HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-06/14/2023 Glenn Goldsmith,President riF SQU�y Town Hall Annex
�► 54375 Route 25
A. Nicholas Krupski,Vice President P.O.Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski J J Southold,New York 11971
Liz Gillooly, N Telephone(631) 765-1892
Elizabeth Peeples � �Q Fax(631) 765-6641
�OUNT`l,�
RECEIVED
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
AUG 17 2423
Minutes $o0 o dTown,Clerk
Wednesday, June 14, 2023
5:30 PM
Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Eric Sepenoski,' Trustee
Liz Gillooly, Trustee
Elizabeth Peeples, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Office Assistant
Lori Hulse, Board Counsel
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Good evening and welcome to our Wednesday June,
14th, 2023 meeting. At this time I would like to call the meeting to
order and ask that you please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance is recited) .
I 'll start off the meeting by announcing the people on the dais .
To my left we have Trustee Krupski, Trustee Sepenoski, Trustee
Gillooly and Trustee Peeples . To my right we have attorney to the
Trustees Lori Hulse and Senior Clerk Typist Elizabeth Cantrell.
With us is Wayne Galante, court stenographer, and from the
Conservation Advisory Council we have John Stein.
Agendas for tonight' s meeting are out in the hallway and posted
on the Town' s website.
We do have a number of postponements tonight. The postponements
on the agenda are as follows :
Page five, number 1, 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. 51x12 ' ramp and existing 81x20 ' floating dock; the 6.51x53 ' 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 81x18 ' floating dock situated in an "I"
Board of Trustees 2 June 14, 2023
configuration secured by four piles; and to install four tie-off
piles.
Located: 371 Hedge Street, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-7-18
Page ten, number 17, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
CHARLES & SHERRY SOLON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
4 'x54 ' fixed catwalk with steps down to a 4 ' wide by 16' long fixed
dock situated in a "T" configuration with the use of Thru-Flow
decking for the entire structure.
Located: 4553 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-4-13
Page 11, numbers 18, 19 and 20, as follows :
Number 18, Karen Hoeg, Esq. of Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley,
Dubin & Quartararo, LLP on behalf of BRENDAN & SARA OSEAN requests a
Wetland Permit to demolish and remove existing foundation and
structures; construct a new two-story, single-family 40.5'x46. 9'
(1, 495 sq. ft. ) dwelling with a 42sq.ft. front entry with steps; a
42sq. ft. side entry with steps; a seaward 16.5'x13. 3' (±219 sq. ft. )
deck over a screened porch with railings; a seaward 14 .3'x6' (±86
sq. ft. ) deck over porch with railings; a seaward 19' 3"x6' (±116
sq. f.t) deck over porch with railings; install a new I/A sanitary
system; and install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf
buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 12632 Main Road, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-14-8 .2.
Number 19, AS PER REVISED PLAN & PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED
ON 5/10/2023. Young & Young on behalf of STEPHEN & JACQUELINE DUBON
requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 1, 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; construct a 38 ' long by 2 ' wide by 12" to 24" high
landscape wall with a 3' wide by 8"-12" high stone step; install one
(1) new drywell for roof runoff; abandon two (2) existing cesspools
and install a new IA/OWTS system consisting of one (1) 500 gallon
treatment unit and 46 linear feet of graveless absorption trenches
(i.e. one (1) 24 'L x 4 'W trench and one (1) 22'L x 4 'W trench) ; and
for the existing 84sq. ft. shed.
Located: 5605 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-4-3.2 .
Number 20 AS PER REVISED PLANS & PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED
ON 5/5/2023 AMP Architecture on behalf of STEPHEN & FORTUNE MANDARO
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUSTS requests a Wetland Permit to remove the
existing 41x4 ' outdoor shower, 61x5' 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 ;-�"x20 ' 6"
(800sq. ft. ) one-story dwelling and to lift, relocate and construct
additions to the dwelling consisting of an open foundation with
Board of Trustees 3 June 14, 2023
breakaway walls using approximately (15) 10" diameter wood pilings;
construct a 6' 6"x8 ' (52sq. ft. ) , And a 1 ' 3"x9' 8" (26sq. ft. ) two-story
addition; construct a 291x27 ' (783sq.ft. ) second floor addition;
construct a 2016"x5' 7" (114 . 8sq. ft. ) second story seaward balcony
(open to above) ; a 6' 6"x5' 9" (38 .2sq. ft. ) front covered porch with a
3' 0"X9' 1" (27 .3sq. ft. ) front entry stair; a 310"x1212" (36.5sq.ft. )
rear entry stairway; a 4 ' 5"x12 ' 6" (57sq. ft. ) mechanical platform with
steps; 4 'x4 ' 6" (16.5sq. ft. ) outdoor shower (open to above) ; install a
new I/A OWTS system on the landward side of the dwelling; install a
retaining wall with 36" high railing and rear stair at north/west
sides of property approximately 115 linear feet in length;
approximately 2, 760 cubic feet of earth to be removed for proposed
septic system components excavation, all to remain on site for
backfill; and 5, 055 cubic feet to be used for proposed regrading;
install a new 400sq. ft. pervious driveway with curb; install one (1)
8 'x4 ' deep drywell to contain roof runoff; and to install and
perpetually maintain a 10' wide vegetated non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of wetland vegetation.
Located: 2135 Bay Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-17-4 .
And on page 12, number 21, Joan Chambers on behalf of JENNIFER
MAYE requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing septic system and
install a new sanitary system; install an approximately 82 to 83'
long, 4 ' high maximum retaining wall consisting of the west section
proposed at 39' to 39' 6" long with a 3' return on the western end,
and an eastern section proposed at 37 ' to 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
Under Town Code Chapter 275-8 (c) files were officially closed
seven days ago. Submission of any paperwork after that date may
result in a delay of the processing of the application.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I ' ll make a motion to hold our
next field inspection Wednesday, July 12, 2023, at 8 : 00 AM.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to hold our next Trustee meeting
Wednesday, July 19th, 2023, at 5: 30 PM at the Town Hall Main Meeting
Hall.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 4 June 14, 2023
III WORK SESSION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to hold our next work sessions
Monday, July 17, 2023, at 5: 00 PM at the Town Hall Annex 2nd floor
Executive Board Room; and on Wednesday, July 19th, 2023, at 5: 00 PM
at the Main Town Hall Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion to approve the Minutes of April 19, 2023,
and May 17, 2023.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The Trustees monthly report for May, 2023, a
check for $31, 740. 11 was forwarded to the Supervisor' s Office
for the General Fund.
VI. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk' s
Bulletin Board for review.
VII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the
Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications
more fully described in Section X Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, June 14, 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:
Caroline Toscano SCTM# 1000-113-4-8
220 Floral Blvd. Corp. SCTM# 1000-35-4-15
D.M. Basilice Revocable Trust SCTM# 1000-53-6-8
Neil Stronski & Patricia Perez SCTM# 1000-111-15-10
Eileen Kasschau SCTM# 1000-118-1-1 .2
Geoffroy L. Penny, Sr. SCTM# 1000-111-1-21
2740 Deep Hole Drive, LLC, c/o Stanley Lomangino, Member
SCTM# 1000-123-4-11
Walter R. Miller, Jr. SCTM# 1000-54-1-16
Cynthia Dgheim SCTM# 1000-44-4-4
Robert P. Nelson, Jr. SCTM# 1000-45-6-9. 4
Credit Shelter Trust SCTM# 1000-111-1-8 . 4
Board of Trustees 5 June 14, 2023
William Jimenez SCTM# 1000-109-3-1
Patrick & Ann Marie Browne SCTM# 1000-63-7-38
Donald & Glenna Ryan SCTM# 1000-77-1-3
67 Sound Cheshire LP SCTM# 1000-42-1-1
Christopher & Elizabeth Austin SCTM# 1000-123-4-5. 1
Charles & Sherry Solon SCTM# 1000-107-4-13
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
VIII. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: In order to simplify our meetings, the
Trustees regularly group together items that are minor -or
similar in nature. Accordingly, I ' ll make a motion to approve as
a group numbers four and five, as follows:
Number 4, JOSEPH P. VERMAELEN & KATHLEEN POWERS-VERMAELEN
request an Administrative Permit to clear a 10 ' wide path through
property for trucks to gain access for purposes of ground testing.
Located: 2020 Bay Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-144-3-40. 1
Number 5, RALPH GUERCIA & VINCENT D'ALESSANDRO, JR. request
an Administrative Permit to install a two-row split rail wood
fence; a 6' high stockade fence and a 4 ' high black aluminum
fence; to remove dead trees; plant native plants; grade
disturbed area and bring in topsoil/fill; establish a 5' wide
buffer with blue stone.
Located: 1605 Middleton Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-41-2-13 .2
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, DANIEL T. & JUSTINE T. SWEENEY
requests an Administrative Permit to install approximately 510
feet of locust post and rail fencing with 1x1 mesh overlay.
Fence will be three (3) feet in height on the northeast (waterside)
and southwest (front of house) side, 4 feet on all other sides. One
4 ' wide gate will be installed on the northeast (waterside) ; three
(3) gates will be installed on the southwest side (front of house) ;
Two (2) 5' and One (1) 3' .
Located: 647 Pine Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70`-5-31.2
Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection June 7th. Move the
fence approximately eight to ten feet from the wetland vegetation
boundary, which is approximately 25 feet from the mean high water.
She also went out and measured it, and based on new plans that showed
a pipe, and she measured ten-foot landward of the east pipe and 12-
foot seaward of the west pipe.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
Board of Trustees 6 June 14, 2023
So I 'll make a motion to approve this application noting that
the fence should be ten-feet landward of the east pipe and 12-foot
seaward of the west pipe with new plans submitted showing as such.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, ROBERTS PREMIER DEVELOPMENT LLC
requests an Administrative Permit to remove debris, downed trees
and stumps from wetland area.
Located: 910 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-27 .
Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection on June 7th, 2023.
Maintain intact trees; this is a one-time clean up; this is in a non-
disturbance area.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent because it is work
proposed in a non-disturbance area. But based on Trustee Peeples '
field inspection, and the Board has been there numerous times, we' ll
allow this for a one-time clean up only, and to maintain all existing
trees.
Therefore I ' ll make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, which will bring it into consistency with the LWRP since
it is a one-time only clean up.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, BARBARA GREENFIELD requests an
Administrative Permit to' replace failing (collapsed) block cesspool
with an Innovative Alternative OWTS and Geotextile sand filter
leaching system.
Located: 550 West Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-1-24
Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection June 5th, 2023,
noting suggest gutters to leaders to drywells for the house.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
I 'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition of gutters to leaders to drywells for the house.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IX. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Again, in order to simplify the meeting, I 'm
making a motion to approve as a group Items 1 and 3 through 7.
They are listed as follows:
Number 1, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. , on behalf
of STEVEN GUDDAT & TORREY ACRI requests a One (1) Year Extension
to Wetland Permit #9992, as issued on September 15, 2021.
Located: 36581 C.R. 48, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-68-4-23
Number 3, THOMAS & JENNIFER SMITH request a Transfer of
1
Board of Trustees 7 June 14, 2023
Wetland Permit #3784 from Janet Maddams to Thomas & Jennifer Smith,
as issued on October 20, 1989.
Located: 3121 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-6-10
Number 4, Brian A. Andrews, PLLC on behalf of 920 CEDAR
POINT LLC requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #1780, as issued
on December 13, 1983, from John P. Reardon and James Conte to
920 Cedar Point LLC and James Conte.
Located: Cedar Point Drive E. , (Pleasant Inlet) Southold.
SCTM# 1000-90-3-20
Number 5, THOMAS & JENNIFER SMITH request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit #2072 from Carol Safir to Thomas & Jennifer Smith, as
issued on September 25, 1985, and Amended on June 25, 1997 and
Amended again on May 24, 2000; and for an Administrative Amendment to
Permit #2072 to add two additional pilings .
Located: 3121 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-6-10
Number 6, Robert I . Brown Architect on behalf of PAUL R.
VARRIALE requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #2037 from George
M. DeLisle to Paul R. Varriale, as issued on August 28, 1985 and
for an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #2037 for the
as-built 40"x40" platform and 3' 6"x18 ' 3" catwalk, leading to an
existing 2 'x4"x14 ' aluminum ramp and 6'x12 ' floating dock.
Located: 75 Lakeside Drive South, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-3-10
Number 7, En-Consultants on behalf of 920 CEDAR POINT LLC
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #7723 from John Reardon to
920 Cedar Point LLC, as issued on February 22, 2012, and Amended
on January 23, 2013, and to Administratively Amend Permit #7723
for the +/-11 'x68 ' as-built deck dimensions; and to install a 36"
high steel cable railing on deck surface with gate to the
existing +/-4 'x11' beach steps (all inside landward edge of existing
bulkhead) .
Located: 920 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-2-19
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, OSPREY'S COMPASS LLC requests a
Transfer of Wetland Permit #4027 from Gerald Weir to Osprey' s
Compass LLC, as issued on May 29, 1992.
Located: 2223 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-5-11.3
Trustee Peeples conducted field inspection June 12th, 2023,
noting that the current dock is 82 feet instead of the permitted
60 feet, and the ramp is 14 feet instead of the approved ten feet.
Since what is existing does not match what is on the permit,
I 'll make a motion to deny this transfer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 8, CHARLES SALICE & CAMILLE PASSARO
l
request an Administrative Amendment to Permit #10176 to
Board of Trustees 8 June 14, 2023
construct a 7 'x18" bench facing the west side of dock and to add
water and electric from the house to the floating dock.
Located: 9326 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-5-25
Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection June 5th, 2023,
notes to stipulate no lighting on the dock.
I 'll make a motion to approve the application with the condition
there not be any lighting on the dock.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral X, Public Hearings, at this
time I 'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and
enter into the Public Hearings .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a public hearing in the matter of the
following applications for permits under the Wetlands Ordinance
of the Town of Southold. I have an affidavit of publication from
the Suffolk Times . Pertinent correspondence may be read prior to
asking for comments from the public. Please keep your comments
organized and brief, five minutes or less, if possible.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Amendments, Number 1, Michael Kimack on
behalf of CAROLINE TOSCANO requests an Amendment to Wetland
Permit #9799 for the as-built clearing and to revegetate ±4, 790sq. ft.
of the property and a portion of the non-turf buffer area; remove two
trees on east side of property; trim branches on one side of a red
cedar tree for walkway access; as-built raised 25. 6sq. ft. wood
platform for two A/C units; as-built 15.2sq.ft. concrete landing with
16.7sq. ft. steps to ground; as-built 263sq. ft. seaward side deck with
38sq. ft. steps to ground; proposed 255sq. ft. fire pit area; 60sq. ft.
of proposed stepping stones; proposed 25 linear feet stone
retaining wall under deck; install a 575sq. ft. sand beach area;
install 600sq. ft. of pea-gravel under deck to driveway and up to
sand beach area; install a .2, 125sq. ft. pea-gravel driveway;
install 75 linear feet of 4 ' high fencing with two (2) gates on
west side of dwelling; and to install 70sq. ft. pea-gravel path
from beach area to walkway stairs.
Located: 610 Jacksons Landing, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-4-8
The Trustees conducted a field inspection June 7th, 2023.
Notes read two-to-one native tree replacement for any trees that
were removed. And also the use of native vegetation only in� the
rear yard.
Board of Trustees 9 June 14, 2023
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is the as-built clearing is inconsistent. Revegetation should be
limited to native deer resistant and drought tolerant
vegetation. Trees should be included in the revegetation plan.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant.
We don't have any objection to making sure it' s all native
vegetation within the jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: ,Okay. And what about two-to-one tree replacement?
I forget if it was --
MR. KIMACK: Well, we are only taking out the two trees on that
one side. I 'm not quite sure where we can put them.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I believe there were some that were already cut
down, and I think you got a violation for that.
MR. KIMACK: There was one. We would agree to transplant two.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So you are removing two as part of this plan
and one is already removed.
MR. KIMACK: Well, there is two on the side of the house, on the other
side, basically, but the one I point out to you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, the stump right in the middle.
MR. KIMACK: That stump right in the middle, that' s the one --
they thought it was not within it. But that's the one we got
the violation on. We would agree to two-for-one for that, if
that' s acceptable to the Board.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition of two-to-one native tree replacement, and
also that the use of native vegetation only in the rear yard.
And by using native vegetation and two-to-one tree replacement
will bring it into consistency with the LWRP. And also subject
to new plans showing the tree replacement and native vegetation.
That' s my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Under Wetland Permits, number 1, AS PER REVISED
PLANS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED ON 6/8/23 Michael Kimack
Board of Trustees 10 June 14, 2023
on behalf of 220 FLORAL BLVD. CORP. requests a Wetland Permit to
remove existing bulkhead and install ±121 linear feet of new
bulkhead using vinyl sheathing that includes an ±8" return on
north end; bulkhead to be replaced in same location as existing
except for 23 linear feet of the southerly end to be angled
landward to connect to neighbor' s bulkhead; new bulkhead to 'be
raised six (6) inches to be level with the southerly bulkhead;
and to install and perpetually maintain a ±10 ' wide non-turf
buffer along the landward edge of the new bulkhead filled with
sand or stone (±12 cubic yards) to match landward point of
adjoining northerly non-turf buffer.
Located: 1825 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-15
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
this application.
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 7th of
June, noted it was a straightforward replacement of bulkhead.
Partially, retaining walls, it was pulled back from the wetland,
recommended 45-degree connection to neighboring bulkhead on south
edge of property. Spartina to be planted in wetland area where
possible on south edge.
It should also be noted that I am in receipt of new plans
stamped received by the office June 8th, 2023, that show a slight
modification where the south edge of the bulkhead is pulled in to
meet the neighbors and not create a pocket of erosion, essentially.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. Any
further questions of me?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I don't believe so.
Is there anyone else that would like to speak regarding
this application, or any additional comments from the members of
the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I 'll make a motion to approve this application
based off of plans stamped received June 8th, 2023, with the
stipulation of new plans depicting a 15-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Number 2, Michael Kimack on behalf of
D.M. BASILICE REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove
existing 75' long wood bulkhead and dispose of materials '
offsite; construct a 75 linear foot long vinyl bulkhead in same
location with two (2) 10' returns and elevated 18" above existing top
of bulkhead; total of new bulkhead to be 95 linear feet; provide
Board of Trustees 11 June 14, 2023
approximately 22 cubic yards of clean fill to bring grade of new top
of bulkhead; install and perpetually maintain a 10 ' wide non-turf
buffer along the landward side of the new bulkhead and plant with
native vegetation or substitute sand or stone at owner's discretion.
Located: 3255 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-6-8
The Trustees recently visited on our monthly field
inspection, the 7th of June, 2023. Notes from that inspection
read straightforward; match non-turf buffer to north, indicating the
left side facing the water, and non-turf buffer will be roughly
ten feet.
The LWRP found the project to be consistent with its policies.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
The Trustees received a survey stamped April 24, 2023.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. Are there any
further questions of me?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : No. Anyone else wish to speak?
(No response) .
Members of the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing no one further wishing to speak, I make a motion to close the
hearing. 1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : I make a motion to approve the application
striking from the written description the "at owner' s discretion" and
the inclusion of a non-turf buffer matching the property to the
north, which is roughly ten feet in.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 3, Michael Kimack on behalf of
NEIL STRONSKI & PATRICIA PEREZ requests a Wetland Permit to remove ' a
14" diameter, 6" diameter, and two (2) 12" diameter trees at top
of bluff; construct a 100 linear foot long upper retaining wall
with a 6' return along northerly property line; backfill with
approximately 30 cubic yards of fill from off-site; install and
perpetually maintain a 10 ' wide non-turf buffer along the landward
edge of the relocated top of bluff and plant native vegetation or
substitute stone/sand at owner' s discretion; construct a 93 linear
foot long lower retaining wall with a 12 ' return along northerly
property line at 45 degree angle (105 l. f. total) ; backfill with
approximately 200 cubic yards of fill (±110 cu.yds from off-site) ;
excavate 12" below top of bulkhead to retaining wall (±90 cubic
yards) and deposit landward of retaining wall; cover area with one
layer of jute mating O/E and plant American beach grass at 1' on-
Board of Trustees 12 June 14, 2023
center O/E (±3, 600sq. ft. ) ; place heavy stone 6"-8" as scour pad (2.2
tons) between proposed lower retaining wall and existing bulkhead
with filter fabric underlayment (±1,065sq. ft. ) ; remove existing bluff
stairs for construction and replace with a 4 'x8 ' top landing to a
4 'x18 ' staircase to a 4 'x8 ' upper middle landing to a 4 'x14 '
staircase to a lower middle 41x4.5' landing to a 4 'x2 . 6' staircase to
a 4 'x11. 5' bottom landing to a 41x8 .5' stairs to beach.
Located: 7025 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-15-10
The Trustees most recently visited the site on June 7th, 2023,
noting concerns of destabilizing the bluff and surrounding area by
vibrating and shaking at top of bluff. Lower wall does not seem as
problematic.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this application
and resolved to support it with a ten to 15-foot non-turf buffer
planted with native vegetation, and no tree removal.
As noted in the field, the Trustees were concerned about the
upper retaining wall.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. We did visit
it and there was concern about using the vibration in order to set
the sheathing for the upper one. Apparently we've had some bad
experiences in the past. So what we did, basically, in talking to
Ian Crowley who is going to be putting it in, we decided it can be
done by hand digging and augur sheets, and plans have been
resubmitted to indicate that, as a means with which to put the
sheathing in, which will not cause any problems .
As far as the trees are concerned, on the upper one, the Locust
trees basically are right in line, I think there is three of them,
right in line with the new bulkhead on the top. Or the retaining
wall. And they are already beginning to lean. There is really no way
with which to preserve them.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. I think overall the concern was more
that the upper retaining wall would actually have a destabilizing
effect on the bluff. Would you like to speak to that?
MR. KIMACK: Okay, your concern is that somehow putting in the upper
retaining wall would destabilize the bluff which is already becoming
destabilized. So rather than -- so the new retaining wall would go
in and it would basically be sent down far enough. They normally
extend above ground anywhere from two to four feet and inground about
six or seven feet, hand dug, which is going to lock in that upper
wall and cause it not to have any more erosion or destabilization.
I 'm not quite sure exactly how you might have come to a concern
that it would be a destabilization by putting( in a retaining wall
when it's exactly the opposite.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing to
speak regarding this application or any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I just think, for the record, I understand your
point of removing trees as best practices from a steep bluff. I
Board of Trustees 13 June 14, 2023
think they should be, probably be replaced. It' s a large enough
property certainly that they could be replaced on the landward side
of the house as a one-to-one, probably.
MR. KIMACK: I would have no objection to that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : And then, you know, looking at the picture of this
house, there is certainly a pretty good amount of stability at this
time. I understand it' s a steep spot. In a perfect world the house
would be located landward enough, and if the applicant wanted to put
in a retaining wall, you know, 20 feet back from the top of the bluff
and sort of let the bluff naturalize and find a comfortable slope
that it would stay at and revegetate at, that' s what should happen
here, but obviously we are working with what we have. So we'll keep
that in mind for the future.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Any other questions or comments?
(No response) .
Hearing no 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 the portion of this
application relating to the lower retaining wall and boulders.
To do that, I need to strike the following language from the project
description. Quote: Remove a 14" diameter, 6" diameter and two 12"
diameter trees at top of bluff; construct an upper retaining wall
with a six-foot return along northerly property line; backfill with
approximately 30 cubic-yards of fill from off-site. End quote.
Additionally, I move to strike the proposed 10-foot non-turf
buffer, and instead require a 15-foot native vegetated non-turf, the
4-foot access path and temporary irrigation to be removed within two
years. All trees removed that must be removed should be replaced
one-to-one with native hardwood. This permit will be contingent upon
receipt of new plans depicting the described changes. So moved.
MS. HULSE: I 'm just going to ask, do you consent to that amendment to
the description, the job description?
MR. KIMACK: Do I have to?
(Board members discussing amongst themselves) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I rescind my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to deny the portion of the project
that says quote "remove a 14-inch diameter, 6-inch diameter and two
12" diameter trees at top of bluff; construct an upper retaining wall
with a 6' return along northerly property line; backfill with
approximately 30 cubic yards of fill from off-site. " End quote.
And I make a motion to approve the remainder of the description
with a one-to-one native hardwood tree replacement and a 15 ' native
vegetated non-turf buffer with 4 ' access path and temporary
irrigation to be removed within two years .
This permit will be contingent upon receipt of new plans
depicting the described changes . So moved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 14 June 14, 2023
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 4, Michael Kimack on behalf of
EILEEN KASSCHAU requests a Wetland Permit for the following as-built
structures : As-built 2 . 5'x71 ' (177 . 5sq. ft. ) Slate stepping stone
walkway with 35 slate stones; as-built 4 'x4 ' (163q. ft. ) slate
staircase with three (3) treads and four (4) risers; as-built 28
linear foot by 1 ' (28sq. ft. ) Long rock wall adjacent to slate
staircase; as-built 1.5'x19' (28 .5sq. ft. ) slate walkway;
as-built 2 . 75x3.5 (9. 63sq. ft. ) upper wood staircase; as-built
3.25'x10. 0' (32 . 5sq. ft. ) upper wood walkway; as-built 3.3 'x3.2 '
(10. 5sq. ft. ) upper wood staircase; as-built 4 . 4 'x10. 0 ' (44sq.ft. )
upper wood landing; as-built 3.31x15' (49.5sq. ft. ) mid wood
staircase; as-built 7 'x7 . 3' (51 . 1sq. ft. ) and 3.0 'x3.25' (9.75sq. ft. )
lower wood landings; as-built 2 . 9' 'x11.7 ' (33. 93sq. ft. ) lower wood
staircase, for a total of 241sq. ft. of stairs and landings; as-built
raised wood deck and shed, remove 7 .4 'x8 ' (59.2sq. ft. ) of existing
building and 3.2 'x7 ' (22 . 4sq. ft. ) of adjacent existing deck, remove
approximately 3 'x8 ' (24sq. ft. ) of existing deck; proposed re-framed
shed will be 71x8 ' (56sq. ft. ) ; remaining existing deck will be no
more than 6' wide with 99sq. ft. Of deck to remain, except for small
section between staircase and retaining wall; as-built 4 . 33'x5.25'
(22 .73sq. ft. ) staircase to lower deck; as-built 10. 4 'x57 '
(592 . 8sq. ft. ) lower wood deck at bulkhead; remove 10 . 4 'x48 . 5'
(504 . 4sq. ft. ) of lower wood deck with 10. 4 'x8 . 5' (88 . 4sq. ft. ) of
lower wood deck to remain; as-built- cantilevered 3. 61x4 . 5' platform
off bulkhead with 3.3 'x7 . 4 ' steps to beach; for the second set of as-
built 164 .31sq. ft. Bluff stairs: 3.3'x9. 6' (31. 68sq. ft. ) upper landing
to 3.3'x6.5' (21. 45sq. ft. ) upper staircase to 3. 31x3. 5' mid landing
to 3. 3'x10.7 ' mid staircase to 3.3'x3. 9' (12 . 87sq.ft. ) lower landing
to 3.3'x11 . 5' (37 . 95sq.ft. ) lower staircase to 3.3'x4 . 1' (13. 5sq:ft. )
lower deck at bulkhead with steps to beach; existing 20. 5'x38 .2 '
in-ground pool with as-built 1, 041sq. ft. Slate surround patio; as-
built 91 linear feet of slate retaining wall on northerly sides; as-
built slate staircase with five (5) treads and six (6) risers; pool
equipment area below grade south of patio; as-built 91 linear foot
long -concrete retaining wall along westerly and northerly sides of
pool; as-built 95 linear feet of wood retaining wall along southerly
and easterly sides of pool; 113 linear feet of metal vertical
ballister pool fence along westerly and northerly retaining walls;
141 linear feet of 4 ' high chain link pool fence along southerly,
easterly and northerly sides of pool; total pool fencing is 254
linear feet; open 4 'x5' outdoor shower wood base; for the existing
3,210sq. ft. two-story dwelling connected to drywells with a 8 .3'x38 '
seaward side covered porch connected to lower grade by two 13'x3. 8 '
stairways; 61x10.2 ' open covered porch and 81x8 ' side entry open
covered porch; seaward 10. 6'x8 ' open deck and 7 . 9'x11 ' stairs from
first floor level down to basement level; 588sq.ft. stone terrace at
grade; existing "L" shaped 64 ' long masonry retaining wall supporting
the 1, 020sq. ft. Parking area paved with gravel on asphalt and drained
to drywells; a 61x46' stone walkway; a 1, 4593q. ft. Gravel on asphalt
Board of Trustees 15 June 14, 2023
driveway drained to drywells leads down to garage supported on one
side by a 35' long masonry retaining wall; and HVAC condenser units
enclosed by a low fence; and to construct a 13. 1'x24 . 1 ' addition over
an existing basement level garage. Located 5800 Vanston Road,
Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-1-1.2
The Trustees most recently visited' the site on June 7th and
made the following notes : Straightforward as built, to include
removal of part of the shed and deck along bay to bring into
compliance with prior permit for steps.
The LWRP found this application to be inconsistent and noted due
to the as-built and then 6.3, protect and restore tidal and
freshwater wetlands : A. Comply with statutory and regulatory
requirements of the Southold Town Board of Trustees laws and
regulations for all Andros patent and other lands under their
jurisdiction.
Number 1, comply with Trustee regulations and recommendations as
set forth in Trustee permit conditions. -
Then with the question what is the natural feature. In 1999
a permit 4958 was issued for a shed, 161x20' stairs and 31x7 ' steps .
The shed is to be used as a shed and revegetated.
Number 1, the wood dock does not comply with the permit and
should be removed or modified to meet past permit condition.
Require revegetation of the area if the deck is removed.
Number 2, stairs do not comply with the permit and should be
modified to meet conditions . Require revegetation of the area if the
stair is removed. A large amount of as-built ignores the permit and
the quote "in-place, in-kind" quote notation is that the standard for
this area due to the many decks 'on the bulkhead. The area is a FEMA
velocity hazard and structures should not be expanded, especially
without permit. In 2001 plans were submitted to the Board that
depicted a deck and shed that met the permit conditions . And there
is a portion of a plan noted here as well.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support the
application as the 'as-built and new construction existing violations
of Chapter 275 Wetlands in addition to the dwelling as submitted.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. I think
basically the, um, the construction of the, the issuance of the
permit of that upper deck system with the she,d, primarily, which
indicated a 6x20 deck with a 7x8 shed on it had been over-built
and understood, I think he built an 8x27 and a 12-something by
nine. Something like that. And the proposal is to utilize the
same structure, basically the same, without tearing anything out
over there, but reconfiguring it to come back to the 6x20 and
7x8 shed, essentially. The fill site has and continues to be
well vegetated all the way through. There is really no signs of
any type of erosion as such on any part of it going down.
It does have a second staircase, which we discussed on the
site, against the, if I correctly, against the northerly property
Board of Trustees 16 June 14, 2023
line, which is used for an easement for the other people across the
road.
Part of the request certainly is a second floor on top of the
garage. That is part of the application. Part of the request is for
the pool,' for the surround for the pool, the fencing around there.
The walkway, the stone walkway alongside that pool, and the stairs
going down. It' s an old piece of property and the house was
constructed by 1920. It's been there some time.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else here who
wishes to speak?
(No response) .
I would -note that the pool is very close to the top of bluff. I
realize that at the time the permit was issued it was likely the
dimensions were taken from the bulkhead. So that is something just
to keep in mind. There is quite a bit of structure.
MR. KIMACK: It has not as of yet caused any difficulty with the
bluff itself and has been there for some time.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And as you pointed out, there is a quite-vegetated
bluff there.
MR. KIMACK: It' s one of the better-vegetated slopes that I 've
seen in the sense without any kind of erosion points along any place.
As a matter of fact it' s even difficult to walk it to try to get
around it. You can almost see from the photo the conformity of the
green, you know, from the top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : I believe at the time this was permitted, Trustee
jurisdiction was at 75-foot from wetland line from top of bluff, and
now we are, the code is 100. So at the time it was permitted but the
different dimensions for setbacks .
Mr. Kimack, can you speak to the portion of the application that's
above the garage?
MR. KIMACK: Yes, they are adding, I think the plans are in the file
and also the description. They are adding a recreation room that is
connected back to the house, and they are staying within the
perimeter of the garage on the south. And normally, that doesn't
normally trigger a major concern for the Trustees as long as we are
not changing the overall. But it's the second floor and adding on it
to it, it became part of the application.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Mr. Kimack, thank you, for your patience. So I just
want to confirm for the record that the shed will be dialed back to
its originally-permitted size, correct?
MR. KIMACK: Yes . If you look at the drawing that I did, primarily,
you'll see -- may I approach?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes, I have one dated March 22nd.
MR. KIMACK: That' s the one.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : Yes, please.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It's probably better if you speak into the
microphone.
MR. KIMACK: Speak to the hand, according to Arnold.
You'll see the dotted area, the dashed area that is here. That
is as it exists presently. So.
Board of Trustees 17 June 14, 2023
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes . To be removed
MR. KIMACK: It was 27-foot all the way here. Your permit was 20-foot
to here. So we are moving this and doing the 7x8 here, and then in
order to keep with the six-foot wide, we are stripping this back and
putting a railing over here so that this does not represent an
extension of the deck. It' s the only way I could reconfigure it
without having to tear everything out and causing damage to the
retaining wall.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you, for explaining.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Or any other questions or comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in ,favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application with the
plans stamped and dated March 22nd, 2022, and by addressing the
concerns of the LWRP, by reducing the size of the shed and the dock,
thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP.
Let me clarify that. March 22nd of 2023 is the date on the
plan. I mixed up my numbers.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, AS PER REVISED PLAN & PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED ON 5/25/2023 Michael Kimack on behalf of
GEOFFROY L. PENNY, SR. requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing
staircase, fixed walkway, wood ramp, floating dock and pilings;
construct a proposed landward 4 'x6' (24sq. ft. ) fixed ramp to a 41x32 '
(128sq. ft. ) fixed dock using Thru-Flow decking throughout; install a
3'x14 ' (42sq.ft. ) aluminum ramp off seaward end to a proposed 6'x20 '
(120sq. ft. ) , floating dock situated in an "L" configuration; install
five (5) sets of 6" diameter pressure treated pilings at, 8 ' on-center
for the fixed dock, and two (2) 8" diameter pressure treated pilings
to anchor floating dock.
Located: 1010 Fisherman's Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-1-21
The Trustees conducted a field inspection June 7th, 2023, noting
that the project is straightforward with the new plans showing
conforming structures received 5/25/2023.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on be of the applicant. I think
it's been well thought-through with the visit. If you have any
further questions of me.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All thru-flow decking?
Board of Trustees 18 June 14, 2023
MR. KIMACK: All thru-flow decking. If you look at the drawing
you'll see it, it' s in the lower right-hand topo layout. I
always put my thru-flow through there with the dimensions .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else here
who wishes to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the plans stamped received May 25th, 2023.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. KIMACK: Thank you, very much. Have a good evening.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Number 6, AS PER REVISED PLANS & PROJECT
DESCRIPTION SUBMITTED ON 6/9/2/23 En-Consultants on behalf of
2740 DEEP HOLE DRIVE, LLC, c/o STANLEY LOMANGINO, MEMBER requests a
Wetland Permit to construct an approximately 4, 345sq. ft. partially
elevated masonry pool patio (use approximately 102 cubic yards of on-
site excavation material to achieve proposed patio elevation) , upon
which will be installed a 4 ' high pool enclosure fence, a 10 ' wide
pergola, an outdoor kitchen area, and a 3'x3' foot shower (to be
connected to a trench drain installed around patio, which is to be
connected to a proposed storm-water drainage system located more than
100' from wetlands) , all located at least 100 ' from wetlands; and
install a 3'x101 ' stone walkway consisting of 3'x2 ' pavers set
in sand to existing dock; and proposed more than 100 ' from wetlands a
16'x34 ' swimming pool; a 14 . 5'x24 ' pool house with outdoor shower; a
4 'x4 ' fire pit; three existing pine trees located in the proposed
construction area are to be selectively removed and replanted
elsewhere on property more than 100 feet from wetlands; and to
establish and perpetually maintain a 75' wide Non-Disturbance buffer
area along the landward edge of wetlands with a 4 ' wide by ±101 ' long
natural access through the Non-Disturbance buffer area to dock.
Located: 2740 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-4-11
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent, recommended
minimizing irrigation and fertilization with the creation of wide
vegetated buffers .
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
but recommends Black Pines and Northern Bayberry located seaward
of the construction area are retained.
The Trustees most recently visited the property on the 7th
of June and noted there should be a 75-foot non-disturbance buffer,
relocate mature pine trees, relocate any trees that will be disturbed
or replaced on a two-to-one basis.
And I am in receipt of new plans stamped received by the
Board of Trustees 19 June 14, 2023
office June 9th, 2023, that do show a 75-foot non-disturbance buffer.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes . Good evening. Rob Herrmann, En-Consultants,
on behalf of Mr. Lomangino.
As Nick just mentioned, we've had some discussions about the
75-foot non-disturbance buffer, and also the relocation and retention
of those two or three Black Pines elsewhere on the property, as they
are located right either at or within the construction site. So that
is responsive to the recommendation, I think, it was either also the
LWRP or Conservation Advisory Council.
And I think, as I had mentioned to you, shown on the revised
plans what was previously proposed as a masonry walk to the dock
which is now a natural pathway, including a path through that 75-foot
buffer.
Other than that, the proposal meets the 100-foot setback and is
a pretty straightforward application. These plans should now be
consistent with those recommendations and our conversation at the
site.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any additional comments from the members of the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I 'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All 'in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I make a motion to approve this application based on
the new plans stamped received in the office June 9th, 2023,
stipulating the saving of the . Black Pines by relocating them on the
property.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 7, En-Consultants on behalf of
WALTER R. MILLER, JR. requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing
steps and wood railing along cleared walking path, and construct
a 4 ' by ±64 ' long timber bluff stairway consisting of 4 'x4 '
entry steps and a 4 'x8 ' entry landing, 41x16' steps, 41x4 ' landing,
4 'x18 ' steps, 4 'x4 ' landing, and 4 'x10 ' steps; and restore existing
pathway and areas of existing vegetation disturbed or lost during
construction with shade-tolerant native vegetation.
Located: 2398 Hyatt Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-1-16
The Trustees most recently visited this site on June 7th, 2023,
noting straightforward/revegetate.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
consistent, noting to minimize irrigation and fertilization with
the creation of wide vegetated buffers .
Board of Trustees 20 June 14, 2023
And the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with retractable steps at the base of the stairway and parallel to
the shoreline.
I 'm also in receipt of a letter from a neighbor who was
concerned about how the heavy equipment will be transported to the
site.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes . Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicant.
The last comment is easy to respond to. There really is no heavy
equipment for the site. As I think we had mentioned during the site
inspection, there is a right-of-way that does not seem to be really a
travelable right-of-way except maybe by foot. So care was taken
actually to design the stairway so that it ends landward of that
,right-of-way, so that that right-of-way is not intruded upon or
interfered with in any way, but also would not be used at all for
delivery of materials.
For these kind of bluff stairways, particularly here, all
the work is done on the bluff by hand; saws, drills, sledge
hammer, posthole diggers. There is no heavy equipment on the
bluff at all for this type of project.
The plans do note access coming from the top of the bluff
or from the end of the beach but there would be nothing really
that would come through the beach. So that's really easy to
respond to.
And with respect to revegetation that. is included in the
plans, the disturbance area around the proposed stairway would be
revegetated as would the existing sort of switchback walking
path that has that wood railing. So that area of the bluff which
now is basically travelled and barren of vegetation would be
revegetated.
So you really get sort of a net increase in bluff
vegetation as a result of creating this one single point of
structural access .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you, for that. Would the applicant be
agreeable to temporary irrigation to revegetate that area of the
bluff?
MR. HERRMANN: I don't see why not. I mean, it would be native
vegetation that would be used. I don't think you would want to
set up any irrigation the bluff face itself. But it should be,
you know, it would be obviously in their interest to make sure
that the plant materials that they purchase survive. So I don't
know how you want to address that, maybe just put a survivability
condition or something on there. But, you know, certainly they would
not normally want us to, they would not want us to set up irrigation
on, you know, on the bluff face itself.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Agreed. That' s what we don't want to see, and
believe it or not, we see it a lot.
MR. HERRMANN: Usually it leads to more erosion than anything else.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Absolutely. And that' s the problem with it.
Board of Trustees 21 June 14, 2023
All right, is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding
this application?
MS. REEVES: I 'm Jamie Reeves and I live at 415 Hilltop Path in,
Southold, and I also own the property at 480 Sunset Path in
Southold. and both of these properties are contiguous to Mr. Miller's
property on Hyatt Road. And I 'm also a member of Sunset Knolls
Homeowners Association and that association, and its
members own property contiguous to Miller's property.
So on Saturday I got three registered letters because I manage
the association' s bank account and property taxes, so I need to share
this information with them, and I did that.
My husband and I and the members of the Sunset Knolls
association had that one concern about the property and how they
were going to get the equipment there, which has already been
answered, and I appreciate that.
But we would like point out to the Trustees two interesting
observations about the proposed site plan. One, the proposed site
plan on the property, west side of Miller's property is designated as
the property of Dan Denton (sic) . This beach property is deeded to
the members of Sunset Knolls Association and Dan Denton is not a
member of that association and doesn't own any part of that property.
And two, the site plan as proposed shows the 20-foot right-of-
way at the back of Mr. Miller' s property, from Hyatt Road across his
property, and seems to show pictorially that this right-of-way hooks
up with the 20-foot right-of-way at Sunset Knolls property.
Even the tax map shows a private road on Sunset Knolls ending at
Mr. Miller property. Mr. Miller has no existing right of property --
no existing right-of-way through Sunset Knolls property. We hope that
the Trustees will take note of our concerns about the accuracies of
the proposed site plan. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So what was just brought up, would your client
be able to legally gain access to perform this project without
using any portion of that right-of-way?
MR. HERRMANN: That' s correct. That' s why I mentioned before, the
project was designed specifically to avoid any- intrusion upon or
interference with or use of the right-of-way that is located,
that runs basically across Mr. Miller's property, east of the Sound.
And that, again, I believe that the right-of-way that the speaker is
referring to, I 'm bringing up the survey rather than site plan, is
this right-of-way here. And that is why when Ms . Miller first came to
us, we had a typographical survey done by the surveyor and located
the right-of-way, because my initial concern was what if the toe of
the bluff, you know, ran out here, for example, the stairway would
have had to traverse the right-of-way, which would block use of it. I
mean, again, there doesn't seem to be any in fact use, but they could
prevent the right of use. But if you look at the site plan, the
stairway actually ends to the east of the right-of-way.
So Mr. Miller can come down the stairs and walk across the
right-of-way and on through his own property, the Sound, same as he
does now. But there won't be any -- he won't be using this right-of-
Board of Trustees 22 June 14, 2023
way to bring in materials which was an initially mentioned concern,
and there is no physical interference with the right-of-way. The
entire project is located on Mr. Miller' s property and only Mr.
Miller' s property. And that's shown on the site plan. And the access
to his property comes up here from Hyatt Road.
MS. HULSE: So how does the applicant access the staircase?
MR. HERRMANN: From his backyard.
MS. HULSE: Does he have to walk around?
MR. HERRMANN: No. This is his house. This is the top of the
bluff. That' s the stairway which ends here. And this is the
right-of-way here. So the stairway is located completely
landward of this right-of-way, and was designed specifically to
avoid this right-of-way, just for this very issue. If he had to
build a stairway across the right-of-way, I don't think we would
be permitted to build it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Without permission.
MR. HERRMANN: Without permission. So the idea was to avoid that
conflict all together. It was a concern we anticipated from the
outset, fortunately.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding
this application?
(No response) .
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I 'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion it to approve this application
with the plans stamped May 5th, 2023, with the stipulation of
temporary irrigation to establish the vegetated non-turf buffer
to be removed within two years . If necessary. That is my motion.
MR. HERRMANN: Also there is no buffer. It's the revegetation of
the bluff face.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) . .
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 8, AS PER REVISED SURVEY RECEIVED ON
6/12/2023 Timothy Cloughen on behalf of CYNTHIA DGHEIM requests
a Wetland Permit for the existing two-story dwelling with a
918sq. ft. footprint and 97sq. ft. concrete covered porch;
as-built ±3' to 4 ' wide concrete slab/walk surrounding the
perimeter of the dwelling; as-built vegetation and tree clearing
on the property; and to install a split-rail fence landward of
the area of freshwater wetlands on the property; and to
establish and perpetually maintain an approximately 11, 194 .35
'square foot area seaward of the split-rail fencing to be a
Non-Disturbance Buffer area.
Located: 58670 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44-4-4
Board of Trustees 23 June 14, 2023
The Trustees recently visited the site on June 7th and
noted that the fence location was flagged.
The LWRP found this application to be inconsistent, noting
that there are as-builts .
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
And since visiting the site we are in receipt of new plans
stamped and dated June 12th, 2023, that do note the location for
the proposed split-rail fence as per our discussion onsite.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
Please state your name for the record.
MR. DETRAKIS: Joseph DeTrakis (sic) , owner of the property. I
don't have anything to say, but I welcome any questions.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very much. I do have one question
here. We appreciate the updated plans we were able to review
prior to the hearing this evening. One question. While there
are dimensions from the existing house to the flagged wetland
line, there is not a dimension to the fence. Would it be possible to
amend this drawing so that we have dimensions to the fence from the
house?
MR. DETRAKIS: Sure, I 'm sure the surveyor can provide that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Absolutely. That would be helpful just so there
is some sort of reference point because right now it looks like
what we spoke about the field, it would be helpful to have that
dimension.
MR. DETRAKIS: Okay, no problem.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, great. Anyone else here who wishes to
speak or any other questions or comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) . 1
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application
subject .to new plans that show the dimension from the existing
house structure to the proposed fence. That is my motion.
MEMBER GILLOOLY: Second.
MR. DETRAKIS: I 'm sorry, so the house structure, not the property
line?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That is correct. So from on this drawing there is
a --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Hang on. There is a motion made, so we really can't
-- She made a motion. We really can't answer questions at this time.
We should probably --
MR. DETRAKIS: That' s fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : After the motion, she can answer that question.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. And by granting a permit thereby bringing
it into consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 24 June 14, 2023
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So to answer your question. You have a dimensions
drawn from the house structure to the wetland line.
So that is fine to keep. But if you can also add the dimension
from the structure, the house, to the fence, so that we have --
otherwise we have no way to locate where that fence is . And maybe a
couple of lines would be helpful.
MR. DETRAKIS: Sure.
MEMBER PEEPLES: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 9, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc. on behalf of ROBERT P. NELSON, JR. requests a Wetland Permit for
a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to dredge the existing bulkheaded
basin to -4 . 0 ' mean low water (approximately 550 cubic yards of
bottomland) , while maintaining 10' separation from existing
bulkheads; and to de-water/deposit the ±550 cubic
yards of dredge spoil across a portion of the neighboring lot,
seaward of the existing vegetation and landward of the spring high
water mark.
Located: 1420 Ninth Street, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-45-6-9. 4
The Trustees conducted a field inspection June 7th, 2023,
noting that it is a straightforward application.
The LWRP found it to be consistent. The dredging is subject to
seasonal controls that increase flushing of the marine wetlands, will
help with the ecology.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Robert Anderson, on behalf of the applicant, here
to answer any questions the Board may have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
MR. HARLOW: My name is George Harlow, I live at 1220 Ninth
Street in Greenport.
I 'm just curious what happens to the spoils? Because
particularly you bring up a lot of organic materials, sometimes
toxic materials, and it' s going to be essentially put adjacent to
the beach. And it' s Pipes Cove.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: To address that, the DEC usually requires or
they do require soil samples to make sure there is no heavy
metals or anything .toxic in that material. It does have an
approved spoil site that will be located to the west of that
channel and it's shown on the plans submitted April 17th, 2023.
MR. HARLOW: Does that get coated with anything, because the fines are
going to be up near the surface. When it gets deposited, you mix up
all of the spoil that essentially the fine grain clays and things
that are in that channel, and they are up at the surface, so
essentially fine grain material and not sand.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Again, DEC controls the sediment sample, they
do a TOC. So if it is silt or something like that, you are not
Board of Trustees 25 June 14, 2023
allowed to necessarily deposit it on the beach. If it' s clean
sand of a similar grain size, which this appears to be, then you
are allowed to put it back on the beach.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Right. to clarify that point, it' s mandated here you
are only allowed to dredge sand, and there is always going to be some
incidentals that come up with it, but the idea is they would be
dispersed amongst the sand and not, you know, running off into say
the wetlands in this case behind the beach.
MR. ANDERSON: And if I may add to that, we are looking at a boat
basin that has been historically dredged. On their last
approval with the DEC, from what I can tell there is 1, 650 cubic
yards to 2, 000 cubic yards just laid out 800 linear feet along
the adjacent property there, and same amount we are proposing.
So it stands to reason if that gets filled there with sand
deposits and littoral drifts, and we are not proposing any
dredge below what was proposed back then and approved back then.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And you submitted to the DEC?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wishing to speak regarding
this application?
MR. PERROS: Hi, my name is Alexander Perros, Mr. Nelson's
neighbor, 1400 Silvermere Road. I just wanted to voice my support for
his application and what he's doing. We've worked closely together
and there's no better steward of the wetlands, and we co-own probably
the majority of that 18-acre salt marsh. So I 'm in support of this,
and I know a lot of the dredging material will end up on our property
and we are totally in support of it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, for your time. Have a great evening.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Number 10, Tom Samuels on behalf of CREDIT
SHELTER TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove portions of
and substantially reconstruct existing deteriorated bulkhead;
reconstruct 9316" linear feet of bulkheading in-place using
Shore-Guard SG vinyl sheathing, 61x6" treated wood
whalers/stringers at two levels, 8" diameter by 6' long laid log
dead-men reinforced with (2 each) 8"x6' backing piles, new 3h"
galvanized steel tie rods with connecting hardware, and the 20
Board of Trustees 26 June 14, 2023
existing 8" diameter by 20' treated wood pilings at ±6'
on-center to remain; replace 518 sq. ft. of decking with new
2"x6"x5' long and 6' long Douglas fir decking using galvanized
steel connectors; the existing 511"x26' 3" section of fixed dock
and decking off of bulkhead to remain; dredge approximately 720
sq.ft. of basin area to a depth of 3 ' below mean low water and
add dredged spoil as backfill for reconstructed bulkhead;
filling limited to replacement of eroded backfill behind
existing bulkhead, using dredged material and/or clean sand;
establish and perpetually maintain an approximately 265 sq. ft.
non-turf buffer area topped with %"-1" beach stones between the
west property line and decking, and a 10 ' wide, approximately
200sq. ft. non-turf buffer area topped with 3/"-1" beach stones
landward of decking.
Located: 155 Fisherman' s Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-1-8 . 4
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application but had concerns over the fence posts and the fence
on the east side of the property.
The Trustees most recently visited the property on the 7th
of June and noted it was a straightforward application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. SAMUELS: Tom Samuels on behalf of my family, to answer any
questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Anyone else that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. SKOUZA: Robert Skouza, 60 Fishermans Beach Road. We're
neighbors. Our property abuts the boat slip in question, and we
are here to support the issuance of that petition.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
regarding this application or any comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Are you going to come back and do this full-time?
MR. SAMUELS: No, this is it for me. I would like to introduce my
daughter Kate, who is an architect, and she may be before you
some day.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you. Hearing no further comment, I make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Number 11, AMP Architecture on behalf of
WILLIAM JIMENEZ requests a Wetland Permit to demolish and
Board of Trustees 27 June 14, 2023
removal of existing 1-1,� story dwelling, wood deck, garage, shed
and septic system; construct a new 501x25' two-story dwelling
with a 221x25' garage (1, 896sq. ft. combined) ; an 8 'x34 '
(272sq. ft. ) front covered porch; a 9'x15' (135sq. ft. ) rear
screened in porch with 3 'x5' (15sq. ft. ) steps to ground; and an
8 'x20 ' (160sq. ft. ) breezeway from dwelling to garage; a proposed
25'x40 ' (1, OOOsq. ft. ) barn with 8 'x18 ' and 21x20 ' (184sq. ft.
combined) concrete aprons; install 30sq.ft. Of A/C and generator
systems on concrete slabs; install an I/A OWTS with Absorption
trenches landward of the dwelling; modify the pervious driveway
to be 4, OOOsq. ft. ; install seven (7) 8 ' diameter by 2 ' deep
drywells to contain roof runoff; and to excavate approximately
7,200 cubic feet of earth for proposed improvements and all
7,200 cubic feet to remain on site for backfill.
Located: 23900 Route 25, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-109-3-1
The Trustees recently visited the location on 6/7/23 . The
nearly illegible handwriting of Trustee Krupski reads as
follows: House should be pulled back a minimum of ten feet
ideally in line with the barn. Also install non,-turf,
non-disturbance buffer with split-rail fence.
The LWRP found the project to be consistent, with three
points of note: Verify the wetland boundary, establish buffers
on the parcel to protect the wetland system, consider relocating
structures outside of the FEMA flood zone AE elevation 6, and
increase setbacks . Soils in this area are poorly drained.
Trustees are in receipt of plans stamped May 3rd, 2023.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding the
application?
(No response) .
Comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : As stated on the inspection just with the, how
close the wetland kind of creeps in on this property, and I
don't believe it' s on the property, I think it's outside of the
bounds, but it's right up adjacent to the property line. It' s
also definitely a drainage issue property coming off Rt. 25. You
know, historical, coming across from the vineyard across and
then into there. I think it would make sense, as I stated in
writing, you know, pull the house a little bit landward and put
in a buffer to try to remediate some of the impacts .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Yes, addressing the LWRP concerns we did take
a close look in the field at that wetland boundary. We did talk
about the buffers and the parcel on the wetlands systems, and
moving that structure back landward. So we addressed those
points .
Any other comments from the Board? Questions?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : I make a motion to approve the application
Board of Trustees 28 June 14, 2023
with the following conditions: The house be pulled back a minimum of
ten feet to be in line with the barn; split-rail fence 15 feet off
the seaward side property line; and make the non-disturbance buffer
from that split-rail fence seaward toward the wetlands.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : And new plans depicting those conditions.
That' s my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 12, Twin Forks Permits. on behalf of
PATRICK & ANN MARIE BROWNE requests a Wetland Permit to demolish
the existing dwelling (project meets Town Code definition of
demolition) down to the 1, 480. 7sq. ft. First floor sub-floor
plate footprint; remove existing rear and masonry stoops,
covered porch, concrete slab, breezeway, Bilco doors, A/C units,
heating oil tank, front brick walkway and gravel area, fire pit
with brick edging and gravel area, and abandon and remove
sanitary system; construct a new two-story dwelling using
existing foundation (1, 480 .7sq.ft. ) and construct a landward
foundation (1, 332 . 7sq. ft. ) , for a total residence footprint of
3, 530. 6sq. ft. ; existing 669.2sq. ft. Garage to remain in place
with exterior roof and siding replaced, and connected to the
proposed dwelling through a proposed habitable space; install a
492sq.ft. seaward side patio; construct a 446sq. ft. covered
outdoor patio which contains a 407 . 4sq. ft. outdoor kitchen;
install a seaward (east) 58 .3 masonry stoop; install a side
(south) 57 .7sq. ft. masonry stoop; construct a 249sq. ft. front
entry covered porch; a side 84 .2sq.ft. mudroom covered porch;
total residence stoops, patios, covered patios, covered porches
is 1, 387 .2sq. ft. Footprint; a 100sq. ft. Side stairwell egress;
install a 4 '5"x6'7"± outdoor shower; install new A/C units;
install a 380sq. ft. front walkway; install a new I/A septic
system landward of dwelling; install gutters to leaders to
drywells to contain roof runoff; and to install and perpetually
maintain a 10 ' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of
the top of the bank.
Located: 1645 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-63-7-38
The Trustees most recently visited this site on June 7th
2023, noting: Need new plans depicting reference points for pier
line, possible house needs to be moved back into compliance with
the pier line. We are also in receipt of a letter of support
from the neighbor.
And the LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
consistent. Two reference points here. One is: Minimize
irrigation and fertilization with the creation of wide vegetated
buffers . And two, no further seaward projection of the
single-family residence to be permitted.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support
this application due to lack of information with regard to the
Board of Trustees 29 June 14, 2023
demolition/reconstruction. The Conservation Advisory Council
requests revised plans to include a pier line.
Since that issuance we are in receipt, I believe, of plans
depicting the pier line from -- the latest 'plans that I have
saying June 2nd, 2023. And given that this project does meet the
Town Code definition of a demolition, it is subject to the
hundred-foot setback or the pier line. The pier line is
something that has not only been consistently held by precedent
of this Board but was also redefined by code at the Town Board's
March 28th meeting. The new definition of pier line as approved on
April 11th is as follows: Chapter 275-2, pier line: The seaward
projection created by drawing an imaginary line between the
immediately adjacent, existing permitted principle structures,
docks, piers, wharfs or floats.
The plans presented for this project do not conform with
the hundred-foot setback or pier line and must be pulled back as
discussed in the field.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. POYER: Lisa Poyer, on behalf of the applicant. I would
just like to address that last comments.
With regard to the existing foundation, will be utilized by
the new proposed house, and in order to remove the foundation
and install a new foundation for the house, if it were to be
moved -further back and in conformance with the pier line it
would actually cause more of a detriment to the environment by
over-excavating into that area and creating more disturbance on
the seaward edge of the proposed house.
Right now the way it stands is the house would be demolished to
the first-floor sub-plates. The foundation on the seaward side would
be utilized in its current place. It would be constructed going up,
and that way there is minimal damage and minimal disturbance to the
land disturbance on the seaward side of the house which is most
sensitive to the wetland areas.
But I understand the comments, but in this particular case
I feel there is an exemption or kind of a special situation
where we are utilizing a lot of, you know, significant portions
being the excavated part of the land already. We are not going
to be disturbing that, we are maintaining the current seaward
limit. The neighbor to the west is in support the application
for the current orientation of the house because he feels he has
more privacy, and the way the new house would be oriented utilizing
that existing foundation limit.
MS. HULSE: Do you have a statement from that owner? What are you
basing that on?
MS. POYER: I believe he submitted a letter of support to the
file and he also spoke with the property owner who relayed that
information to me.
MS. HULSE: As long as there is something in the file he actually
submitted. Thanks .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes, we have that letter in the file.
Board of Trustees 30 June 14, 2023
MS. POYER: So in this particular case we are -not demolishing a
house, full two-story, full foundation, you know, we are going
to be digging a new hole on the seaward side of the house. All
of the proposed additions for the new basement area, which is
already there, we are just expanding it on the landward side of
the house. This is being crafted for this property to maintain
that seaward limit and no disturbance.
MS. HULSE: When you are saying "no demo, " it fits the definition
of a demo in the Town code, correct?
MS . POYER: It does because we are demolishing the first and
second floor, but the foundation --
MS. HULSE: So it' s considered a demo of that structure. Just
for clarification.
MS. POYER: Correct.
MS. HULSE: You are saying you are not demoing, but_ you are
actually demoing per the code.
MS. POYER: We're demoing per the code but we are not doing a
full demo where we are going to be removing the foundation,
digging a whole new hole in the ground, disturbing a significant
amount of land. We are utilizing that existing seaward limit of
what is there, and I feel from an environmental standpoint
putting in a new foundation in the ground would cause more
detriment on this piece of property.
I think this proves it is a unique situation. The house,
the proposed house, has been designed to utilize that; to
utilize the historical orientation of the house. We will also
speak to the silt fence and hay bales; you know, to help control
that, but we are not going to have an excavator in there digging
up the foundation and disturbing that soil that has been there,
settling in and formed around the foundation and stabilized the
slope. There is significant vegetation there.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Can the house size that you are proposing be
achieved on the property if it were relocated roughly ten feet
landward?
MS. POYER: We would be demolishing the foundation that is there
right now and causing that additional disruption.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : But just in practical terms .
MS. POYER: It would be something we would have to take a look at, the
architect would have to look at.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : So moving the house ten feet landward to be
within the pier line, you said you could still achieve the same
size structure that your client desires and meet our setback
with the respect to the pier line.
MS. POYER: Right now we are trying to look at it from an
economic standpoint as well, utilizing what' s there. We are
trying to recycle what is there. We are trying to use the
foundation that is in the ground when we place the house, the,
new proposed house immediately on top of that instead of
incurring additional demolition costs, carting off additional
foundation rubble. All of those items that are already there that can
be utilized.
Board of Trustees 31 June 14, 2023
MS. HULSE: So that has to be something that is going to be generated
by the inspection by the Building Department, obviously. It may be
you might not be able to use that. Maybe you're speculating and
hoping that you can, but that might not be the case.
MS. POYER: I can have an engineer come and take a look at it, if
that's going to factor into this, that the existing foundation
can't support the proposed house. If that' s what we need to do,
we can have an engineer look at that. If that' s going to be the
one pivotal point for maintaining the foundation.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : We just had an application this evening where
a house was very close to the top of bluff and had the client
move their house back significantly from top of bluff, they
would have had both an environmental benefit to the property and
previous stability of their bluff.
Now, we don't have a bluff situation here per se, but this
property is bulkheaded with the structure down low and it would be
nice to have an additional buffer on the rear yard facing the
water to prevent runoff from any lawn as proposed in the area
for runoff and nitrogen and other chemical purposes .
MS. POYER: We are proposing a ten-foot wide buffer with the
application. We are proposing an IA system for the site.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : I guess to put it in plain English, I don't
particularly buy into the argument about the environmental
benefit of leaving the foundation in place. To me it' s a project
that is looking like we want to be a big house as close to the
water as physically possible.
MS . POYER: So if we were to renovate the existing house and do
an addition on the landward side of the house, the existing
house could remain in place if it didn't meet demolition code --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Sure.
MS. POYER (Continuing) and we could come back to you with that
application. And then the house would still be seaward of the
pier line.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Yes . Where it was constructed and given its
CO.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And that would be a different project.
MS. POYER: Correct, but we are trying to improve what is --
okay, so we'll have to go back to the applicant and have a
discussion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So at this point would you like to --
MS. POYER: I would like to hold it open, please.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay. I 'll make a motion to table this
application.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Oh, I'm sorry. May I please reopen this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
Board of Trustees 32 June 14, 2023
regarding this application?
MR. BURGER: Yes. Eugene Burger. I have been a builder in
Southold Town for 42 years . To answer your question about the
foundation, I 'm, you know, I 'm supposed to be building this
house for this client.
To answer your question about the foundation, it is
substantial and it' s definitely something we would keep in
place. The pier line only crosses by less than a hundred feet
or, no, right at 100 feet. Which we showed you guys the two side
houses, correct? Have you guys looked at that? Because I
brought copies in case you hadn't.
The other thing I want to say is, you know, the application
for this permit was put in prior to the big house, and I know I
heard you guys saying that, oh, you've been doing this pier
line, but if you follow your code there is no reference to the
houses in the old 275. It only got put into there, in the new
code, and the application was put in prior to that. So I
believe this application is exempt from that pier line.
MS. HULSE: The pier line definition that was in the code
previously was different than what is obviously amended to, .
however it' s been the practice of the Trustees to use that
adjacent properties as a basis for many, many years. Many years.
And I mean, I go back 18 years and they were doing it 18 years
ago. So they have been doing --
MR. BURGER: I don't believe the Trustees were. Southold Town --
MS. HULSE: Yes, the Trustees were.
MR. BURGER: No. I believe that -- you're not going to let me
finish.
MS. HULSE: Go ahead.
MR. BURGER: In the old days we used to have to line the houses
up, but not because of the Trustees. That' s the way the Town
wanted it done.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : If I can speak to that. And I understand you're
frustrated and I understand where you are coming from. But the
Trustees, the Board that I have been on for, you know, eight
years now, we have been conforming to this pier line to the
point of moving applicants back a foot, if needed. Including
existing foundations . And when the Board, you know, we discussed
with, you know, multiple Town attorneys if it meets the
definition of a demo, that is something that we have been
looking at very strongly.
MR. BURGER: All right, so let me ask you a question though,
Nick. So what' s the goal with that? Because to Lisa' s point
it' s way more detrimental impact to the property by tearing the
house down, digging the foundation. She's 10.0% right. I do this
all the time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I would disagree that point. When you demo a
house, everyone knows you pull it into the center, and you are
pulling back. You are not on the bluff pushing or pulling
toward the bluff. That's just not what it is .
You know, it' s, I don't see it as -- I think that -- in
Board of Trustees 33 June 14, 2023
this case I don't think we are specifically speaking
environmental impact. It' s been the practice of the Board, you
know, including putting that forward in our code. And when I
tell you this, I 'm being honest, nothing to do with building code and
nothing to do with big house law. We are trying to prevent the
creep of houses throughout the Town going forward and forward
and forward. You know, with. the intensified storms we've been
seeing, we are trying to pull everything back and we-are also
trying to protect neighbors ' view sheds. So I understand it's
frustrating and, you know, we try to work everyone but this is
something we've been taking very seriously for quite some time,
separate from the Building Department.
MR. BURGER: So it' s, you said frustrating, but it's to the tune
of like $300, 000 . So they went for a variance already to keep
the garage. Is the garage still able to stay?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: (Affirmative nod) .
MR. BURGER: So we just have to turn the portion of the house,
that eight, 14 feet, whatever it is, that 100 square-feet, to
get that out of the pier line, or are you asking to bring the
house back even further?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I believe it was the northeast corner, where
the pier line is, cut off the corner there.
MR. BURGER: Northwest corner; I have it here. Do you want to see it?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Closer to the creek, isn't that east?
MR. BURGER: You are saying where the pier line is? It' s on the
west side. Would you like to see this quick?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : (Perusing) . I would call it north.
MS. POYER: I would call it the northern point of the house.
Given the orientation of the house on the lot.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Closest to the creek there, that corner of
the house. That' s the only section that is seaward of the pier
line.
MR. BURGER: That' s correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : And just to be clear, we are not trying to pull
the whole project back, and we are not trying, I 'm not telling
anyone to re-orient the house or anything like that. It' s just
we want the living structure to be pulled landward of that line.
So if there is a better way to do that, we are certainly open.
We are trying to work with you here and your applicant, you know.
MR. BURGER: We'll try to redesign it, I guess, right? Or
withdraw it?
MS. POYER: We' ll leave it open.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz, Architect for the project. I have
been living and working in Southold Town for 30 years. I know
rules change, but we have been working on this project for well
over a year. This pier line, the little corner of the pier line
is a miniscule area of the project. And I understand we are not
creeping at all. We did show some bay windows that we assumed we
could remove. We did show a patio. But I don't consider this a
creep in any sense.
We are doing a new IA system, we're certainly going to do
Board of Trustees 34 June 14, 2023
the drainage off the drywells from the roof. So it' s a net
positive environmental project, for sure. And I understand the
pier line, we are kind of caught in the middle because we
started a long time ago, and now this came into effect by law I
think two-and-a-half months ago. By law. By law.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : That' s not the case.
MS. HULSE: I 've addressed that. That' s a mis-statement because
that' s always been the practice of this Board. And previous
Boards to that. And it's been the practice of the Board that
they have taken the adjacent properties as the pier line.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But was that law at the time?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : The Trustees in Chapter 275 have discretion
to waive the pier line if _need be, but we hold fast because we
believe in the principle of it.
So 275, so even though it is policy of the Trustees is not
previously law, now it currently is law, so the effect is the
same.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We codified the practice and updated the
definition to make it clear as possible, because there were
misconceptions based on what is and what is not a pier line. So
with this latest definition, it's clear to all its living
structure to living structure on the immediately adjacent
property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : And quite frankly, we codified it because this
Board kept having to have this conversation with architects and
applicants, and at some point it's the same conversation over
and over again, either someone has to learn or it has to be
codified.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But again, this is an existing corner, 112
square-foot of area that' s over the line.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We've done it for three feet, and there' s
people in this audience who did applications that had to move or
adjust their plans to adhere\ to the pier line.
MR. SCHWARTZ: So if we leave that corner in place and build
around it, then it' s okay.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Not if it meets the Town Code of a "demolition. "
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
I make a motion to table this application.,
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : Number 13, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of
CAROLYN & JOSEPH FERRARA requests a Wetland Permit for a
proposed 31x36' 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.
Board of Trustees 35 June 14, 2023
Located: Property Off of Osprey Nest Road, Greenport.
SCTM# 1000-35-7-1
The Trustees reviewed this application on November 9th in
the field and noted it was not staked. Concerns regarding
neighbor right-of-way, concerns regarding navigation and hazards
to navigation.
We most recently reviewed this application inhouse on June
7th of 2023. Bear with me, there' s more paperwork here.
The LWRP found this application to be inconsistent, noting,
number one, the safe navigation of vessels needs to be further
evaluated. In 1957 when the mooring lots were created, the
number and size of vessels would have been different from those
today. Stakes were used to moor vessels and an owner would pull
them into the shore to board.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
this application, noting the application, due to the concerns
with navigation around the other docking facilities .
I am in receipt of several packets, one received on June
12th, 2023, from the Law Offices of Wickham Bressler & Geasa PC;
Another one received on June 8th, from Patricia Moore, attorney
at law.
I believe those are the most recent items we received. And
I do have plans stamped and dated September 19th, 2022, as the
most recent in the file.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes . Good evening. Patricia Moore, on behalf of the
applicant.
I have with me Joe Ferrara, the owner, who is here, and I
also have Jack Costello who is going to be the contractor on
this, and I also wanted to get some information from him on the
record. So I ' ll just get started and then I ' ll defer to Jack
for a little bit.
I did want to bring us up to speed because this application
was filed back in November. We did get the property staked. I
know that the Board inspected, or one or some of you, went out
to inspect the staking.
The plan is in fact for a three-foot wide fixed dock with
flow-through materials . It is of a lesser dock than are all the
other docks that have been granted on these mooring parcels.
The Ferrara' s have a very small 23-foot Boston Whaler. It
has an eight-and-a-half foot beam, and the mooring lot can
certainly accommodate that particular boat. We would go so far
as to offer what would be common sense, which is to put a
limitation on the boat size on a mooring lot.
You can see from the lots that are there on Cleaves
Point, all the boats are in the range of 25 to 32 feet. That is
the reasonable size for the mooring lots that are there.
The mooring lots themselves appear as lots, fee titled, on
the Cleaves Point subdivision map. And while I understand the
LWRP' s comments and his belief that in 1957 the boats somehow
Board of Trustees 36 June 14, 2023
were different, there have been boats of this size in ' 57
throughout. If anything, the boats that are current, newly
constructed, are even more flexible and maneuverable than the
old boats. But that' s just observation.
The mooring lots themselves are all of equal size, are all
20-feet in width. Our fixed dock is three feet, which leads an
open area of 17-feet for maneuverability of bringing the boat
into the dock space into the slip.
We've had issues with the Cooper' s dock. I gave my letter
to you documents what we think is the problem with the Cooper's
dock, and the ability by the Trustees to demand and direct him
to move his dock into the proper location. I would remind the
Board that these mooring lots are in fact ownership, underwater
ownership, and in the past and certainly presently, owning the
underwater land has a greater weight than if you are asking for
permission from the Trustees under your proprietary rights and
permitting rights .
So I would have you consider that more important here with
respect to the Ferrara' s right to place a dock on the property
and to maintain a boat on their property.
Gull Pond and the lagoon, you know, and I 'm just putting on
the record, you know that this lagoon is a very protected water
body. It' s inside Gull Pond. My understanding is, and you may
know better than I do, is that it grew in 1938 through the
hurricane, but ever since it has been the subject of dredging.
Cleaves Point subdivision map shows these mooring lots. These
particular lots were all approved by the Planning Board in 1957 .
And the map was filed with the Suffolk County Clerk. So the Town
blessed this map.
The property owners in Cleaves Point all recognize these
lots. And every lot owner, including Cooper, who is an owner in
Cleaves Point knows that the existence of these lots and the
development of these lots is anticipated and authorized.
A denial of this dock application makes a mooring lot,
which that' s all it is, it's a lot for a dock, would make this
lot meaningless and valueless. So it' s a very important, very
valuable asset to the property owner.
To our adjacent east, our fixed catwalk is hugging that
property line. That was done with discussion with DeMercian
(sic) and Fitzgerald who are the owners of the adjacent tax
lot numbers two and three. What they did is they got together
and they put a dock in the middle of the two properties and they
have their boats on either side.
Originally, they came and they were concerned, and I believe
they may have objected to an earlier application. In this
instance, this was shown to them, my client met with them,
staked it, so that they could see it, and once they understood the
application, they had no objection to it. That' s why we
proceeded as we did with this dock design.
The dock that we are presenting to you is dealing with
the situation with the Cooper dock as best we can. We have an
Board of Trustees 37 June 14, 2023
existing encroaching condition, and we are working within the
bounds of that. Certainly we don't agree to it, we don't
consent to it, but we want to move on.
As far as the dock being a navigation hazard, we
strenuously disagree with that analysis . The water depths in
this area adjacent to all the mooring parcels are over six-feet
in depth.
The lagoon is an unobstructed area behind these docks, ' so
boats can come in and out, backing in and out, very comfortably,
with no obstructions. And certainly a lot easier than when you
try to dock into a slip of similar size.
There are 16 mooring lots in total on the map. There are 12
approved docks on these properties. All of these docks and the
mooring lots run with the land and they are attached to landward
lots in the subdivision. i
The Ferrara family is, their upland parcel is Lot #35. So
this mooring lot connects to Lot #35 upland.
The 16 mooring lots are in fact, they constitute a private
marina of individually-owned parcels . They are all designed to
give each owner their own dock with a small boat. Each lot is
the same size. They are all 20 feet in width and 43 feet in
length, and the way that this dock has been designed it leaves
17 feet of clear, unobstructed area for purposes of docking a
small boat.
At this point, I would ask Jack Costello to come and, I
know you know him very well, but I want to put on the record his
background and his expertise with regard to the navigability of
this waterbody and the dock. So, Jack, why don't you come up.
We'll share a microphone, if you have any problems hearing.
MR. COSTELLO: Good evening, Trustees . Jack Costello, on behalf
of the applicant.
This seems like it' s gotten a little more confusing than it
has to be. This picture tells a lot. You can see how those lot
lines, and even if Elizabeth zoomed out a little bit more, you
can you see how the lot lines go through the docks, over the
docks and everywhere. And you can clearly see where the Ferrara
property touches Mr. Cooper's dock.
So basically what we are saying is that the, I would call
it the east side of that dock, is unusable to Cooper, where he
has the west side of the dock he uses, as do many people down
through this development, they only have one side of the dock.
If you guys have page five out of seven that is dated on
June 6th, 2022, do you guys have that available in your hands?
I have them for you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : We have the copy in the file.
MR. COSTELLO: I have extras right here. Just so there is a clear
understanding that where this property line is in relation to
Cooper. It hits Cooper' s dock. And basically this property line
will be here, and this is his property. And this is where it' s
going to go through.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Excuse me, Mr. Costello is this Exhibit A, in that
Board of Trustees 38 June 14, 2023
section?
MR. COSTELLO: It' s sheet five of seven in the application.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: In the application.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Oh, in the application packet.
MR. COSTELLO: In the application plans. And I just put some
cross hashes in there to represent where his property is . And
that seems to be a point of confusion. What we are contending
is that this slip is navigable for a boat, you know, nine-feet
wide to 30-feet long. The boat will be completely over Mr.
Ferrara' s property and does not interfere with Mr. Cooper's
property line.
And I just felt it was a little bit of confusion about how
this nonconforming facility, you know, works with shared docks,
and even the neighboring dock, with Herrmann and Fitzgerald,
obviously they'll share a side. Everybody, most of these docks
only have half a dock. And this is a situation where Mr.
Ferrara is also only going to have half a dock. The other side
of the dock will be unusable because that boat would infringe on
the, with the neighboring property line.
So we are only going to have one boat slip at this dock,
and I feel it' s perfectly navigable for one boat. And you can
see where the property line is, it seems pretty clearcut, that
he' s not going to be interfering in anybody's property line, and
that is actually non-conforming with this whole situation because
every piece of property there is crossing property lines and
interfering with other people's property.
He'll be in a situation where he'll be confined to his
property, which is actually a rarity in this situation.
MS. MOORE: Jack, just so I have your credentials on the record.
How long have you been Costello Marine, working as Costello
Marine?
MR. COSTELLO: Full time with Costello Marine, upwards of 33 years .
Building docks, expediting permits . Luckily most people on this Board
know me.
So, I mean, like I said, this is a situation where I think the
plans were not clearcut about where the property ownership was .
Because this is a situation of ownership over the bottom. The
dock structure will be completely within land owned by Ferrara,
the boat will be completely on Ferrara' s property, and that' s
probably the only situation where you'll have down here where
it' s the owner is completely over his own property.
So what we are requesting is an approval based on what
we've applied.
MS. MOORE: I have just for your files, for the record, I
hand-drew all of these individual mooring lots, and the permits
that have been issued for each of the mooring lots. Some of them
I have highlighted because, by example, next door to us,. that
Schira (sic) dock, that dock predates the Trustees.
The Trustees got jurisdiction over these kind of things in
the ' 80s. And before that the Town Board. But if you were the
owner of the underwater land, often times you could put the dock
Board of Trustees 39 June 14, 2023
in without the need for either Town Board or Trustee permits .
So many of these docks, the ones that I've identified, I
identified the permit numbers, those that did go through review.
But there is a lot more docks there than the permits that are
shown. So I ' ll just give that to you for your records . That' s
all. It' s not very fancy but it identifies all the different
permits. Thank you.
MR. COSTELLO: Does anybody have any other questions for mb?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I was wondering if you submitted to DEC.
MS. MOORE: Not yet. We need your approval. We don't want to - you
know, we have to start somewhere.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. And then Mr. Costello, from your
professional opinion, it does appear that, in what you just
submitted to us that the current location of the dock is out to
about 4 .2 feet of water depth?
MS. MOORE: Our proposed, yes .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes . In order to dial back the length a little
bit, there would still be able to maintain that water depth that
will be required.
MR. COSTELLO: The problem is the dock is only 36-feet long and
as you go inshore, say, you know, you want to dock a boat of 25
feet, 30 feet, whatever, it' s almost going to take up the
entirety of the dock, and then you would be almost up to the
mean low water line. So you would have zero water, at 30 feet
you have zero water at low tide.
And if you look at the plan, there is a line delineating
mean low water. That is zero low water. So shortening the dock
would not be practical. We already have shortened the dock from
the original conception, to give more room between the Cooper
dock and the Ferrara dock. But basically a dock being
three-feet by 36-feet is a very small fixed pier. I just, if you
look at those contours moving in, you know, we basically at 20
feet inyou only have a foot-and-a-half.
So even though their dock does terminate at 4 .2, it quickly
comes right up. So, I mean, shortening it doesn't seem
practical. Or shortening it any more.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Costello, any possibility of dredging in
this area? I know there is a history of dredging in Gull Pond.
MR. COSTELLO: Well, this piece of property, the thing is you
have to prove that it's been dredged in the past 20 years, and,
absorbed in the conversion rate of the habitat again.
Fighting that fight is rarely won, and the DEC rarely even
accepts the application. They return it. This may be a
situation where it may be possible but, um, that is a pretty
strong fight. And like I said, they usually just return the
application and say not permissible, the version of the
applicant.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Like you said, by these plans it does shallow
up really quickly. I didn't know if it alleviates, that if want
six-feet of dredging in that area to maybe reclaim some of that.
Board of Trustees 40 June 14, 2023
MR. COSTELLO: It just seems like there is enough room to do what
we have to do. Like I said, the issue is the property line. The
property line comes right up through the dock. I mean,
shortening the dock doesn't really help Cooper, it doesn't
really help the next-door neighbors on the other side. You know
what I 'm saying? And we have plenty of room to navigate this at
12 ' 9" . We have plenty of room to navigate in there. So to try to
geta dredging permit is --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
TRUSTEE, PEEPLES: So, when we were last here in November of 2022,
Ms. Moore, there was kind of an agreement that was made at the
podium that the homeowners, the Cooper's to the west and this
property owner, were going to work together through yourself in
order to come to an agreement and I, is this a result of that?
MS. MOORE: No. We've been exchanging communication up through
today. We got pretty close. We offered as much as we could
offer but then we were being asked to do some things that were,
in our opinion, impossible and beyond what would be accepted by
the DEC or Trustees. So I mean.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Such as?
MS. MOORE: Well, Mr. Cooper wants the same dock he has now, and
when you replace a dock, my understanding of this Board and the
code says that we have to, when it' s replaced, it has to be
replaced with a conforming dock. So in other words a ramp and a
float, but not a 30 or 40-foot float, which is what is
presently there.
So we presented to Mr. Cooper the design, and I think we
included it so you would see that we are communicating and we
are making offers . And the most recent communication back, there
were some adjustments that we unfortunately, and Mr. Bressler is
here, he can speak for himself. But he had not gotten the
letter. But he did get it today. It was staff, not us . So he
did get a chance to see it and review it with Mr. Cooper.
But, I mean, we are happy to talk to or put on the record a
discussion of what we were willing to do with Mr. Cooper, and
get your input on whether or not a dock that would be proposed
would be feasible. But, you know, we've offered as much as we
can offer and we kind of reached our, you know, our end point.
And I don't think we, you know, there is always a push for more, and
just like you, we're dealing with the pier lines, you know, you get
to a certain point, I 'm sorry, that's as much as you are going to
get.
So unfortunately we were not able to come to that compromise.
Because certainly, I don't know if it would change our dock design in
any way, it only would solve the issue of having the trespassing or
the encroachment that is presently on, the situation today.
Am I correct, would it change our dock design?
MR. COSTELLO: It wouldn't change our dock design, and at this
point all we are doing is asking for approval for what has been
applied for. Along this property, his boat would be on his property.
Board of Trustees 41 June 14, 2023
And then, you know, the Cooper dock is right against the property
line. And you can see it' s very conforming with everything else
there.
So we are just asking to do work completely within the property
of Mr. Ferrara and we are not going to really involve -- you know,
this is a minimal structure on Mr. Ferrara's property. And that' s
what we are sticking for right now.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. Well, thank you. We do always appreciate
trying to work with the neighbors, and, you know, that is something
we are not really able to weigh in on, but that is something that
seems to always be a positive. So, thank you, for that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I mean, just throwing it out there, the Trustees
have been to this site multiple times at this point, and I understand
the concerns of the neighbor. You know, if they were going to,
certainly if they were going to rebuild their whole -- like if an
applicant comes in to rebuild a whole project, we are going to bring
it into conformity. If an applicant applies for a slight
modification, you know, when you're talking about floats and a few
piles, that is very different than rebuilding say a whole catwalk.
So relocating a few piles and sliding something, you know, a floating
structure over, is certainly not something that has never been done
before.
So without going down that road in depth, that is not for us to
talk about here, I 'm just kind of throwing it out there that this,
you know, there' s more than one way to skin a cat.
MS. MOORE: I mean, certainly if it was just moving, we would, we were
offering a lot more financially than just moving it. But if
it' s moving it and slightly adjusting it, by all means we would
I mean that was a presumption here. You know, if you keep the
same dock you've got, we' ll just move things so that they are not in
our way, by all means we would undertake take. That is a very
minor expense compared to what we were offering.
So, if Mr. Cooper was willing to do that, absolutely. You
know, that can be worked out between us. I don't think -- it' s
such a minor, I think would be relatively minor issue because I think
if you go back to the original permit of '72, I think that is where
it was supposed to be and it just shifted over time. So I don't even
think that a DEC would care that you are moving things back because
there can be some shifting, so we would really be just moving a pile,
repositioning the existing dock that's there. They are always willing
to do that. But again, it doesn't change our dock design because we
are using only our waterbody, our underlying land.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It would change the feasibility of using both
docks .
MS. MOORE: Of Cooper' s dock.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes .
MS. MOORE: I 'll let you speak to that.
MR. COSTELLO: That is not part of this application, at this
point so, you know what I 'm saying, we are looking for approval
on a minimal dock, 3x36 clearly inside the property lines of
Mr. Ferrara. That' s what we're here for.
Board of Trustees 42 June 14, 2023
MS. HULSE: I think it' s because you brought that issue up. And
that' s why the conversation has been generated.
MS. MOORE: And Mr. Bressler is here, so we are happy to have
that conversation.
MS. HULSE: I just want to make it clear that's why we are
talking about it.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MS. HULSE: Have you provided to the neighbor the documents that
you provided to the Board tonight?
MS. MOORE: Always?
MS. HULSE: The ones you provided to the Board tonight?
MS. MOORE: Oh, this one?
MS. HULSE: Whatever you provided to the Board tonight.
MS. MOORE: Yes, I can give it to him. That' s fine. It' s a hand
drawing with the permits . It' s all in the Town record.
MS. HULSE: Thank you.
MS. MOORE: Sure.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in
regard to this application?
(No response) .
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak?
(No response) .
We are inviting anyone else to speak at this point.
MR. BRESSLER: Yes. If it please the Board, my name is Eric Bressler,
Wickham Bressler & Geasa, Mattituck, New York, representing Robert
Cooper.
I get a distinct sense of deja vu being here. It seems as
though we went through a lot of this stuff the . last time we were
here. I think it was November. And there has been a spate of
letters since then, but nothing really has changed.
It's a hazard to navigation, that is obvious to everybody.
Notwithstanding the arguments to the contrary.
At the outset, let me, if I may, disabuse the Board of a
couple of issues that seem to have reared their ugly heads . And
I want to put them to bed right now.
Number one, since the permitting and the construction of
this dock, Mr. Cooper has kept boats on both sides . The
affidavit we submitted reflects that. There is no evidence to
the contrary. It' s just an argument by one who has no knowledge
of the facts . That's why there is an affidavit before you.
And the second, and more disturbing, I think, even than
that, and I heard it again tonight, that this dock somehow has
legs and it moved. This dock did not move. You have Mr. Cooper' s
affidavit. You have the photograph of the construction going on.
Which was done by Costello, by the way. And since there was no
permit that related to the dock, only the bulkhead, the only
thing that was done was the ramp was removed. You can see it in
the picture, the bulkhead was replaced, and the dock remained
unmoved. It has not been reoriented, it has not been moved, it
has not crept. It doesn't have legs. So let' s move along from that.
Board of Trustees 43 June 14, 2023
Now, I don't want to reprise everything that I went over
the last time, but I do want to hit the high points. And the
high points are these: This dock, this permitted dock, has been
there for more than 50 years. There have been boats docked on
both sides . That dock has a vested right to be there.
Now, of course the drawings, and I call them drawings, by
Costello, because he said he took it from a survey that he didn't do.
The drawings clearly show that this dock is not on claimed lands
underwater of anybody else. It' s just not. So let' s forget about the
land under water business. That's got nothing to do with it. I know
it's a marine thing but that' s a red herring. Let' s forget about
that.
Now let' s talk about whether or not there is some sort of
encroachment on surface waters . Because that is what we are
talking about here.
There is a claim that this 50-year old dock somehow
encroaches on what is properly the foreshore area of a mooring
lot. It' s been there for 50 years. It has a right to stay. It's
there adversely. It' s there by acquiescence. It' s there. It gets
to stay.
Now, the Board asked a question, and I think it was a fair
question, about what is going on to try to resolve this . And I
put in my letter to the Board the philosophical basis for what
we were willing to do. As I said, I don't really feel
comfortable talking about it because as lawyers we tend not to
do that in the forum that we mostly practice in. But since it' s
been brought up, I 'll address it in a little more detail .
The fundamental principle from our point of view is, having
these vested rights, we can take a hard position, and I think
the Board would probably agree, that they have no right to
anything. It interferes with navigation and they don't have a
right to it. Maybe they get to have a Clorox bottle or something
to tie-off a boat to.
But we didn't take that position. We took the position
that, to borrow a phrase from the bankruptcy format, we want the
indubitable equivalent of what we have now. And if you can find
a way to give us the indubitable equivalent of what we have now,
we'll play ball with you. And if that means moving it over a
little bit, we are willing to do that. However by moving it
over, several issues are created.
According to Plan B, the first issue is that that dock is
shorter and we don't get as far out into the deep water. So you
got to do something to address that. You either got to dredge,
which is problematical, or you've got to give us back what we
had.
The second issue is if you look at the drawing and you look
at where -- I see the photograph -- and you look what happens if
you move that over, now all of a sudden the room to dock the
boat on the west side is markedly decreased. Maybe you get a
canoe in there. Okay? And you are moving it over toward the
Board of Trustees 44 June 14, 2023
neighbor' s property, and while it' s true their dock is some
distance away, nonetheless that is greatly reduced.
So one of the things that we wanted, in fact there is at
most six feet, which is hardly room to get anything in there,
before we start running afoul of arguably their property line.
So what I was concerned about was get a sleeve to have the same
orientation and the same amount of room over there. Maybe the
neighbor will agree to that. Maybe the Trustees don't have a
problem with that. I mean, in truth and in fact, the 15-foot
rule is thrown out the window on every single mooring lot. It
just doesn't apply.
So, in order to put us indubitably in the same position, we
wanted to make sure we had the same room on both sides. We
wanted the same length, we wanted the same room. And then we
wanted to come to an agreement as to what is going to happen on
the east side when they drop a dock in. How is that going to be
divided between the docks? And again, we propose you divide
that evenly, both sides get ten feet, which is more than enough
for a boat. It' s not exactly what we have now, but it's
something we can live with. Rejected.
So we did what we could to try to accommodate when we had
no obligation to accommodate. And, you know, we just ran into a
stone wall.
I think that the law is firmly on my client' s side. But, as
I said, they are neighbors down there. And one of the rejoinders
from the applicant was, well, you know we can't do that, or the
Trustees won' t approve.
My answer that that was how do you know that until you
approach the Trustees, put it in front of them, and say maybe we
need a variance or two in order to get this done so everybody
can live together.
You don't put the cart before the horse, you take it one
step at a time.
So the answer to your question is what I just said. You
asked about the settlement. That' s what was going on. We bent
over backwards to try to make this thing work.
And of course the last point was, we'll do all that, your
nickel. And we got pretty close on that, actually. Actually, in
the end.
So the long and the short of it is the law is pretty clear.
We laid it out. There is no absolute right to a dock. In fact
the applicant' s own case has established that. There is no absolute
right to a dock.
I cited a federal case, maybe you get a mooring, maybe you
don't. But there is no absolute right, especially when the thing
has been there for 50 years . And you can't just take away those
rights . So --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Mr. Bressler, just to clarify, what right
is the Ferrara dock application infringing upon?
MR. BRESSLER: The Ferrara dock application is going to interfere
with the use of our dock.
Board of Trustees 45 June 14, 2023
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : You're talking about -- you're claiming that
the Cooper dock has a right to vessels on both sides or either
side of the dock.
MR. BRESSLER: We have done it uninterruptedly for 50 years and I
do believe we have that right.
Now, the owner of that lot, the predecessor of Ferrara, has
acquiesced to that. It was never a problem. There was never an
objection. And in addition to the claim of adverse possession,
another way to determine property lines is the way the parties
have dealt with the property over time.
So he puts the dock in, and now what do we have. A race to
see who puts the boat there first?
That' s just not reasonable. And hence our attempt to try to
resolve this thing. But --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : So you are, to adapt a phrase currently in
common parlance among the youth, your applicant is dock-blocking
the adjacent property from having a dock.
MR. BRESSLER: Well, if he puts his dock in, we are blocked. And
you know, I do want to address, without dragging this thing out
ad nauseam, when you get sick just tell me I 'll sit down.
But I do want to make one other point. And that is this is
not as peculiar as someone would lead you to believe. If you look at
the shape, the concave shape of the shoreline, that is not an
uncommon situation. And when you're talking about docking when you
are not, you don't have a straight shoreline, you are going to have
these problems . So this is not an unusual situation. The only thing
that distinguishes this, of course, is that they don't have a mooring
lot and we have been there for 50 years, and there is going to be a
big problem if he doesn't.
If they want to come back and talk about the matter
further, we are happy to do it. But I don't think on the facts
and on the law that this application should be granted.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : You are a masterful example of forensic
rhetoric, of epideictic rhetoric, but I would like to know what
you will do to take us into a deliberative phase of this argument.
Are you saying you are going to go back and talk to each
other and figure this out, or are you both wishing we just move
on this?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You should probably speak into the microphone
for the record.
MR. BRESSLER: As I said -- I thought I was projecting enough. As
I said at the last meeting, I am always willing to continue the
conversation. I felt that we were reasonably close on a lot of
the issues, and 'I think that they can be resolved, and I think
that it is patently unreasonable to say, well, we can't talk
about that or agree on that, subject to what the Trustees might
say, because we think we know what they are going to say.
Well, we don't know what you are going to say. We can only
come to you with a proposal and ask you to evaluate it. So I 'm
Board of Trustees 46 June 14, 2023
willing to keep doing that. It is a concave shoreline. There is
an existing structure. We can come to you.
But if they are not willing to negotiate on that basis and
they are going to take the position that you are going to say
no, then I don't know what to say. So.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I will just say that there are several times
the Trustees have been in a habit for, I mean at least a decade,
of offering a pre-submission conference where you get the, and I
think it' s $150, which for the resume sitting on the dais here is, I
mean, you would be robbing us . But it would go a long way
toward getting an understanding of where the Board would stand
on an application.
MR. COSTELLO: I met with Jay Bredemeyer throughout this whole thing,
and he just looked at the project and said they are all
nonconforming, don't worry about it, this is a slam dunk. And
that is where the whole thing started. Not much has changed. But
we blame it on Jay.
But if you look at these docks, as you can see, where the
property lines are, you can start counting them, one side of the
dock, one side of the dock, one side of the dock, one side of
the dock, one side of the dock. Almost every dock there only has
the right to use one side of the dock. And take that at face
value.
And like I said, this is one of the only docks that will be
entirely on his property. You can see they all cross the
property lines, and everybody only has right to one boat on one
side of the dock.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Can I actually ask you a direct question as a
working professional and one of the few non-attorneys involved
in this application.
MR. COSTELLO: Sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, as a dock builder, do you see a logical
bargaining in this between two neighboring properties?
MR. COSTELLO: At this point we are not asking for any -- it' s
not that we can't negotiate this at this point, I don't think. I
think what we are applying for is we are asking for the Trustees to
vote for an approval on this application on Mr. Ferrara' s property.
At this point I don't really think discussing those options
is right now in this venue, .because it's going to take more than
three minutes that we are allotted.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : That was very, I appreciate your discretion
and control.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak?
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I 'm just having a hard time figuring out how
one dock has a vested right but not another. Obviously the precedent
set in this area, they all present hazards to navigation, because it
is a tight area. But historically there has been docks there and it' s
worked. So I 'm struggling with seeing how one can say I can have a
dock but not another. That' s where I 'm at.
Board of Trustees 47 June 14, 2023
MS. HULSE: I think, just to clarify, we are throwing around the
word "right. " It' s not a right. That word is being thrown around
by a lot of people. There is no right to use one side or the
other or both sides . That' s not the way it works .
So obviously the way it has developed in this area, by
necessity it's come to this . So I'm not sure that saying one
person has a right while another doesn't have a right, is really
accurate. I don't think it is at all.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MS. HULSE: Mr. Bressler, as just a question. You had mentioned
something about wishing to maybe consenting to moving your dock,
correct?
MR. BRESSLER: We were discussing a movement of the dock westward.
MS. HULSE: So was there ever a discussion about applying jointly
for these applications, to put it together so that it could be
worked out among the Trustees in a more sort of global way and
sort of comprehensively addressing this area, or is that
something that was discussed and rejected?
MR. BRESSLER: Well, I had suggested apropos my earlier comment
that we should not put the cart before the horse, and that it
would be appropriate to approach the Trustees when we had reached a
philosophical understanding to try to see whether this would be
something that the Trustees could live with, instead of
deciding on a pre-emptive basis that the Trustees would not
consider it because, you know, quite frankly, this whole
business with these mooring lots is a problem. And I think it
would behoove us to get as far as we could and come before the
Trustees and find out what your thinking is and what you would
be willing to approve in order to move past the current
difficulty.
MS. HULSE: Which is I think what Trustee Krupski was referring
to when he said pre-submission deal of a lifetime.
MR. BRESSLER: Yeah, I thought the suggestion of a pre-submission
conference, if we could get far enough, was, pardon me,
extraordinarily constructive.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Quick question. On the plans that you
submitted, what is the proposed length of the dock? On one side
we are seeing 36 feet, and the other side looks like 29 feet and
12 feet?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Or is that two feet?
(Perusing) .
MR. COSTELLO: 36 feet on both sides.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So what is the 29 and the 12?
MS. MOORE: I just noticed that. So that is the landward portion,
because it' s kind of, there is a little, like a landing area
before you get to the water. So.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It' s not depicted?
MS. MOORE: Yes . Like the marsh area is a little high, so you are --
MR. BRESSLER: May I inquire, what is the Board looking at?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It does look like both of them terminate on
the bulkhead. So it' s just trying to figure out how one side,
Board of Trustees 48 June 14, 2023
the top of the application submitted to 36 feet, but the bottom
shows the 29 foot number and then the 12 foot number.
MR. COSTELLO: I don't know what those numbers mean. It' s 36
feet. The scale would be 36 feet. That's what' s in the words of
the application.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: All right, so we should ignore the other
numbers. So 36 is correct?
MR. COSTELLO: 36 is correct. 3x36.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And roughly, Mr. Costello, what is the length
between the pilings there? So the end. And what' s that?
MR. COSTELLO: Ten.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
MR. COSTELLO: Those other numbers are the length of the property
line. So this is well within the property line. That is - the
computer generated those numbers .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay.
MR. COSTELLO: So those are surveyor lines.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Got it. Okay, thank you, for your patience with all
that and for explaining what was going on with the dimensions here.
That was part of the question.
Obviously there are, there is precedence set in this area
for docks . The homeowner does own this underwater parcel of
land. And it is in a very inconvenient portion where it is
concave within this kind of mooring area. .
So with all that said, you know, we do want to reduce the
hazards to navigation here, and in doing so feel that the dock
length should be dialed back in order to not create any tighter
issues there.
So with all of that said, I would like to see if there is
anyone else who wishes to speak in regard to this application?
MS. MOORE: Can you just give us an idea of what you are suggesting is
a dial back? Because he's the expert.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : She'll make a motion.
MS. MOORE: Weil, would it be helpful if we could have a discussion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: We waited for deliberations between the two
parties to come to an agreement that would have made this much
simpler. And the parties failed to reach an agreement and we
are in a tight situation now. So the motion will be made on the
record.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Just close it.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: At this point we've had a lot of discussions. So I
make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL YES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application
with the new plans depicting a dock length of 27 'x3 ' wide, and
also with the plans depicting the four-foot access path that is
requested in the project description, and thereby granting a
permit thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP.
That is my motion.
Board of Trustees 49 June 14, 2023
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 14, AS PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
RECEIVED ON 8/9/23 Cole Environmental Consulting on behalf of
DONALD & GLENNA RYAN requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing
concrete patio and in same location construct a proposed 4 ' wide
access ramp to ground off of the landward end of a 4 'x57 ' fixed
catwalk using Thru-Flow decking leading to a 3'x14 ' aluminum ramp and
a 6'x20' floating dock secured in an "L" configuration and secured
with two (2) 8" diameter pilings on either end, with one (1) 4"x4"
piling installed landward of the concrete bulkhead for the catwalk;
install water and electric to the catwalk; and to establish and
perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward
edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 760 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-1-3
The Trustees conducted a field inspection June 7th, 2023.
Notes say include previously permitted ten-foot non-turf buffer.
Redraw pier line to immediately adjacent dock.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is Goose Creek is a New York State DEC Critical Environmental
Area; cumulative impact of higher dock density; water quality,
wildlife, submerged vegetation, recreation, commercial
fisheries, have not been addressed.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
and recommends the proposed structure move closer to the
concrete steps to the west, and to retain the oak trees on the
property line. We do have new plans stamped received June 9th, 2023.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. RUMMEL: Kate Rummel, on behalf of the applicant.
You have updated plans to incorporate the new pier line to
have the buffer from the previous permit, removing the concrete
patio. The pier has been drawn to keep the tree as is . So we are
not disturbing the tree. We will be adding a 4x4 just seaward
of the concrete bulkhead, just for added support, but
otherwise we have avoided putting pilings near the tree roots to
disturb the existing tree.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 50 June 14, 2023
I make a motion to approve this application noting that the
dock will be constructed with through-flow decking and it is
within the pier line, which should address the LWRP' s concerns
and thereby bringing it into consistency. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We'll take a five-minute recess .
(After a five-minute recess, these proceedings continue as follows) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, back on the record.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Number 15, Cole Environmental Services on
behalf of 67 SOUND CHESHIRE LP requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 121x35' gravel driveway and walk leading to a
29. 61x27 ' two story dwelling with a 51x9. 5' covered entrance;
a/c units to be installed on western side of dwelling; install a
7 'x13 ' plunge pool with pool equipment area surrounded by 4 'x16'
sound deadening enclosure, and install a pool drywell; install
±123 linear feet of pool enclosure fencing with gates; install
8 'x2' deep drywells to contain roof runoff; connect dwelling to
underground water and sewer lines; and to establish and
perpetually maintain a 30 ' wide by 122 ' long vegetated non-turf
buffer area along the north property line, and a 15' wide by 94 '
long vegetated non-turf buffer along the east property line; all
trees to be removed will be replaced 1: 1 with a native species.
Located: 520 Madison Avenue, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-42-1-1
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application, however there is concern with the stability of the
fence on the -- this is the wrong file. My apologies.
As stated, the LWRP found this to be consistent. Note the
limits of clearing line and potential loss of trees, soil is
expected to be poorly drained, seasonal high groundwater is
expected, no further expansion or reduction in the setback to
the pool should be conditioned.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees most recently visited the property on the 7th
of June, noted that the house should be pulled back to maximize
distance from the wetland. 95 feet should be possible.
Additionally in work session we discussed pulling the house and
pool back 15 feet and stipulating some additional vegetated
buffering.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding the
application?
MR. RUMMEL: Kate Rummel, on behalf of the applicant.
I just want to note that since the onset of this project that
discussion has been on how to develop without destroying, right? I
think that has been a major theme, especially on the North Fork. And
as per the comments of the pre-inspection meeting, our original
Board of Trustees 51 June 14, 2023
proposal was for the house to be 75-feet back. The Board requested
that we pull the house at least 80 feet back, which we have done.
At the most recent inspection, the Board requested that we
investigate ways to move further from the wetlands . We have
confirmed that the adjacent property is 300 feet from the
subject parcel, do not come into play. They are Village of
Greenport parcels. But the varying setbacks that are 15 to 40
feet, if you were to take the average of those it would be a
negligible number of feet from what we are currently proposing.
I also think that there has been emphasis on the distance
and not a focus so much on the fact that we are not proposing a
non-turf buffer, we are not proposing a non-disturbance buffer,
but ecological restoration.
So we have knotweed on the property, mile-a-minutes, privet,
burning bush, and the list goes on and on. And so we'll be removing
those plants, and plantings native trees, native grasses, et cetera,
which would benefit not only the wetlands but obviously the Town
as a whole.
So I think this plan as it comes to you is more than what
the Board would often require, but also what the Board is
generally presented.
So I think it' s a very acceptable application, and I don't
think that it' s appropriate to put an undo burden on the client
for a negligible number of feet additional .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak regarding this application?
Or any additional comments from the Members of the Board?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Given the precedent of this street and how
close most of the houses are on this street to the road, it does
seem feasible to maximize the setback from the wetland, even if
that would require visiting the ZBA. And I do think
environmentally speaking that would be appropriate in this case.
MS. RUMMEL: So there are, the house directly adjacent is 15
feet. But then you have 40 feet, 35 feet, and I believe 20 feet.
So if you were to take the average, it' s like 27-and-a-half feet
and we are asking for, I mean it' s just a few more feet from
that.
So it' s really negligible. I understand, obviously we are
on the same page in terms of protecting the wetlands, but I
think there is a real focus on distance and not the restoration plan
that has been offered, which is really the buffer between the
developments and really the wetlands, which are, they are not
thriving. They are invasive species . It' s not like this pristine
parcel.
The parcel itself as been developed for at least two
decades and has been disturbed, up to recently it was just used
as outdoor storage.
So I understand your concern, I just think that we are not
adding more benefit. We are just adding more time and more cost
on to the client.
Board of Trustees 52 June 14, 2023
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I just believe that when we pull a house and
a structure like that farther from the wetlands, it's not just
about this one applicant, it' s about down the road how this
continues to be used. And though we are putting in non-disturbance or
non-turf buffers, will they always be honored, will decks wish to be
increased? How will future Boards look at this, all of that becomes
more of a question the closer we put to initial structure to the
wetlands. So this conversation sort of continues throughout the
years .
MS. RUMMEL: I completely understand, but are we not setting a
precedent for allowing this development when we are giving
something that is so ecologically beneficial?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Sorry, can you say that again.
MS. RUMMEL: Are you not setting a precedent for allowing this
development when we are offering something so ecologically
beneficial. Because if we were to just say this is just a
non-disturbance buffer, that parcel would just turn into invasive
species. They would just spread like wildfire.
So we are offering to remove those, especially in the area
directly adjacent to the wetlands, and to plant the native
species. So you are getting something that is so much more
than, one, that you generally require, but I think that' s at or
a better benefit to the Board, at least in recent memory.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: We generally appreciate everything you are
doing to mitigate the invasive species on this property and to
do your best to mitigate what you are asking for from us, which
is closer distance to the wetlands . So that is appreciated,
absolutely. I don't want to take that away from you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Are there any additional comments from Members
of the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I make a motion to approve this application
subj.ect to new plans depicting pulling the house back ten feet;
pulling the pool back ten feet away from the wetland; minimum of
15-foot non-disturbance buffer to be remediated one time to the
invasives; with a split-rail fence dividing non-disturbance from
the rest of the property; a minimum of 15-foot non-turf vegetate
the buffer with native species; and one-for-one native hardwood'
tree replacement for any trees removed during construction, and
new plans to show this . That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MS. RUMMEL: Can I get clarification, the 15-foot non-disturbance
buffer, where are you looking for that to be?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : From the wetland line.
MS. RUMMEL: Wetland line landward.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Right.
Board of Trustees 53 June 14, 2023
MS. RUMMEL: And then landward of that non-turf.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Yes . And those are vegetated non-turf. And you
guys already have the restoration set there, so I don't think
it's much of a difference, just going forward to kind of lock it
in there, so if there is a new owner it would be there in
perpetuity.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And then the split rail is between the two, correct?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Right.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Number 16, Cole Environmental Services on
behalf of CHRISTOPHER & ELIZABETH AUSTIN requests a Wetland
Permit to replace existing wood bulkhead with a 120 linear foot
long navy style vinyl bulkhead and to raised 18" higher than
existing; install a 30 ' long return along the west property line
and a 20 ' long return along the east property line; backfill
area landward of bulkhead with ±75 cubic yards of clean fill
from an upland source; install 4 ' wide steps off bulkhead to
beach; remove existing dock and construct a proposed 4 'x12 ' ramp
using Thru-Flow decking installed landward of new bulkhead to a
4 'x91 ' catwalk using Thru-Flow decking to a 31x20' aluminum ramp
and a 6'x20 ' floating dock situated in an "L" configuration with
three (3) 10" diameter pilings installed to secure the floating
dock; install two (2) 10" tie-off piles 12 ' east of float;
install water and electric onto the dock; install silt fencing
and turbidity curtain between marsh and bulkhead during construction;
in areas of marsh, bulkhead construction to be done from land; plant
Spartina alterniflora plugs in front of bulkhead after construction;
and any tree removed to be replaced with a native species 1 to 1
ratio; and as per Wetland Permit #10315, to establish and perpetually
maintain a 10' wide by 50' long non-turf buffer along western
property line, a 10 ' wide by 65' long non-turf buffer along the
eastern property line, and a 20 ' wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge. of the bulkhead.
Located: 2200 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-4-5. 1
The Trustees recently visited the site on 6/7/23. Notes
from that visit read: Pier line needs to be corrected. Amount
of fill questioned. And tie-off pile cannot be seaward of float.
The LWRP found the project to be inconsistent with its
policies . The notes explain that the inconsistency reads :
Verify that all permit conditions have been met. The lengthening of
the dock in public trust waters is inconsistent with Policies 6 and
9. The applicant enjoys access to public trust water through an
existing dock recently rebuilt.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with through-flow decking, non-turf buffer planted
with native vegetation and the existing Spartina to be
maintained, and exterior lighting is Dark Sky compliant. Dark Sky
compliant lighting is part of Town Code.
We have plans received June 9th, 2023. I welcome public
comment.
MS. RUMMEL: Kate Rummel, on behalf of the applicant. And I just
Board of Trustees 54 June 14, 2023
want to ensure that you have the plans that have the adjusted
pier line and then and the updated -- okay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Yes, we do.
MS. RUMMEL: Okay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : And we discussed that in the field as well
with your applicant. He clarified that for us .
MS. RUMMEL: So, I mean we are within the pier line, within the
setbacks . Obviously now the new proposed catwalk will be avoiding
basically marsh. We ' ll be protecting the existing marsh with
turbidity curtains and silt fencing and where we are replacing the
bulkhead where there is existing marsh that will be accessed landward
and not by barge.
We also have DEC approval for the new dock and for the
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Thank you, for clarifying those requests of
the LWRP.
We in the field noticed that corner where the current dock
exists is a thriving salt marsh, and removing it seems to me to
be a net benefit. Relocating the dock where it' s proposed doesn't
threaten any native vegetation at the moment. And restoration of the
area with native species like Spartina will benefit of the eco-
system.
One question that came up during our work session was the
ten-foot buffer depicted on the plans that you provided us .
MS. RUMMEL: Yes . The buffer that will be installed will be based on
the previous .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : That's what I suspected. I think we talked about
a -measurement of 20 feet.
MS. RUMMEL: Yes, I believe that with respect to the side yards.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Okay, any other comments from the public or
questions or comments from the Trustees?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : I have a question about the previous permit,
included maintaining the cedar trees that are in the center of the
yard there.
MS. RUMMEL: If possible we are going to try to maintain them.
The contractor thinks that he can possibly maintain all of them, but
not completely sure because the one especially is very close to the
edge of the bulkhead. But if not they will be replaced with one-to-
one native hardwood.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: What is the exact reason they would not be_,able
to be preserved? Due to the --
MS. RUMMEL: Well, the one specifically is I think on the cusp of
having the root ball damaged and it not surviving.
MR. AUSTIN: Christopher Austin, I own the property. So I did have a
tree company come out and talk about digging them out, burlapping
them, moving them and setting them back in. Unfortunately, it' s not
possible, just given the size of them, they wouldn't be done. The
same reason for them, the one or two that might have to go is that
when the excavation happens they may just naturally slide when the
roots are cut to do the bulkheading. We are going to do everything we
Board of Trustees 55 June 14, 2023
can. Like I said, we are trying to keep them. We know the previous
permit, and that permit by the way would be non-vegetated buffer is
referenced, I believe, in the scope of work for the previous .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: The 20 foot.
MR. AUSTIN: Whichever, yes, with the landscape plan that was
previously approved.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, for doing the research to try to save the
trees, because that is something that is important.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Quick question regarding the fill. Can you specify
how much fill is going to be used and how you intend to use it?
MR. AUSTIN: Basically you have the updated ones . The 150 cubic
yards . It's just to level set the property. I think if you take 150
cubic yards and spread it out over 120 feet across and 50 feet deep,
it's just going to create three or four inches of added soil. So
it' s just to take kind of the waviness out of the property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Just one detail, you said replacement with native
hardwood, which is great. But because they are eastern red cedar,
seems the most appropriate things with native vegetation, if you are
to replace them, ideally the one further back you probably can save,
I would think. And you definitely can move them. It would just be
like ten grand. I mean it can, that can be done. No problem. And I 'm
not saying you should --
MR. AUSTIN: The guy that came out, his truck, his equipment, from
Shamrock wouldn't be big enough. I would have to bring in -- it' s
economically --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : A pay loader.
MR. AUSTIN: Yes . We are going to do all we can, but --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : We talked about the trees, talked about the
dock, talked about the marsh. And we were the subject of the fill.
One of the concerns about this location is just the neighboring
properties . And by bringing in fill to such an extent, you do
increase the likelihood that water will shed off on to your
neighbor' s property in storm events. And I as one Trustee would be
okay with fill within say 30 feet from bulkhead, so it includes your
non-turf buffer of 20 feet and then an additional ten feet to taper
off so you would not have such an angled decline.
MR. AUSTIN: I think that's the plan with the fill. I mean, and
the neighboring properties are both up, probably eight to ten
inches higher. The property that I have is a low spot and it
ponds quite a bit. Even in heavy rains. I think with the
non-turf buffers that were previously permitted in the landscape
plan, even the fill coming to level behind, the buffers are
going to, it will contain everything still on my property.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think one of the concerns we are just trying
to address with the fill question is while we understand the
desire to raise the height of the bulkhead and, you know, the
various reasons with that, that doesn't mean that we then want to see
the property increase up to that 18-inch high. And that' s why the
vegetated buffer along that boundary doesn't necessarily then have to
be raised up 18 inches . You can add the fill and what is necessary
to have that vegetated buffer be successful, but that is I think with
Board of Trustees 56 June 14, 2023
where we are going, is that we don't see the need to then raise the
height of the property 18-inches as well.
MR. AUSTIN: Yes, I absolutely understand. I mean, we would need
probably 1, 000 cubic-yards of fill to raise it 18 inches,
120 'x50 ' . Probably more than that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I don't know what the math works you to.
MR. AUSTIN: I didn't need my fill calculator that time. But it would
be way more than 150.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It sounds like I need that app. The broad strokes
are not to raise the entire property. You can only take the bulkhead
up to the 18 inches .
MR. AUSTIN: Correct.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And the reason why we are continuing this
conversation, is it relates back to the original conversation we
had at the original permitting, which was not to raise the entire
property.
MR. AUSTIN: Understood.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It's just going back to that, as well. The bulkhead
then can't be used as a retaining wall to bring up the property.
MR. AUSTIN: Understood. Absolutely. And just to clarify one more
thing. The bulkhead is coming to an elevation of 4 . 6. The elevation
of the yard is at four. So there is a low point in the yard that is
at four. So I 'm not quite sure with the previous house raising in
2018 or 2019, after Hurricane Sandy hit it, they didn't level-set the
property after that, but based on the FEMA flood zones and elevations
per the surveys provided, it's at four to six feet on the property as
is. And the bulkhead is coming to 4 . 6. So that would be a big slope
for anything like that. Just a clarification.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Thank you. All right, any other comments or
questions from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : I make a motion to approve the application of
Christopher and Elizabeth Austin, with the following conditions:
That there is a two-to-one tree replacement with native tree
species in the event that cedars are killed in the process of
reconstructing the bulkhead; that the fill brought in be limited
to an area 30-feet from the new bulkhead; and that the LWRP
concerns will be addressed.
MS. HULSE: Can I just interject on that. The LWRP mentioned a
dock that was recently re-built. Is that accurate?
MS. RUMMEL: No, that is not accurate.
MR. - AUSTIN: I think we have all been out to the site enough
MS. HULSE: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Addressing the portion of the LWRP concerns
that have to do with the dock' s infringement on public trust
waters . By -moving that dock we are having a net benefit. And
new plans stamped received -- excuse me. New plans depicting
Board of Trustees 57 June 14, 2023
the conditions as I just mentioned submitted to our office for
review. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES : Second.
MR. AUSTIN: It' s in the scope of work.
(Board perusing documents) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Okay. So I 'll rescind the motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. AUSTIN: It' s in there.
MS. RUMMEL: The project description does reference the previous
permit.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Okay, it' s just the --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The hearing is closed, so you can't --
MS. RUMMEL: Sorry.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, that' s okay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to close the hearing. That' s
already been done. I 'll make a motion to approve the application
of Christopher and Elizabeth Austin with a conditions of
two-to-one tree replacement for the cedars that may be damaged
or killed in the reconstruction of the bulkhead. Fill to be
brought in will not exceed the 30-foot from the new bulkhead,
and new plans depicting the 20-foot buffer, non-turf buffer,
that was previously conditioned on the property, thereby
bringing this project into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
(The time noted is 8 :22 pm) .
Respectfully submitted by,
4A7,�X
'4L
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees