would
include some trees, planting some trees in the plan for the home as well.
MS. MOORE: Well, they are not removing any trees. Well, they probably-- I take it back. They
will have to remove trees in the front yard because of the sanitary system.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It's in the footprint, yes.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And it's a nicely-treed property so we would like to see some of those
trees put back, if possible.
So, with that, any other comments?
(No response).
I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application with a non-turf buffer at the
five-foot contour line, inclusive of the peninsula on the property, approximately 50 feet from the
house; a one-to-one replacement for any trees lost during construction with native hardwood
trees; and removal of all non-compliant up-lighting on the property, with new plans depicting the
requested changes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. MOORE: Can I just repeat this to make sure I have everything? Do you mind?
So I'm going to identify the number of trees that are going to be removed and proposed
replanting, and I'm going to run the non-turf buffer line along the five-foot contour.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes.
MS. MOORE: I see it. Okay.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 2, REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED
ON 5/10/2023 Michael Kimack on behalf of SILVER SANDS HOLDINGS I, LLC requests a
Wetland Permit for the two existing bayside cottages westerly cottage 102: 444 sq. ft. cottage
with a 67.1 sq. ft. roofed over porch, a 9 sq. ft. concrete pad for HVAC unit, a 12 sq. ft. concrete
pad with metal cover, and an as-built 24 sq. ft. outdoor shower with drain to drywell; easterly
cottage 101: 437 sq. ft. cottage with a 63.2 sq. ft. roofed over porch, a 9 sq. ft. concrete pad for
HVAC unit, a 12 sq. ft. concrete pad with metal cover, and an as-built 20 sq. ft. outdoor shower
with drain to drywell; on the northerly side of the property within freshwater wetlands area of
jurisdiction -the existing first southerly cottage 105: 555 sq. ft. cottage with an 80 sq. ft. roofed
over porch,,a 9 sq. ft. concrete pad for HVAC unit, a 12 sq. ft. concrete pad with metal cover,
and an as-built 24 sq. ft. outdoor shower with drain to drywell; existing north easterly cottage
106: 550 sq. ft. cottage with an 80 sq. ft. roofed over porch, a 9 sq. ft. concrete pad for HVAC
unit, a 12 sq. ft. concrete pad with metal cover, and an as-built 24sq.ft. Outdoor-shower with
drain to drywell; second existing north easterly cottage 107: 550 sq. ft. cottage with an 80 sq. ft.
roofed over porch, a 9 sq. ft. concrete pad for HVAC unit, a 12 sq. ft. concrete pad with metal
Board of Trustees 32 May 17, 2023
cover, and an as-built 20 sq. ft. outdoor shower with drain to drywell; existing 315 sq. ft.
northerly garage with 9 sq. ft. concrete pad for HVAC unit; existing shed to be removed;
existing northerly cottage 108: 730 sq..ft. cottage with 9 sq. ft. concrete pad for HVAC unit, a 12
sq. ft. concrete pad with metal cover, and an as-built 24 sq. ft. outdoor shower with drain to
drywell; tidal wetland jurisdiction area/ground disturbance: total area,: 10,200sq.ft.; place
approximately 92 linear feet (±1,100 sq. ft.) of sand walk path set back 18' at closest point
to tidal wetlands line; existing sand to remain; install ±95 linear feet of coir logs along landward
edge of sand buffer; place approximately 8 linear feet by 6 feet (40 sq. ft.) sand walk path
continuing from Lot 13 landward of buffer to frame building; along the edge of freshwater
wetlands, establish a 5,562 sq. ft. non-Disturbance Buffer area and an 8,597 sq. ft. Non-Turf
Buffer area landward of the Non-Disturbance Buffer area; for the storm-water management on
the westerly (#102) and easterly (#101) cottage, install ±102 linear feet of drain lines to a
drywell; for the first southerly cottage (#105).and first north easterly cottage (#106), install one
10' diameter by 3' deep drywell with 105 linear feet of drain lines to drywell; for the second
(#107) and third (#108) north easterly cottage, and northerly garage install one 10' diameter by
4' deep drywell with 76 linear feet of drain lines to drywell; and all planting and landscaping in
accordance with Planting Plan & Schedule L4.08, L4.09, L4.10 & L4.11.
Located: 1100 Silvermere Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-47.-2-14
The Trustees most recently visited the site on May 9th, 2023, and made the following notes:
A 15-foot offset in the rear yard of cottages and a non-turf seaward of the 15-foot offset line to
the non-disturbance line. As-built showers to be added to the project description.
I'm in also in receipt of updated plans stamped and dated May 12th, 2023.
The LWRP coordinator found this project to be inconsistent and noted, 6.3, protect and
restore tidal and freshwater wetlands, (a), comply with statutory and regulatory requirements
of the Southold Town Board of Trustees laws and regulations, for all Andros Patent and other
lands under their jurisdiction.
Number one, comply with the Trustee regulations and recommendations as set forth in
Trustee permit conditions.
The as-built structure was constructed without Board of Trustee review or permit.
The establishment of the buffers is recommended as consistent, provided the following:
Number one, minimize landscaping in the non-turf buffer dependent upon irrigation and
fertilizer. Fertilizer influences are harmful to the eco-system balance.
Number two, no storm water should be directed or enter the wetland systems.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to 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'll refer you to the site plan basically
that we have. We've got the tidal wetlands on the south side of the property, and as we had
discussed in the field you wanted to see the non-turf throughout the entire 100-foot setback.
And you see the crossed green lines basically representing the non-turf area.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes, I do. Thank you.
MR. KIMACK: Now, on the tidal wetland area, no tidal wetland is going to be touched or
disturbed at any point. The purple represents the proposed non-disturbance, and the cross
green represents the, on Lot 14, represents the non-turf, as you had requested of us to keep it
about ten to 15 feet behind the buildings. Which the line does.
And then the descriptions would change to include the outdoor showers. And you've got the
new description for each one of the buildings.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes, we did. Thank you, very much. And I would note that the plan is
dated May 12th, and the field notes were from May 9th, so we were able to get that update, and
thank you, for turning that around so quickly.
MR. KIMACK: Thank you.
Board of Trustees 33 May 17, 2023
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak?
(No response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I would just like to say this whole project is coming along really nicely
and I think people will be really pleased to see these giant buffers and everything that's been
worked out. I think you really are keeping the integrity of the small cottages and all that. It's
very nice to see.
Just as a point of best practices with the outdoor showers, just try to -- always come to us
first and apply, wait for the approval and then construct anything on this property. That
should be the practice moving forward.
MR. KIMACK: As a note, the outdoor showers are directed to the drywells, each one of them.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes. But they were constructed prior to the approval of the application,
so.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Bear with me, I'm just reading through the project description. (Perusing).
Okay, I just wanted to confirm the drywells are mentioned in the project description. So
again, thank you, for all of the updates and for taking into account all of the comments from the
Board at our last hearing about this project.
MR. KIMACK: I would like to thank you, I mean, it was a difficult project from the complex, and I
thank the Board for bearing with us, primarily, through it. And I think it's going to be on
outstanding project when it's completed.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I agree.
MR. KIMACK: It's almost like going back in time with the colorations and everything like that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. It's nice to see a restoration of an existing property.
MR. KIMACK: Rather than a complete knockdown and start all over again.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Any other questions or comments from the public or 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 PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application, with the plans stamped and
dated May 12th, 2023, and thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP. That is my
motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, Michael Kimack on behalf of SILVER SANDS HOLDINGS
1, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built 1,487 sq. ft. accessory barn with as-built
attached 72 sq. ft. shed and existing sq. ft. seaward side wood deck; for the as-built 980 sq. ft.
cottage with a 4'x14' (56 sq. ft.) exterior basement staircase; for the as-built in-ground pool with
a 3,012 sq. ft. brick patio surround and 360 sq. ft. pool equipment enclosure; existing propane
tank to be removed; tidal wetland jurisdictional area/ground disturbance: Total area:
16,500sq.ft.; install a non-permanent 265 sq. ft. seasonal outdoor seating area; install
approximately 20 linear feet of drain line from accessory building to drywell; place approximately
12,500 sq. ft. of sand from wood bulkhead to Trustee jurisdiction line as shown on Planting Plan
and Schedule L4.15; place approximately 1,500 sq. ft. of proposed grass seed; fresh water
wetland: 20,573 sq. ft.; landward of the freshwater wetlands, establish and perpetually maintain
a 9,266 sq. ft. Non-Disturbance Buffer area and a 5,380 sq. ft. Non-Turf Buffer area; planting
and landscape in accordance with Planting Plan & Schedule L4.12, L4.13, L4.14 & L4.15.
Board of Trustees 34 May 17, 2023
Located: 1135 Shore Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-47-2-15
The Trustees conducted a field inspection May 9th, noting increase non-disturbance buffer
surrounding freshwater wetlands to include all the existing woodland labeled on the plans as
edge of woods. And also question of what is the driveway made of.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent and consistent. The inconsistency is the as-built
structures were constructed without Board of Trustee review or permit. The establishment of
the buffers is recommended as consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application.
I want to also note for the record we did receive new plans stamped received May 12th,
2023. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, behalf of the applicant. On this particular one, you'll see the
new plans, basically, the same thing would occur on the tidal wetland side. The entire
100-foot jurisdiction of the Trustees is non-turf buffer through there.
As far as the freshwater wetlands up there, we've increased the amount of non-disturbance
area in purple, and we also increased the area where the green hatch area goes around the
non-turf. It follows the --you've been on the site. It follows the tree line that comes around
through that whole area. And this is also where the pool was at the particular, at the present
time. It's an area that even though, it's very interesting, even though it's non-turf from the
Board's perspective, we can't do anything anyway because we have to come back to you to cut
a tree, essentially. Because it's right along the tree line. So it's almost a de facto non-
disturbance. At that particular time. At this point.
We've got the pool in that particular area. It may or may not stay there. This one area is still
being planned in terms of being, we probably would have to come back to the Board at some
date in the future if we have to move the pool or if we decide to do something in that area. But
can't do anything on the green line because it's in an area where we can't take any trees down.
So it does become something we can not touch. If we were going to plan to do something in that
area, we would have to come back with a whole landscape plan in that one spot.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
(No response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just that I would recommend that the non-turf area on the marsh side or
the freshwater wetland side of the pool be non-disturbance, only because it is such a beautiful
area there, and I think it really accentuates the project, and that whole area should be protected.
And my thoughts are if the applicant wants to at some point do a one-time clean up of that area,
in the future, they come to the Board for, you know, a simple administrative permit for that. So
that would just be my recommendation.
MR. KIMACK: The problem that we have, basically, Nick, is that we don't have a lot of parking
spaces on this particular piece of property. And I know that it's in future design to be able to
perhaps relocated the pool and put parking spaces at that one spot.
For the time being we would like to simply stay with the original line which is essentially we
can't do anything with it, because if we were going to do something, we have to come back
to you anyway. Whether we are going to clear in there or take a tree down or redesign it for
parking and move the pool, essentially like that.
So at the present time what we have given you basically in terms of following the tree line,
essentially locks that property in until we have the opportunity to look at it for extra parking or so
with that one spot. There is not a lot of places we can put in. And we would like to be able to at
least look at that non-turf area. We may need a portion of it and we may possibly then come
back and take the non-disturbance and increase the non-disturbance relative to the design of
that area. If that's acceptable to the Board.
Board of Trustees 35 May 17, 2023
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know how the rest of the Board feels but again, I would say, you
know, speaking of paving paradise and putting in a parking lot, that is exactly what would
eventually happen there. And I think it would make sense to preserve that area as it does
gradually slope into that wetland. And I mean, even if in the future, it doesn't seem like an
appropriate spot for a parking lot to me. But again, that's just my comment. I don't know if the
rest of the Board has any differing opinions, sot
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think I tend to agree about having a non-disturbance area, especially
that close, and I think it, you know, it also speaks to the whole vibe of the property, I think
what you are going for there.
So I think the non-disturbance is appropriate in that location. And environmentally-speaking,
that is the appropriate course of action given the amount of wetlands in this area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a beautiful spot, for what it's worth.
MR. KIMACK: At the present time, the green hatch line is close to the --
MR. PERROS: Alex Perros, applicant. I completely agree with you guys, it's a beautiful spot and
the wetlands need to be preserved. I just wanted to respond to the comment, it's not going to be
a paved parking lot. It's something we are talking about a small number of parking spaces for,
you know, on a non-turf, you know, non-turf material that would absolutely be protecting the
wetlands and be integrated consistent with everything we have done.
I think everybody has seen the quality of the work we have done and how we restored and
preserved not only the wetlands and the beach, as well as the existing buildings that date back
almost 100 years. Obviously we are not going to mess that up now that we have come this far.
MS. HULSE: Just for clarification, there is no parking that has been proposed in this application
that is before the Board tonight. So the Board is not going to be bound or make any comments
regarding anything that may come before them in the future. I appreciate you are providing the
information but I'm just cautioning the Board is not going to give any response to something that
is not part of this application.
MR. PERROS: Understood. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Kimack,just trying to decipher from the plans here, in the purple
area on the south side of the property, approximately what is that distance proposed between
the edge of wetland and the non-disturbance area?
MR. KIMACK: You mean the purple area off the tidal wetland line?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Off the freshwater wetland line.
MR. KIMACK: Oh, off the freshwater wetland line. May I come up.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: (Indicating).
(A conversation is held off the record).
MR. KIMACK: That plan may not be to scale, but you can use the hundred foot as a
representation of the width. But I think we kept the non-turf line behind the building about 15 feet
to give you an idea of the length.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Probably five or seven?
MR. KIMACK: I asked for ten feet. It might be a little less.
(The Board is perusing the map off the record).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think just to review what we were looking at there, I think we were
looking at that one area was a very small section of non-disturbance area off the wetland, and I
think increasing it maybe not fully to the full amount, might be a compromise somewhere in the
middle. That's kind of what we were just discussing
MR. KIMACK: If we can consider perhaps having it between the two points, that would be
acceptable. And we can present a revised plan with regard to that.
Board of Trustees 36 May 17, 2023
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All right, hearing no further comments, I'll make a commotion to close
this hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this application with the plans stamped
received May 12th, 2023, with the condition that the southerly non-disturbance area off the
freshwater wetland be increased to 30 feet, with the new plans, subject to new plans submitted
showing the new non-disturbance area. And by granting it a permit will bring it into consistency
with the LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you for all your work on this. It's been a pleasure working with you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Best of luck.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number four, REVISED PLAN & PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED
ON 5/10/2023 Young &Young on behalf of STEPHEN &JACQUELINE DUBON requests a
Wetland Permit for the existing 1,118 sq. 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 45 sq. ft. addition to northeast corner, and a 90 sq. ft.
addition to southeast corner for a 1,195 sq. ft. total footprint after additions; construct a 1,195
sq. ft. second story addition; a 70 sq. ft. second story balcony; replace and expand existing
easterly deck with a 320 sq. ft. deck with 69 sq. ft. of deck stairs to ground; replace and expand
existing porch with a 40sq.ft. Porch and 20 sq. ft. porch stairs to ground; construct a 38' long by
2' wide by 12" to 24" high landscape wall with a 3' wide by 8"-12" high stone step; 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 (i.e. one (1) 241 x 4'W trench and one (1) 221 x 4'W trench); and for the existing
84 sq. ft. shed.
Located: 5605 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-4-3.2
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent, and asks that we clarify the use and
ownership of the right-of-way. Where is the sanitary system and where is the wall proposed.
The right-of-way connects to Stillwater Road.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support the application due to lack of
information and insufficient setbacks.
The Trustees most recently visited the site to review the staking on the 9th of May, noted that
the project is in very close proximity to the wetlands, potentially within the wetland
boundaries. It needs to have buffers added and access plans to the right-of-way.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. WOLPERT: Yes:Good evening. Thomas Wolpert, Young & Young, representing the
applicant. And Mr. and Mrs. Dubon are present. Also Doug Adams, my partner from Young &
Young is here. Collectively, I believe we can answer any questions that the Board may have for
this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I guess, I mean, you can speak to or I can re-affirm the comments of the
Board. After reviewing the staking there it's pretty apparent that where the lawn slopes off is the
beginning of what would be considered like an upper wetland area, and that I understand the
constraints of this property, but it would seem that there are things that can be done to sort
Board of Trustees 37 May 17, 2023
of mitigate that and/or move this project a little bit inward. And I hesitate to say landward
because it's almost on a peninsula between an upper wetland area and an actual creek in
the rear of the house so that it's, you know, a peninsula out on the curb, sort of a transition
there.
And I understand the constraints here. And before, you know, you respond, there was talk of
possibly flip-flopping the expansion to then which doesn't have to be put in right away and
bumping this in a little bit and eliminating the wall or at least moving it outside of the wetland
boundary for now.
But anyway, that's the Trustee comments that we have been working through.
MR. WOLPERT: I would like to make an attempt to respond to the comment about the wetland.
If you look at the building permit survey that we prepared, we distinguish the landward limit of
the tidal wetland boundary from the landward limit of the high marsh, and I think the
wetland is the wetland and the high marsh is not a wetland.
If you look at the wetlands to the south along Eugene's Creek, we show the same line type
designating the landward limit of the tidal wetland along Eugene's Creek, and you may also note
that we've created a non-disturbance buffer planted with native salt-tolerant vegetation there.
That was a function of the process for applying to New York state DEC for a tidal wetland
permit, and because of the title wetland regulations we were required to submit a variance
application for placement of sanitary structures less than 100 feet from the wetland. And as
I said, that non-disturbance buffer was a function of the review by the State DEC. The State
DEC did grant that application about a year ago this month.
So if you follow that line along, that goes out into the peninsula, and the high marsh that you
are looking at is not necessarily a wetland. So what we are proposing here is the absorption
trenches are about 50 feet from the actual wetland.
MS. HULSE: Sir, you are, I'm sure aware, that because of the limitations of the size of the
property, that it's going to require area variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. WOLPERT: I was not aware of that until just recently.
MS. HULSE: Okay. So, because typically in a circumstance like this it may be something that
you want to consider making that application, because what the ZBA comes back with might
significantly change whatever it is that the Trustees would be able to grant.
MR. WOLPERT: Yes. And I already made the applicant aware they should file the building
permit application sooner than later.
MS. HULSE: Okay.
MR. WOLPERT: So we can get a denial letter, if that be the case, and go to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The way I see this application, there's a few options. We can move on
this tonight with our hearing, you could request to table, to make some modifications to see if
there is anything you can do to pull this project a little tighter, or at least out of the high marsh
area, or you could take those changes to note and go to the ZBA and therefore you would not
have to come back to this Board, if the ZBA requires any modifications, which I would suggest
because it's the cleaner route rather than you coming back and forth between the two Boards.
But it's really up to the applicant and yourself, in my opinion.
The other point, and I don't think I want to belabor this point too much, but, you know, we are
talking about intertidal wetlands and high marsh and I think, you know, stating that because
something is high marsh it doesn't matter, we can put anything in there is a little -- and I know
you didn't exactly say that, but it's a little -- I don't know if that's the right move to try to create a
distinction there and say, well, it's just a high marsh. I've never heard that one before.
But anyway, the way I see it, those are sort of the three options that I would recommend.
MR. WOLPERT: In respect to trying to reconfigure this site, I think we exhausted every possible
alternative, because of the way, well, as far as putting the future, the placeholder for the future
Board of Trustees 38 May 17, 2023
leaching structure closer to the retaining wall, that may, that idea may have some merit. But if
we are going to the Zoning Board of Appeals, is there a way to that Board can issue some kind
of approval subject to? Because we are not going to get a building permit without Zoning Board
anyway, is what it sounds like.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, I'm not speaking for the entire Board, but I would like to see
something, and given the fact that you have to go to ZBA, it might make sense to table this and
bring us new plans showing it pulled back as far as possible from the high marsh, including that
wall. And especially if you were to put the expansion pool or leaching field, you know, I guess
it's not really a pool in this case, that wall could come way down because it's a good potential
you'd never expand and therefore would not really even need -- either wouldn't need the wall at
this time, which I would really like to see, or you would not need as much of a wall and we can
deal with that in the future if there is ever a need to expand. Which realistically on this
lot I don't think you ever would be able to expand. I note Health Department requires an
expansion, but I don't think-it would ever really come into play.
MR. WOLPERT: I agree. As a general rule, the systems are over to the right to begin with, but
to try to move treatment unit further south; then we're in conflict with the proposed deck, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, I don't think I have a problem necessarily with the treatment unit.
Just if we could pull that pool back and the wall back, I think you might be able to do something
there.
