The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-04/19/2023 Glenn Goldsmith,President �,qf so�jTown Hall Annex A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice President �� O!O 54375 Route 25 P.O.Box 1179 Eric Sepenoski Southold,New York 11971 Liz Gillooly y Telephone(631) 765-1892 Elizabeth Peeples OQ Fax(631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED Minutes Wednesday, April 19, 2023 JUN 16 2023 5 : 30 PM � C*k Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee Eric Sepenoski, Trustee Liz Gillooly, Trustee Elizabeth Peeples, Trustee (Not Present) 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 April 19th, 2023 meeting. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order and ask that you please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance is recited) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I ' ll start off the meeting by announcing the people on the dais . To my left we have Trustee Krupski, Trustee Sepenoski, Trustee Gillooly. To my right we have attorney to the Trustees Lori Hulse. To her right we have Senior Clerk Typist Elizabeth Cantrell. We have with us tonight Court Stenographer Wayne Galante. And from the Conservation Advisory Council we have Carolyn Burkardt. Trustee Peeples is unable to join us this evening. She was present for this month' s field inspections and work session where she actively participated in discussions with the other Board members regarding the applications in front of us this evening. Agendas for tonight' s meeting are posted on the Town' s website and also in the hall out front. We do have a number of postponements tonight. Postponements are in the agenda on page 7, number 4; page 10, number 11; and page 11, numbers 12 and 13 . Board of Trustees 2 April 19, 2023 And on page 10, number 11 has been withdrawn. They are listed as follows : Number 4, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of W. HARBOR BUNGALOW, ,LLC, c/o CRAIG SCHULTZ requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the existing 6. 51x53 ' fixed dock with a 11 'x11 ' fixed portion in an "L" configuration; existing 3 . 5 'x12 ' ramp and existing 81x20' 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, has been postponed. Number 10, Michael Kimack on behalf of INN THE VINEYARD MATTITUCK, LLC, c/o VERONICA NASARY requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built 18 'x36' (648sq. ft. ) in-ground swimming pool, 1, 179sq. ft. stone pool patio surround, and 4 ' high pool enclosure fencing with two (2) gates (281 linear feet) ; as-built 8 'x4 ' (32sq. ft. ) landing to a 4 'x12 ' (48sq. ft. ) staircase to a 31x66. 83 ' (200sq. ft. ) catwalk; seven (7) as-built electric lights at pool and along walkway to floating dock to be converted to Dark Sky compliant fixtures; and as-built 6'x40 ' (240sq. ft. ) floating dock with two (2) pilings to secure it in place, to replace in-kind previously approved floating dock. Located: 900 Fox Hollow Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-6-22, has been withdrawn. Number 11, Young & Young on behalf of STEPHEN & JACQUELINE DUBON requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 1, 118sq. ft. one- story dwelling and for the demolition and removal of certain existing structures (project meets Town Code definition of demolition) , within and outside of the existing dwelling to facilitate construction of the proposed additions and alterations consisting of a proposed 45sq. ft. addition to northeast corner, and a 90sq. ft. addition to southeast corner for a 1, 195sq. ft. total , footprint after additions; construct a 1, 195sq. ft. second story addition; a 70sq. ft. second story balcony; replace and expand existing easterly deck with a 320sq. ft. deck with 69sq. ft. of deck stairs to ground; replace and expand existing porch with a 40sq. ft. porch and 20sq. ft. porch stairs to ground; install one (1) new drywell for roof runoff; abandon two (2) existing cesspools and install a new IA/OWTS system consisting of one (1) 500 gallon treatment unit and 46 linear feet of graveless absorption trenches and for the existing 84sq. ft. shed. Located: 5605 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-4-3 .2, has been postponed. Number 12, Joan Chambers on behalf of JENNIFER MAYE requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing septic system and install a new sanitary system; install an approximately 82 to 83 ' long, 4 ' high maximum retaining wall consisting of the west section proposed at 39' to 39' 6" long with a 3 ' return on the western end, and an Board of Trustees 3 April 19, 2023 eastern section proposed at 37 ' to 3716" 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, has been postponed. Number 13, 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, has been postponed. Under Town Code Chapter 275-8 (c) , files were officially closed seven days ago. Submission any of paperwork after that date may result in a delay of the processing of the applications . I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I ' ll make- a motion to have our next field inspections on Tuesday, May 9th, 2023, at 8 : 00 AM. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I ' ll make a motion to hold our next Trustee meeting Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 5 : 30 PM at the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . III. WORK SESSIONS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I ' ll make a motion to hold our next work sessions Monday, May 15th, 2023, at 5: 00 PM, at the Town Hall Annex 2nd floor Executive Board Room; and on Wednesday May 17th, 2023, at 5 : 00 PM at the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . IV. MONTHLY REPORT: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The Trustees monthly report for March 2023 . A check for $11, 230 .32 was forwarded to the Supervisor' s Office for the General Fund. Board of Trustees 4 April 19, 2023 V. PUBLIC NOTICES: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk' s Bulletin Board for review. VI. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VI, State Environment Quality Reviews : 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, April 19, 2023 are classified as' Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. They are listed as follows: Branko & Margaret Peros SCTM# 1000-31-17-18 U. S. Dept. Of Homeland Security SCTM#s 1000-15-9-9, 1000-15-9-6. 1, 1000-16-2-1 & 1000-16-2-2 U. S. Dept. Of Homeland Security, Plum Island Animal Disease Center SCTM# 1000-132-1-30 Kenneth Wiedeman SCTM# 1000-44-1-14 Mark & Ann Schaefer SCTM# 1000-64-3-5 Conkling Advisors, LLC SCTM# 1000-57-1-38 . 3 Shlomo & Alice Weinberg SCTM# 1000-116-7-6 PABLO PEG, LLC, c/o Paul May SCTM# 1000-79-5-23 . 1 Domeluca, LLC SCTM# 1000-23-1-2 . 8 Domeluca II, LLC SCTM# 1000-23-1-2 . 10 Gil & Tracy Ben-Ami SCTM# 1000-50-1-4 Roberts Premier Development, LLC SCTM# 1000-78-2-27 Stephen & Fortune Mandaro Revocable Living Trusts SCTM# 1000-31-17-4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VII. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VII, Administrative Permits . In order to simplify our meetings Board of Trustees regularly groups together actions that are minor or similar in nature. Accordingly, I ' ll make a motion to approve as a group Items 2, 4, 5 and 6. They are listed as follows: r Number 2, Eric Martz on behalf of MATTHEW ZASH & COURTNEY KREMERS requests an Administrative Permit to install 99 linear feet of irregular stepping stone pathways, and install 220sq. ft. irregular stone patio. Located: 400 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. . SCTM# 1000-97-7-3 Number 4, William Conway on- behalf of JOHN TAGGART, CAROL TAGGART & EILEEN MOWRY requests an Administrative Permit to Board of Trustees 5 April 19, 2023 remove existing 12 'x32 ' deteriorated wood deck attached to back of house; construct new 12 'x32 ' wood framed/composite deck in-kind, in-place with upgraded support, connectors and railings to meet current code. Located: 700 Goose Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-79-1-1 Number 5, Loretta McLean on behalf of WEST CREEK MARINA LLC requests an Administrative Permit to replace the existing face of 60"x50" sign utilizing existing posts . Located: 3350 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-110-1-12 Number 6, Loretta McLean on behalf of NEW PECONIC CUTCHOGUE HARBOR LLC requests an Administrative Permit to replace the current wooden sign with new 4 'x5 ' wooden sign utilizing existing posts . Located: 6775 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-5-29. 1 TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, Precision Design Expediting on behalf of ANDREA SPINARIS requests an Administrative Permit for the as-built 16'x40 ' wood platform (640sq. ft. ) less than 6" above finished grade; for existing 12 . 8 'x8 . 5 ' platform with 48sq. ft. hot tub, and existing gravel path; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 15 ' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the wetlands with a 4 ' wide path to water. Located: 3175 Kenney' s Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-6-26 The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is the as-built was constructed without Board of Trustee review or permit. Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection April 11th, noting the need to add a 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer on seaward side in rear, and on side yard, and add gravel path as built onto plans . We did receive new plans stamped received April 19th, 2023, that do show the 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer as well as the gravel path. Therefore, I ' ll make a motion to approve this application as submitted, and by granting it a permit will bring it into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, PETER BUJNOWSKI requests an Administrative Permit for the as-built circular staircase 416" radial, with 18 steps; and as-built outdoor shower 4 ' -5" x 6' -10" . Located: 1355 Watersedge Way, Southold. SCTM# 1000-88-5-69 Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection on April 10th, noting straightforward. The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is it was built without a Board of Trustees review or permit. I ' ll make a motion to approve this application as Board of Trustees 6 April 19, 2023 submitted, and by granting it a permit will bring it into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . VIII. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VIII, Application for Extensions, Transfers, Administrative Amendments . Again in order to simplify the meeting I ' ll make a motion to approve as a group Items 1 through 3, 8, and 10 through 13 . Number 1, DEKKA, LLC c/o CHRISTIAN BAIZ, Administrative Manager requests a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit #9895, as issued on May 19, 2021 . Located: 120 Bay Home Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-5-1 . 3 Number 2, Patricia C. Moore on behalf of KONSTANTINOS ZOITAS requests a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit #9900, as issued on May 19, 2021 . Located: 980 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-30-2-78 Number 3, En-Consultants on behalf of PECONIC RIVER, LLC requests a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit #9930, as issued on June 16, 2021 . Located: 450 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-1-18 . 1 Number 8, CATHERINE CAHILL requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #1945 from Venetia McKeighan to Catherine Cahill, as issued on May 1, 1985 . Located: 495 Bayview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-5-23 Number 10, DONALD J. SCHNEIDER & PAMELA E. SCHNEIDER request a Transfer of Wetland Permit #7212A from Estate of Cornelia Schilke to Donald J. Schneider & Pamela E. Schneider, as issued on December 16, 2009. Located: 890 Ruch Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-2-31 Number 11, En-Consultants on behalf of RONI JACOBSON & DAVID FELDMAN requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #4238 from Helen & Robert Rust to Roni Jacobson and David Feldman, as issued on October 1, 1993 and Amended on May 22, 1996, and Amended again on February 19, 1997 . Located: 4680 Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-14-36. 6 Number 12, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. , on behalf of FOUNDERS LANDING BOAT YARD LLC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8666 for the construction of a 61x34 ' fixed dock leading to a 61x56' offshore section to create an "L" in lieu of the originally approved 6'x38 ' fixed dock leading to a 61x54 ' offshore section to create an "L"; construction of a 3 'x36' fixed finger pier in lieu of the approved 4 'x42 ' fixed finger pier; construction of a 3 'x51 ' fixed finger pier in lieu of the approved 41x50' fixed finger pier; construction of two 3 'x6.0 ' fixed finger piers in lieu of the approved two 4 'x60 ' fixed finger piers; installation of 35 Board of Trustees 7 April 19, 2023 mooring pilings in lieu of the approved approximate 36 mooring pilings; installation of one offshore piling to support osprey nest; construction of a 26' jetty in lieu of the approved 30' jetty; construction of a 30 ' jetty in lieu of the approved 16' jetty; construction of a 41x23 ' walkway in lieu of the approved 4 'x34 ' walkway; installation of a 6'x20 ' floating dock; construction of steps from bulkhead leading to beach area. Current dock configuration and piling locations to remain. Located: 2700 Hobart Road & 1000 Terry Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-10 & 1000-64 . -3-11 Number 13, En-Consultants on behalf of PECONIC RIVER, LLC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #9930 for the installation of a half-bathroom in the 5 . 3 'x17 . 4 ' enclosed pool equipment structure, with attached 8 . 1 'x17 . 4 ' pergola, located atop the 1, 402sq. ft. attached pool deck; and for a 11 . 41x26' pergola located atop the 669sq. ft. Attached north deck. Located: 450 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-1-18 . 1 TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I recuse myself from number 4 due to a family relationship. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Number 4, En-Consultants on behalf of GOLDSMITH'S BOAT SHOP, INC. , requests a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit #9933, as issued on June 16, 2021 . Located: 64150 Main Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-7-1 The Trustees most recently reviewed the application for transfer on April 17th, 2023, and noted that work has not yet begun. I therefore make a motion to approve the one-year extension. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, ANDREW & ANDREA WEISBACH request a Transfer of Wetland Permit #6173 from Gail Rerisi to Andrew & Andrea Weisbach, as issued on July 20, 2005. Located: 497 Ripplewater Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-76-1-15. 3 Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection April 10th, 2023, noting that the dock does not match the permit. There is a float that was not approved. Seeing as how the dock does not match what was issued, I ' ll make a motion to deny this application to transfer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 6, ANDREW & ANDREA WEISBACH request a Transfer of Wetland Permit #8501 from Robert J. Musco to Andrew Board of Trustees 8 April 19, 2023 & Andrea Weisbach, as issued on September 17, 2014, and Amended on September 21, 2016. Located: 497 Ripplewater Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-76-1-15 . 3 Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection, April 10th, 2023, noting that the deck and the fence do not match the original permit. Seeing as how it doesn' t match, I ' ll make a motion to deny this application for transfer. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 7, ANDREW & ANDREA WEISBACH request a Transfer of Wetland Permit #5605 from Gail Rerisi to Andrew & Andrea Weisbach, as issued on August 23, 2002 . Located: 497 Ripplewater Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-76-1-15. 3 Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection April 10th, 2023, noting that the buffers and the path do not match what was permitted, so I ' ll make a motion to deny this application to transfer since what exists doesn' t match what was permitted. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 9, DONALD J. SCHNEIDER & PAMELA E. SCHNEIDER request a Transfer of Wetland Permit #65 from Isabel & Joseph Preston to Donald J. Schneider & Pamela E . Schneider, as issued on May 25, 1959. Located: 890 Ruch Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-2-31 Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection April 4th, 2023, noting that the dock does not exist on the property, so it' s a non-functioning dock. So I ' ll make a motion to deny this application to transfer since it doesn't match what was permitted. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Now number 14, Michael A. Kimack, on behalf of NEIL STRONSKI & PATTI PEREZ requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10019 for an increase in size of the permitted on-grade stone patio to 595. 7sq. ft. (Including stone steps) in lieu of the previously approved 437 . 19sq. ft. Located: 7025 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-15-10 Trustee Krupski conducted a field inspection April 16th, 2023, noting it was okay to increase the patio dimensions subject to new plans depicting that the patio be no nearer than 17 feet to the top of the bluff as shown on the approved plans. So I ' ll make a motion to approve this application as submitted, with the condition that new plans be submitted showing the patio no closer than the 17 feet from the top of the Board of Trustees 9 April 19, 2023 bluf f. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . IX. MOORINGS/STAKE & PULLEY SYSTEMS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: In order to simplify our meeting, I ' ll make a motion to approve as a group items 2 and 3 . They are listed as follows: Number 2, OLGA TZANNES-O'KEEFE requests a Mooring Permit for a mooring in Gull Pond for a 24 ' outboard, replacing Mooring #10. Access : Public Number 3, MANNY ARETAKIS requests a Mooring Permit for a mooring in Town Creek for a 19' outboard motor boat, replacing Mooring #688 . Access : Public. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, DANIEL E. KATCHER requests a Mooring Permit for a mooring in East Creek for a 20 ' outboard motor boat, replacing Mooring #10-EC. Access : Private Upon field inspection and looking at the survey of the water depth where this mooring is located, would not grant much more water depth than what they already currently have with their dock at their property. And seeing as how the moorings are for public access for those that don't have docks already, I ' ll make a motion to deny this application as submitted. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . X. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral X, Public Hearings . At this time I 'm make a motion to go off regular meeting agenda and enter into public hearings . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . This is a public hearing in the matter of the following applications for permits under the Wetlands Ordinance of the Town of Southold. I have an affidavit of publication from 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. Board of Trustees 10 April 19, 2023 AMENDMENTS: Under Amendments, number 1, BRANKO & MARGARET PEROS requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #10068 to demolish existing cottage and construct a new 14 'x22 ' one-story garage in same location. Located: 815 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-17-18 The LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support the application. The Conservation Advisory .Council does not support the amended side yard setback and increased lot coverage. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the in-kind construction only. The Trustees conducted a field inspection April 11th, 2023, noting straightforward with the exception of the shed location along the wetland edge. Is the existing shed being moved there? Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MS. PEROS: I am. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, ma' am. Please state your name and spell it, for the record. MS . PEROS: I 'm Margaret Peros, one of the owners . So we were approved, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved us for the garage. And we were advised we have to file an amendment to the Trustees permit, which we already had as well received. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, yes, ma'am. Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (No response) . Any other questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just a question about the shed. Are you moving one of the sheds? MS. PEROS,: Yes, we are removing the shed. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: You are removing it? So you are not moving it closer to the wetlands . MS . PEROS: No, totally removing it because the garage is larger and it' s going to take enough storage. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (Negative response) . Hearing no further comments, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I ' ll make a motion to approve this application as submitted with the condition the sheds be removed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . Board of Trustees 11 April 19, 2023 WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Under Wetlands and Coastal Erosion Permits, number one, P.W. Grosser Consulting Engineer & Hydrogeologist, P.C. on behalf of U. S. DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Dredge Permit for the Orient Point Harbor to allow for the continued use of the harbor for passenger and freight ferries essential to the operation of the facility; hydraulically dredge Orient Point Harbor to an over dredge depth of -17 . 63 ft. NAVDD88 or 16 feet MLW (24 ' MLW plus a 2 ' over dredge depth) ; spoils are proposed for use as beach nourishment at Orient Point County Park, as determined applicable by the grain size analysis; up to 9, 200 cubic yards of spoils is anticipated during the first maintenance dredge event with a total not to exceed 29, 000 cubic yards over ten years; activities anticipated under this permit were previously approved under NYSDEC Permit #1-4738-00158/00014 and #1-9901-00005/00011 . Located: 40550 Route 25, 41425 Route 25, Orient; and 3250 & 3380 Point Road,- Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-9-9, 1000-15-9-6. 1, 1000-16-2-1 & 1000-16-2-2 . The LWRP finds this to be consistent, however he asked that we verify the slope and deposit of spoil materials benefit the sea, wading and nesting bird habitat. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. The Trustees most recently reviewed this application on the 11th of April and noted they would discuss further at work session. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? (No response) . Any additional comments from the Board members? (No response) . After reviewing this application at work session, it was determined that it was a straightforward dredge application as is typically has a long history, standing history of doing at this site before. Hearing no additional comments, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number two, P.W. Grosser Consulting Engineer Board of Trustees 12 April 19, 2023 & Hydrogeologist, P.C. on behalf of U. S. DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY, PLUM ISLAND ANIMAL DISEASE CENTER requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Dredge Permit for the Plum Island Harbor; the dredging is needed to allow the continued use of the harbor for passenger and freight ferries essential to the operation of the facility; spoils are proposed for use as beach/dune re-nourishment and placed directly on the shoreline south of the harbor to the location known as Pine Point, as was done with the maintenance dredging performed under NYSDEC Permit #1-4738-01145/00012; an estimated yearly maintenance dredge would generate up to 4, 400 cubic yards. of spoils . Located: Plum Island, New York. SCTM# 1000-132-1-30 The Trustees reviewed the application inhouse at work session on 4/11/23 . The LWRP found the project to be consistent, expressing similar concerns to the deposition of spoil materials to benefit the sea, wading and nesting bird habitat. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection and therefore did not make a recommendation. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? (No response) . Any comments or questions from the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing none, I ' ll make a motion to close the application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : I ' ll make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 3, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of KENNETH WIEDEMAN requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to install two 6"x6" CCA timber whales on top of existing bulkhead to raise the height of bulkhead, install new 21fx8" untreated timber top cap on existing bulkhead; install new 4"x6" CCA timber vertical batter boards along seaward face of existing bulkhead spaced 6" between boards to act as a wave break; install 6' wide by 12 ' long by 12" tall stainless steel gabion baskets seaward of bulkhead for entire length to act as stone armor bedding and install rip rap sizing from 2 to 4 tons along seaward face of bulkhead to armor existing bulkhead; install 6' wide by 12 ' long by 12" tall stainless steel gabion baskets landward of existing bulkhead and fill with crushed gravel and set flush with top cap to act as a splash pad for wave action; install 40 cubic yards of clean sand fill from upland sources to fortify the new gabions and re-nourish the rear yard; in addition, remove existing asphalt and concrete driveway and Board of Trustees 13 April 19, 2023 replace with new 10 ' wide by 45 ' long concrete driveway in same location as existing. Located: 55705 North Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44-1-14 The Trustees most recently reviewed this application on April 11th, 2023, noting that the entire property should be non-turf, trench drain for driveway, and tube drains would be preferable. The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be both consistent and inconsistent. The inconsistency stems from the seaward projection of the hardened structure past the property boundary is recommended as inconsistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this application and resolved to support it. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application for the bulkhead repair as applied for. The Conservation Advisory Council recommends a permeable driveway with .drywells to the bottom to address the drainage. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. I think most of these comments were address on the proposed plans . We are providing a trench drain at end of the driveway, we are providing a trench drain adjacent to the house, on the west side of the house. A lot of storm water builds up over there so we' ll contain that in the drywell. As far as the driveway itself, there was a question on permeability. The intent of this, as you would understand, the permeable driveway would most likely be gravel . This is a really steep slope there. Putting a permeable driveway with gravel, you' ll never get out. If you've been on this, you have all been on this road. With me, I have a truck, you back into this road, you are scared to back into this street. So putting in anything that is gravel would be a safety issue. That' s why we maintain it as gravel, sorry concrete, and we also have it fully collecting the storm water into that drywell . TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Yes, we were onsite and did notice and share your concerns about the gravel driveway in that location. This new plan that you just submitted to us, is this the same as the one that was just received in the office? MR. PATANJO: Yes . I e-mailed. Unfortunately, mail is not the best thing out here in Southold, and I did it overnight it by USPS . I think my new method for that will be Federal Express, unfortunately, because it' s five times the price. So I did, you' ll probably see them tomorrow morning, but these are the same exact ones as I e-mailed to the Board. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, because I had reviewed this one and I was not sure. Then the new project description that you submitted, is that just to include the leaching pool or are there any other changes? MR. PATANJO: No, that includes the double row of gabions Board of Trustees 14 April 19, 2023 landward of the proposed bulkhead improvements . And it also includes the additional height on the bulkhead, for the added height for resistance to the wave action. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, I was trying to save myself some reading, but I will ,read the new project description into the record now. The project includes the installation of three 6"x6" CCA timber whales on top of existing bulkhead to raise the height of bulkhead to a total of 18 inches; install new 2"x8" untreated timber top cap on existing bulkhead; install new 4"x6" CCA timber vertical batter boards along seaward face of existing bulkhead, spaced six inches between boards to act as a wave break; install six-foot wide by 12-foot long by 12-foot tall stainless steel gabion baskets seaward of bulkhead for entire length to act as stone armor bedding; and install rip rap sizing from two to four tons along seaward face of bulkhead to armor existing bulkhead. Also included is the installation of a .double row of six-foot wide by 12-foot long by 12-inch tall stainless steel gabion basket, landward of existing bulkhead and fill with crushed grave and set flush with top cap to act as splash pad for wave action; install 60 cubic yards of clean sand fill from upland sources to fortify the new gabions and re-nourish the rear yard; remove existing asphalt and concrete driveway and replace with new 12-foot wide and 45-foot long concrete driveway in same location as existing; install a proposed eight-foot diameter by six-foot deep leaching pool connected to two 12-foot long trench drains to collect all driveway and site runoff. In addition, all existing improvements within the subject parcel shall be approved and permitted as as-built structures since they were constructed prior to the permit requirement. So that is the new description that we are considering. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (No response) . Any other comments or questions from the Board? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Do you have a DEC permit for this yet? MR. PATANJO: We do not. It is pending. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Just because I don' t know how they are going to feel about the seaward gabion baskets . It' s usually frowned upon. So if they change it, you would probably have to come back, if we approve this, to get an amendment. MR. PATANJO: Correct. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Anything else? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Did you discuss that this entire property should probably be non-turf? TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Oh, yes . Yes, that is something we had discussed. MR. PATANJO: My thoughts on that, from past history of these areas, is we are providing a very large non-turf buffer by way of the gabion baskets, which is going to collect any potential runoff from entering the waterway. So we are doing Board of Trustees 15 April 19, 2023 12-foot of gabion baskets, which again will have sand on top of it. 60 yards of sand. I would like the homeowners to be able to afford some sort of a lawn in the front yard. As you see on the proposed plan, there is a wood wall. Anything beyond that wood wall, which looks like it' s the zone of, the VE zone, is inherently sand. There is nothing planted behind there. We could tell you that we would be actually .amenable to providing a non-turf buffer from the midpoint of the house seaward, just to give them some sort of front lawn. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So if use the flood zone boundary? MR. PATANJO: Flood zone boundary, seaward 'of the flood zone boundary would be non-turf buffer. And we are okay with that. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, thank you. I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application with the new description that I just -read and the new plans that were received April 19th, 2023, and with the condition that the entire property seaward of the flood zones as labeled VE on this new plan, remain non-turf buffer. And by granting this a permit we will be bringing this into consistency with the LWRP. And with new plans to indicate the non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland Permits, number 1, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of MARK & ANN SCHAEFER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a proposed 4 ' wide by 78 ' long fixed dock with Thru-Flow decking; a 30" wide by 14 ' long aluminum adjustable ramp; and 6' wide by 20 ' long floating dock situated in an "L" configuration and supported by two (2) 10" diameter piles; dredge approximately 10 cubic yards of spoils from area- surrounding proposed floating dock to obtain a minimum of 36" of water at low tide and deposit spoils off-site at an approved landfill . Located: 2300 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-5 The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is the applicant fails to prove that the proposed dock meets the following requirements in Chapter 275-11, Construction and Operation Standards; whether the dock will unduly interfere with the public use of waterways, for swimming, boating, fishing, shellfishing, waterskiing and other water-dependent activities; a net loss in public use of waterways is expected due to the construction of such a structure in and on public waterways . What is the expected draft of the vessel moored at the proposed dock. Insufficient water depth could result in bottom scarring, Board of Trustees 16 April 19, 2023 turbidity and loss of marine species . The introduction of a dock structure piles will result in a net loss of shellfish habitat. And construction method has not been identified. The CAC resolved to support the application, contingent on an approval by New York State DEC. The Trustees most recently conducted an inhouse review on April 17th, 2023, noting that we did receive new plans . New plans and project description. The new plans were stamped received March 27th, 2023, that show a fixed dock with thru-flow decking. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. We do have a New.York State DEC permit for the project, based on the\ new submission. As far as this project goes, we were originally submitting for a floating dock. We changed the application to a fixed dock only, with a couple of offset piles -- sorry, tie-off piles . Pier line is adhered to with the neighboring docks in both directions . A boat is per right now proposed to be a 22-foot boat with about a 12-inch draft, which is adequate for the depth of water in this location. And it' s consistent with all neighboring properties . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Question on the tie-off piles . Chapter 275 only allows tie-off piles to secure one vessel . You have four. So we would only be able to approve two. MR. PATANJO: Understood. We can modify it to remove them. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? (Negative response) . Any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing none, I 'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I ' ll make a motion to approve this application with the plans stamped received March 27th, 2023, and the new project description that will read as follows : The project includes construction of a proposed four-foot wide by 95-foot long fixed pier with thru-flow decking, and two 10" diameter CCA tie-off piles . And by granting it a permit and making it thru-flow and a fixed dock, it will bring it into consistency with the LWRP. And new plans submitted that show only two tie-off piles . That is my motion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Number 2, Nelson, Pope, Voorhis, LLC on behalf Board of Trustees 17 April 19, 2023 of CONKLING ADVISORS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to dredge ±835 cubic yards of sediment from the marina basin inlet (±7, 250sq. ft. Or ±578 cubic yards) to a depth of -6. 0 ' below Mean Low Water (MLW) and the southerly area of the marina basin , (±3, 475sq. ft. Or ±257 cubic yards) to a depth of -4 . 0 ' below MLW; a barge will be used to dredge the seaward areas of the inlet and will be used for the placement of dredge materials onto the easterly peninsula; construct ±200 linear feet of "Double-wall" block retaining wall system to an elevation of 7 . 00 ' (NAVD 88) along the south shoreline of the easterly peninsula; removal of ±660 cubic yards of scattered concrete rip-rap along the southerly shoreline of the easterly peninsula and replacement with a ±2, 300sq. ft. Revetment constructed of locally sourced stone with a 1 . 5 ton/stone top layer and 50 pound stone base layer landward of MLW which will result in the placement of ±515 cubic yards of stone over an ±1, 700sq. ft. Area below,the plane of the spring high water line and ±145 cubic yards of stone over an approximately 600sq. ft. Area above the plane of the spring high water line; construct ±33 linear feet of Navy-style bulkhead with an 8 ' return to the east below the spring high water line to an elevation of 7 . 00 ' (NAVD 88) along the western point of the easterly peninsula to restore the upland area and functionality of the peninsula; construct ±245 linear feet of Navy-style bulkhead to an elevation of 7 . 00 ' (NAVD 88) along the northerly shoreline of the easterly peninsula; construct ±237 linear feet of low-sill bulkhead to an elevation ±0 . 33 ' (NAVD 8b) along the northerly shoreline of the easterly peninsula ±6'., seaward of and parallel to the above mentioned new bulkhead to create ±1, 375sq. ft. Of intertidal wetlands planted with Smooth Cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) along this shoreline; the created wetland area represents a 4 : 1 mitigation ratio for ±410sq. ft. Of vegetated intertidal marsh areas that will be disturbed along the western and northern shorelines of the easterly peninsula as part of this project; remove ±835 cubic yards of dredged material from the above referenced inlet and boat basin of this project ±690 cubic yards of which is to be placed between the "Double-wall" southerly block wall and the north and west bulkheads on the eastern peninsula resulting in ±35 cubic yards of fill over an ±1, 150sq. ft. Area below the plane of the spring high water line and ±655 cubic yards of fill over a ±5, 250sq. ft. Area above the plane of the spring high water line; the filled/upland area will include ±4, 200sq. ft. Of permeable (oyster shell) surface with an elevation of 8 . 00 ' (NAVD 88) to match the highest elevation of the existing peninsula grade with benches and low-profile bollard lighting (for sitting, education and viewing areas) , and ±3, 285sq. ft. Of variable width vegetative buffer areas (planted with native seaside vegetation as specified in the Mitigation Plan that is included in this application) , around the perimeter of the retained areas; and no work is proposed on the western peninsula of the Sage Basin Inlet. I Board of Trustees 18 April 19, 2023 Located: 1760 Sage Boulevard, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-57-1-38 . 3 The LWRP coordinator found this application to be both consistent and inconsistent. The consistency is with regard to the dredge permit for the dredge portion. The recommendation for this is made in consideration of marina and water-dependent use. The mitigation plan, the original mitigation plan, is recommended as inconsistent for the following reasons : Upland areas should be designated in slope and materials to support bird nesting and habitat. Intertidal areas to be restored for wildlife benefit. There is the ability to restore the beach to mimic natural conditions as part of this proposal. The south view of the eastern peninsula does not consider the interface of marine upland areas and the benefits to wildlife they deliver. The slope and material of the peninsula landform should be restored to a functional beach on the south exposure to further Policy 6 . The top elevation of revetment of the south profile versus the spring high tide elevation should be further assessed. Essentially the hardening of this area eliminates any beneficial use for marine species . The design should consider the horseshoe and lesser crab' species . They are integral food sources for many species . Prohibit the landscaping of the upland planted area and require a more natural vegetation placement. The entire land area of the peninsula should be restored with vegetation. Replacing with hardened shoreline structures is a growing concern of the Peconic estuary shoreline. The Conservation Advisory Council did not give an updated report on this application. , The Trustees most recently reviewed this application on the 11th of April and noted that it would be further reviewed at work session. Questions reclaiming as much land below the low sill bulkhead, functionality and slope, and recommends more of a gradual rip rap to try to preserve the beach. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. REINER: Good evening. Brant Reiner from Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, here on behalf of the applicant. I am also joined tonight by members of my team: Martin Finnegan, Matthew Aylward from R&M Engineering and also members from the Nelson, Pope & Voorhis team. I ' ll try and keep my comments very brief. This Board knows this project very well. It' s been under review now for over two years. We do know that there was a pause taken while we explored the DEC and other mandatory review processes, so again, I 'm going to take some time. What you see before you is just an outline of my talking points so that everybody can follow along with me as I go through this . This is a reiteration of the information that is already on, in the files, as part of the application. So, the product goals, we are seeking to stabilize the peninsula with a logical location for the dredge material. It Board of Trustees 19 April 19, 2023 makes sense. Protection of the marina and the homes that reside in the basin, by stabilizing the peninsula with creation of low sill walls to provide stabilized wetland system. Replacement of concrete rubble, which is a hazardous material right now, with a more naturalized stone to create a greater habitat, create habitat improvements along the south side of the peninsula all together. Curtailment of erosion and loss of land to the waterways . Stabilization of the inlet and the restoration of a navigable channel, and install native vegetation on top of the stabilized peninsula. Just as is going through the presentation and the talking points so that the people and the public can see it as well . Just a quick snapshot of the site conditions, looking at the short-term erosion, comparison of 2021 to 2023 shows that there are clear signs of erosion on the nose of the peninsula due to the loss of the rip rap over time, and exposure to wave energies that are coming from the systems to the south. Also we looked at a comparison of the 2021 edge of vegetation to the 2001 edge of vegetation. There is a clear distinguished erosion rate on that peninsula which shows a retreat of the vegetation and a loss of ,the nose of the peninsula. Further signs of the accelerated erosion are exposed roots on the peninsula shoreline, downed trees, which we have seen in the past two years since we have been involved in this project; the loss of the rip rap along the south side of the peninsula; and a high level of turbidity in the water surrounding the peninsula with a cloudy dark hue demonstrating erosion of the sediment that is on the peninsula. It is important to understand that there is a significant fetch that directs the prevailing winds at this peninsula. Roughly a two-and-a-half mile stretch of Shelter Island Sound is between the nearest shoreline to the south, southeast, southwest, to the peninsula does generate a lot of energies directed at the Brick Cove Marina. Just a quick snapshot of where we had been with the Trustees over time, we submitted this application July 28, 2021 . We went through a series of public hearings with the Trustees, and the Trustees asked us to take their comments, go to the DEC, and come back to them after we secured some determination from the DEC. As part of the Trustees review process, the LWRP consistency determination found this project to be consistent with the LWRP policies . The Board ultimately adopted a negative declaration from the SEQRA review process, and again, asked us to go to DEC and come back with their comments . So since November 21' and February, 2023, we spent a lot of time with the DEC vetting this project. As the Trustees are well aware, we need approvals from the Department of State for coastal consistency determination, which we have; we need an Army Corps determination, which we are in the midst of getting; Board of Trustees 20 April 19, 2023 and we also needed a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation tidal wetlands permit; excavation and fill and navigable waters approval; and a water quality certification, all of which we were able to secure. As part of the DEC review process, I would like the Trustees to be aware, as we have discussed previously, that there was a long technical review process in conjunction with the public comment review process that we had undertaken with the DEC. A couple of the technical review comments that are important to note were a clear depiction of the loss versus gain of intertidal and high marsh areas that are going to be disturbed. We demonstrated to them, to their satisfaction, how that was going to be achieved. They asked us to provide some more detail about the stone revetment that is being placed along the south shoreline. We did so, demonstrating the size, location, consistency of the stones, how it' s going to be engineered and how it is going to provide habitat. A reduction of the overall inlet dredging area to match previous maintenance dredging operations, we did that. We reduced the overall dredging of the inlet to what we believe to be consistent or fairly consistent with the previous maintenance dredging operations, although it is slightly larger than what was previously approved, and that' s just due to the use of the inlet. It' s much more frequently used than it was in the 1960s when it was created as part of this marina. They asked us to demonstrate that the dredge materials are compatible as fill on the peninsula. We were able to do that. They asked us to show the machinery access, material storage and erosion control measures that were going to be taken as part of this project. We were able to do that. They asked to us provide a description of the construction procedures . We were able to do that. As noted on the plans that are before you today and are a product of the DEC' s vetting this with us. They asked us to provide, again, sediment samples for both the dredge area in terms of chemical and consistency. We were able to do that. Again, finding it to be compatible. And they asked us to consider alternatives to both the north side bulkhead, both of the north side bulkheads to increase vegetation at the western end. We were able to accomplish the creation of more natural vegetation on the western edge of the peninsula by shrinking the overall pathway width on the top of the peninsula. So the submission in 2021 originally had dredge volumes that were much greater than what you see today. We went from 1, 226 cubic yards down to 835 cubic yards. The Sage Basin inlet area, dredge area, was reduced also to, down from 969 cubic yards to 578 cubic yards . We removed the operation of excavation from the peninsula by using only barge-mounted excavators at this time. So all work will be done from the water, again, to limit any kind of impact as much as we can to the wetlands that are going to be seaward of the area where Board of Trustees 21 April 19, 2023 we' ll be working. A couple of the shoreline permits that were reduced in size were the overall area of the oyster shell path on the top of the peninsula has again been reduced to create a greater native vegetation pallet on the top of the peninsula. We were able to provide an additional 500 square feet of native buffer area as part of the DEC review. And again, we were able to reduce the overall cubic- yardage of dredge material to keep\ it all on to the peninsula with a slight regrading into the parking lot. The rest of the project has remained unchanged. I don' t need to go through that. The Board has all that in front of them. A quick summary of the existing site conditions -- TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I hate to cut you off. Can you wrap it up, There' s a lot of people here. We have to give them equal time. MR. REINER: Okay. So, I would like to say that the mitigation plans .sort of speak for themselves . They show a 4 : 1 mitigation ratio on the peninsula as part of the wetlands recreation, and we are providing additional native vegetation from what the Board had seen in 2021 . This project is necessary for navigation, to maintain the historic marina here and support the local recreational and commercial boating facility. With that being said, I ' ll be finished. Thank you, for your time. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just one point of clarification. In the previous submission what was the width of the path at the top versus what it is now? MR. REINER: I believe the width was the same. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay. Because I just thought I heard you say it was reduced. MR. REINER: At the nose of the peninsula, the path was much bigger, and they've taken that and narrowed it down and shortened the overall pathway as well. It provided a lot more native vegetation than there was. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay. Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Would anyone else like to comment? Please state and spell your name for the record before you speak. MR. FLOTTERON: Thank you, I'm Steve Flotteron, 7 Sage Boulevard, Greenport. For full disclosure, I am a Suffolk County Legislator, but I 'm not here under that capacity at all . I 'm only here under the capacity of being a homeowner. I 'm in support of the marina dredging the channel and repairing the peninsula, but I 'm against the present design. Why do they need to reclaim so much land? Why bulkheading? Why additional hardening of the shoreline? It interrupts natural shoreline processes . It reduces nursery habitat for marine species. A rip rap shoreline is much more effective at preventing shoreline erosion than bulkheading. The use of soft shoreline for stabilization is to let natural shoreline processes to occur. So it ' s more important to have rip Board of Trustees 22 April 19, 2023 rap there. On the peninsula, why are they removing all the natural plantings to build a 15-foot road, it looks like; removing natural cedar trees that have been there for years . Why can't we restore some of that and preserve that natural plantings instead of making a 15-foot road. In the long run, this is a marina. It' s not a park. There is a pathway there. And I started looking up, maybe they want to put something there to be more ADA compliant. Well, to be ADA compliant, you need three feet and you need different material. This is not \for that. There are other guises of 'what they are trying to build there on that piece of property. Where it' s supposed to just be natural plantings to protect their marina, and which we are very supportive of because of non-conforming uses, that' s been there, it' s been there for decades. And I want them to be very successful. But I think there' s other plans . So again, why a 15-foot road? If you start measuring that out, it' s something like 40 cars can park in there, if you put them all in there, if you wanted to lease it out. This is a marina, you go there to dock boats, you go there to fix boats„ you go there to get a boat painted or anything else, boating repairs . But that is not what the intention is, it feels like. So there is something more to the design. Why were we misguided with the first design to ,grow their footprint, hoping, just like this peninsula, they were hoping the Trustees wouldn' t notice is what they were trying to do on the west side, where they where they were claiming they need to fix this, and there was going to be a boat launch there and other things, which was on state land. Why is that? Why is -- do they have permission, I know they have plans to now move osprey nests or something. Do they have permission to move that to another piece of property that they don' t own? Because I read somewhere they were trying to put it on state land. Is there any approvals for that? I don' t know. So really the question, so, again, I 'm in support of them being a very successful marina, and I hope that they are. But it just seems like their intentions are more than that that' s in this application, and that' s why they are growing the width of the peninsula and the useable space. And you have to really ask some of those questions, why, what' s the need of the 15-foot road. And I think the true colors of that, just go to their website. The website has really nothing -- I can' t find if I can get the bottom of my boat painted, but I can- find I can get face paintings done there. I could get beer trucks, I could get tennis lessons . There is nothing about really a marina. There' s like one bullet. You have ,wedding venues, great place for a wedding. So this is not really designed -- the marina is now an afterthought. And again you can see from the personal marking, I know that' s not what you are here to see, but there' s a lot more Board of Trustees 23 April 19, 2023 questions of why is the design growing to more than a repair of getting into the dock. They are pushing the envelopes of making it another event where limos would be coming, and everything else, and it' s also, one of the things they are going in that direction, before I was even thinking of that, is when you pull out of our private street, Sage Boulevard, it' s over the hill, over the train tracks . Can limos make that left turn? Right now this is becoming more and more of a Boardy Barn North. And that' s what their plans are. And again, you have to look at why they need a 15-foot road on that peninsula and taking down those mature, natural trees that are there. Let' s fix the rip rap that needs to be there. Help them dredge it, and that' s it. It' s not growing the footprint. Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. MR. COLE: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Dennis Cole. I reside at 655 Albacore Drive in Southold. I 'm the President of the Southold Shores Association, which is the homeowners association for the Southold Shores community, situated just west of the Brick Cove Marina. I 'm here to tell you that our community supports this project. Ours is a boating community. We share an inlet from the bay to the cove, to our boat basin and canal, with the Brick Cove Marina. And they have in past years as a good neighbor, maintained it, put out the channel markers . And we see that area now, and I go through there all the time, that rip rap falling down into it. It' s in need of dredging, it ' s in need of stabilization. They are going to do it and we appreciate the fact that that is going to be done, that they are willing to make the investment necessary to stabilize that peninsula for our benefit as well as their own. I have here a letter from also from the Southold Shores Boat Basin, Inc. , that was mailed to you on the 14th of April . I don' t know if you received it, but if you have not, I would like to bring it forward. Do you have it? TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Yes . TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes . MR. COLE: Thank you. In short, our community takes a bit of an opposite view from our eastern neighbors . We would like to see this happen for our benefit. As far as that western peninsula is concerned, I guess the state owns it now, but you may be aware there' s a rotting steel bulkhead over there, we would love to see it replaced, but I guess we' ll have to ask the state about that. Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. And I think it' s worth noting that we have received many letters on this application and we have read them. So, thank you. MS. BARRON: Good evening, my name is Megan Barron and I live in Board of Trustees 24 April 19, 2023 Greenport. I have written a lot and spoken at previous hearings about this application and I appreciate your listening to tonight' s comments . First, I would like to congratulate of the Goldsmith family on their 100th anniversary of running a marina out here in Southold. It' s pretty awesome. As to the Conkling LLC application, I 'm surprised that it is so similar in many ways to the plans they submitted twice before, leaving on many things that the Trustees suggested that they change or remove all together. And above all, what they say they are doing and what their plans actually ask for are two different things . A high-walled park is not protecting the marina entrance, and installing a ton of hard-scaping is not good for our wetlands. We all know what happens when people build walls along the shore. How do we know? Because we see the direct results over and over again. You lose tidal marshlands . You lose your beach. There is a reason there used to be a beach along Brick Cove' s peninsula and there isn't one now. A previous owner put all that concrete there sometime after 1994, per aerial maps . As soon as you walk away from that shoreline, from the shoreline with this concrete, a healthy beach appears. And it' s not magic. It' s simply coastal science. So we already know that if the applicant is allowed to put walls up, the low marshland will disappear. And quickly. We know this 1000 . It' s often when environmental alternatives are suggested you hear, oh, that won' t work. But how can we possibly know that when nothing like that has ever been attempted at this spot. The application leads from doing nothing at all to heavy armoring of all sides of the peninsula. I can't even guess how much that would cost. So why not consider a smarter, much smaller scaled solution first. We can' t keep making promises on paper about no new bulkheading in Peconic Bay without committing to it in practice. And just for the record, I 've never opposed dredging the channel for navigation and safety. Brick Cove boat owners deserve that, and they could have had that three years ago if this application didn' t attach the request for dredging to a larger plan that included land that they didn' t own and the serious flaws that many speakers here are going to address tonight or have addressed at other hearings . It' s meaningful that ordinary, unpaid citizens take the time to learn about Town Code and how to read site plans as- well as do what I managed to avoid all through high school : Give a public speech. It means something is not right. Again, Trustees, I thank you all for considering all the comments tonight. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you. Board of Trustees 25 April 19, 2023 TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. MS. HARTNAGEL: Good evening, my name is Jenn Hartnagel and I 'm speaking on behalf of the Group For The East End. For the record, if you are not familiar, Group For The East End is an environmental, non-profit advocacy and educational organization. We have been around since 1972, and we serve our membership throughout the five east end towns. The group weighed in on this application at the last public hearing and we expressed a number of concerns, and at that time we took issue with the Trustees granting a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA. We actually asked you to rescind that negative declaration and consider a narrowly scoped draft environmental impact statement given the size and scope of this project. The short form environmental assessment form that is in the file concluded that the proposed action would have little to no impact, and we disagreed with this assessment in a number of areas. And we are still concerned with some of these issues today. One is the wiping out and replacement of an entire wetland marsh habitat which provides vital habitat within the Peconic estuary system. And the second is, as mentioned previously, the shore hardening aspects of this proposal and the fact they are in direct material conflict with a number of goals and recommendations of adopted plans: the Town of Southold comprehensive plan that was adopted in 2020; the Town of Southold LWRP, which was read; the consistency review earlier, which speaks volumes; and lastly the Peconic estuary program' s 2020 comprehensive conservation management plan. Every single one of these plans discusses the deleterious effects of shore hardening, and at the very lease recommends the examination of alternatives before they are permitted. The PEP actually has a goal of no net increase in shore hardening. These issues were brushed off on the environmental assessment form in this review. And in fact in the environmental assessment form, the question regarding the application' s consistency with our adopted plans was left blank. So at this time we are still asking the Trustees to reconcile this material conflict with these adoptive plans. The DEC may have granted this permit, I 'm going to leave it at that. They grant a lot of permits . But we have you, the Trustees, who have the authority to apply your standards on a very local level, and uphold the Town Code. We are not asking you to deny the applicant the right to operate the marina and dredge and provide safe navigation, but we are asking you to closely examine the necessity of armoring that entire shoreline and the potential impacts that will cause to the Peconic estuary system and the entire natural shoreline eastward of this property. So please take these under serious consideration. Board of Trustees 26 April 19, 2023 I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight, and we' ll submit written comments to. the record. Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. MR. NELSON: Diane Nelson, I live at 24 Sage Boulevard in Greenport. I just want to reiterate that the Peconic estuary program and Town of Southold' s joint goal of limiting the hardening of shorelines in our area. Hardening of shorelines in one area of the bay affects adjacent shorelines and other areas as well. Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. MS . LINDLEY: My name is Carol Lindley and I 'm going to be reading a letter that was prepared by Mary Dowd, a resident of Breezy Shores as she was unable to be here tonight. Thank you, for the opportunity to speak and submit letters during the public comment period regarding the pending 'Conkling Advisors application. To be clear, I understand and agree that from time to time routine maintenance dredging is necessary to maintain a navigable, commercial marina. However, the scope of the proposed project laid out- in a lengthy application, goes for beyond routine maintenance dredging. I object to several points in the application but the applicant' s reason for wanting to harden the natural shoreline of the eastern peninsula for the very first time, with a 245 linear-foot Navy-style bulkhead to protect it from further erosion is simply not true. Fortunately, historical aerial photos that document land and specifically shorelines over time, are available for reference. Contrary to the applicant' s stated reason to armor the eastern peninsula to protect it from erosion, the attached historical aerial photos dating from 1994 to the present, show that in fact the footprint of the peninsula and the marshland has actually fared quite well over the past 30 years . The mature vegetation has become well established and it now supports and maintains the footprint of the peninsula, naturally, even with recent increased storm activity. Please take the time to examine the enclosed aerial photos, and I ' ll provide them to you. Photographic timeline provides proof that the eastern peninsula is a thriving, natural shoreline. Once it' s established that the eastern peninsula footprint and marshland are maintained naturally, it calls into question the applicant' s true motive behind armoring the peninsula. In 1995, Howard Zaner, the former owner of Brick Cove Marina, dumped concrete slabs illegally without a permit along the shoreline of the eastern peninsula. Please reference the 1994 GIS aerial color photo taken prior to the dumping. A GIS surveyor explained that when the photo is enlarged, it becomes clear that there was no concrete slabs along the Board of Trustees 27 April 19, 2023 eastern peninsula shoreline because there are no shadows or colored pixels from the concrete. Only a white, sandy beach. The field of randomly positioned concrete slabs is not a revetment and does ; not justify the construction of a 2, 300 square-foot double-layer stone revetment. The hardening of the established natural shoreline of the eastern peninsula, with 245 linear feet of double-walled, Navy- style bulkheading it particularly concerning because the applicant proposes armoring the full eastern peninsula under the guise of environmental stewardship. Trustees, please take a close look at the application submitted and see it for what it truly is: An attempt to expand the physical footprint of Brick Cove Marina property and its existing marina into a park and entertainment venue. Clearly, there are scientifically proven alternatives to the proposed mass of construction and armoring of the peninsula that will no doubt negatively impact and' erode the property of adjacent neighbors . The owners of Brick Cove Marina claim to be environmental stewards, however, the sheer scope of the proposed and expansive project is the antithesis . Actions speak louder than words, so why not hold the applicants accountable and ask them pertinent questions regarding the scope of the project. I encourage the applicants to stand behind their claim of wanting to "enhance the ecology of the wetlands" by enlisting ecologically sound alternatives to their proposed plan. Fortunately there several available and experienced experts today who specialize in shoreline and wetland restoration, and they are eager to assist applicants in implementing environmentally conscious, less costly and effective alternatives to hardening natural resources . For these and other reasons, I respectfully request that you deny approving the pending application. Thank you, for your service. Sincerely, Mary Dowd. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you. I would also like to just state for the record, the Trustees are in receipt of a great number of letters which have all been reviewed by the Board and part of the official public record. So if anyone is reading off letters that have already been submitted, it' s not necessary, they are already part of the public record. Is there anyone else that wishes to speaks regarding this application? (UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER) : Good evening. In fairness, I just want to indicate I 'm part of the Brick Cove team and just -- TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Excuse me, sir, can you please state your name for the record. MR. VOORHIS: Charles Voorhis, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, and we have been very much involved with the design, the application and the DEC permitting. I do want to thank the Trustees for their devoted service and the extensive review that this has undergone . I know you Board of Trustees 28 April 19, 2023 have been in the field a number of times. I was at some of the earlier hearings, and you have really shown a tremendous commitment to the resources of the Town. I also want to acknowledge the team that we have that put together the plans . The application. And put a little bit of a face on it. Matt Aylward is here. He is from R&M Engineering and has 23 years of experience, science and engineering degrees, and licensed professional engineering; tremendous experience in waterfront projects . And he' s backed up by Chris Robinson with 36 years of experience, civil engineer and coastal project design. Brant Reiner, who spoke before, with NPV, 19 years of experience, environmental science degree, wetlands permitting and coastal processes; and you probably know me and some of my background, and maybe not all of it. But I have about 45 years of experience, environmental geology, environmental engineering, coastal process education, and something you may enjoy hearing is I have a US Coast Guard captain' s license for 100-ton near coastal, with an auxiliary sale endorsement. So we do have a tremendous team, we put a lot together here. And again, it' s been extensively reviewed. But there is a science and engineering basis for the design. And first and foremost, and many recognize and you know as well, there needs to be some dredging accomplished. That is really the main purpose of this project. Protection of the marina is also very important. And you have a figure, I think it is slide number five, that talks about the 2 . 4 miles of fetch to the southwest. And when wind gets coming out of the prevailing direction, you can really get some tremendous energy. So we are looking to fortify that east peninsula. We also recognize that soft measures are effective in a number of areas . And we propose them and analyze them, and agree with them. But you've got some extreme erosion, and, you know, I ' ll just call your attention to slide #5, which is part of the package that is handed out, that shows what the end of the peninsula looks like at this time. The erosion, it shows the turbidity of the water and it shows the loss of land' and vegetation. And these are really important things that we were asked to try and address and help to stabilize. So, using, the eastern peninsula for the dredged material made a lot of sense to us . Where is the material going to go? It, you know, there is a number of controversies in disposal of dredge materials, and we felt in utilizing that to, and I ' ll use the word reclaim, some of the areas that have been lost, made a lot of sense. So the south face, and there were some characterizations that are not completely accurate with the current plans, but we are looking, as we said, to remove the rubble, establish natural stone, and these types of revetments do provide habitats. There is no question about it. They also dissipate wave energy. They' ll Board of Trustees 29 April 19, 2023 accumulate sediment. And they will, as I said, dissipate that energy. Stabilizing the inlet at the west end is the shortest space of the project, but it faces an inlet. And we recognize in other cases where there is extreme erosion that such shoreline structures are warranted. And we feel it is in this case. It' s not a bay, it' s not a creek. It' s an inlet. It' s an active inlet. There is boat wake as well as that southwest fetch. The north face stabilizes the shoreline, just in terms of establishing wetlands, and this was a big part of the DEC' s approval, and I know you voiced some concerns about low sill bulkheading and the ability to establish vegetative growth. We feel that this is a perfect location, especially with the fortification and replacement of the peninsula itself. The project overall eliminates the ongoing erosion, you can see the turbidity in the water, and you can see the loss of land. It' s evident, we have slides in the package that you have. And we are establishing extensive plantings on, the east peninsula, upland of the shoreline work. I know that some of your comments, and some that I 've heard from the public, seem to me to address a smaller project. Reduce the scale. I have not really heard reasons offered as to why that' s necessary to still achieve the- goals of the project as I 've outlined, and considering the very harsh environment we are talking about here. So shortening the peninsula leaves greater exposure to Sage Basin. That is a great concern. Changing the south face, where we are in line with the existing concrete rubble, is, I just don' t see how that is going to accomplish the erosion protection, the dissipation,.of wave energy, the ability to accommodate the dredged material and provide a fortified east peninsula. The north face is next to a marina. There are boats slips immediately adjacent to this structure. If you walk that shoreline, I know you have been there, that north face experiences tremendous erosion. And if the vegetation that is there has not been lost yet, it will be if nothing is done. And so we believe that we have addressed each of those areas, designed this to receive the material from the dredging. We know that severe coastal storms are not getting less severe and they are not getting less frequent. So we really feel that there is a tremendous need to be thinking about this as a restoration and an erosion protection project. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Excuse me; Mr. Voorhis, I 'm sorry to interrupt you. But we have already heard from members of your organization and we are getting a lot of redundant testimony. MR. VOORHIS: Understood. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : So we really need to limit the 'length of comments . MR. VOORHIS: Well, the primary comments that I wanted to bring to your attention, that we have looked at alternatives, we feel Board of Trustees 30 April 19, 2023 it is a thoughtful design. We have a very strong team. And we've met your requests to obtain DEC permits, which you know. So those were the key remarks I wanted to make. I appreciate your time and thank you for getting the hook on me. Good to see you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you. Good to see you as well. MR. HORTON: Good evening, your Honor. MS . HULSE: Hello. MR. HORTON: Good evening, members of the Board of Trustees . Thank you, for your service and your time. I don't envy you. It' s a grueling job. You have a lot to think about, and you' ll be here quite a while tonight. I ' ll be leaving after this public hearing. My name is Josh Horton, resident of the north fork, Cutchogue; singer/sailor/songwriter, and I 've spent the day building a bulkhead. I keep a boat at Brick Cove Marina. I 'm also familiar with the peninsula we are speaking about, the channel and the beach. I 'm familiar with it, not just in recent years but all me blooming life, so to speak. The -- Chip, Charles Voorhis, (inaudible) he mentioned that on the western tip of the peninsula, there being rubble . It' s not rubble. It' s shoreline hardening garbage. It needs to be removed, and that shoreline secured. Without question. And the low sill bulkhead, as the Trustees have effectively required, have done their job that providing enhancement for re-vegetation. Without question. They are very effective. We are not talking about building six groins along a thousand foot of bulkhead. We are talking about securing a shoreline, and what I have observed and, you know, extensively reviewed, actually, and in a really responsible way, and far be it for this Board to spin its wheels or waste its time thinking about suspicious activity that might be in the future. It' s not in anybody' s purview. And that is not what we are talking about and that' s not what is going on. We need to dredge the channel and secure the shoreline, in a responsible way that is environmentally conscious, or conscientious. And the vegetation that is there, I mean, well established? No. It' s not. It gets the hell kicked out of it. You can kick trees over if you want to. They are not trees . They are little guys . After all these years . You know, because ,of the, you know, prevailing southwest breeze and what has happened to the shoreline over the years . So you' don' t have lush vegetation that ,has strengthened or enhanced or fortified the shoreline whatsoever. You don't have a chance that happened. I think the proposal is a responsible one and I think that the placement of the dredge spoils where it is proposed is responsible, and there is precedent for it. So I would like thank you for your time, and God speed and good luck. Board of Trustees 31 April 19, 2023 TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: As somebody who also has my 100-ton near coastal masters captain' s license, I just wanted to say that there has been no dispute about the need for dredging here. I think both sides have agreed dredging does need to occur. So this is an M-2 zoned area, there is good precedent for it, and perhaps we can move on from the dredging part of this conversation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Are there any additional comments from the public or members of the Board? (No response) . It should be noted that the Trustees have been working on this project for several years now, and the new Board, at the very least, several months . I would also just like to pause the conversation for a moment. Typically when we have hearings of this manner, everyone files out into the lobby and begins their own conversation. So after the motion is ' made, please exit the building before stopping to talk to your friends and neighbors . We appreciate that. Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I make a motion to approve this application subject to new plans to depict moving of the interior upper retaining wall five feet landward to be naturally sloped and graded, and planted with Spartina and other native-appropriate vegetation; moving all currently requested vegetation five feet landward of new wall location; move the end of the peninsula on the channel end 15 feet landward and armor with rock revetment to mitigate wave action; double the number of proposed cedar trees and native vegetation to be proposed along the top of the peninsula; to remove all lighting from this application; replace the osprey pole on said peninsula; along entirety of peninsula, to be vegetated roughly equally on both sides, approximately 12 . 5 feet, non turf buffer vegetated, with an eight-foot walking path to be sand and/or non-turf, thereby bringing into consistency with the LWRP coordinator. That is my motion. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Aye. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Aye. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I 'm going to say nay. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Number 3, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of SHLOMO & ALICE WEINBERG requests a Wetland Permit to expand the existing deck (732sq. ft. ) By 1, 151sq. ft. (1, 883sq. ft. Total) ; install a 4 'x6' staircase with locking gate and 4 'x4 ' Board of Trustees 32 April 19, 2023 platform along the southerly side of the proposed deck; install a railing around the perimeter of the proposed deck to serve as a code compliant pool barrier; within the proposed deck install a 121x8 ' spa and 121x30 ' swimming pool; install an 8 ' diameter by 4 ' deep drywell for pool backwash; and install a 4 'x8 ' pool equipment area. Located: 1425 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-116-7-6 The Trustees most recently visited the site at our last field inspection on 3/7/23, having reviewed the plans inhouse, at our work session on 4/11/23. The Local Waterfront Revitalization Program found the project to be consistent, and provided that the following three conditions be taken into consideration: Number one, Wetlands . The wetland permit 5040 requires a 20-foot wide non-turf buffer on the parcel in 1999. Number two, establish the buffer as a vegetated buffer retaining the large trees onsite. And, three, require that the buffer be shown and labeled on the plans and memorialized in a covenant and restriction. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. Is there anyone here that will speak regarding the application? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Robert Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, _bn behalf of the applicant. I would like to ask that we table this matter for next month' s hearing. As I discussed with the homeowner on site, we would like to find a different approach and increase our setbacks to the wetlands . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Is there anyone else who wishes to speak regarding this application? TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just the other comment would be just to include the four-foot pathway to the dock in whatever plan that you submit now. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sir? MR. WEINBERG: Hi . My name is Shlomo Weinberg, one of the owners of the property. My wife is the other owner. So from what I understand, the current plan as is, adhere to all the codes and everything. So is there an issue that will prevent the approval of this committee for the plan as is? TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : That ' s your question? MR. WEINBERG: Yes . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Okay. As we were discussing this at work session, we were looking at the size of the deck, the proposed deck, the pool and the spa, and then we looked at the size of the house and said these are roughly equal in their square footage. So it' s a very large deck, which is fine, provided that there is a sufficient vegetated buffer between the deck, the pool proposal and the wetlands . I understand there is quite a vegetated buffer there. My question to Mr. Anderson this evening would have gone along the lines of has that been established as a covenant- and Board of Trustees 33 April 19, 2023 restriction as part of the property that runs with the land, to preserve that shrubbery and trees and that vegetated area and perhaps to increase it by about ten feet to give you a nice 60-foot buffer. Other than that, as one Trustee, I didn't see any other issues with the proposal. Does that answer your question, sir? MR. WEINBERG: Um, because as far as I know, we have all the distance and everything. If we have to add more vegetation, that is, it' s not an issue for us at all . We love vegetation. Trees and everything. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : The Trustees consider additional vegetation, like I mentioned the ten-foot number, I think, to add to that. Or 15-foot. And you could also do a non-turf buffer landward of the existing vegetated buffer. So a non-turf buffer refers to anything other than, sod, grass. It could be sand, it could be mulch. It could be plants . As long as it' s not grass . MR. ANDERSON: If I may clarify, the original permit from 1999, that required a 20-foot buffer and we have since added 30-feet on to that with the current plans in front of you. I wanted to clarify that for the record. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Okay. MR. ANDERSON: Are you asking for an additional increase of 15 feet from that 50-foot buffer then? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : That ' s correct. I think the idea was that as we are increasing, you know, the structure on that small creek there, it would be appropriate to add to the buffer, you know, substantially. MR. ANDERSON: Understood. If we were to continue with our plan of reducing the overall structure, the setback, would that -- I rescind my comment. Excuse me. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : You being the owner of the property and hearing the Board' s comments, do you wish to pursue Mr. Anderson' s request to table the application and consider it, or proceed with our suggestion of adding ten feet, 15 feet to the current buffer and moving forward with the Board' s motion this evening? MR. WEINBERG: Well, if we can get the approval this evening then tell me what to add, in terms of vegetation, and we' ll do it. It' s that, we' ll be happy do it. That' s not -- so. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Okay. Any other comments from Mr. Anderson, Mr. Weinberg, members of the Board? TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: This is such a beautifully vegetated property, as you said, you love trees and plants, which is great. We just would not want to see any trees removed as part of this project. It doesn't seem you need to in this area, but I just wanted to make sure we mentioned that. MR. WEINBERG: Done. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Okay, hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? Board of Trustees 34 April 19, 2023 (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : I make a motion to approve the application with the conditions that the 50-foot non-disturbance buffer be filed as covenant and restriction, and adding to that a 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer landward of the non-disturbance buffer, with a four-foot wide access path going through the buffers to access your dock; and per Trustee Gillooly' s comments to that no trees be removed in the construction of the proposed pool deck and spa. And new plans showing these conditions thereby bringing this project into consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . MR. WEINBERG: So we got it? TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes. The maneuvering is -- thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I ' ll make a motion to take a five-minute recess . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second. (After a recess these proceedings continue as follows) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We are officially back on the record. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 4, PABLO PEG, LLC, c/o PAUL MAY requests a Wetland Permit for the existing ±1, 895sq. ft. two-story dwelling with a 30sq. ft. Front porch; as-built 431sq. ft. seaward side screen porch; as-built 236sq. ft. Deck and 263sq. ft. deck on seaward side of dwelling. Located: 375 Reydon Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-79-5-23 . 1 The Trustees most recently visited the site -- we most recently conducted an inhouse review on ,April 11th, noting that we will look over the plans at work session. The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be inconsistent. The as-built structure was conducted without Board of Trustee review or permit. And the Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this application, and resolved to support the application with the installation of gutters, leaders and drywells to contain the storm water runoff. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. MAY: Good evening, I am Paul May, along with my wife Margaret or Peg. We are the owners of Pablo Peg LLC. Members, I guess, is the correct term. I 'm here to address any issues or questions that you have. And I did receive today, I think it was delayed because of a mis-addressed letter from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. If you need to see it, I can give you the copy that I have, or I can send it to you, whichever you prefer. I believe you probably received it also. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you. Board of Trustees 35 April 19, 2023 TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. So in review of this application, we have spoken about the possibility of ;a non-turf buffer at the top of the slope extending landward until the, if you have the survey before you, it' s about the 13-foot contour line is where we would like to see so -- oh, has it already been done? (Perusing) . Okay, so the only difference that we are looking for in order to move forward with this application is the stamped survey that we have on file depicts the non-turf buffer that I was just describing already, which is good. However it also depicts the proposed pool and patio which have not yet fully completed the Trustee process . I know there is an application in. But in order for us to move forward with this application, we would need to see a stamped survey removing those two items as they are not "part of this application. MR. MAY: Okay, the proposed pool has been moved, I guess it ' s not showing there, but I would ask that you rule on this motion conditional on those plans being submitted so I don' t have to sit through another hour-and-a-half of this, I 've enjoyed it immensely, and I want to thank you for your service. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Once is enough. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you, very much. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (Negative response) . Any other thoughts or comments from the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing none, I ' ll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make motion to approve this application with new plans to depict a non-turf buffer from the 13-foot contour line -- sorry, non-disturbance buffer from the 13-foot contour line -- and new plans to show no pool and/or patio that have not yet been approved. And by issuing a permit we will be bringing this into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc. on behalf of DOMELUCA, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a sod revetment wall with a 410" maximum height and 230 linear feet total length with steps to ground. Located: 14909 Route 25, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-23-1-2 . 8 The Trustees conducted a field inspection April. 11th, stating further review during work session, questioning what is a sod revetment retaining wall. The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is the proposed deer fencing at the wetland boundary adversely impacts the beneficial use of the upland wetland ecotone by Board of Trustees 36 April 19, 2023 wildlife which depend on the adjacent habitat for food and cover. It is recommended that the deer fence be moved to the hundred-foot setback line or denied. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with non-toxic materials that do not degrade over time. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MR. WALKER: Jim Walker, from Inter-Science. I promised Lisa one minute. So if I go too long, cut me off. The sod revetment is a recycled athletic field. They take the turf up and they store it, and then people like this use it as a wall. And on Domeluca it' s proposed around the new swimming pool. The new swimming pool has already been approved. Sod revetment is stacked up layers of recycled turf. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Was there a set in the field already right by the pool? Is that what we observed? MR. WALKER: Yes, it ' s like a model. That' s what the property owner wanted. And for the Board' s recollection, I been in front of this Board a whole bunch of times, and all the projects that Domeluca and Domeluca II and Treasurer Island LLC have been approved for are underway. And that deer fence is there. Summer Hill Landscape is doing the work and they are restoring the bluff. So all that work is there. And I believe the deer fence has a time limit on it. So the deer fence will be removed as soon as the plantings are installed, which they are being installed right now. And when they are established a little bit, they' ll be taken out. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. I believe you are correct, on the previous application, there was a condition for removal. I forget if it' s after one year or two years, but that ' s the previous application. MR. WALKER: I forget most things about those projects, hopefully. In any case, a sod revetment is pretty simple, but when it came into my office, I go, what is this. Another nightmare from a landscape architect. But it' s really simple and it has to go to the Building Department as well, and it' s going to be used as a pool fence but it ' s grass. And it' s just four feet up and flat on top. So far all the building permits are in place and we are still doing good with all the projects that I came in front of this Board for. Elizabeth knows how many times I have been here for Domeluca and Domeluca II . I have a similar, one-minute presentation for Domeluca II . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : So the sod revetment along the pool, some of that is non-jurisdictional. MR. WALKER: For you, yes. It may be non-jurisdictional for the Building Department, too. But Nancy Dwyer will review that once we are done with the Board of Trustees . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And as Trustee Sepenoski said, this is, I Board of Trustees 37 April 19, 2023 think almost entirely outside of our jurisdiction, but just out of curiosity, since this a new term, what is the material? Because you were saying it' s grass, it' s sod? TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is it Astro-turf? MR. WALKER: You've seen a truck full of DeLalio sod going down, it' s the same thing. It ' s just recycled from old facilities, they save the sod, they use it for people like this, and that school gets a new baseball field or something like that. So it' s recycled material, and it is grass. And it holds up. It stays vertical really well. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Great, thank you. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : So that addresses the concern of the LWRP, it sounds like, because it' s natural grass . MR. WALKER: I spoke to the Conservation Advisory Council people. The LWRP did not call me, otherwise I would have told them the same thing I just told the Board. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (Negative response) . Any other questions for 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 GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted, noting that the deer fence will be removed in accordance with the prior permit, thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Number 6, Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc. on behalf of DOMELUCA II, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a sod face revetment with a 219" maximum height and 150 linear feet long at proposed concrete bench, natural turf reinstatement, horticultural soil and upturned natural turf; construct a concrete bench with an effective height of 1 ' 3" and 15 ' in length at proposed sod face revetment with a 2 ' 0" foot rest, and 410"smooth surface customized concrete seating; and a proposed 4 ' wide gravel path that meanders through the property. Located: 14895 Route 25, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-23-1-2 . 10 The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. As with the prior application, the inconsistencies have to do with the deer fencing. It should be noted for the record the deer fencing was part of a prior permit and is set to be removed one year, I believe one year after the plants are establish, are planted and established. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with non-toxic materials that do not degrade over time. Board of Trustees 38 April 19, 2023 The Board of Trustees visited the site on April 11th and noted that they would review further at work session and look for clarity on what exactly a turf wall was, which we have heard now that it' s a natural stacking of reused, actual living sod. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MR. WALKER: Jim Walker, from Inter-Science. The second one is even simpler. The sod-faced revetment is two-feet tall and it supports the uphill side of some paths that go to a concrete bench. That' s it, unless you have other questions. I promised Lisa two minutes total. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you. Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this application? (Negative response) . Or any additional comments from the members of the Board? (No response) . Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I make a motion to approve this application, noting that the deer fencing is part of a prior application on this property and will be removed a year after the plants are established, thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP coordinator. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . MR. WALKER: Thank you. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Have a good evening. Number 7, 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 indludes 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, 889sq. 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 Board of Trustees 39 April 19, 2023 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; 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 area; 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 Trustees recently visited the site on our field inspection April 11th, 2023. Notes from that field inspection read: Question retaining walls and fill, project is not staked, pull house back to 100 foot, preserve existing trees . The LWRP coordinator found the project to be consistent, with the recommendation that the 15-foot wide non-turf buffer and 25-foot setback for heavy machinery and an IA/OWTS system be conditioned, and also note that wetland permit 9924 issued in 2021, required a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer from the top of the bluff. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support the application, for the following reasons : The proposed structure are not compliant with the setbacks from Chapter 275 and should be located more than 100 feet from the top of the bluff. Is there anyone here to speak regarding the application? MS. POYER: Lisa Poyer, Twin Forks Permits, on behalf of the owners who are here in the audience. So the information I just submitted to you now, one plan is showing the current proposed house at 90 feet in relation to the prior approval that was issued by Trustees in 2019, as well as again in 2021 . Just to let you know, the application has been before the Zoning Board of Appeals and did receive a current ZBA approval. I believe you have that in your record as well. And that shows the proposed house at the 90-foot setback. The reason I submit to you the prior approval is just showing the fact that the Trustees back in 2019 as well as 2021, approved the house and a swimming pool on this property with setbacks that were 75 feet from the bluff to the residence, where we are proposing 90 feet; and the pool decking was at 70 feet, and the pool itself at 80 feet, where our decking is being proposed at 76.5 feet. In comparison to that plan, that approval showed a ten-foot wide buffer. We are showing a 15-foot wide buffer on the property. We have a DEC non-jurisdiction letter; and we have designed the driveway, as you can see, to kind of meander around and to work with those three big trees that are on the street-side of the property. The owners bought the property, one of the reasons why they Board of Trustees 40 April 19, 2023 purchased this lot was because of those trees . They want to keep them. I did review your notes from the inspection and we did briefly look at trying to shift the house. If we shifted the house back it would eliminate multiple trees on the property, primarily the one that is closest to the house, just to try to coordinate dealing with the parking and getting out of the driveway there, as well as the grading that has to happen to the street-side. You are reducing the amount of grade in the area that you can deal with the pitch. So we are going to have to bring in more fill which would pretty much bury the trees and kill the trees . I know Trustees are, you want to keep the trees, the owners want to keep the trees. This project has been kind of designed in this location to work around both of those parameters . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : I understand the one tree that was closest to the prior home that had caught fire. You can actually see in the field that part of the tree had been scorched from the fire. I understand that tree may be in the way of the project. But the large tree by the road is a beautiful specimen, is out of our jurisdiction, but we would like to see that one remain. The other problems that we grappled with in the field with the retaining walls, one of which on a prior plan was not only along the length of the property, the adjacent property, but there was a little retaining wall that kind of doglegged into the property, that is gone on this plan. MS. POYER: That' s been eliminated. If you look at general neighborhood, you' ll see that obviously it slopes from north to south, and all the other properties in the neighborhood as well, also have retaining walls pretty much on either side of the lot to create a level area. So it is in character with the neighborhood as far as dealing with, you have an elevation of 70 feet on the north side, sloping down to 60 feet on the south side. So obviously there are some retaining walls that are going to be necessary in order to create an' area. The retaining wall that is in the front of the proposed house does tie into the existing wall that is already there, which is part of the foundation wall on the property as it exists . So it is already a walled property as well . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : So before we move on to another point, would any other members of the Board like to comment? TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Liz, would you mind pulling up on page eight of the Laserfiche on this file. Yes . So this is the one that shows the elevations, for reference. MS. POYER: Which page is the elevations, Liz? TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: On Laserfiche, it' s on page eight. I 'm sorry, it' s the one that shows the elevations of the home. So just trying to understand the retaining walls in relation to the elevations as shown. MS . POYER: That one? Board of Trustees 41 April 19, 2023 TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes, that' s the one. MS. POYER: That one? TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes. If you could maybe zoom out a little bit. Lisa has it in front of her as well . So could you explain where the retaining walls are new and where they are existing. MS. POYER: I ' ll just try to, there is foundation walls with the house, automatically, and that' s more reflective in that north elevation, where you are just seeing the short foundation and walls. And that' s a two, three-foot foundation wall. Because the house is built into a hill on two sides, it is going to be, you know, a two-story house on those two elevations, which would be the north elevation and the east elevation, I believe. And this has been reviewed by the Building Department and it is still viewed as a two-story house, otherwise that would have been one of the conditions for the Zoning Board of Appeals . So that has been reviewed. If you look at the west elevation on this side, the left side of that, that is part of the old foundation wall that- is there right now. So that is looking at it from the water side. And that would be this elevation down here. This is part of that old, where the old foundation wall, where that old retaining wall is, that is going to tie in to where those steps are, which none of that is going to change as part of this application. Then if you look at the south elevation here, on the bottom, this one, that is that same retaining wall that is seen here, with that curve, the stairs here that are existing. This is that same wall. Then this is going to be basically built up here. Vm sorry, no. That will be more of a foundation wall of the house. Does that explain -- TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: That helps, thank you. MS. POYER: So this will be foundation wall, it will walk out to that lower area where the sanitary system is proposed, and that will down at elevation 60, 61, in that area. Then you' ll go further south to that retaining wall that is on the southern property line. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, and then in relation to the rock wall on the neighbor' s property, and so there is sort of like a channel between the retaining wall on this property and -- MS . POYER: It will be tiered. It will be our retaining wall down to the level area and down to their rock wall. Which is, like I said before, which you see a lot on the other properties adjacent. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Are the heights of this retaining wall at its highest? MS. POYER: It would be three to four feet. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. That' s what I was curious about. MS. POYER: Sure. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Thank you, for addressing the concerns about the retaining walls . MS . POYER: Sure. Board of Trustees 42 April 19, 2023 TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Noting on the new plans you submitted the existing sanitary is to be removed. The IA septic is installed, which is something the LWRP recommended. The existing 30-inch diameter tree is to remain on the corner of the property closest to the driveway. The last concern that I have, and perhaps my colleagues on the dais share the concern as to the pier line. It ' s listed, you've indicated on the second page of the plans you handed us this evening, I understand that the previous house was 40 feet? MS. POYER: Yes, the old original house that burned down was 40 feet. The prior approval was 75 feet from the top of the bluff. So I mean, we are 90 feet for the main portion of the house. I understand that, you know, with your pier line, but in this particular case we are still, there was a prior approval that we are still seaward of the pier line at that point as well. And given the tiering of the natural elevation of the property, this house is not going to be in a viewshed of either of the two houses on either side, because of the drastic change of elevations. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : So in a year-and-a-half on the Board and reviewing lots of applications from the past, pier line is a pretty solid benchmark for 'a seaward projection of living structure. And in my reading of past decisions . I as one Trustee see this project as fairly straightforward with the one exception of the pier line. And if the house, the living structure, I understand there' s a proposed deck on the plans, and that is not part of what I 'm talking about. I 'm just talking about the living structure of the house, I would like to see the house just pulled back within that pier line, in consistency with the project. MS. POYER: That is about another ten feet, which would wipe out that one tree as well. And the other trees in the front. It' s same thing as trying to make it to that 100 setback. It goes back to the same issue of we would then have to shift everything back, which would take out those trees in the front. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: The other option is to reduce the overall footprint of the house. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Or the driveway. I understand you want the house and the garage, but I think the manipulating the driveway design could save the tree, you and bring the house within the pier line. It looks closer to the six feet than ten feet. MR. BEN-AMI : May I? TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Sure. Just state your name for the record. MR. BEN-AMI : I 'm Gil Ben-Ami and that' s my wife Tracy. We are the owners of the property. We bought the property at the end of 2021, and we have been designing ever since. We've tried all sorts of different manipulations to make it work on the property. We will not cut down the tree. You know, the tree that is burned, as you mentioned, obviously that has to go. But that tree is so Board of Trustees 43 April 19, 2023 beautiful. We will not cut down the tree. One of the reasons that we bought the property is the trees and the Sound, and we respect both. But the footprint of the plan, the house is designed because we want to live there for a long,- long time. So we have, the first floor house our bedroom, you know, a living room and a dining room. That' s the whole house. It' s not a gigantic house, so to try to reduce the footprint is going to be very difficult, if not impossible. And if we move the house back, it is going to be impossible to bring the cars in and out of the garage. It' s just not enough space. So the grade is really driving this . It might seem like ten feet is not that much to move back, but when you move back and go from, you know, from like this to like that-, it' s a big deal . So, respectfully, we are asking for your approval with the plan the way it' s shown. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Thank you, for the context. I appreciate the comments about the tree. MR. BEN-AMI : We have an arborist. We love trees . TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : That' s all well and good. I think I 'm just hung up on the pier line simply because we just passed a law in the Town formally codifying what was Trustee policy about the pier line, to avoid the creep seaward of houses . I mean, in this instance, it may be as your expeditor has said, it doesn' t block the viewshed of the neighbors, however in lots of other places in the Town people see the approval of the pier line, they are also tempted to test that policy -- MR. BEN-AMI : Understood. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : And push their house seaward and their deck seaward. And you have, I think you have the room to do it and it wouldn't be a total redesign. MR. BEN-AMI : I 'm sorry, we really can't. We have tried. If we are going to save those trees, we can' t move it back. And with due respect, when we bought the property, we knew we were moving the house back from where the foundation of the existing house was . We knew there was already an approval in place, and now it' s like, I understand things change, but I think it' s an undo hardship on us to try and push the house back and take out the trees . TRUSTEE 'SEPENOSKI : The trees, I think, the one tree that is mature, on the corner of the property, should certainly remain. The other trees could be handled with two-to-one or one-to-one tree replacement for those that are cut down. To move the house back within the pier line, conform with our code and to replant and revegetate those trees that are removed from the project. MS . POYER: If I could just add that I understand that, you know, the rule with the pier line, but in this particular case it has been shown that the prior approval, that we are moving back. There are other extenuating circumstances that are different from this project from other projects where people are trying to move houses and developments seaward. In this particular case we are retreating significantly from 40 feet from the existing Board of Trustees 44 April 19, 2023 foundation where the old house was, from 75 feet from where the prior approval was issued just two years ago. We still are showing significant retreat in the project. And that could be the one item, and keeping of the trees in order to potentially allow you a variance, so to speak, from that pier line regulation. In other situations people are trying to move forward in the development. In this particular case, we are still retreating. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is the prior approval still valid? MS. POYER: It is not. But it was just issued. It was just not renewed. It was issued in ' 18 -- I 'm sorry, in ' 19, and then in `21 again. And the Zoning Board of Appeals did issue their decision in 118, on that prior approval as well. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just speaking as one Trustee, while we can certainly empathize with your struggle here, this hardship of moving back six or seven feet to comply with the pier line or, you know, that is doable with your property. So, and we are bound by the laws of the Town. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And we have done it for a lot less than this . You know, a foot or two, that was exceeding pier line, we made them move it back. So it has been the policy, the precedent of this Board, it is now codified in Chapter 275 . And, as I said, I think you have room, or you do have room, to reconfigure it. So, we can entertain that before we make a determination on what was submitted here. MS. POYER: I would suggest that we leave the hearing open to have a discussion. MR. BEN-AMI: Anybody want to buy a piece of property?) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I would also just like to comment, obviously the trees have been a heavy topic of discussion of this application, but there has been a general shift in Town lately of just wiping out trees on these new applications, some within our jurisdiction, some of it out. But any application going forward should be, you know, one-for-one, two-for-one, at minimum, of a native hardwood. This Board is definitely not going to be looking to wipe out every tree on the lot anymore. And I know these particular clients have the best interest at heart of the trees . Which I appreciate. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Any other comments from the public or members of the Board? (Negative response) . I ' ll make a motion to table the application at the applicant' s request. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . MS. POYER: Thank you. MR. BEN-AMI : ,Thank you. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 8, ROBERTS PREMIER DEVELOPMENT, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a ,16'x32 ' in-ground Board of Trustees 45 April 19, 2023 swimming pool with 1 ' wide coping; install code compliant pool enclosure fencing with gates; install a pool equipment area; and to install a drywell for pool backwash. Located: 910 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-27 The Trustees most recently visited the site on April 11th, noting to add a 15-foot non-turf buffer. Pool fence can be aligned parallel with house to offset slightly from pool coping. The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be consistent. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support this application, with handwritten notes on the survey, and requests a final site plan with the proposed improvements . Since that comment from the Conservation Advisory Council, we have received those plans, stamped received in our office April 13th, 2023 . Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MR. ROBERTS: James Roberts, Roberts Premier Development. I have one question about would the Board take into consideration, originally on my first wetlands application, I was asked for a non-disturbance 25-foot buffer. And then now with the pool application, you are asking for an additional 15 feet. Which would make it a total of 40 feet. Would the Board take into consideration a 15-foot non-disturbance and a ten-foot non-turf buffer, making it 25 feet? Is that in your considerations? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I think what the Board is looking at when we take into consideration every application, you know, you applied for a house on a virgin lot that was native vegetation, and we put in place a standard buffer to try to, you know, mediate the impacts on the creek there. But as we add more structure, we are trying to counteract the environmental impact by adding more of a buffer to sort of soften the impacts to the creek. So that' s where we are coming from with requesting additional buffer. MR. ROBERTS : We' ll absolutely do it. No problem. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. The other comment that we had made, this may be a DEC thing, but we notice that the pool fence is kind of like a wonky shape. It' s at the 75-foot line. And by our Board it would be okay if you wanted to straighten that out and make it parallel with the pool, we have no objection. MR. ROBERTS: No objection, absolutely. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: If you did want to make that change, you would just have to submit new plans to show that. So do you feel you would want to move forward with changing the location of the fence or move forward as it is? MR. ROBERTS: Can we do it in the final survey, as the fence being moved? Can we okay the permit now? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Just to be clear, the fence being moved is at your discretion. We were just offering, we were not sure if you put it there on purpose to follow that contour. Board of Trustees 46 April 19, 2023 MR. ROBERTS: I actually did. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : So you can either leave it there if you want it, or you can change it. That' s up to you really. But we would just need plans to whatever effect. If you want to leave it, you know, we could keep these plans . Otherwise we. need future plans. You know. MR. ROBERTS: Okay. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay. I make a motion to -- is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? (No response) . Other comments from the Board? (Negative response) . Hearing none, I ' ll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application' with new plans stamped received in our office April 13th, 2023, with the 15-foot non-turf buffer as depicted. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Have a good night. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 9, AMP Architecture on behalf of STEPHEN & FORTUNE MANDARO REVOCABLE LIVING TRUSTS requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing 41x4 ' 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 ',i"x2016" (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 113"x9' 8" (26sq. ft. ) two-story addition; construct a 291x27 ' (783sq. ft. ) second floor addition; construct a 20 ' 6"x5 ' 7" (114 . 8sq. ft. ) second story seaward balcony; a 616"x5 ' 9" (37 . 3sq. ft. ) front covered porch with a 7 'x9' 3" (64 . 4sq. ft. ) front uncovered porch and entry stair; 44sq. ft. rear entry stairway; 42sq. ft. mechanical platform with steps; 4 'x4 ' 6" (16. 5sq. ft. ) outdoor shower (open to above) with 17 gallon storm water catch basin; install a new I/A OWTS system on the landward side of the dwelling; install a retaining wall with 36" high railing and rear stair at , north/west sides of property consisting of approximately 30 linear feet being 3 ' 5"high, 16 linear feet sloped from 315" high up to 5' 4" high, 53 linear feet being 5 ' 3 'W" high (heights taken from existing average grade) ; proposed retaining wall at south side of property consisting of approximately 43 linear feet being 3' 5" high from existing average grade; a total of approximately 9, 645 cubic feet of fill will be required, 2, 760 cubic feet will come from site excavation and 6, 885 cubic feet Board of Trustees 47 April 19, 2023 of fill to be brought on site; install a new 654sq. 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 conducted a field inspection on April 11th. Field notes say significant concerns regarding the height of retaining walls and an environmental impact. Also concerned about the pier line, and will review further at work session. The LWRP found this to be consistent, however had a lot of notes on here. The notes read as follows . The Southold Zoning Board of Appeals issued a determination on December 15th, 2022, finding the action consistent with the LWRP, and imposing certain mitigative conditions imposed by them. FEMA compliance. No disturbance to neighboring lots . Install a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer and an IA/OWTS, among others . The retaining wall on the property boundaries is inconsistent with the community character, and although is necessary for high groundwater conditions with new sanitary system technology, will divert flood waters to adjacent properties . Essentially it creates a raised island. Expansion of structure and sanitary flow on these 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. Structures within these areas should be minimized. The west elevation shown with fill could adversely impact Bay Ave, by diverting floodwaters . The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application? MR. PORTILLO: Yes . Anthony Portillo, AMP Architecture. Can I just give you guys -- TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sure. MR. PORTILLO: (Handing) . Thank you, for your time today. As we know, the home is currently in a flood zone, Coastal A flood zone. It was affected by Hurricane Sandy, and the owners did have to rebuild, basically the first floor, after Sandy. And even after Sandy, a few nor'easters, they had some pretty bad scares where water did get too close to the first floor of the house, and that is the reason that they are trying to elevate the home. And they are looking to create a little more space, so that is with the second floor addition there is no increase to the rectangle of the home. We are adding an area for it to enter the home, because we need a staircase, obviously, to get up to the new Board of Trustees 48 April 19, 2023 elevation height. So one of the main challenges, which was read pretty obvious, is the new septic system and being able to get it out of groundwater. The current septic system is a cesspool and it' s in the rear yard, and the house is being used, and it is basically leaching into-the water, currently. Based on our test hole, the water is four-feet below grade, and which is basically one plus feet below zero-zero. Which is your mean high water. So you are basically in the water, essentially. So the septic system that is there now is in the water. We did attempt three different scenarios . That is what I provided to you, to the Board there. One was not to raise the grade at all . One was to raise the grade and let it naturally grade on to the neighbors yards . Both of these were rejected by the Health Department. Um, the reasoning for having to move the home back approximately five feet is to get the leaching in the front yard, which makes the most sense, I think, get it further away from the wetlands, which is also what the Health Department is looking for us to do. And there really is no other option but to move the house back to allow for the leaching. Again, the length of the house is not changing. The length of the house that is existing is the same. We are picking it up, moving it, and raising it to the proper elevation. And just, in respect to what is common in the area, there is a home two houses down that had to do the same thing. They had to raise the grade for the same reasons . It was approved, you can see that there pretty obviously in the Google maps . As I said, to the Zoning Board, I ' ll say this to the Trustees, I think we need to think about the safety of these homes, and for us to look at a neighborhood that was built then and where it is now, we are going to have more storm problems . And, like I said, just a nor'easter, they get scares . If we have another Hurricane Sandy it' s just going to wipe out their house. So, I appreciate the fact that they are willing to spend the money to elevate the home, they are willing to spend the money to get the grade to where we need to get it, to allowed for a proper IA system. They are also going to be providing proper drainage for all the roof plains to have proper drainage into the ground. So that is the reason for the retaining walls . Like I said, we attempted those two different options that you see there, attempted to submit those to the Health Department. We were reje�ted. This one is the option that they allowed for the IA system. And I think if you really look at our design, we are tight. I mean we are ten feet off the foundation, we are ten feet off of the retaining walls . There is really nowhere to wiggle this thing around. Again, due to, just to be clear, due to the water and not Board of Trustees 49 April 19, 2023 wanting to raise the grade too high, we are using leaching galleys. You know, if we obviously raise the grade even higher then we can do a deeper leaching system. But to do leaching galleys you need space, you need mass, you need volume. I think that it' s a modest home. They are not asking for much. It' s four bedroom, three bath, living room, dining room and kitchen. Basically a railroad-style home. The homeowner has children. They are looking to obviously to have their family be able to stay there. We are able to provide a drive on the left-hand side. Again, I think that the design is very tight, you know, it meets the requirements in regard to FEMA. We did receive Zoning approval, which we had to go back and do some redesign of the second floor. They asked us to push the house back, which we did. So we pushed the first floor -- the second floor -- back to not crowd the street. So in the new design you have, at the first level you do have kind of a human scale, and then it goes up and comes up and then comes up, and that' s what creates the second floor. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: To be clear, the ZBA asked for you to push it closer to the lake; is that correct? MR. PORTILLO: Not the footprint. The footprint was always how we 've shown it. The second floor, originally the second floor was the entire mass of the building. That ' s how we designed it. And due to their comments, they requested that we have to get it back off the street front, which did reduce the overall second-floor square footage. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, yes, that comports with what I read. Thanks . MR. PORTILLO: We did have Cole Environmental out there just to take a look at the site. I highlighted a few things which I ' ll just read into the record, that I think are important and kind of repeating some of the things that I just said. The subject property currently does not have adequate management of storm water. All gutters and leaders are present. They drain into the yard. No drywells are present and the property does not utilize green infrastructure. So while there is a vegetated buffer between the structure and the lake, the buffer consists of non-native and invasive species, and we are obviously planning to put native species. The groundwater table is very high, and the groundwater and local water lines can become contaminated, basically leaving the sewage disposal right there. The proposed house will connect to gutters and drywells containing storm onsite while preventing runoff. And I agreed with that. I know that you mentioned that there would be excess runoff due to the height, but we are capturing now the groundwater from the roof. So we are actually relieving some of the water that is going to be running off. The proposed project also includes ten-foot wide native vegetated buffer, which will replace the existing non-native invasive vegetation. Planting native in their place will offer a Board of Trustees 50 April 19, 2023 host of benefits for the local environment. Installation of an innovative onsite water system will reduce the amount of nitrate leaching into the lake. I 'm just going to read their conclusion. I think it ' s a good one. Probably better than I could probably conclude. We understand that residents of the area have a history of caring deeply for Lake Marion. The East Marion Community Association notes on their website that they urge the Town of Southold, Suffolk County and State of New York to take immediate steps to address the growing pollution of the North Fork groundwater and our marshes, streams, lakes, ponds and bays . To study and recommend technologies and strategies to prevent nitrogen and other pollutants from entering our ground and surface waters from sewage, fertilizers and other sources of contamination. And to develop and implement a plan to slow and reverse the degradation of our drinking and surface waters before irreversible damage is done to our fisheries, recreation waters and drinking waters supply. It is our belief that steps included in the proposed plan will work to help address pollution of groundwater at Lake Marion, will help prevent nitrogen and other pollutants from entering the ground and surface waters,' and will help slow degradation of the drinking and surface waters and help restore the natural flora of the region. I 'm here for questions and comments . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, a couple. So the proposed house is moving closer to the pond. MR. PORTILLO: Correct. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And by the pier line that you just submitted, we take the immediately adjacent homes to create the pier line, and it looks as if you took one that is three houses down on one side and three houses down on the other to establish it. So to start with, we will need new plans with the pier line utilizing the immediately adjacent houses to establish that pier line. What is the FEMA requirement on this property? MR. PORTILLO: One second, sorry. (Perusing) . The FEMA requirement is ten and our first floor is 1 . 5. And remember, it ' s an open foundation, we are going to be using helical piles with concrete-poured piers, and the girder system, because it' s in a Coastal A Zone, has to be above the DFE, which is ten. That creates the 12 . 5 . We actually lowered the building for Zoning as well. They asked us to make it so that it' s pretty much exactly at what is required. So building was lowered as well as part of our, after our Zoning application. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So one of my concerns in, you know, Cole talks about reducing the nitrogen, but I think with this proposed project there is a lot more negative environmental impacts than just nitrogen. Here we are creating over a five-foot high retaining wall Board of Trustees 51 April 19, 2023 literally on the property line, that in any storm event is going to push flood waters or anything on to the neighboring properties and potentially damage them. So, you know, obviously we need to take them into concern as well. MR. PORTILLO: I 'm sorry, Mr. Goldsmith. I would like to comment to that. We have to lift the building and we need a septic system, so -- TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And I agree. MR. PORTILLO: So if you look at my second option, where I did try not to do a retaining wall, I would be basically allowing grade to be falling onto the neighboring yard. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So one of my questions with the retaining wall, in order to do this, the proposed new septic system, is the proposed new septic system is closest to the road. MR. PORTILLO: Correct. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So then further toward the water, the retaining wall is now up at five feet, which is way past the proposed leaching fields. So what is the need to have a five-foot retaining wall on the seaward end when you have the septic system on the road end? MR. PORTILLO: Sure, I can answer that. But just to be clear, we would lower it to three foot. We don't want a retaining wall. I just want you to understand that. But if you look at our section, you can see pretty clearly why we need the height that we need. The septic tank itself, the IA system, has to be a certain distance from groundwater and has to be covered by ground and it' s a certain size. The leaching is what you can create galleys where there are no galley septic systems . So if you look at our section, proposed septic system detail, you can see how we created the grade heights and how that was determined. And just, I mean we are sloping down towards the road with the retaining wall, which is consistent five-feet across . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: What is the proposed elevation at the leaching fields? MR. PORTILLO: Your proposed grade at the leaching field is seven. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And what is it currently? MR. PORTILLO: Existing, 2 . 8 . I mean, I think that' s the reason that the home two houses down, you can see what they had to do. It' s the same type of situation. I mean, I 'm, not that I 'm against, obviously we needed to, I think if the neighbors need to lift their house, they need to do the same thing. This area is not a good area to have a home in. It' s in water. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I agree with that, which is why moving a bigger house closer to the pond doesn' t really fit in with that statement. MR. PORTILLO: So the alternative is to leave -- let me just say, say we didn' t do a second-story and I just lifted the house that is there, I 'm still in the same situation. The second floor is Board of Trustees 52 April 19, 2023 not what is creating the situation. It' s the home that is there that needs to move to allow for a system. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And this is a, I guess a new, unintended consequence of the IA/OWTS systems. And I don' t know that the intention was to make castles with walls around it and elevate properties, you know, to protect one property but at the expense of neighboring properties . MR. PORTILLO: I can' t speak for Southold Town, but I 've done a lot of this in different areas, a lot of Sandy-recovery homes. And that' s what we had to do. I mean, I 'm just using examples in like Queens, Breezy Point, if you guys know those areas . TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Please don' t compare us to Queens . MR. PORTILLO: No, I don't want to compare you to any of that. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That we don' t want. MR. PORTILLO: I 'm just saying that what we had to do, though, in certain areas, because the houses were built in groundwater, unfortunately, because Uncle Joe came out and decided to build a house. And there was no research on what needed to be done, right? You don't have, I mean I don' t really see an option. I mean, again, if it gets denied they are just going to have a house that sits in water, or you can allow a house to be elevated that at the same situation is going to happen. Again, I don' t think it' s the second floor. Honestly, the second floor was approved by Zoning, and that' s what we went to Zoning for. The footprint is not changing on the base of the house. If I was to lift this house, I would have to put in an IA system. I can't leave the cesspool that is there. I 'm going to be in the same scenario. I don' t think that is changing the scenario is what I 'm saying. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: You have to go to Zoning for all the setbacks, right? MR. PORTILLO: Yes, to lift the home and the setbacks . But we still are going to need a staircase to get up to the house and so, on. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : So my two cents, and I don' t really have a fix at the moment, but just my two cents of the project. I understand it' s a very constricted area. It' s a small lot. I mean, it' s almost not in groundwater. It' s almost surface water across the whole thing. So I understand what you need to do with the septic. I think what I 'm looking for is for you and your client to demonstrate mitigation of environmental impacts of your project, and not just, you know, shoehorning maybe what everyone wants to put to live in there, would be number one. And I think in sort of trying to nudge this in the right direction, I completely understand the need for retaining walls under the different regulations, right, between FEMA and the Health Department. 100% . I think what this Board has been trying to avoid, I don' t want to speak for everyone, is, you know, Trustee Goldsmith said, castles with walls . But it' s really castles, walls and Board of Trustees 53 April 19, 2023 moats. If there were a way to bring those retaining walls off the property line, plant in front of them to mitigate some of the impacts to the neighboring properties,. I think that would go a long way in, you know, and I understand in this particular application you have the driveway sloped up, but maybe there is some way to work around that where you can still have the retaining walls pulled in, do heavy native plantings that would hopefully survive. Although this is getting swampier and swampier. But that is sort of where I 'm coming from. MR. PORTILLO: The homeowners, by the way, if I could get rid of this driveway, I would love to. They don't want the driveway. It was a requirement by the Health Department TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Right. MR. PORTILLO: I actually went to Southold Town and said can you please write me a letter to allow the homeowners to park on the street there, people park on the street there. Southold Town would not provide that letter to me. I had to get that to the Health Department. That was my original design. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : That would be very helpful. MR. PORTILLO: I could have pulled the retaining wall off the neighbor, done a planting around it. That would have been fine. The homeowner was fine with parking on the street. They were willing not to have a driveway. Again, I 'm just, I had to take, I went to Southold Town to request a letter. They said they can't write a letter like that to the Health Department. So then the Health Department required us to have parking. That' s kind of where we -- I mean, I could maybe limit the parking and partially get some of the retaining wall off the, you know, if I just need to get, I think I need two cars, because you can't put wider than one-and-a-half. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Can you put parking at grade with the retaining wall on the inside of that? Which obviously creates a hardship for the client, but they are the ones trying to create a new structure here. MR. PORTILLO: If you look, the driveway is only ten feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I know. I understand. MR. PORTILLO: I don't know, I mean, I have to, I 'm willing to do what we need to do. But I don't know. It's very, very tight. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Again, just because it' s been the position of this Board that we don' t want to see a hardened retaining wall right on the property line, due to the mitigating factors for the neighbors . So as Trustee Krupski mentioned, if there is a way to mitigate that, if there is a way to have the driveway closer to the property line with the retaining wall on the landward side of that. MR. PORTILLO: I think I understand what you are saying. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You know, take the retaining wall off the property line and move it further into your property, that way -- MR. PORTILLO: Have the driveway just be straight and then the retaining wall kind of -- part of it though might still need to Board of Trustees 54 April 19, 2023 be, a portion, only to get, because I have the leaching -- TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. It may need, further toward the pond, you may be able to move that off the property line because you don't necessarily need that height back there because your septic is in front. MR. PORTILLO: That sounds reasonable to me. I think that' s possible. Yes. I can -- yes . That works . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : And native plantings will go a long way and I don' t know, I mean, you might even want to consider in the plan adding .a foot of topsoil where you would be planting, because right now you are almost planting in water. But those plantings -- MR. PORTILLO: At the buffer? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Yes . That' s just a thought in terms of survivability with how swampy it is there. MR. PORTILLO: Cole Environmental is involved. I can talk to them about those types of actions. MS. HULSE: A point of clarification. You indicated that ten foot is the minimum elevation required, and in FEMA Flood Zone Six it' s actually eight feet. So that was not a correct statement. I just wanted to clarify. MR. PORTILLO: I think it' s A-8 . MS . HULSE: It is Eight. You said -- MR. PORTILLO: A-8 is the elevation, right? TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You had mentioned ten before -- MR. PORTILLO: Ten is the DFE, the Design Flood Elevation. So it' s FEMA plus two is your freeboard, and then you have to be, you have to have your girder and your floor joists above that to finish the floor, because it' s in a Coastal AE zone. It says AE, but it' s Coastal . "A" because you are in that, where that line with the flags . And it requires you basically meet the B Zone requirement. MS. HULSE: Right. So the minimum requirement for your finished floor is eight feet. MR. PORTILLO: I don' t think it' s AE-6. (Perusing) I 'm sorry, it' s =- MS . HULSE: That was the confusion, I think, with the ZBA as well. MR. PORTILLO: Flood Zone AE-6 and AE-7 . I apologize. AE-7, right? AE-7 is the Coastal A zone, which basically you have to use V zone, they make you use the V zone requirements . Even though AE, it' s called a Coastal AE. Open foundation, your lower structural member has to be two feet from seven. So it' s at nine. Then your finished floor. Regular AE zone, your finished floor has to be two feet above base flood elevation, which would -- am I making sense? MS . HULSE: I 'm just clarifying the misstatement that you made earlier when you were testifying. MR. PORTILLO: I apologize. It is nine is DFE. I apologize. AE-7, nine is the DFE, which is basically the free board. Which means that the lowest structural member has to be a freeboard, and an open foundation. Board of Trustees 55 April 19, 2023 TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: But this plan is showing the home would be in AE-6, right? MR. PORTILLO: Six and seven. So the line cuts right through the house. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Oh, because I 'm seeing the line cutting through the vegetated buffer at the top. Closer to the lake. MR. PORTILLO: I ' ll verify. I 'm pretty sure it was seven. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Do you want look at the plans we have? MR. PORTILLO: I 'm looking at it here. It ' s the same plans . MS. HULSE: That' s the way I saw it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : That might save us a little hardship, too, if it -- MR. PORTILLO: Yeah, we' ll bring the house down. I ' ll verify that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I mean, I think we are treading in a good direction with the concerns, you know, with the environmental impacts and concerns of the Board. Just my two cents there. MR. PORTILLO: Sure. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this application? MR. BEAURY: Hi. My name is Frank Beaury, I live at 35 Rabbit Lane, the house with the white roof there. My property goes all the way back behind their property. It' s just like you almost can't control yourself, and I can, I 'm a pretty calm person and a reasonable person. But there is so much lies going on here, it' s unbelievable. First off, that house that he says the other neighbor did it. That' s Mandaro' s cousin who did that. And the funny thing is, is that house was damaged by Mrs . Cook' s son. That house was not damaged by the storm or anything else. And I ' ll say it, I don' t care, because that is what it was . ,They went over, his son smashed the thing, my son was a little boy, he told me there' s someone smashing the windows in the house. So I ran out, I figured what the heck is going on. He says, oh, we' re having someone come to look at the house tomorrow. So you know, you know what we ' re talking about. So I said, no, I don' t know what you' re talking about. He says, oh, we ' ll 'get more money. Okay, none of my business . But that is his cousin' s house, and when that was built, they put that eleven-foot high. These are seasonal properties . Seasonal homes . When I bought my home, I been going out there for almost 60 years on Bay Avenue. I have my family there. I like that home. That' s what I could afford. That' s what it is . It' s not going to change. I have people like this gentleman, have come up and talked to me and my wife. Oh, you know what you could do with this property? Well, I promise you, hopefully that white roof and that house will be there until I drop dead. I 'm not going to build anything or anything else. But in the backyard, where his property is, backs off on mine, that is so soft, if you stood there, you' can notice yourself getting shorter, because it just goes down. I have to Board of Trustees 56 April 19, 2023 call Vector all the time, to, they say that it get clogged, the lake, and they come, and they are very good, they are very nice people and the level goes down. But even when it goes down, it is so soft. And my property whatever they did, it goes down like this (indicating) . After Sandy, I 'm not going to say he was smart. Everybody get permits and followed what the Town says. Mr. Mandaro got trucks, because he lives in New Jersey, but he has, sells flooring, and he' s involved in construction. So he went in, dumped fill in there, and he built his property up. So, was it smart? Yes, it was . But I don't work that way, that I would do it on the sneak. And by doing that, he dumps all his water in my yard, in the lake, and to the person next door. And the funny thing is, he mentions that Mr. Mandaro wants to, you know, they want to do everything. It' s going to clean the lake, building this thing, right? He owns the house, they own for of them, the family, down by the bay. And the one house, it' s a beautiful house, his mom owned, she passed away -- TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sir, let ' s keep your comments to this particular house and this project. MR. BEAURY: Well, he ' s working on this project that I think it shows an example of he stays that he' s worrying about the storm and everything else. Well, he has a house right on the water. They didn' t lift that. He ' s working on that non-stop. There is a dumpster in the middle of the street. And across the street they have all the wood that they cut down. His roofing tiles -- TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sir, please, keep your comments to this project. MR. BEAURY: But it ' s an example of who you are dealing with. You are not dealing with a thing. And it' s funny, when we got the letter, I was, I had COVID. I was sick as a dog. I couldn' t come to the first meeting. My wife didn't want to come. She didn' t have COVID, she didn' t get it, but she figured I ' ll come and maybe give it to someone . So, he said he was going to retire from his business and move to the one house that he' s working on now, and he' s going to cover a deck. Someone should go down there and see where the deck was . There is something there now. He extended his home. But, that is not for me. But why didn' t he raise that house up? Why wasn' t he required to raise that? He ' s doing tremendous amount of work. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sir, that' s not what is in front of us . What is in front of us is this particular property. MR. BEAURY: Well, I live in that white house, I didn' t get any water from Sandy. Next door got a minimal amount. The one that is in the middle, they got a minimal amount. And they, the other one, Mandaro, he has dump trucks and put everything, right? They say that he has a metal shed. When I got my shed, I don' t know if you can even see it in that picture. I had to go get the permit and everything else. I 'm a retired policeman, in the City, I ain't, that' s not my gig. You need a permit, I ' ll get a permit, and I 'm going buy Board of Trustees 57 April 19, 2023 what I 'm allowed to buy. So everyone went through, the other house on the far side needed a what do you call it, a shed. They got a permit. He puts down, he has a steel shed, which he did. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Again, sir, I hate to cut you off. MR. BEAURY: And he has another shed. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The shed has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. And, from this Board, I think you heard comments from us, that we are concerned with any potential impacts to the neighboring property, yours included, which is going to be -- MR. BEAURY: It' s going to destroy my property. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: (Continuing) and we are trying to mitigate and minimize any potential environmental impact. MR. BEAURY: Between that house that was built next to my property eleven feet high, because the insurance would like favorably by going up higher, the water, when it rains, it runs down the street from that terrace, it runs down, it avoids the drywell, comes down, sits in front of my house and my lawn, and then when I go around the other side, you can' t even go there. It' s up to here on you (indicating) . And I have pictures, the guy, Orlando, was going to do something about it. They sent John Latham down. John Latham said, yeah, we need to do this . The water is going past the thing. Orlando, I guess he' s out. It is six years . But as far as them worrying about the storm, if they have all the worries and all the water that comes up all the time. I don' t. It must jump over my house. And it' s not coming from the lake. And his property, where they are going to build this, is on the water. So, it' s sad. And it doesn' t, to go and use that other house, that is his family, his cousin. They are always together. She joked around and said, oh, I 'm going to build a house so I get a water view. And they laughed, the both of them, and I figured, well, kidding around whatever. She did. And the wall that she has there, you say don' t compare it to Queens . That' s Queens, that house. You got a cement wall, there is nowhere for the water to go. And it' s really sad. And I know all you guys, not personally, but I know your families and everything, and we love that area. And I think if this goes on, I have to get out of there. And I imagine the woman, she can' t come, she' s a single, she' s not married. She is what do you call it, by herself. She has that house. She loves that house. It' s like the person in New York City that has the little house and the Trade Center is on both sides . It' s just ridiculous . And how he' s so concerned with the lake, everybody has been breaking their back with that lake, doing all sorts of stuff. He wasn't involved. And then what happened was one of the men who does the lake, he says, Frank, you' re killing us . He goes, all the phragmites are in your backyard. I said it ' s not me. It' s him. Because he would let them grow, as like privacy Board of Trustees 58 April 19, 2023 bush, you know for the properties . So I said it' s him. He says, go talk to him. I said, you know, I say hello and good-bye, but I don' t talk to him. I .said, you talk to him. Now, this is on, he' s the secretary of the lake. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, thank you, sir. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, ma' am, please just state your name for the record. MS. KAMROWSKI : My name is Sue Kamrowki, I live on Huckleberry Hill, and I have been there, I owned my home for 42 years . And my grandparents have been in Cutchogue from 1903 . And Steve and Fortune, I know them and they've done me a big favor and helped me save my boat one time and what not. But what' s happening now, the whole complexion of East Marion is starting to change. On that particular street, Bay Avenue, there' s two BNB' s, right? People are renting a lot. Down at the end of Bay Avenue now, used to be a boat ramp. But now they made it a beach. Which is fine for people and me to see them use it. But just, um, for circumstances, I took today, there were like nine people swimming out there for the winter, and let me tell you, I love seeing that. I think it' s wonderful that people enjoy it. But it' s supposed to be -- what is parking by permit? You know, whose, who what permit is there. There were cars lining up like this. There was eight of them. I have them on my phone. Plus the dumpster was there. If there was an emergency, you would have a lot of trouble. Believe me. Because I have three brothers that were New York City firemen, and one brother-in-law. And I have a daughter that was a soldier from West Point. So I know all that stuff. And I 'm familiar with the water because I have been around it my whole life. Also, why I 'm really here is because you talk about trees and vegetation, and everything, and all along the lake, and I can show you the pictures, somebody just recently, I was at the Highway Department on April 6th, and believe me, they couldn' t have been nicer. They were really wonderful. Somebody came and just sawed the trees, the bushes -- MS . HULSE: Ma' am -- ma' am -- I don' t mean to interrupt you, ma'am. This is a public hearing specific to this application, so all of your -- MS . KAMROWSKI : Yes, but this may have something to do with that, application. MS. HULSE: All right. So what your concerns are, what you just voiced, are valid concerns, but that is not for the Trustees Board. But if you call the office, we can direct you where you can appropriately make those complaints. MS . KAMROWSKI : What I 'm just trying to say is you have to take into consideration, you know, I hope things work out for them as far as what they want to build. But once you raise one place up, everybody' s going to be doing the same thing. And they are seasonal houses . And you are changing that whole complexion. Board of Trustees 59 April 19, 2023 I mean, we had the police on January 1st on the beach. I live on Huckleberry Hill and down at the end, in the winter, it' s one big ice skating rink. You know, you need this help and the safety of the environment that has to be preserved, and things have to be done in the correct way. That' s all. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, ma' am. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you. MS . KAMROWSKI : I 'm sorry if -- I got to get home, my dog, she must have her legs crossed. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, for your time. MR. PORTILLO: Just for the record, the house was damaged by Hurricane Sandy and I never approached anybody, they approached me, that abuts their home. And it' s not seasonal in the C of 0, so it' s a full-time residence. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So would you, judging by your comments, would you like to table this? MR. PORTILLO: I appreciate that. Yes . Thank you. TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : I understand your role in this melodrama. But echoing your comments earlier about this area not being suitable for year-round homes, that is my opinion exactly. Can' t put the genie back in the bottle, so to speak. But this entire area is incredibly sensitive. You have two freshwater bodies right adjacent to these homes and these properties . You have the Orient Harbor and the Bay on the other side. So it ' s a really unique natural feature of the Town, and I really hate to see this house elevated, concrete retaining walls, the next house elevated, concrete retaining walls, in effect creating a super-structure on Bay Avenue, and potentially down Rabbit Lane as well as other people along that road and particularly along the bay front, both sides of Rabbit Lane elevate their homes, it will be a canyon lands. So in my opinion, the house belongs on piles, allow the water to flow underneath it, figure out how to put the septic in a retaining wall . And that would be ideal. Any efforts that you can make toward that. MR. PORTILLO: I appreciate that. And, like I said, if the land was available, that is -- we' re not, my client and myself, are not looking to build a larger retaining walls. We are just trying to, we just want the minimum size to do what is needed to do. And like I said, we sloped it away, and instead of keeping it all flat, the land is sloping, so we went with the lower-lying systems for the leaching so that we could go lower in the ground. And the comment to elevate the home, I mean, again, the home is there. To leave. a home in the water like this, you have to think about that side of it, too; that someone' s property and family could have flood waters, you know, and that' s a dangerous thing. So whether they are living there year-round or not, which they are planning is to live there year-round. He is the sole owner Board of Trustees 60 April 19, 2023 of that home, and that is his retirement plan, and thank God he can do that. I don' t think he should be subject to, you know, possibly having a flood and having, •you know to evacuate and he' s not safe in his house. That' s just my opinion on the lifting side. . If you don' t know, I 'm originally from Mattituck and from the North Fork, and I 'm not looking to make the North Fork any different than what it is. Obviously I 'm trying to do what is best for the property, so, anyway, thank you for your comments. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: One quick question for you. I don' t think I 've ever seen that, I don't know if the Health Department can do it, but if the house has to go up and you need that elevation for the leaching fields, is it a possibility to put the leaching fields under the elevated house? MR. PORTILLO: No. The reason is they require you to be a certain distance from the footings, from the- tie-beam. And we would need to tie the helicals together. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. MR. PORTILLO: We just don't have -- if the house was wider, we would have the room and I could use larger beams to maybe span across the whole thing. But because the house is very skinny, I can' t fit it underneath there. One thing that the Board can assist with, I don' t know, 'is get me a letter that they can park on the street, and I could reduce retaining walls a lot. I could do more closer to what is being asked. It' s just a containment for the septic. But I was unable to achieve that from the Town. Which street parking is allowed there year-round. So that ' s, I mean, I don't know, and they have, I drew a diagram to the Town that, the width of that lot, you could fit . two cars . But I 'm just letting you know, that' s why we were unable to do that. We had to have parking on the site. But the other comments, I 'm going to work on that and hopefully I can present something that is closer to what you guys want. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Any other questions or comments? (No response) . Hearing none, I ' ll make a motion to table the hearing. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . I make a motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? (ALL AYES) . Xctf11sub umitted by,ol smith, President Board of Trustees