MR. WOLPERT: We'll see what we can do. You know, I can't redesign it right now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Understood. So rather than table for ZBA, would you just like to table to
confer with the applicant and bring back until the next meeting?
MR. WOLPERT: Sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak to this application, or any
additional comments from the member of the Board?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just to say we do appreciate the septic upgrade and it's an a shame it's
such a challenge on this lot, so we do appreciate everything you are trying to do here, and
look forward to seeing the next proposal.
MR. WOLPERT: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would echo that sentiment. We appreciate you working with us.
MR. WOLPERT: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any additional comments?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to table the application for submission of new plans.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 5, REVISED PLANS & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
RECEIVED ON 5/5/2023 AMP Architecture on behalf of STEPHEN & FORTUNE MANDARO
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUSTS requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing 4'x4' outdoor
shower, 6'x5'front entry stoop, 418sq.ft. At grade rear brick patio, existing roof, existing septic
system and existing foundation locust posts; for the existing 40'3 Y2'x20'6" (800sq.ft.) One-story
dwelling and to lift, relocate and construct additions to the dwelling consisting of an open
foundation with breakaway walls using approximately (15) 10" diameter wood pilings; construct
a 6'6"x8' (52sq.ft.) And a 1'3"x9'8" (26sq.ft.) Two-story addition; construct a 29'x27' (783sq.ft.)
Second floor addition; construct a 20'6"x57' (114.8sq.ft.) Second story seaward balcony (open
to above); a 6'6"x5'9" (38.2sq.ft.) Front covered porch with a 3'0"X9'1" (27.3sq.ft.) Front entry
stair; a 3'0"x127' (36.5sq.ft.) Rear entry stairway; a 4'5"x12'6"(57sq.ft.) Mechanical platform with
steps; 4'x4'6" (16.5sq.ft.) Outdoor shower(open to above); install a new I/A OWTS system on
Board of Trustees 39 May 17, 2023
i
the landward side of.the dwelling; install a retaining wall with 36" high railing and rear stair at
north/west sides of property approximately 115 linear feet in length; approximately 2,760
cubic feet of earth to be removed for proposed septic system components excavation, all to
remain on site for backfill; and 5,055 cubic feet to be used for proposed regrading; install a
new 400sq.ft. Pervious driveway with curb; install one (1) 8'x4' deep drywell to contain roof
runoff; and to install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide vegetated non-turf buffer along
the landward edge of wetland vegetation.
Located: 2135 Bay Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-17-4
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 5th of May, 2023. We noted: Do an
inhouse review. Still need pier line on the plans.
We are in receipt of plans stamped and received on the 5thof May, 2023.
The April LWRP report found the project to be consistent, but noted that the Southold Zoning
Board of Appeals issued a determination on December 15th, 2022, finding certain negative
conditions subsequent to the design and construction of this project. FEMA compliance is the
reason the house is being elevated and a retaining wall wrapping the property. And as a
consequence it will be disturbance of neighboring lots. The retaining wall on the property is
found as inconsistent with the community character, and although it was necessary for high
groundwater conditions with new sanitary system technology, it will divert flood waters to
adjacent properties. Essentially, it creates a raised island.
Furthermore, expansion of structure and sanitary flow on the sensitive substandard lots
adjacent to wetlands and within flood zones is contrary to good planning, even with new
mitigation applied.
Historically, the,structures on these lots were small cottage-types and better fit into the
streetscape. Structure within these areas should be minimized. The west elevation shown
with fill could adversely impact Bay Avenue by diverting flood waters.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding it?
MR. PORTILLO: Good evening. Anthony Portillo, AMP Architecture.
Based on our last meeting we had some discussions about the retaining wall being against
the property line, and some of the steps I took to resolve that concern of the Board's was to look
at the bedroom count, and so we were able to, using the Health Department allotment of letting
us have a den, we took out a bedroom, so we were able to make our leaching galleys shorter,
which in turn allowed us to bring the retaining wall closer to the leaching galleys or closer to the
house, which we don't have the elevated parking area, so the parking is at grade.
We did some maneuvering or some rounding of the retaining wall to fit the septic tank and
the proposed drywell. Um, I know, I did hear a comment of us directing water to Bay Avenue,
where I can agree that we are sloping toward Bay Avenue. I do think that at the current
conditions, we are capturing rainwater from roof runoff. So the idea is that any rainwater would
be from you flow, recover, runoff would be from the grass. That is the reason for the dry well.
Plus that drywell will be elevated so it won't be sitting in water.
Just to repeat myself from last week, currently there is a cesspool that is ten feet from the
wetlands mark out that is basically in water, and the house is being occupied, it's being used.
So currently that is where are the effluents and the solids are being distributed.
The idea here is to put in an IA system and to hopefully proper septic. Also mentioning the
fact we are in a flood zone. So I did verify that we are at the right height, which was passed by
the Zoning Board. So our finished floor elevation we are proposing is at ten feet.
So I think that based on the last conversation, the requests from the Board at our last
hearing, we attempted to make as many changes to the plans as possible. And one of the
them is losing a bedroom count, which is a pretty large sacrifice for the applicant.
Board of Trustees 40 May 17, 2023
If you guys have any further questions, also the applicants are here tonight, so if have you
any questions for them, they can answer.
Also, I would like to just repeat one more time that the home was destroyed during Hurricane
Sandy and we had the first floor, existing first floor was rehabbed afterwards.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I was just reviewing the plans against as you were speaking and
taking notes of all the changes you made. I appreciate that the driveway was relocated off the
side at grade. I think really for me at this point in the application process, reviewing these plans,
it's the pier line that you have added for this round of application, materials, which for
members of the public present, the pier line is a line drawn to be immediately adjacent to livable
structures, and our Town Code reads clearly that living structure can't be further seaward of that
pier line. It can't exceed that pier line based on the adjacent living structures.
And this, reading the plans here and at work session, does cross that pier line. Now, I can
anticipate some of the comments and concerns, but I'll allow you to address them if you would
like.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure. Based again, on the last meeting, I'll state it again. We are not changing
the existing footprint. We are elevating the home. We are moving it back. The moving back of
the of the home is based on what we need to fit the system in the front yard. You can see
clearly we'll have no room. We have to fit the system in the front yard, which is also where I
think you would want the system. And I know that's where Health Department wants it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Portillo, not to interrupt, but we mentioned that the house already
exceeds the pier line, so when you mention moving it back, are you mentioning moving it closer
to Marion Lake?
MR. PORTILLO: That's correct.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So further into the pier line.
MR. PORTILLO: That's correct.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So you can see how that could be a problem.
MR. PORTILLO: I think the Board should understand the reasoning behind this, and like I
mentioned in the last hearing, the homes that are adjacent to this home eventually are going to
need to be,elevated and eventually are going to have the same challenges we are having. And
you can see that with the neighbor next to the adjacent property, that where their home is
located, it had to do the same thing. It had to be pushed toward the rear yard to allow for a
septic system.
So I understand the code. I think that sometimes it's situational and it needs to be thought
about, because we are basing a pier line off of homes that have the same situation
that this one has, and that's a cesspool in the rear yard, and they will eventually, if they ever
upgrade these homes, they'll eventually have to do the same thing. There is really no other
solution.
As I mentioned, we went through three iterations with the Health Department and this is
really the only solution that they were willing to approve.
So I think regardless of the second-floor addition, if the home stays the same size footprint
and the home is elevated, if we elevate the home in place and then leave the cesspool where
it is, you are just going to have a cesspool in the wetlands and basically in water.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Which is currently where it is.
MR. PORTILLO: That's correct.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: But given the current number of bathrooms that the residence has and
seasonal nature of its use, if we were going to go down this road of weighing the environmental
impacts of the project you propose versus what is currently there, I think you'll find what is
currently there is much less impactful to the environment, given its location, size, seasonal
usage.
1
Board of Trustees 41 May 17, 2023
Where you are proposing is to elevate the house, build a'second story on to it, thereby
triggering an Innovative Alternative system by the County. You are also elevating the house
due to FEMA regulations, which you are using the retaining walls rather than putting the house
on piles, and you are wrapping the property in a retaining wall all the way to the wetland edge of
Marion Lake, and you are further moving the house seaward of the pier line.
So you can understand why when we are looking at this project and the precedence that it
sets for not only projects here in this particular location, but across the Town, we are left with a
very difficult decision to make, to basically break all of our rules set forth in the code, in the
Town of Southold, to allow your applicant to make a seasonal rental into a full-time twice as
large residence, in an environmentally sensitive area. And I can see on your face that is sort of
an alarming concept that you might disagree with.
MR. PORTILLO: Well, let me just state the fact that bathrooms is not what we are concerned
about, right? Occupancy and usage.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Occupancy and usage, so the more people you have, the more usage
you have, correct?
MR. PORTILLO: I agree with you. So currently there is two bedrooms, we are requesting three
bedrooms. And a two-bedroom system, if we were to put in a new septic system is a thousand
gallons and, you know, a little less leaching, but it's pretty much similar to a three-bedroom
system.
So to elevate this home and then the owner would have to, if they wanted to put in a septic
system, regardless if it was, because we had to put in a septic system, they want to put in a
system that is not a cesspool that would fail over time, you are in the same predicament. The
footprint of the home is not changing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: But the-retaining wall around the entire property is.
MR. PORTILLO: The retaining wall is proposed because of the grade height and the
groundwater height.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: What is the depth-to groundwater in this particular location?
MR. PORTILLO: Currently the water is 4.1 below grade. Our test hole on it.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: 4.1 feet below grade. How many feet do you need to install'an IA
system per Suffolk County law?
MR. PORTILLO: What I'm proposing. There is no difference between two-bedroom and three-
bedroom.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So what's the distance between the bottom of the leaching field and
ground water?
MR. PORTILLO: Two feet. You need one foot of cover.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So --
MR. PORTILLO: So we are proposing a thousand-gallon septic tank. And it would be a
thousand-gallon septic tank in a two-bedroom house. The leaching might get reduced.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So if the distance is two feet of clearance between the bottom of the
proposed leaching pool and groundwater, and groundwater is found at four feet, 4.1 feet
below ground level, why do we need to go up to the seven-foot grade to get that clearance?
MR. PORTILLO: You see my, the system, the detail that is on there, you can see the section on
there. It explains it on there.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The proposed drywell is existing grade 2.7. But you have water found
at 4.1. So your drywell here is over six-and-a-half feet above groundwater.
MR. PORTILLO: The septic tank is what the section --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: But if you only need two feet, why are we six-and-a-half feet above?
MR. PORTILLO: The size of the tank. The size of the tank is shown there. It's 65" plus one foot
of coverage. The septic tank itself.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think what we are speaking to is are there options for a shallower tank?
Board of Trustees 42 May 17, 2023
MR. PORTILLO: I can look into that. I don't think there is much --we are doing shallow leaching
trenches. So the ability to bring the grade down in the front is because of our leaching trenches.
We are doing shallow leaching trenches. We are not proposing tanks. But the system itself, I
mean, that's the size of the system. That's a Fuji Clean. I mean, we can if we --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I get that. I mean the IA system itself doesn't need any distance. So
it's the leaching pool that requires the distance between the bottom of the leaching pool
and groundwater. The IA tank itself, in theory, can be in groundwater. So I don't think that's the
concern. Plus I think we are getting a little further into,the weeds because what we have to
address is the pier line which, you know, is code, so our hands are kind of tied with that.
So it's just going forward, you are talking about this septic system, I think there is a lot of
room or there is room to maneuver, where you are not going to need a five-foot high
retaining wall to achieve the distance between the bottom of the leaching fool and groundwater.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Do you see what Trustee Goldsmith was referring to, um, so if you look
at the proposed drywell, then it goes down two feet to zero. Then it appears there is four
more feet until water. Do you see what we are looking at there?
MR. PORTILLO: Are we referring to the section or are we referring to the site plan with the
drywell?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: With the drywell -- oh, I'm sorry. I was looking at the wrong thing. I
apologize.
MR. PORTILLO: The other question is, is the removing of the drywell. We can remove a portion
of the retaining wall. The retaining wall is creating a need to -- putting the drywell at that place is
just, you know, if there is no need for the drywell then the retaining wall can be reduced.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Again, we might be looking at two different things here, but
regardless, one, we have a problem with the pier line. Two, if there is a retaining wall necessary
for the leaching pools that are located in the front of the yard, why is there a need for retaining
wall in the rear of the yard that nowhere near the leaching pools?
MR. PORTILLO: For the drywell. To allow for a drywell that can retain the amount of roof runoff.
Which we have the calculations provided.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So regular runoff drywell is what is the distance between that? So
currently it looks like you are proposing six feet of clearance for that roof runoff drywell.
Is that normal procedure?
MR. PORTILLO: So, if you want to, if you look there, we have a calculation, impervious surfaces
that were, it's above the drywell sections calculations, and it explains how we came up with the
required pool dimensions.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I apologize. I was looking at the wrong thing before. But it does appear
that you can potentially move the drywell landward. I don't think we would want to see the
drywell ahead of the house in any situation, regardless of the other issues with this.
MR. PORTILLO: So there are, I'm not sure where, but there are required distances from the
drywell to the septic tank and the retaining walls and, I mean, I guess if that is something to,
consider, again, I'm not sure where the drywells would fit with --we are pretty much tight on the,
on where the leaching is happening in the front yard with the drywell there. And we are
required to have two parking spaces. That was something, we actually had a design that worked
really nicely, but we didn't have any parking spaces, and the applicants were saying we'll
park in front. Because people park on the street there. That actually took a lot of stuff away from
the seaward side of the property, which didn't go very well when we went to the Health
Department. They wanted a letter from the Town indicating where we can park in the street
there.
I mean, I still think that, again, I'll just ask the Board is, I mean I know obviously there is
code, but there are variances to codes and I think there are situational circumstances since
codes don't, codes are meant for a broad scope.
Board of Trustees 43 May 17, 2023
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I would like to state for the record that I was not present at the April,
hearing but I reviewed everything via video transcript. And [just wanted to make the statement
that, you know, we are as a Board trying to share some of the concerns on the property, and to
reference your comment about the pier line, is we recently modified the code, and codified the
pier line even further than the original definition within Chapter 275. So the reason for doing that
is because this Board feels very strongly that, you know, on the increase in property size, you
know, kind of marching towards the wetland and really trying to avoid that with homes and,with
docks. So I just wanted to state that we actually sort of defined it further very recently because
of those reasons.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure. I'm aware of that and I understand. Unfortunately this has been in design
for about a year-and-a-half now. So some of these decisions were made. But obviously the pier
line, there is some code around the pier line.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: There has always been code and the Board has adhered to that.
MR. PORTILLO: I mean, it didn't really refer back to the homes, but I have been in that
conversation with the Board a few times and I'm aware of it.
I'm just, again, when you get into something like this, you start having to figure out the
design. I just, again, for the record, the home itself, the footprint, is not changing. If the applicant
wanted to elevate his home, which I think he has the right to, and wanted to put in a septic
system that is functional because currently the one he has really isn't functional.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is that something the Board of Health has determined, its
functionality?
MR. PORTILLO: Well, the fact that it's in water and it's a cesspool, right off the bat it's not
functional. That's Board of Health rules. _
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is it currently deemed inoperable? Is it currently --
MR. PORTILLO: No, but it's a cesspool.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I understand what it is. I'm just trying to find out. It's a legal
determination whether it's inoperable, it's illegal or currently it's there, it's what it is.
MR. PORTILLO: It's not illegal. You know, I mean, it is a cesspool. You have to take that into
consideration. All cesspools, even inland should be changed. They are not--first off, they are
dangerous and they are not really functional septic systems.
So, one, to have this one is, and where the location that it's in, it's a problem. You know. And
again, if the applicant wants to elevate his home, even at one story, these are the situations he's
in. I just want the Board to understand, it's a difficult scenario.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Would the applicant like to speak?
MR. MANDARO: I would. Thank you. Good evening, Trustees. Thank you, for your service to
the community. My name is Stephen Mandaro, this has been my neighborhood for 57 years. My
parents bought the home on the beach, which I now own, and this home I bought 30 years ago.
heard somebody say "summer rental." No, I don't ever rent my places. They are mine, for
me and my family. My wife and I decided to retire on Bay Avenue, if we can, and that would be
that house that we are in. Bay Avenue has my heart and soul for 57 years, since I was eleven. I
would not want to do anything negative to that environment, to that neighborhood. I'm
presently one of the directors on the Save Marion Lake, I've been in that group for the last 15
years. We are all one community, Rabbit Lane and Bay Avenue, pretty much. We are usually,
years past, we were on the same water system, which was a pump system just beyond the lake.
I walked the neighborhood recently, and out of the 30 homes from my home to the end of
Bay Avenue. 14 of them are raised and two stories. They are all done in the last 15, 20 years. It
doesn't bear anything on what you can or can't do for us, but the fact is, is they are big, tall
buildings, raised way higher than what we are proposing.
Board of Trustees 44 May 17, 2023
I was flooded in 2012, 30 inches into my home with water. The entire home was decimated.
We fixed the home, got all permits correctly, and we did it correctly. We couldn't raise the home
at the time.
FEMA wants us to raise the home. Insurance right now is $3,500 a year. That means
nothing to what should or shouldn't do, but FEMA wants us to raise the home.
My wife and I would like to live in that home. We are not going to change the use of the
home. It's me and my wife in a home that we want to move into year-round. Two of us. Will we
let our children still come out for the weekends and use the other house? Yes.
Look, this is all very personal, and really I'm trying to put a personal aspect on it. I never
rented my homes. The neighborhood has changed. Most of my neighbors are investors now
who rent their homes as Air BNBs. So I heard, you know, we know we don't want these
neighborhood to change. But they have changed. And in ways that are not family oriented.
want to continue to let Bay Avenue be a family community, with my family. That is the goal.
Raising the home was to protect my home. And the septic system, look, the cesspool is
ten feet off Marion Lake. When we're flooded, the septic has to take in water. So our goal is to
put a new septic in.
With that said, I'm hoping that we can come up with a solution. We would love to live on Bay
Avenue. I could have sold both properties and go bought one of the bigger homes in Orient.
That's not my goal. My memories are all there.
So, thank you, for your time. If you have any questions. I do have pictures of the flood that
we had. I don't know if you need them.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: No, I live pretty close and I have seen the damage.
MR. MANDARO: Yes, we are in that belly there. The lake and the bay meet each other at that
point.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes. If I mis-spoke and said seasonal rental, I rescind that.
MR. MANDARO: That's okay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think I said seasonal residence.
MR. MANDARO: I'm sorry.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: It doesn't matter to me. From a community character perspective,
rentals and Air BNBs do have an impact, but from an environmental perspective a human being
and septic needs are really the concern of this Board.
MR. MANDARO: Sure.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Raising the house, elevating the house is not a problem for me. I
understand FEMA requires it. I understand the necessity of raising it due to its coastal location
and the fetch of the sea and storm surge that comes in, in addition to the rising levels of water in
Marion Lake's proximity. I actually understand that.
For me the whole sticking point has been the scale of the retaining walls on the property.
And I understand from the design that it would be difficult to accommodate them.
Sorry, there is discussion happening as well.
All right. So one of the possibilities that I think the Board has sort of been mulling over is if
you left the house in its present location, move the leaching fields to the side yard and the IA to
the front yard, as low as possible and with few walls as possible. And what about the house on
piles. Really, that's what we are looking for as far as the window of opportunity here.
MR. PORTILLO: The house is on piles. It's proposed on piles. Currently.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay. So leaving the house in the current location, moving leaching to
the side yard and IA to the front yard, as low as possible, with as few walls as possible.
MR. PORTILLO: I think there is going to be a parking issue with getting two parking spaces. As
I mentioned earlier, we had a scheme like that, and it was parking. That was our biggest
problem. Because his property line isn't, it's pretty tight to the existing house. You got like a ten-
foot buffer from the street to the property line.
Board of Trustees 45 May 17, 2023
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I mean this a problem because we are not engineering the project for
you, and we are also, the parking lot to me matters not one way or the other, so long as the
drainage is collected onsite for the parking lot or the parking lot is made of something
permeable. ,
So, from our code, from which I'm bound to speak, I understand from a common sense point
of view that does play a factor in the design of the project, but I have to consider simply the
environmental impact on the wetlands.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I believe this Board has approved in the past where the leaching pools
or the IA are underneath'the existing driveway. So that is something that you can account for
as well.
MR. PORTILLO: I understand. Sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I appreciate what you are trying to do and the sense of community. And I
think, you know, I worked with a lot of engineers and architects, and I understand you have a
problem and you are trying to solve it. And you are obviously looking at this in a different way
than say an environmental analyst, right, so we are trying to kind of make the two meet, I think.
And doing that, that is sort of I think what we came up with that it's responsible that we could
reduce the overall grade of this property, still accomplishing, you know, making the home
livable to the applicant while not, you know, creating an environmental hazard, I'll say.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And further moving seaward with the pier line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. And granted, you might be a little further seaward than the pier line
if it's an existing, you know, based off the aerials. But if it's an existing footprint that might be
something that we could account for here. You know.
MR. PORTILLO: I understand.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH. If the existing structure needs to be raised to meet FEMA compliance
in its existing footprint, I think that is something we would look favorably on.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Also, we are not trying to raise entire properties due to retaining walls
that are needed for septic upgrades. So if you can limit the retaining walls to only what is
needed around leaching pools that is something that we also look favorably upon.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure. Unfortunately I can't really make these design decisions right off the bat,
but it just might not fit is the problem, on the site, to be honest with you. Because you
have distances from the foundation where we need retainment, you know, I mean --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: If you had piles, it may be a little different.
MR. PORTILLO: I understand. Five-foot distance.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes.
MR. PORTILLO: All right, so I guess we'll ask to table this and come back.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. PORTILLO: Appreciate it.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is there anyone else wishing to speak regarding this application?
Comments or questions from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to table the application.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.;
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 6, Anthony Sannino on behalf of DIANNE MYERS requests a
Wetland Permit to demolish existing one-story dwelling with existing 1,224sq.ft. Foundation to
remain; construct new one-story, single family dwelling on existing foundation with a 12'x14'9"
Board of Trustees 46 May 17, 2023
one-story addition onto the north west corner and a 175sq.ft. One-story addition to the west for
a 1,416sq.ft. Total new dwelling; construct a 319sq.ft. Seaward side deck; construct a +/-4'x6'4"
basement emergency access area; and for the existing +/-4'x4' outdoor shower.
Located: 1705 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-4-36
The Trustees most recently visited this site on May 9, 2023, noting need new plans to depict
pier line between houses, and a 15-foot non-turf vegetated buffer from top of bank. I'm
sorry, it's Nick Krupski's handwriting.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be consistent, noting a sanitary system
is not shown on the plan and as the structure is outside of a mapped flood zone.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this application and resolved not to support the
application due to the lack of information regarding the demolition.
Subsequent to our field notes we have received new plans stamped received May 15th,
2023, depicting the pier line, which this proposal does sit within.
And is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. SANNINO: Anthony Sannino, on behalf of the applicant.
The demolition, I think it was deemed a demolition based on cost, but not an actual
demolition. The first floor is remaining and I believe most of the first floor walls are
remaining.
Most of the construction is designed to just bring us up to date energy wise, and change the
roof line slightly. Small addition up in the northwest corner to square off the property, the
existing foundation, and a rear seaward side deck. And I think you guys'have the dimensions on
it.
So if you have any questions, I'm here.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Now, the shed we saw down at the water did not appear to be a
functioning shed. And it was very near the wetlands.
MR. SANNINO: I think it's just going to be removed. They don't have any plans to have anything
down there, and it's in pretty sad shape, so I think they are just going to remove it.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It does appear the next storm might take it away, so we appreciate
seeing that removed before the storms does it.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application?
(No response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. SANNINO: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application with the following conditions:
Removal of the non-functioning shed in wetland area, non-disturbance area seaward of the top
of bank, and 15-foot non-turf buffer landward of the top of bank. And an Innovative Alternative
Onsite Wastewater Treatment System and new plans depicting the stipulations I've just laid out.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have a good night.
MR. SANNINO: Thank you. Can I make one comment?There is a plan for a new septic system
and it's going to be one of the new upgraded types. And on the non-vegetated buffer there, I
think we sent you a plan for that. But we may want to follow the contour. I know that the
Board of Trustees 47 May 17, 2023
architect drew straight lines there. So we might follow the contour, I think it's on the 13th or
14th, you'll see it.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Great. So submit those and we'll review that.
MR:SANNINO: Yes, perfect. We'll make sure you guys see it.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have a good night.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: REVISED PLANS & PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED ON
5/15/2023 Daniel J. Pennessi on behalf of NORTH ROAD HOTEL, LLC requests a
Wetland Permit the as-built ±800sq.ft. Amenity building and to resurface the existing ±192sq.ft.
Deck and railings, and construct an additional ±240sq.ft. Deck addition with railings, ADA
compliant egress ramp and steps to ground; install irrigation; install stones; and to establish and
perpetually maintain a 15' wide Non-Turf buffer along the landward edge of the top crest of the
bluff.
Located: 62005 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-40-1-1
The Trustees most recently visited the site on May 9th, 2023, and made the following notes:
Berm should be added to plan and permit language. 15-foot non-turf buffer from the crest of
bluff; rocks added to the plan; add sewage plan to the site plan, and add any drywells and
irrigation.
The LWRP coordinator found this project to be inconsistent, and noted 6.3, protect and
restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. And noted the as-built structure was constructed
without Board of Trustee review or permit.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support the application, noting that the
application, due to the fact that the proposed setback from the top of the bluff is not in
compliance with Chapter 275 of the Town Code.
And I am in receipt of new plans stamped and dated May 15th, 2023.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak with regard to this application?
MR. PENNESSI: Good evening members of the board Trustees, my name is Dan Pennessi, I'm
here on behalf of the applicant. I'm sorry I couldn't meet you all at the site visit last week, but
thank you for taking my call.
I'm here to answer any questions you may have. I'm hoping that the revised plans are
responsive to the comments that you made during your site visit.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very much. Thank you, for speaking with us when we were
onsite.
I have here the new plan that was received after the field inspection, and it does note the
sanitary, so that's appreciated; Thank you, very much. What I don't see on here, however, is
that berm, the as-built berm that is vegetated, and the rocks that are on the eastern portion right
by that cottage that we are discussing this evening.
MR. PENNESSI: Sure. So Mr. Corwin had come out to perform the as-built survey prior to your
visit and was unable to schedule a visit. Thereafter he did note on the plan the 15-foot non-turf
buffer. He was out there the prior week in order to prepare the as-built plan for the Suffolk
County Department of Health. We'had installed that pump station to take the existing archaic
cesspools off the bluff and connect to the Village system.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: We appreciate that.
MR. PENNESSI: It was quite an undertaking.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Then I noted that the change with the project description to install
irrigation. Could you explain that please?
MR. PENNESSI: Sure. So, maybe I can give you a little history of the project, given this is our
first time appearing before you.
Board of Trustees 48 May 17, 2023
So we had pursued this project because it was an existing hotel resort property in the resort
residential district, and our plan for the project was simply to rehab the buildings. We
undertook the process with the Building Department to go through the history of the COs of the
property and to figure it out. Really the only additions, there were some additions to the
footprint, which is the swimming pool. And through the course of this it was important to us to
undertake the pump station. So when we did that, we disturbed quite a bit of the site.
We also brought in all new fire mains and domestic water, which were inspected and
approved by the Suffolk County Water Department and the Suffolk County Health Department.
So it did disturb quite a bit of the property. We therefore decided that we would have to hydro-
seed, which we did. And we put in irrigation to support the hydro-seed. But he didn't pick it up
again. He didn't pick it up on his as-built.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So the irrigation is on kind of the majority of the property for the seeded
lawn.
MR. PENNESSI: Yes, on the seeded lawn. If you look at the south side of the property, running
south to north along Sound Avenue, the property is roughly three-and-a-quarter acres. The
area between Sound Avenue and the existing buildings was historically turf. We've gone ahead
and planted roughly 2,000 native shrubs and trees. We did that last fall in the buffer area. We do
have some drip lines on that berm on the south side of the property. We are really just doing
that establish the native trees. We don't plan to really run the irrigation in the future, but we'll
need it for the first year, 18 months.
There is planting beds immediately in front of the three primary buildings on the site, so on
the south side those are going to be planted with Switch Grass, again native. They are going to
need mister heads, and then there are rotators that, the pool is not shown on here, but there are
rotators on the seeded lawn, which is just the north side of those main buildings.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, for clarifying. So then on the berm it sounds like it's just the
drip lines.
MR. PENNESSI: On the south berm. On the berm on the north side there are no drip lines.
There is no irrigation on the berm on the north side of the site.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: On the north side you are referring to is there along the --
MR. PENNESSI: Could I --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Sure, thank you.
MR. PENNESSI: So, south is here. Drip lines along the new planted berm here. This will get
planted with Switch Grass and some Hornbeams and White Birch. The berm planted here was
primarily Black Pine. There are some Interpines in there, and grasses.
So there's drip lines here that we think will only require about 18 months, maybe at most 24
months of use, to use for those plants and trees to establish. We don't anticipate we'll
need much more here. These are mister heads. And then the pool comes out in this location
and there are rotating heads installed in this location. The berm that we had planted in
this location does not have irrigation.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, so it's likely the irrigation is not in our jurisdiction.
MR. PENNESSI: That's right.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Great. Thank you. And, I mean,just based --thank you for explaining the
project. It does seem overall like a great improvement for the property and for the Town to have.
This is a really nice, upgraded hotel with obviously the connection to the pump system and
everything. So, thank you, for that.
Are there any other questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just one question. According to the site plan that we were given, the
top of bluff is kind of marked at the first turn of the steps, so it's about halfway down the steps.
s that what you are marking the non-disturbance area from, that line that's about halfway down
the stairs?
Board of Trustees 49 May 17, 2023
MR. PENNESSI: Well, I thought this discussion would happen tonight. You can see, this
property forms a bit of a beachhead. I think that Jack Levin at the time had established a lot of
boulders down on that beach. And it's really provided, you know, the properties to the east and
west I think had cleared the beach, and they experienced quite a bit of erosion. So there
are very steep slopes there. Many of them are homes to Swallows.
But the area of our property, we experienced some erosion on the east side and the west
corner, by primarily that is a full, non-turf buffer, and you can see it even in the Google Earth,
that runs, gosh, it's probably almost 35 or 40 feet, if not more, from what we have determined is
the toe of the bluff down on the beach.
When you run up about, just north of 25 feet, if I could approach that again, it does flatten
out. So we determined that the bluff actually run along here, because we do plateau right
in this location, and then it comes back up here. And it was relevant not only for the application
to identify that top of bluff, but it was also relevant when we got the letter of non-jurisdiction from
the DEC, because it was such a significant grade change over that distance.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So you are looking at the angle of repose. So that is actually a bank,
the rest of it. So it goes from bluff to bank
MR. PENNESSI: Yes.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay.
MR. PENNESSI: And we did install that berm and we planted it with Switch Grass. You know,
again, the projects my wife and I have pursued, including those in the Town of Southold and
Village of Greenport are in-fill. We try to not do greenfield development. We try to do
sustainable design, best practices.
So we did install that berm. In addition to pump station, we captured all groundwater. That
was not done previously.
So I would be open to speaking with you about where we actually put that 15-foot buffer. I
think that we've had a decent vegetated buffer coming up from the toe of the bluff. If you would
like it to be at the top there, closer to where the so-called north cottage is, which is the subject of
the application, we can certainly discuss that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think when we were onsite, I can't remember if we shared this with you
during the phone call as well, but we were sort of looking at that berm that is located at the top
of bank, I would say, and then wanting to incorporate a 15-foot non-turf vegetated buffer-- I'm
sorry, install that. That would incorporate that berm as well. So that could be part of that 15
feet.
So in a sense starting at the seaward side of the berm, going 15 feet landward.
MR. PENNESSI: So if we could, it's a pretty large property. And again, I think we've got
significant non-vegetated. Would you be willing to look-- I take your point on the east and west
corners is primarily where we'll have the most sensitive impacts. Can we limit that buffer to
those locations, so directly north of the north cottage, and kind of, Trustee Krupski, where you
identified, you know, over toward north of the pump station.
We would prefer, you know, especially given the significant grade change and the vegetation
that we have been able to maintain there, you know, not further encroach into the turf lawn, if
you will, directly center.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I understand your comments. What we are essentially asking for is about
ten feet additional to what you have. And, you know, with the cottage, there is the as-built,
the deck, it has increased. So you are not only rebuilding, resurfacing the portion that is there,
but you are adding additional deck, and I think we were just sort of looking at all of these
aspects combined together.
MR. PENNESSI: Sure. I mean it's roughly 195 expansion. It's a little bit less than that because
there was an existing platform and stairs down from the door there. And I don't know if it's
Board of Trustees 50 May 17, 2023
comparable to require an additional ten foot for over a 200-foot property line. You know, that's
roughly what we are talking about on that north side.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'm not sure I understood your compromise. Can you point out on the
plan, on the screen again so we can understand where you are talking about?
MR. PENNESSI: So, while we don't have any delineated wetlands on the site or adjacent to the
site. It's not DEC or Army Corps. Our points of sensitivity are primarily in this location, where
it transitions from this highly vegetated bluff and bank, to these other properties that have
significant erosion.
So at this point and this point, because there are grade changes. The property is the high
point. So what I would ask is that, we were required to have a non-turf buffer, is maybe we
pack in this area and this area to deal with those sensitive locations on the site. As opposed to
adding an additional ten feet beyond the existing berm that we planted for the 200 lineal
feet across the property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think having a non-turf buffer is, especially vegetated, is kind of twofold.
So while we recognize that you have that kind of like nice gully ravine on the west side the
property, and that is a sensitive area, and while we recognize that you are I believe,pointing out
to the erosion on the east side, we are also looking at it kind of holistically in that, you know,
some of the worst things we see environmentally speaking at this point, are turf, you know,
whether it be laid sod or hydro-seeded turf irrigation, and, you know a lot of current landscapers
or homeowners are doing, I could say, even the 15-step program from the Cauliflower
Association where you are talking about all the chemicals, both the fungicides, insecticides,
fertilizers, nitrogen, so the larger the buffer that we put on, that pulls back that turf, that is what
we are really trying to achieve. And when you have, the way your property pitches, you get this
magnificent view of the Sound, but it also means that any rain event, or even irrigation event,
is,running off, anything that is put on that lawn, straight in that direction. So I have not looked at
the contours enough personally to determine if it's a bluff that transitions into a bank or if that
grade change with that flat part, which I suspect was probably put in there by the prior owner
through a bluff to traverse on the beach, which I'm not here to dispute whether that should be
there or not, at all. But I would maintain that it's most likely a bluff that was modified. And
what this Board is trying to do, which is standard practice, would be to put a small buffer in, in
addition to the berm, which I actual like, to sort of help mitigate the large amount of turf that is in
the back of this property. That is where I would,be coming from with it.
MR. PENNESSI: Okay. I was just hoping, given the neighboring properties, this one does have,
you know, that significant buffer already.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to clarify that, we typically would not count a bluff as a buffer. While
it's a positive, we are also trying to protect that resource as well. So the two kind of go
hand in hand. That is where we are coming from. There were some similar applications today,
we did, you know, those ten in a row, that was all in an effort to sort of, (a) pull back sod,
and, (b), to protect that structure, too. So that's kind of been a common practice.
MR. PENNESSI: We noted it on the plan. I recognize it was not clear on the plan where we
were discussing, where that 15-foot buffer would go. But if I could clarify it, certainly we are
approaching conditional approval on that. We are very close, though.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It's very exciting. Anyone else wish to speak?
MS. BROWN: Carol Brown. The Conservation Advisory Council was concerned about buffers,
but we are also concerned about the building there and adding any more --the building that is
right by the bluff, it is inside the 100 feet of the bluff, making it dangerous. It's, you are looking
for a permit for that building and then you are also looking for a permit to extend patios or
decks around that building, and we feel strongly that the building was placed in the wrong spot
to start with, and adding any patio or deck to something that close to the bluff is inappropriate.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
Board of Trustees 51 May 17, 2023
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Just to clarify, it's all deck, right.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what I remember. I just wanted to make sure.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: We actually prefer deck over lawn in some cases, so.
MR. PENNESSI: There are, you can see two properties to the east, there is another very similar
cottage in the same location north. And yes, it is resurfacing the existing deck and adds a
deck to the west side. That will help us on the south side of that deck will be an ADA ramp, to
comply with ADA requirements. That building has been there since roughly the 60s, mid 60s,
and it was historically a single-family rental cottage on the property, and it's been turned into a
recreational building for all guests to enjoy.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Again, it sounds like an improvement on the current property.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak? Any other questions or comments from the
Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. L
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL YES).
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application with the submission of new
plans and the following conditions: A 15-foot non-turf buffer, vegetated, that encompasses the
as-built vegetated berm; to include the as-built boulders that are located just to the east of those
berms on the said revised plan; and then any irrigation that may be utilized within the
Trustees jurisdiction to be removed after 18 months; and by granting a permit, thereby bringing
this into consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. PENNESSI: May I ask a question, just on the irrigation. What was it? It has to be removed?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Only within our jurisdiction. It doesn't seem there are any. But were you
to install that for any vegetation that is going to be installed, that would be the request.
MR. PENNESSI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 8, ANTHONY & KAREN DELORENZO request a
Wetland Permit to construct a 12'x24' above ground pool with pool enclosure fencing and gates;
and pool equipment area.
Located: 470 Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-5-21.1
The Trustees conducted a field inspection May 9th. Notes say that the wetland line flagged
incorrectly. Project calls for retaining wall high pool within 30 feet, approximately, of the
wetland line.
LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies are the flood zones are not shown
on the plans. Where is the pool in relation to the flood zone.
The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application because of the close
proximity to the wetlands.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. DELORENZO: Yes. Anthony DeLorenzo, homeowner.
This is 12x24 aboveground pool, not a retaining wall pool, attached to my deck. As far as the
wetlands boundary goes, there were previous surveys done that all said the wetland boundary
where it is on this survey. This Board, the Trustees had them before 2016. They accepted the
Board of Trustees 52 May 17, 2023
wetlands boundary. I have Mr. Corwin's survey here from 2016. The wetlands boundary was the
same as it is now.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Judging by what we saw in the field, and we mentioned this to you
when we were out there. There is a current wood retaining wall as shown on your plans.
MR. DELORENZO: That's not a retaining wall, sir.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That's what it shows on the plans, sir. Wood retaining wall, on the
plans stamped received April 14th, 2023, from Peconic Surveyors PC. That's what I'm going off
of.
MR. DELORENZO: Just to be clear, you are talking about the wood retaining wall on the end of
the lawn?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, sir
MR. DELORENZO: Okay, there is a piece of wood --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sir, I'm just referencing the plans submitted to us, and on those plans
it says "wood retaining wall."
MR. DELORENZO: But in any event, the previous surveys, the survey by Mr. Corwin done in
2016, which this Board accepted, set the demarcation line for the wetlands boundary where it is
on the Peconic land, Peconic survey. The DEC accepted it. The Trustees accepted it. In 2016. 1
don't see where it's incorrect. And at the boundary that stands now, the pool would sit, it's a
small pool 12x24, the pool would sit 60 feet from the wetlands boundary.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Like I said, based on our observations when we did field inspection,
there were wetland plants indicated above the edge of wetland being immediately seaward of
the wood retaining wall as proposed on the plans that were submitted.
So there's Baccharus, there's a lot of other wetland vegetation. There's wetland vegetation
on the other side of the house, closer to your neighbor, that on the plans show garage and
sunroom.
MR. DELORENZO: Yes, there's wetlands vegetation all the way up along that side of the house.
We keep it there. We planted that ourselves.
But the wetlands boundary that is set on the survey, which you stated was incorrectly
demarcated on the survey, frankly it's,news to me. Because I looked and I looked at the 1997
survey, the 2016 survey done by Mr. Corwin, all put the wetland boundary, you know, where it
was. There are native plants that are growing, beyond the piece of wood. Literally, it's a 2x8
piece of wood. That is sitting on the thing. It's not a retaining wall by any means.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We probably should not argue about if it's a retaining wall or not, because
on the plans you gave us it says "retaining wall."
But I have two questions for you. Number one, you say above ground pool. Is this a,
temporary structure, like metal sides, or--
MR. DELORENZO: No, it's called radiant pools. It's a rigid foam ball on the pool that is
supported by aluminum. Aluminum frame that sits inside of it. Very structurally sound.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So is it essentially stakes in the ground on a sand base, like a typical
aboveground structure?
MR. DELORENZO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So it's not a cement--
MR. DELORENZO: We are not excavating, we are not going into the ground. I didn't want to
put an inground pool.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The other question was, the survey for 2016, what was that in reference
to; was that modifications on the home or was that for sale of the home, or--
MR. DELORENZO: The survey from 2016, was the, I rebuilt my deck on the back of the house.
And at the time Mr. Corwin did the survey. But there were surveys done in relation to the dock,
Board of Trustees 53 May 17, 2023
the dock and the catwalk that were done before. I have the Corwin survey here that shows the
wetland boundary as being basically where Peconic Land put it. And that would make it 60
feet away from where the proposed pool would be.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So looking at the plans submitted, again April 14th, 2023, can you
comment on the proposed pool drywell?
MR. DELORENZO: The proposed pool drywell, I mean I put it in there, but when we put the
deck in, they asked us to put in five 8'x2' drywells at the time. Which I didn't understand, but I
did it anyway. There are three that are on the side of the pool. They are on that plan there.
There are three that are on that side of the pool and there are two on, that are on the side
where the pool is going to go. And there are two on the other side of the house. Those pick up
all the water runoff from the house.
I would propose, if you approve the plan, that you allow the existing drywells to pick up the
backwash from the pool. I don't think there is any question that they could accommodate
it. They are thousands of gallons.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The reasoning for the fence, is that because you don't want to put a gate
on the steps to the deck, I'm assuming?
MR. DELORENZO: Excuse me?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I guess the reason why you want to put a fence there is because you
don't want to put a gate on your steps to the deck?
MR. DELORENZO: Let me be frank, I'm putting whatever is required in order to make the pool
safe. If I can block off the pool any other way to make it safe, I'll do it. I don't need to put a
fence. I put this here to make sure, I asked the surveyor, to put it to make sure we complied with
the requirements.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anybody else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, again, Mr. DeLorenzo, this is basically lik&an aboveground pool,
or it is above ground pool.
MR. DELORENZO: It is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is no foundation, beside sand?
MR. DELORENZO: I'm not sure, there may be a cement coping that they put around to keep
the, to keep the aluminum posts in place, but there is no excavation, according to the pool
company.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: What was the name of the pool company?
MR. DELORENZO: The manufacturer is Radiant.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: While they are conferring there, Mr. DeLorenzo, I think that part of what
this Board is dealing with is also we are seeing a lot of loss of high marsh, and it does
appear the only reason the marsh does not continue is because of the retaining wall and the
lawn that is built there.
If you took that out and let in naturalize, it would naturalize into high marsh there.
So I mean, I understand your point, but I just want toexplain where we are coming from when
we talk about these issues and talk about how the Baccharus is surviving on your side yard
and everything. It's due to the nature of your property. And you have a beautiful and pristine
marsh here in front of the property.
MR. DELORENZO: I understand your point, but the amount of high marsh that exists now, is
due because of, in my previous, the previous owner and myself maintaining it that way. And not,
because our understanding that was not wetlands. So, I mean, we could have just extended the
lawns. I never did. We never did. I tried to keep it as a buffer for the house in case of
flooding, and it's nice.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: We appreciate that.
Board of Trustees 54 May 17, 2023
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Sounds like good stewardship.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to be clear, that species is protected by New York State DEC.
MR. DELORENZO: I call that Bay Laurel. I don't know what else it is.
RUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. If you do -- it's Baccharus. And if you do trim it, it's a DEC violation.
Just so you know, for point of reference for the future. You know. To avoid that situation.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And let your neighbors know.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this
application? Or any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Mr. DeLorenzo, I think you helped address some of our concerns, most of our concerns. I didn't
necessarily realize this was an aboveground pool, it's not going to have any concrete footings
or concrete base, which should address a lot of our concerns.
So hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the pool, provided that there is no
concrete base used; that it is a saltwater pool; with also the removal of the proposed pool
drywell; and that the pool backwash be tied into the existing drywells that already exist on the
property; and by noting that it is basically a temporary aboveground pool, it will address
the LWRP concerns and bring it into consistency.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have a good night.
MR. DELORENZO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 9, REVISED PLANS & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
RECEIVED ON 5/8/2023 Twin Forks Permits on behalf of GIL &TRACY BEN-AMI requests a
Wetland Permit to demolish 1,418sq.ft. Of remains of old foundation; remove/abandon existing
sanitary system; demolish 188sq.ft. Wooden deck; demolish/remove existing 70 linear foot long
rock wall and 101sq.ft. Pond; construct a single family dwelling with a 1,937sq.ft. Finished
basement that includes a 269sq.ft. Basement screened-in porch, a 185sq.ft. Basement outdoor
storage area, a 244sq.ft. Basement covered porch, and a 586sq.ft. Basement uncovered patio;
proposed first floor finished space at 1,889 sq. ft., attached garage at 616sq.ft.; proposed
second floor at 1,194sq.ft.; proposed attic.space at 616sq.ft.; proposed unheated storage at
310sq.ft.; proposed 354sq.ft. First floor covered porch; proposed 702sq.ft. First floor deck; install
a 28sq.ft. Juliet balcony with steps to ground; install a 270sq.ft. Concrete slab with 60 linear feet
of enclosure fencing around slab; install a new I/A septic system along the side of dwelling;
install a new generator, a/c condensing units, and buried propane tank; install a new potable
well; install a new driveway; install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff and
driveway drainage; 65 linear feet of existing northern retaining wall to remain; 50sq.ft. Of
existing northern steps to remain; construct a 48 linear foot long retaining wall from steps to
dwelling; construct a 30 linear foot long retaining wall in north to south direction at 4' in height,
and a southern retaining wall along southern property line at 148 linear feet long varying 2'-6' in
height for proposed I/A sanitary system; install screening vegetation for the face of the northerly
and southerly retaining walls; approximately 1,697cubic yards of fill will be removed for the
construction of the dwelling which will be built into the existing topography on the site with 848
cubic yards of fill to Be relocated on the west side of dwelling to allow for driveway and parking
Board of Trustees 55 May 17, 2023
area; remove on tree on the landward side of the proposed dwelling and plant two trees on the
property; and to install and perpetually maintain a 15' wide non-turf buffer along the top crest of
the bluff with a 4' wide access path.
Located: 1800 Hyatt Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-50-1-4
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent, recommended a 15-foot wide non-turf
buffer.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not support the application as submitted. The
proposed structures are not compliant with the Chapter 275 setbacks. Should be located
further back from the bluff. This is more than 100 feet back from the bluff.
The property was most recently reviewed on the 9th of May, and noted there was review
further plans at work session.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MS. POYER: Good evening. Lisa Poyer, on behalf of the applicants. This was at your last
hearing back in April, and it was discussed with the client at that time about meeting the
pier line. They have submitted revised plans that show the habitable space of the house shifted
back to meet the pier line with the two adjacent properties.
In doing that they will have to remove one of the trees in front of the property. The one
nearest to the house. And as such they propose to do two additional new trees on the
property, on the south side. That now with the pier line takes the habitable portion of the house
to 103.2 feet from the bluff setback, and puts the decking area 88.6 feet from the bluff
setback. And just note that there is space underneath the deck as far as covered patio and a
screened-in porch and storage area that is underneath that deck as well.
There are some additional extensions of retaining wall that is occurring on the north side of
the house, which ties in from the existing stairs. And because we had to shift the house
further back, we have to extend that wall in order to tie into the existing retaining walls that are
there.
We did slide the retaining wall on the.south side back a little bit from the property line so that
we can provide planting to the southerly property there. Noting that it's pretty much up against
their retaining wall, so it will be a tiered step there. And we are proposing a 15-foot non-turf
buffer on the property.
So, if there are any other questions from the Board. And like I said in the previous
presentation, we are built into a bluff, you know, side stepping from north to south so we can
meet the retaining walls on either side to help control and keep it a flat area for the residents.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is the plan in the future to come back for the structure on the bluff? Or
what is the --
MS. POYER: Yes, that will be separate. Right now it is not part of the project.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. But no work will be done on that or anything?
MS. POYER: Correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak regarding this
application or any additional comments from the members of the Board?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I would just like to make a note that, on the public record, that I was not
at the April hearing but I have reviewed the video transcript of this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any additional comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, I 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 based off the plans submitted
May 8th, 2023, noting that there will be a two-for-one native hardwood tree replacement, and
with the stipulation that the seaward side deck be unenclosed both top and underneath. I mean
Board of Trustees 56 May 17, 2023
there be no enclosures or walls underneath, to maintain the living space pier line. That is my
motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. POYER: The plans do show outdoor storage area under there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would need new plans without depicting that, for the pier line
specification.
MS. POYER: We could enclose it as far as the screen-in potion?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. Unenclosed. Open deck.
MS. POYER: Completely unenclosed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct.
MS. POYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 10, REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PLANS
RECEIVED ON 5/11/2023 Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ANDREW &ANDREA WEISBACH
requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing floating docks and adjustable ramp off of the
existing 4'wide by 65' foot long catwalk which shall remain undisturbed; off of seaward end of
catwalk, construct a proposed 4'x24' fixed catwalk extension supported with 8" diameter CCA
pilings and using Thru-Flow decking leading to the relocated 3' wide by 12' long aluminum ramp
which shall be permanently attached to a proposed 4'wide by 16' long fixed "T" section of
catwalk; and to install an aluminum ladder at the end of the "T" section to gain access to boat
during low tide.
Located: 497 Ripplewater Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-76-1-15.3
The project description received 5/11/2023.
The Trustees recently reviewed the application on May 9th, 2023. Visited the site. Notes
from that visit read: Provide water depths; suggested proposed configuration; a dock of
similar length of existing but in fixed format; remove floats; remove lighting on docks; remove
lighting on access path; remove irrigation on access path; allow non-disturbance area to
naturalize.
The LWRP found the project to be inconsistent with its policy standards. And following
comments provided to the Board.
The length of the private dock structure into public waters is not consistent with the LWRP.
The original dock, 65-foot catwalk, was approved in 2005. A similar applied for in 2009 was
denied by the Board. See the resolution language below.
Furthermore, the proposed amendment to the existing dock is not suitable in this location
due to the limiting water depth 0.6 to 1.8 feet in 2009. The Board of Trustees disapproved a
similar action for a longer dock structure because of the limited water depths in this location.
The applicant enjoys access to the water and navigability. One final point, Goose Creek is a
critical environmental area, nominated by the Town of Southold as worthy of protection under
275-2.
The Conservation Advisory Council also resolved not to support the application because of
the excessive extension into the creek. I will invite comment from the public at this point.
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant.
So this application is to remove the existing ramp, floating dock, jet ski dock that is currently
in place, as you are all well aware. To extend the existing fixed pier out with an extended fixed
pier structure which extends out an additional 22 feet, as you saw the staked terminus of the
proposed structure in the field. When you were out there, you saw there was an existing, I think
it was a Grady White, tied up to the existing floating dock for about eight, nine to ten feet beyond
i
Board of Trustees 57 May 17, 2023
that Grady White where the stake was set, a little float, I think was orange. So it's about a total
of 22 to 24 feet beyond the end of the floating dock.
I did a measurement right here on my proposed plan. If you take the projected pier line from
the neighboring property to the north and neighboring property to the south, we are landward
of the projected pier line, 25 foot landward of the projected pier line. We are proposing a fixed
dock here because as noted we don't have sufficient water depth, by the code of the
Trustees as well as New York State DEC. It is a fixed structure, we are going to reutilize the
existing aluminum ramp that is there currently, extend out the fixed pier an additional, I
think it's 18 feet, and reutilize a fixed ramp going down to a fixed lower level platform.
We have no problem with removing the lighting that is there. We have no problem
removing any lighting that is on the existing walkway. We have no problem, I did read the field
notes, we have no problem revegetating the, re-naturalizing, I think that was the word indicated.
Re-naturalizing the area that was proposed originally to be a non-disturbance buffer on some
previous permits.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It was required to be a non-disturbance buffer.
MR. PATANJO: Yes, no problem re-naturalizing the required non-disturbance buffer on the
previous permits dating back to I believe 2015 or'12, if I'm not mistaken.
So, you know, the proposed project meets typical requirements as far as fixed pier. It meets
the requirements of the DEC for projection into the waterway, the 25% projection
requirement. We meet the pier line requirement of the Trustees. We meet the projection
requirement of the New York State DEC.
Any other questions, I would be happy to answer.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay. So the path forward for this application is cleanest and
straightest when it returns to the land, and structures to their original permitted conditions.
In other words, put it back the way it was. I understand the current owner may not have
perpetrated the changes to the original conditions of the land by filling in lawn, making
modifications to the dock without permits. So they would like a way to bring this project back
into some kind of conformity.
MR. PATANJO: Yes, that was, that was recently addressed at, as you are well aware --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: April.
MR. PATANJO: You did an investigation and it was brought to light that some work here on the
property was done by the previous owner.
My client had purchased the property after these improvements were done to the property,
not knowing to them, and we are working right now with the Trustees as well as the Court
system?
MS. HULSE: Yes, right. It was just arraigned today in court.
MR. PATANJO: Yes. So we are working to correct these deficiencies.
MS. HULSE: That, to let you know, has to be completely resolved before the permit is actually
released.
MR. PATANJO: Understood.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To be clear, though, if we were to move forward --just to be clear with
that, being in the Court currently, that is it something that we could resolve under this permit,
just to clarify.
MS. HULSE: Yes.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just to make a general comment about our pier line. There are some
properties that are deep within a cove, and they greatly benefit from the idea of drawing a
straight line across from two docks. That is not how we interpret it. I would not, in that case, we
would look at how long are the neighboring docks and try to get a better idea in that sense, so.
MR. PATANJO: Yes. Completely understood. I have been through that multiple times. When I
had clients that they were on the outer end of a pier line, and we project, I projected in the
Board of Trustees 58 May 17, 2023
past, we take the shoreline, take the pier--we interpolate that, so that's how much further out
you can go.
Yes, this one is definitely setback a little bit from the adjacent. And if you took into
consideration a pier line that follows the shoreline at the mean low tide line, we would still
be within your pier line, and I could represent that on a revised plan if required.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So with respect to the pier line, yes, the dock they are proposing does
conform to the pier line. However when the cove or the contour of the shoreline dips inward,
such as it does in this location, and further more you are not gaining any significant water depth
by extending the dock structure so significantly, it really isn't a good idea to --
MR. PATANJO: I do have a water depth survey for this parcel. We are gaining some additional
water depth.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Four inches, I think.
MR. PATANJO: I would have to look'at the water depth survey. First I have to figure out what
the property address is.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It is right there, 497.
MR. PATANJO: Yes, I'm blind. I did not present to the Board a water depth survey really for the
fact that it's a fixed structure, fixed dock, so we typically don't require water depth surveys.
Yes, I'm, we are gaining approximately, if you go to the end of the existing floating dock, to
the end of the proposed floating dock, it varies from 0.9 to 1.5. So, you have seven or eight
inches of water,depth. And for a boat docked there on a fixed pier, the seven inches of water
depth is a big consideration for a boat to be docked.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Six inches.
MR. PATANJO: That's a huge, in my opinion --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I was just correcting your math there.
MR. PATANJO: What did I say? 0.9 to 1.5.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Wait. Sorry, you're right.
MR. PATANJO: Yes. So if you are, if the Board was previously indicating they would like the
structure to remain in the existing conditions with fixed pier revert back to originally, which is
permissible for them to dock a boat at. The current boat in the current situation, which is
permitted, which is 0.9 minus 0.9, which is 0.9 is --What is 0.9 -- 0.92 is ten inches. So it's ten
inches of water at low tide.
Permissibly, by rights of their current permit, ten inches of water to dock a boat, it's going to
be bouncing off the bottom at low tide. No one is going to lie to each other. It's going to be
bouncing off the bottom. It's permissible to dock a boat there.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So this was a catwalk to a set of stairs going into the water, correct?
MR. PATANJO: Yes.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And it's constructed a dock with a "T" on it and a jet ski float and
another floating dock off to the edge, and an aluminum ramp. So that was not permitted,
correct?
MR. PATANJO: To my knowledge, not permitted by the previous owner.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay. It's not this owner's fault, but it's not permitted.
MR. PATANJO: Correct.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So theorizing that the boat's there, so it's okay. But it's not legally
allowed to be there.
MR. PATANJO: Not legally allowed to be there, however is there anything precluding them from
tying a boat up to their existing permitted dock?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: To the steps, you mean?
MR. PATANJO: Right.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Go for it.
Board of Trustees 59 May 17, 2023
MR. PATANJO: It's going to be laying on the bottom. So we are trying to resolve the situation
here by putting in a fixed dock that doesn't extend out into the pier line, and I'll prove that
on the plans, we'll do a projection of the shoreline with a pier line extending out. And my
proposed plan will meet that requirement. And we are also gaining an additional six inches
of water depth, which will work for the draft of the boat, which is about 12 to 13 inches.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think one of the issues we are looking at here is that this property has
several open violations.
MR. PATANJO: Correct.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: For extending a structure that was not permitted. And whether the
previous owner did it or this owner did it, it's this owner's responsibility to know what they have
and what they have permitted or not. So that--
MR. PATANJO: That is why I'm before the Board today to try to clarify all of the issues with the
property that--
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think they have been clarified in the violations. So I think to come in
and ask for so much extensive additional dock when the violations have not been resolved is a
bit difficult to understand.
Okay, so, that said, environmentally speaking, I think that this is too much of an ask for this
particular property.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak regarding this application?
MS. BROWN: As somebody who is actually on the CAC, I kayak there regularly, and I have the
lowest keel of any kayak in existence. And I'm often pushing off with my paddle to get back into
the center of that, of West Creek over there. Um, extending 22 feet, I mean originally you had
48 feet. But even 22 feet into the waterway is going to impact public access. It is used mostly
by kayaks and paddle boards, and not by, there's just a couple of boats, and most of them
scrape bottom as they go. I think it's an inappropriate ask as well.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak regarding this application?
(No response).
Member of the Board?
(No response).
I just remind all that the LWRP's report states that the original 65-foot catwalk was approved in
2005, and that similar application was applied for in 2009 and was denied by the Board.
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application under the conditions that
the backyard be replanted with native vegetation, and reestablishing a non-disturbance buffer
from the wetlands to the pool deck; the reinstallation of a gate at the seaward edge the of the
pool deck, on both sides of that deck, allowing for a four-foot access path to the dock on side of
the house; remove the'lighting in ther area seaward of the house; remove the irrigation in the
area seaward of the house; remove the kayaks from their current location; and the approval of
an existing 4'x65' dock to remain; and a fixed T-configuration of the dimensions of 4'x16' foot at
the end of this 4'x65' dock. So this will be a fixed dock and catwalk all the way.
Furthermore, new plans to show acceptable planting plan in the rear yard; and a survivability
inspection after one year of planting; and new plans depicting the dock according to the
dimensions 4'x65'.
MR. PATANJO: The dock is approved per my submitted plans?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Total of 69 feet, including the "T". I'm sorry, that is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. '
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And my motion will bring it into consistency with the LWRP.
Board of Trustees 60 May 17, 2023
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I rescind that second. ,
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And the ramp will be removed. So the removal of the ramp as well.
That is my motion. And that will bring it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. PATANJO: I have no idea what you want me to do. I'll call you tomorrow.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 11, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JOHN ELENTERIO &JUAN
JARAMILLO requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 67 linear feet of existing timber
bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead in same location as existing and raise the height 8" above
existing; reinstall ladder against bulkhead to access the water; remove existing timber deck
landward of bulkhead and install a 6' wide stone/gravel walk along the landward side of
the bulkhead to act as a non-turf buffer; install an 18' high by 90 linear foot long timber
landscape retaining wall parallel to the property line landward of the proposed non-turf buffer
area.
Located: 50 Knoll Circle, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-37-5-21
The Trustees most recently visited the site on May 9th, and Trustee Sepenoski noted
straightforward.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with condition of no
seasonal pesticides being used on the gravel driveway.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. We approve to no pesticides being
used on the driveway.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. And then I just had a question about the description here.
So there's a stone walkway down, and then you are proposing a gravel stone/gravel walk
along the landward side of the bulkhead. I just want to ensure that that is intended to have
pervious edges so that it would not be a --
MR. PATANJO: Yes. Fully pervious. It is intended to be a non-turf buffer. This is a carryover
from a permit that was never constructed from two years, two-and-one-quarter years ago.
They were going to start building the project, found out they didn't have a permit with the
Trustees, we had to renew the permit with the Trustees, same exact plans, I saved a lot of
time building`these plans, because I just had a copy and just changed the date.
So same exact plans that was previously approved with previous Boards, it is a non, fully-
pervious gravel stone walkway with no vegetation, no fertilizer and no herbicides. I heard from
the audience.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: All right. Is there anybody else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
(No response).
Questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion,to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES). -
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make motion to approve this application with the condition that the
entire seaward side of the home remain non-turf buffer, pervious gravel driveway, with no
pesticides used, and a drainage plan at the retaining wall, with new plans depicting those
changes.
r
Board of Trustees 61 May 17, 2023
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees