HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-08/16/2023 Glenn Goldsmith,President so Town Hall Annex
A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice President 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski Southold,New York 11971
Liz Gillooly N
G • Q Telephone(631) 765-1892
Elizabeth Peeples �� a Fax(631) 765-6641
couffm
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES R��EIVg®
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes SEP 14 2023
Wednesday, August 16, 2023
5:30 PM 1'Q CIerk
Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Eric Sepenoski, Trustee
Liz Gillooly, Trustee
Elizabeth Peeples, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist
Lori Hulse, Board Counsel
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Good evening, and welcome to our
Wednesday, August 16th, 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) .
I'll start off by announcing the people on the dais.
To my left we have Trustee Krupski, Trustee Sepenoski,
Trustee Gillooly and Trustee Peeples. To my right we have
attorney to the Trustees Lori Hulse, we have Senior Clerk
Typist Elizabeth Cantrell. With us tonight is Court
Stenographer Wayne Galante and from Conservation Advisory
Council we have John Chandler.
Agendas for tonight's meeting are posted -on the
Town's website and are located out in the hallway.
We do have a number of postponements tonight. In
the agenda on page five, under Amendments, Number 1, Michael
Kimack on behalf of CAROLINE TOSCANO requests an Amendment
to Wetland Permit #10281 to establish a 4 ' wide by 10' long
path through the Non-Turf Buffer area leading to (and over
the established Buffer areas) , a proposed raised 4 ' wide by
80' long catwalk with 4' wide staircase to ground at
landward end leading to a 41x46' catwalk to a 31x12 '
aluminum ramp to an 18.7'x6' floating dock with a
2 'x4 'bump-out for ramp situated in an "L" configuration and
4,
Board of Trustees 2 August 16,2023
secured by two sets of two (2) dauphin pilings at each end;
catwalk to have Thru-Flow decking throughout with pressure
treated pilings set at 8' on-center; total length of catwalk
is 126 linear feet.
Located: 610 Jacksons Landing, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-4-8
is postponed.
On page six, Number 6, J.M.O. Environmental
Consulting on behalf of W. HARBOR BUNGALOW, LLC, c/o CRAIG
SCHULTZ requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit for the existing 6.5 'x53' fixed dock with a 11'x11'
fixed portion in an "L" configuration; existing 3.5'x12 '
ramp and existing 8'x20' floating dock; the 6.5'x53' fixed
dock and 11'x11' fixed portion in the "L" configuration to
remain; remove existing ramp, float and two piles and
install a new 41x20' ramp with rails and an 8'x18' floating
dock situated in an "I" configuration secured by four piles;
and to install four tie-off piles.
Located: 371 Hedge Street, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-7-18
is postponed.
On page ten, numbers 15 through 17 are postponed.
They are listed as follows:
Number 15, Michael Kimack on behalf of WILLIAM
MACGREGOR requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing wood
dock, ramp, floating dock and pilings; construct a proposed
4 'x70' raised fixed catwalk with Thru-Flow decking
throughout and secured with ten (10) rows of 8" diameter
pressure treated pilings at 8 ' on-center set 3' above
finished deck; install a 41x 5' pressure treated wood
staircase off of landward end of catwalk; install a 3'x14 '
aluminum ramp; install a 6'x20' floating dock (decking to be
marine grade 0/E) , situated in an "I" configuration and
secured with two (2) 10" diameter pressure treated anchor
pilings; abandon approximately 30' of existing pathway and
create approximately 4'x30' of new pathway to connect to new
dock location.
Located: 1120 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue, SCTM# 1000-104-9-2 .
Number 16, Inter-Science Research Association, Inc.
on behalf of MIMN HOLDING, LLC, c/o NICHOLAS NOTIAS requests
a Wetland Permit to demolish existing 1,259sq. ft. Two-story
dwelling with 526sq.ft. Garage, 469sq.ft. Porch, 1, 002sq.ft
patio, 17sq. ft. Shower, and all other accessory structures;
construct a 5, 144sq.ft. Two-story dwelling; construct a
960sq. ft. Pool on seaward side of dwelling; construct a
2, 907sq. ft. Of covered terrace and open terrace between
dwelling and pool, and courtyard area for basement egress on
southerly side of dwelling; an ±8 'x11' north patio entrance
with steps to ground; abandon existing sanitary system and
install a new I/A OWTS sanitary system; and install a system
of gutters and leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff;
provide a drywell for pool; install pool equipment, a/c unit
and generator areas; establish and perpetually maintain a
10' wide Non-Turf Buffer area landward of the "Zone X" line,
Board of Trustees 3 August 16, 2023
and that the areas seaward of the "Zone X" line be
established and perpetually maintained as a Non-Disturbance
Buffer area with a 4' wide access path through the Non-Turf
and Non-Disturbance Buffer areas; and for an trees removed,
a 1 to 1 tree replacement using 2 'W' caliper size trees.
Located: 450 Paradise Point Road, Southold SCTM# 1000-93-1-3.
Number 17, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of 1280 COREY
CREEK, LLC, c/o RICH CORAZZINI requests a Wetland Permit to
demolish the existing single-story dwelling and construct a
two-story, single-family dwelling with a 1,755sq. ft. First
floor, a 227sq.ft. Attached garage, a 1, 005sq. ft. Second
floor, and a 2,211sq.ft. Foundation having a crawl space
with a height of 2' 53-4" and beginning at grade elevation; it
will be installed with the eastern dimensions of 30'5
3i"x34 ' 9" and the western dimensions of 3213"x27111'-�"; a
130sq. ft. Front covered porch with steps to ground; a
22'x14 ' patio installed off the east side with a 14 'x12'
covered masonry patio and a 141x10' uncovered patio section;
two sets of 9'x3' wood landings, stairs and railings to be
installed on the south side of dwelling; remove existing
sanitary system and install an I/A style system at the north
side of dwelling with contours being refined for an
installation that minimizes the slope of the grade;
construct a waterproof retaining wall to the north of the
proposed I/A system with the dimensions 50' x 334" x 5' ;
three roof drains and one trench drain to be installed to
contain roof runoff; install a silt fence to surround the
property until final stabilization is complete; establish
and perpetually maintain a 15' wide Non-Turf Buffer area
along the landward edge of vegetated wetlands and planted
with native salt tolerant plantings including 20 Beach Rose
plants, 100 Switchgrass plantings, and 120 evening primrose
plantings; establish a 4' wide access path leading to the
catwalk; and install a buffer fence around the plantings.
Located: 1280 Corey Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-4-17
On page eleven, numbers 18 and 19 are postponed.
They are listed as follows:
Number 18, AS PER REVISED PLANS & PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED ON 7/5/2023 AMP Architecture on behalf
of STEPHEN & FORTUNE MANDARO REVOCABLE LIVING TRUSTS
requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing 41x4'
outdoor shower, 6'x5' front entry stoop, 418sq.ft. At grade
rear brick patio, existing roof, existing septic system and
existing foundation locust posts; for the existing 4013
'W'x20' 6" (800sq.ft. ) One-story dwelling and to lift,
relocate and construct additions to the dwelling consisting
of an open foundation with breakaway walls using
approximately (15) 10" diameter wood pilings; construct a
6'0"x2016", 1410"x2710", 1116"x13' 0" (total 626sq.ft. )
Second floor addition; construct a 610"x610" (36sq.ft. )
Second story seaward balcony; a 3' 4"x8' 6" (28. 4sq.ft. ) Front
covered porch with steps to ground; a 4 'x416" (16.5sq.ft. )
Board of Trustees 4 August 16, 2023
Outdoor shower (open to above) ; install a new I/A OWTS
system on the landward side of the dwelling; install a
35'8"x48 '0" (1,728sq.ft. ) , 7' 6" high (proposed grading
height 7 '0") front retaining wall (to house proposed septic
system) with 36" high railing and stairs from grade; install
an 18 ' 8"x19'3" (376sq.ft. ) , 6'7" high (proposed grading
height 6' 1") , rear retaining wall (to house proposed 8 'x5'
drywell) with 36" high railing and stairs to grade;
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 620sq.ft. Pervious
driveway with curb; install one (1) 8 'x5' 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
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 41W trench) ; and for the existing
84sq.ft. Shed.
Located: 5605 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-137-4-3.2
And on page ten, Number 14, 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
14.31x6' (±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
Board of Trustees 5 August 16,2023
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
has been Withdrawn.
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 have
our next field inspection on Wednesday, September 6th, 2023,
at 8.:00 AM.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next Trustee
meeting Wednesday, September 13th, 2023, at 5:30 PM, at the Town
Hall Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
III. WORK SESSION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next work
session Monday, September 11th, 2023 at 5: OOPM at the Town Hall
Annex 2nd floor Executive Board Room; and on Wednesday,
September 13th, 2023 at 5:OOPM at the Main Town Hall Meeting
Hall.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of
our June 14th, 2023 meeting and July 19th, 2023 meeting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The Trustees monthly report for July
2023. A check for $25, 140.75 was forwarded to the
Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
Board of Trustees 6 August 16, 2023
VI. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Public Notices are posted on the Town
Clerk' s Bulletin Board for review.
VII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
hereby finds that the following applications more fully
described in Section X Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, August 16th, 2023 are
classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and
Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA:
As written:
8 Jan Court, LLC SCTM# 1000-44-2-17
Lincoln Frank SCTM# 1000-6-1-8
Lee & Lily Siegelson SCTM# 1000-10-3-10
Alan & Lorin Litner SCTM# 1000-54-4-12
Sean David Rivers SCTM# 1000-10-9-15.4
Bradford R. Burnham SCTM# 1000-10-4-13.10
Jennifer Russell SCTM# 1000-6-1-19
Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC, c/o Alexander Perros SCTM#
1000-47-2-15
Jonathan Vigdorchik SCTM# 1000-51-1-7
Daniel Ferrara & Jamie Schwartz SCTM# 1000-121-4-24
Nicholas Aliano SCTM# 1000-83-1-12
Pankaj & Natasha Khosla SCTM# 1000-78-4-19
Lascelle Family Trust, c/o Robert & Lisa Lascelle, Trustees
SCTM# 1000-122-4-28
I. Markotsis Irrevocable Trust, c/o Irene Markotsis SCTM#
1000-78-5-12
Charles & Sherry Solon SCTM# 1000-107-4-13
Madeline Dostal SCTM# 1000-114-7-9
William Macgregor SCTM# 1000-104-9-2
Mimn Holding, LLC, c/o Nicholas Notias SCTM# 1000-93-1-3
1280 Corey Creek, LLC, c/o Rich Corazzini SCTM#
1000-78-4-17
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
VIII. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VIII, Resolutions,
Administrative Permits, Number 1, 31 EAST PROPERTIES LLC &
SHA PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC request an Administrative Permit
to install alongside rear external staircase a 6.5'x6.5' hot
tub, grade a 48sq.ft. area with a landscaped border, fill
Board of Trustees 7 August 16, 2023
with 4" of pea gravel; clear dead fallen trees in
non-disturbance area.
Located: 65 Grove Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-135-3-23
Trustee Gillooly did a field inspection August 6th,
2023, noting the outdoor showers within jurisdiction should
be applied for as an as-built, and questioned the proximity
to the wetland of the proposed hot tub.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency is the intent of a non-disturbance buffer is
to leave the area in its natural state. The clearing of
trees would disturb the buffer area.
So because of the proximity to the wetland and
within the non-disturbance buffer, I'll make a motion to
deny this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, BRUCE & SUSAN ANDERSON request
an Administrative Permit to reconstruct existing 620sq.ft.
deck, and 4'x5' stairs; install 41x6' concrete slab;
reconstruct 3.51x9' access stairs in kind/in-place; install
generator and outdoor shower beyond 100' from wetland
boundary.
Located: 2265 Long Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-8-4
Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection August
6th, 2023, noting the project seemed straightforward.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency is a permit for the as-built structures was
not located in Town records.
I'll make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, and by granting it a permit will bring it into
consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, Charles Thomas on behalf of
KEVIN & KAREN MANNIX requests an Administrative Permit for
the demolition of the existing 1, 643sq. ft. single family one
-story dwelling, along with stoops and structures, which is
52' 6" from the crest of the bluff.
Located: 62945 CR 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-40-1-12
I'll make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4, ROCHESTER CAHAN & MEI ZHU
request a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to hand-cut
Common Reed (Phragmites australis) to not less than 12" in
Board of Trustees 8 August 16, 2023
height by hand, as needed.
Located: 5705 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM#
1000-137-4-4
Trustee Krupski conducted a field inspection on
August 7th, 2023, noting that there is other beneficial
wetland vegetation other than phragmites in the proposed
area.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with
the condition that removal of phragmites only, all other
native vegetation to remain undisturbed. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, BETSCH QPRT c/o JOHN F. BETSCH
requests an Administrative Permit to erect a temporary snow
fence separating private property from a Town Beach, to be
20 ft. from apparent MHW.
Located: 2325 North Sea Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-4-24
The Trustees conducted an inhouse review August
14th, 2023. Notes read negative environmental impact, no
erosion present. Adversely affect the esthetics.
The LWRP found this to be consistent. We previously
had an application to extend a split-rail fence on this
property which was denied. Chapter 275- (a) (4) (b) states
temporary or seasonal snow fence at the Trustees discretion
may be permitted upon a showing of need for erosion control.
The Trustees upon field inspection did not notice
any erosion control. Quite the contrary, there was accretion
of sand in this area. And again, the applicant already
enjoys the benefits of a split-rail fence. So the proposed
action may adversely affect the wetlands of the Town, may
adversely affect aquatic wildlife and vegetation of natural
habitat thereof and adversely affect the esthetic value of
the wetland in adjacent areas.
As such I'll make a motion to deny this application.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 6, CHARLES DISAPIO & XANNE PEREZ
requests an Administrative Permit for an as-built 10'x40'
bluestone patio located 10' from existing concrete retaining
wall; allowing for a 10' vegetated buffer landward of
existing concrete retaining wall; capping of existing
drainage pipes at concrete wall on waterside.
Located: 5780 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck SCTM# 1000-115-10-7
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on August
8th, 2023, discussing the removal of the patio, re-vegetate
the vegetated buffer.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The
Board of Trustees 9 August 16, 2023
inconsistency is the as-built patio was constructed without
a wetlands permit. A wetlands permit was issued for the
other work.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with
the condition of a non-disturbance buffer seaward of the
retaining wall and submission of new plans showing the
non-disturbance buffer.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IX. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral IX, Applications for
Extensions, Transfers, Administrative Amendments.
In order to simplify our meetings the Trustees
regularly group together actions that are minor or similar
in nature.
Accordingly, I 'll make a motion to approve as a
group Items 1 through 4 and 7 and 8. They are listed as
follows:
Number 1, Patricia C. Moore on behalf of ESTATE OF
THEODORE A. EIRING c/o STEPHEN GUTLEBER, EXEC. , requests a
One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit #9972, as issued on
August 18, 2021.
Located: 4077 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-18 .4 .
Number 2, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. On behalf of
KEVIN KEYSER requests a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland
Permit. #9971, as issued on August 18, 2021.
Located: 1356 Grand Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-3-11.5
Number 3, ROBERT'S PREMIER DEVELOPMENT LLC requests
a Transfer of Wetland Permit #5473 from Francis & Maria
McNamee to Robert' s Premier Development LLC, as issued on
December 21, 2001.
Located: 910 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-27
Number 4, Michael A. Kimack on behalf of 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; and for an Administrative Amendment for a 41x80.7 '
(322 .8sq.ft. ) Dock with 2"x10"x4' wood board decking and
nine (9) sets of 8" diam. Pressure treated pilings with two
(2) 2"x6"x16' lateral boards to support a kayak or canoe, in
lieu of the previously approved 41x60' dock; a 30"x14' wood
ramp (35sq.ft. ) With 1"x6" wood board decking in lieu of the
previously approved 3'x10' ramp; and an 8 'x20' floating dock
(160sq.ft. ) With two (2) 8" diameter dauphin anchor pilings.
Located: 2223 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-5-11.3.
Number 7, ROGER D. TODEBUSH requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10048 to install
a 25"x48" generator set on a 29"x52" pad, on the north side
of the house with two (2) HVAC units; as-built bluestone
Board of Trustees 10 August 16, 2023
walkway on cement; 6' high panel fencing on north side of
residence; 12" high timber retaining wall; low profile
boulder wall east of non-turf area (approximately 45'x18") ;
increase vegetated non-turf buffer landward by approximately
4' with additional native plantings; eliminate outdoor
shower.
Located: 1130 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-13-9
Number 8, PILLAR K. WILLUMSTAD requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10255 for the
as-built 4 'x31' , 41x421 , 4 'x31' fence.
Located: 1280 Sage Blvd. , Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-5-10
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, Michael A. Kimack on behalf of
NEIL STRONSKI & PATRICIA PEREZ requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit #10395 to construct a 103' LF
lower retaining wall with an 8 ft. return along northerly
property line in lieu of previously approved 931f retaining
wall with a 12' return; excavate min. 12" below top of
bulkhead to retaining wall (120 cu. Yds. ) In lieu of
previously approved (+/-90cu. Yds) and deposit landward of
new retaining wall. Place filter fabric between new
retaining wall and existing bulkhead (1275 SF) . Install ,
approx. 50 cu. Yds. Of course sand over filter fabric.
Backfill area landward of new bulkhead with an additional
110 cu. Yds. Of clean fill (total backfill approx. 230 cu.
Yds. ) . Cover backfilled slope with one (1) layer of jute 0/E
(3400 SF +/-) . And pin w/ 6 " pins. Remove one (1) native 6"
locust tree and replace with one (1) native hardwood
landward of the dwelling. Establish and perpetually maintain
a 15 ft. Wide non turf buffer at top of slope with a 4 ft.
Wide access path to staircase; Construct an additional 4 ' x
6' staircase from the south of the lower landing to course
sand area (24 SF) .
Located: 7025 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 111-15-10
Trustee Krupski conducted a field inspection August
7th, 2023, noting to review with rest of the Board at the
work session, and to review the non-turf buffer at the top
of the slope.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with
new plans showing a 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer to
mirror the top of slope of the bank.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 6, AMP Architecture on behalf of
ANDREAS SERPANOS requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit #10327 to construct a 16'x35' (560sq.ft. )
In-ground swimming pool with spa with 10" coping in lieu of
Board of Trustees 11 August 16, 2023
the previously approved 14'x35' (490sq.ft. ) ; construct a
2 .9'x45. 6'xl6. 9'x9. 9' (296sq. ft. ) Stone pool patio in lieu
of the previously approved 320sq.ft. ; install 140 linear
feet of pool enclosure fencing with gates in lieu of
previously approved 300 linear feet; for the vinyl spit rail
fence at top of bluff to remain; to establish and
perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the top of the bluff in lieu of the
previously conditioned 15' wide non-turf buffer.
Located: 19105 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-17
Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection August
6th, 2023. Notes state: Setback from bluff unchanged.
Bluff should be labeled "bluff, " not "bank. " Must include
language regarding pool equipment, shed and dimensions;
non-turf buffer to remain; 15-foot vegetated. And we also
talk about moving the fence landward of the buffer.
There is no LWRP.
So I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the condition of a 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer at
the top of the bluff, and to move the fence to the landward
side of the non-turf buffer with submission of new plans.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral X, Public Hearings.
At this time I make a motion to go off our regular meeting
agenda and enter into Public Hearings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 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 Wetland
Ordinance of the Town of Southold. I have an affidavit of
publication from the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence
may be read prior to asking for comments from the public.
Please keep your comments organized and brief, five minutes
or less if possible.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits,
Number 1, Jennifer Leeds on behalf of 8 JAN COURT, LLC requests
a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion permit to remove and
replace in-place 96 linear feet of existing bulkhead with new
vinyl bulkhead, and raised 18" higher than existing bulkhead;
replace and extend existing bulkhead return using vinyl
sheathing to a total of 56 linear feet, and 18" higher than
existing return; install ±50 cubic yards of backfill landward of
Board of Trustees 12 August 16, 2023
the new bulkhead and return; remove existing concrete patio
(wraps around cottage) and replace with gravel; existing wood
planter to be removed; and all decks, steps and driveways to
remain in place.
Located: 58525 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44-2-17
The Trustees conducted field inspection August 8th,
noting non-turf buffer for the entirety of the property,
otherwise straightforward and the need for replacement is
evident.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to
support the application with the ten-foot non-turf buffer
planted with native vegetation.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PANAGOPOULOS: Good evening. I'm Peter Panagopoulos, on
behalf of Jennifer Leeds and the homeowner. Both of them
couldn't make it, but if you guys have any questions, I'm
here to represent them.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Thank you. And I forgot to mention,
we do have one letter in the file here from a neighbor that
states that they do not grant access through their property
for construction.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding
this application?
(No response) .
Are there any other questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just maybe you could speak to the access.
Will they be able to complete this job?
MR. PANAGOPOULOS: We are going to be accessing from the east
side of the house. There is a section of fence that we are
going to take down and then we are going to gain entrance
through the, we'll take out that first section of the
bulkhead and gain entrance and then we'll work our way
around the property.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Are there any other questions or
comments?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
application with the condition that the entire property be a
non-turf buffer, and new plans submitted showing that
non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 2, Joan Chambers on behalf of ALAN &
LORIN LITNER requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Board of Trustees 13 August 16, 2023
Permit to construct a 426sq.ft. One-story addition onto the
existing 921sq.ft. 1-1,�i story dwelling; the proposed
one-story addition will replace a portion of existing
permitted deck; construct an additional 60sq.ft. of deck to
entry; existing 35.8sq.ft. utility shed to remain; existing
permitted deck with steps to ground and ramp to beach
(1, 503sq.ft. ) will be reduced in size for new total of
1, 137sq. ft. Of decking around dwelling with steps to ground
and ramp to beach.
Located: 1025 North Sea Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-4-12
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the
8th of August. All were present, and noted that we'd review
the legal requirements of the addition with regard to
Chapter 111.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. Policy Four
of the LWRP does not support the expansion of a building
within the CEHA and FEMA flood zone VE, a structural hazard
area. These areas experience structural loss from storm
events. The as-built structure does not meet Policy 6.3.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to
support the application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding
the application?
MS. CHAMBERS: Good evening. My name is Joan Chambers, I
live in Southold. I'm here to represent the Litner's.
Perhaps you can explain further what you found
inconsistent in this so I can answer to that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So in the field we actually talked to the
homeowner as well.
MS. CHAMBERS: Yes, he' s here this evening, too.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So as discussed, when you are applying to
build in a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, it has to only be
25% one time.
So if the Board were to approve of the application
under Wetland, it would have to go to appeal with the Town
Board for Coastal.
MS. CHAMBERS: I understand that regulation, I just want to
point out to the Board and to any members of the public here
that are going to speak on this, that this a very small,
modest house. This is 921 square-feet, and they are only
proposing to put about 400 square-foot addition on this.
And in some ways this law is written to punish people who
have small homes.
Basically they can't put an addition on this house
at all, without going to the Town Board to appeal. I mean,
unless they want to put an addition on of 104 feet or
something.
And, you know, knowing that it was a small house, we
put a small addition on it. We designed for this. We
removed, we are planning to remove the existing deck and put
the addition in place of the deck. So we are not increasing
the lot coverage. We are actually decreasing the
Board of Trustees 14 August 16, 2023
square-footage of this deck. And, you know, it's designed so
that we are only actually going to put about ten small
footings in. We are going to reuse the pilings and the
footings that are there. I mean this, you know, to the
letter of the law, is the most unobtrusive way that we can
put a modest addition on this house. And I understand the
regulations are there and I understand this is not the venue
to change them, but I just want to make everyone aware of
the fact that this is not a huge house that we are
attempting to put a huge addition on. And in some ways
we feel its unfair that smaller houses are being penalized
this way.
There is also a section in the code that is
incredibly confusing to me. I think I understand what' s
being said but, in the definition of a major addition,
right, it says the increasingly calculated as the proposed
livable floor area, including any additions to the
principle building constructed as of the enactment date,
divided by the livable floor area of the existing principle
building.
Does this mean the proposed area includes the
existing house at the same time? Because that becomes
impossible.
It' s just, you know, I think that needs to be
reviewed and maybe rewritten.
But basically, that's what I have to say about it. I
think that this is a well-designed, modest addition and, you
know, I would like to see this project go forward.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. And just to be clear for the
record, Chapter 111, we are the administrators of that' s,
you have to call Albany. Calls to Albany are a little
difficult.
MS. CHAMBERS: I understand. But it would have been nice if
they put a minimum limit on it. Like no additions over
five-hundred square-feet that therefore become more than
25%, or something that gave a nod to the more modest family
homes in the Town the Southold.
You know, there's huge houses built all over that
beach, and this is not one of them. And yet, they are being
denied under current code the ability to expand very
modestly.
So, you know, I understand you didn't write that,
but I just had to say as part of my presentation that I
think, you know, it will be the basis where we'll go to the
Town Board and ask for a variance based on this.
Is there anything else that you see that we should
address? This is the sticking point, is the 25% . The major
addition.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think just from reviewing the site in the
field with the homeowner, it' s a beautiful piece of
property, it's being very well maintained, so we would just
to see, sort of the state it' s in be maintained like that in
Board of Trustees 15 August 16, 2023
perpetuity. That's the way to maintain a waterfront home,
certainly.
MS. CHAMBERS: I don't see any reason why, you know, it's
attempting to do anything to that property that they have
not done, which is just take care of the beach. You know, as
far as landscaping, and, you know, they actually gain a huge
amount of beach this year.
And, so, anyway as I said, that's what I have to say
in sort of defense of this project. Okay?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishing to speak regarding this project?
MR. LITNER: Yes. I'm Alan Litner, the owner of the subject
property. When you were explaining your rational, you
referenced Policy 63 as a basis for your determination, that
you don't have the authority to approve this application.
I just, what is Policy 63?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I didn't say Policy 63. I 'm not sure
exactly. We would have to read it back, but I'm not sure
exactly what you are referring to with that. (Perusing) .
Oh, I'm sorry, you' re speaking to the LWRP report.
That's the report we get from Southold' s Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program coordinator.
MR. LITNER: And where can I get a copy of that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can stop in at the office and request a
copy.
MR. LITNER: Great, thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to
speak regarding this application, or additional comments from
the Member of the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing on this
application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve the Wetland
Permit portion of this application subject to new plans
depicting seaward of the house a non-disturbance area
landward, and adjacent to the house non-turf. And I make a
motion to deny the Coastal Erosion due to the amount of
structure within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area --
increasing structure within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MS. CHAMBERS: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: AS PER REVISED PLANS & PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED ON 7/26/23 AMP Architecture on behalf
of LITTLE POQUATUCK, LLC, c/o PARISA GOLESTANEH requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct an
18'x30' (540sq.ft. ) In-ground pool with additional 10"
Board of Trustees 16 August 16, 2023
coping surround; install a proposed 505sq.ft. On-grade pool
patio; install ±278 linear feet of pool enclosure fencing,
install a 4' Circ. X 8' deep pool drywell, install a pool
equipment area; for the existing 2514"x61' 8", 910"x49' 8",
24 'x2818" (total 2, 690sq. ft. ) 1-1-� story dwelling with
attached garage; existing 14 'x36' (504sq. ft. ) Concrete patio
with steps; existing 512"x10'7" (55sq.ft. ) Seaward side
deck; and existing 516"x2314" (128sq.ft. ) Front porch; and
to install a 39'4"x7 ' (275. 8sq.ft. ) Dormer and, a 316"x12 '
(43.2sq. ft. ) Dormer onto rear of dwelling.
Located: 960 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-2-21
The Trustees reviewed the application in our work
session and visited ,the property on our field inspections in
July, noting that the pool was not staked at the time, not
appropriately cited. Other aspects of the project okay. And
the buffer shall remain.
The LWRP found the project to be inconsistent. The
proposed lot coverage is 28%, over the 20% limit on a parcel
adjacent to a structural hazard area, CEHA. The pool is
partially located in the CEHA, as the time of July, and the
structure within these areas should be avoided to limit and
reduce loss.
The action is not supported by Policy Four.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to
support the application for similar reasons.
And we have several, we have a letter in here
voicing concerns about the variance being sought for the
pool and its location.
Does anyone here wish to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PORTILLO: Good evening. Anthony Portillo, 10200 Main
Road, Mattituck. AMP Architecture. I do have, I think you
guys requested the test hole data. It wasn't on the plans,
but I brought some copies of that, if you would like.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: We have the July 26th.
MR. PORTILLO: The test hole data?
(Handing) .
So the original plan was, the structure was over the CEHA
line. I heard that the LWRP mentioned it being partially
over CEHA, so I'm guessing that must be coping or the coping
stone. So I mean, we can make the pool 29 feet so that we
are not over the CEHA line.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Would you be able to pull -- yes. The
LWRP was a July determination. And since then you've
submitted a July 26th. There still are concerns about its
proximity to the CEHA line. At work session, we brought up
the concerns about it. It's fencing perhaps going over in
that area, or any other kind of activity being over that
area, and we are considering the pool now in line with the
concrete patio, which would be approximately a few feet.
Pulling landward just a few feet.
Board of Trustees 17 . August 16, 2023
MR. PORTILLO: In line with the concrete patio that is
existing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That's right.
MR. PORTILLO: That's probably not a decision I can make, but
I can go back and discuss. I guess I'm just, I 'm wondering
if we are landward of the CEHA line, in other words maybe
making the pool 29 feet, what would be the reasoning to
bringing it all the way in line with the patio?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Just to reduce the amount of structure
that is seaward of the house and in such close proximity to
the CEHA line.
MR. PORTILLO: I don't have the dimension here. It looks
approximately to be about five or seven feet. I mean if we
limit the size of the pool, I think, that would be my only
thought right now.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think you are going to need ZBA for
this, regardless.
MR. PORTILLO: Correct.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So from our perspective, the closer you
can, or the further you can pull that pool back, the better.
And on field inspections looking at it, we didn't feel that
we want to see it extend any further seaward than any
existing structure on the property, and the most seaward
right now is that patio, and it seems like you would have
enough room to pull that pool in line or behind that patio.
And I said, you'll need ZBA anyway, so.
MR. PORTILLO: Which we, just for the record, we filed with
ZBA and I know the norm is we do get their approval first
but they asked us to come to the Trustees for your guidance
or approval first.
I mean, regardless of the fact that there are
neighboring properties that do have pools over CEHA lines,
because I know in the past we were able to build, I think it
was 200-square feet over the CEHA line with something that
was, I 've, allowed in Southold Town.
Um, again, I don't know what that effect is that is
pulling it all the way back. I do believe in my experience
with CEHA lines and getting approval from ZBA because it's
reducing the amount of lot coverage that they normally will
approve our applications since, you know, we are taking a
chunk of the lot away due to the CEHA line. And that
argument seems to resonate with them that we are really not
over lot coverage if we were able to calculate the entire
property.
Again, I can't speak for the Board, but in the past,
we have not had much of a problem getting approval. You
know, unfortunately, we can't have both Boards rule at the
same time, so I can't say if they are going to say yes or
not. I think it probably would have been better get their
approval, even though they asked us not to.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I would agree, for the record.
MR. PORTILLO: I mean, I had a few situations like this that
Board of Trustees 18 August 16, 2023
have been going back and forth that, fortunately for our
homeowner, you know, not so much for me, I got to do it
anyway.
So, I think the recommendation, I appreciate it. I
can I speak to the owner. Would there be any consideration
from the Board if they, you know, if we could do like a
25x18 pool or something like that? I don't know what that
number is because I don't have it here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How close is the pool edge to the bulkhead?
MR. PORTILLO: So if you were to do like, again, I don't have
that exact measurement. But I do have from the corner of the
home, 56. 6. So, I would say we are -- give me one second. I
might have that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Probably like 40 -
MR. PORTILLO: Yeah, it's 30. No, it's from top of slope. It' s 30
foot nine. I think that's approximately 15. You are
probably close to 45, 47 feet from the bulkhead. I can
provide the exact dimension. There is a neighboring home
that received approval over the CEHA line.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is this plan to scale?
MR. PORTILLO: Which plan? I'm sorry.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: The one that we are looking at with the
measurements from the house to the bulkhead.
MR. PORTILLO: Looking at the site plan?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes.
MR. PORTILLO: The one inch to 30 foot?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes. She's measuring it out. I just
wanted to make sure it was to scale.
MR. PORTILLO: Yes, this is 11x17. Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So just, within the code, it' s 50 feet from
the bulkhead, too, so that, I mean, pulling it back is --
MR. PORTILLO: Closer to get it to fit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. And I would agree with what Trustee
Sepenoski said, too, it is a very tight lot and that bank starts
very quickly, and I think it would, if anything, it was going to
go there, it should be within the confines of what is already
there, what has already been approved.
MR. PORTILLO: Okay, I appreciate that. Could I adjourn and speak
to my client about it, and maybe submit a new revised plan?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Absolutely. Is there anyone else wishing to
speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to table this
application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. PORTILLO: Thank you, Board.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 4, Samuel Fitzgerald, Architect on
behalf of LEE & LILI SIEGELSON requests a Wetland Permit and a
Board of Trustees 19 August 16, 2023
Coastal Erosion Permit for the existing two-story dwelling with
a 727sq. ft. Footprint and attached 966sq. ft. Wrap-around covered
porch; construct a 362sq. ft. Two-story addition onto landward
side of dwelling; construct a 181sq.ft. Second story addition
within the footprint of the existing dwelling; construct a
297sq.ft. Front covered entry porch; expand existing screened
porch an additional 79sq. ft. In the existing covered porch;
temporarily lift dwelling to construct a new 967sq.ft.
Foundation; and reconstruct existing steps to ground off of
porch.
Located: 2046 Peninsula Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-3-10
The Trustees visited the site on the 2nd of August, noting
to check the buffer. And at the work session on Monday night
they noted concerns of major addition for Chapter 111, need
clarification on percentage.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
. inconsistent. The inconsistency is a portion of the
single-family residence is within the Coastal Erosion Hazard
Area, the expanded screened porch is located within the CEHA.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this application
and resolved to support the application.
Since our work session, we have received a new calculation
with the percentage of the additions in relation to the existing
footprint being 26.4%.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. JUST: Glenn Just, JMO Environmental Consulting. As you
know, I've been working behind the scenes with Tom Fitzgerald on
this. He' s out of town today. I 'm glad to see that you got the
plans today showing the lot coverage and the buffer area. Do you
have any questions with that or --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes. We are in receipt of plans that depict
the 15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer.
At this stage it is classified as a major addition because
it' s over the 25% by 1.4%, and I guess the question would be
whether they wish to dial it back by 1.4% to avoid the major
addition part of the code. But that would be a question for the
applicant.
MR. JUST: I 'll go back to them tomorrow, actually. That sounds
fine.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, so we would need to see new plans to
show where those changes are going to be made.
So is it your wish to adjourn this for discussion with the
applicant?
MR. JUST: That' s fine.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application? Questions or comments from the
Board?
(No response) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Hearing none, I make a motion to table
this application.
MR. JUST: Thank you.
Board of Trustees 20 August 16,2023
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 5, Docko, Inc. On behalf of LINCOLN
FRANK requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit
to construct a proposed ±98 linear foot long by 4' wide wood
pile and timber pier of which ±87 linear feet is waterward
of the apparent high water line including rails, seven (7)
12" diameter tie-off piles with tide slides, three ladders,
and electric and water utilities; waterward of the apparent
high water line construct a ±31 linear feet to ±11 linear
feet to ±10 liner feet (±52 linear feet total) of 4' wide
pier access walkway/catwalk that connects to the landward
end of proposed pier.
Located: 2736 Crescent Avenue, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-6-1-8
The Trustees most recently visited the site on
August 2nd and made the following notes: The entire dock
should be open-grate decking, and ensure the structure is
not over eel grass.
The LWRP found this application to be inconsistent,
and note the following: The proposed action exceeds the
maximum square footage of non-movable structure within the
CEHA and does not meet Policy 6.3. In the event the action
is approved, consider the following: Number one, flow-thru
grate decking is recommended due to anticipating storm wave
energy. Two, limit CCA treated materials in construction.
The application mentions the use of CCA materials.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection, therefore no recommendation was made.
And I'm in receipt of plans stamped and dated May
10th of 2023.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard
to this application?
MR. NEILSON: Yes. My name is Keith Neilson, I'm with Docko,
Inc. , and I prepared the application documents before you
tonight.
I would like to first give you the notice of registration
and the certified mailing.
(The Board is attending to and correcting a microphone issue) .
MR. NEILSON: I'm Keith Neilson with Docko, Inc. We prepared the
application documents before you tonight, and I would like to go
into a little bit of the background on that since the length of
the dock and the habitat around the navigable waters at this
cottage are in question.
I'll refer to this enlargement of my application drawings.
With the cottage being here, the pier as shown, 98 linear feet
beyond the apparent highwater line. And it's a straight fixed
pier, and we have seven tie-off piles around the end. This is
generally a fairly energetic site, and so those piles are
necessary for adequately restraining a boat in place.
First of all, we have no objection to the use of thru-flow
Board of Trustees 21 August 16, 2023
decking for the full length of the project, but I would just
direct your attention to this drawing. We colored it in so that
you can see exactly where the eel grass is, and this survey was
conducted both by a land surveyor and with a hydrographic
surveyor or to confirm that there was no eel grass out beyond
the end of the pier or in the boat navigation area for access.
In addition, the boulders, I know we've got a lot of
boulders shown on our drawing. Those are exactly where those
boulders are. We surveyed every one of them to make sure that
we could find a navigable way through the eel grass and through
the boulders so that none of the resources would be adversely
impacted by this project.
We comply with all of the design standards, except the
200-square feet stipulated in your Wetlands law. And the reason
that we cannot do that is because we) cannot make this pier
removable.
The annual disturbance of the bottom to sink in new piles
or even to jet pipes and so on would create more disturbance to
the bottom habitat than even the boating would do during the
course of the year.
We did reach four feet of water with this proposal as
recommended by the DEC. And that is a, in our opinion, a minimum
safe water depth for this open-water site.
With regard to the use of CCA materials, I know that they,
CCA prohibition or recommendation is in your regulations and so
on, but I would also mention that the New York DEC studied this
in detail 22 years ago, 23 years ago, and published a document
that shows that the amount of CCA leachate that enters the water
column and focuses in the sediments around the piles is, one,
minimal; and, two, it was considered a necessary treatment by
the DEC and recommended by the DEC that CCA timbers and piles be
utilized for these structures.
If you don't have a copy of that study, I will furnish you
with one. But I believe we did provide one about 15 or 18 years
ago.
So the bottom line is what we have produced here is a pier
that will, is built to withstand the sea conditions and the
weather elements using industry-standard materials. We can use
the flow-through decking for the pier, and everything else is
really a standard dock facility. We have kept the dock away from
the house, no portion of the dock touches the house or any part
of the house, including the porch, and we feel that we have made
the necessary compromises that are in the best interest of the
environment and useable boating facility.
I would also just like to remind everybody that when the
200-square foot regulation was written, it was written basically
favoring the coastal creeks and coves of the north shore, the
north fork. It was not written for the open-water exposure of
Fishers Island, and so it's, in a lot of ways, the regulation
really is not well suited for north shore Fishers Island. And
because none of the docks can reach, can achieve that goal. And
200-square feet is 50-feet long and four-feet wide, that dock
Board of Trustees 22 August 16, 2023
would get to here (indicating) , it would be in the boulder
field, it would be in the middle, we would have to navigate
right through eel grass to get to it, and it' s really not a
viable application.
I understand that you may have no choice in that matter,
but, I would be happy to answer any questions that you might
have. Our application drawings have profiles that show the
adequate public access clearance beneath the structure, and
everything that we are doing is standard of the industry.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very much. I appreciate your very
detailed presentation and it's helpful to have all the
coloration there.
You did address, I believe, most of the concerns or
questions that I was going to have for you. You know, obviously,
the eel grass habitat is unique now to Fishers Island. It used
to be throughout all of Southold Town. So we do really want to
ensure that the eel grass is being surveyed properly, and it
sounds through the hydrographic and through the land surveyor
you are able to achieve that. So that was something that we were
concerned with.
The other aspect, this, due to the history of this house
and the primary structure, the fact that this dock is not
attached to it is important in this application, that it be
completely removed and not attached to it. And it seems you've
addressed that as well.
You also mentioned the square footage, and this dock does
exceed the 200-square feet that we are bound to within Chapter
111, the Coastal Erosion Hazard Code. So I appreciate you
mentioning that you've done your homework with that and
understanding that that is something that we are bound to as a
Board of Trustees.
And then there is, in the project description it mentions
water and utilities. Was there a plan to install any sort of
lighting or is the electrical simply for the boat,
MR. NEILSON: There is a power post located out toward the end of
the pier that a trickle charger and the accessories on the boat
can operate from that. And that power post does have a light in
it. The light can be manually controlled or they can be solar
operated or they can be radio controlled. And we don't have any
problem with making those adaptations to the power system.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you.
I believe that addresses everything I was going to speak
with you about. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak in
regard to this application?
(No response) .
Are there any other questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just to note that those posts are normally
Dark Sky compliant in the way that they are normally made, so
just ensuring that it would be Dark Sky compliant with the code
for Southold Town.
MR. NEILSON: Generally, the power posts have veins in the face,
or they are a light screened, vertically-mounted, so the light
Board of Trustees 23 August 16, 2023
is either broadcast horizontally -- and that is defused light,
it' s not unshielded light -- and the veins do direct the light
down toward the decking. And it's really just a safety measure
to make sure that the pier can be accessed safely at night.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Mr. Neilson, was the information you provided
the Board about the 200-square foot law regarding Fishers Island
something you can furnish the Board with, too, or is that just
an observation that you made reviewing the Minutes from meetings
past?
MR. NEILSON: It was in a conversation with one of the Trustees
several years ago, and I don't remember if it was Mr. King or
Mr. Bredemeyer.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay, I take your point.
MR. NEILSON: It is my recollection it was one of them that
brought it to my attention.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
or comment from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I'll 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 the Wetlands
application with the stipulation that there is open-grate
decking on the dock, and that there is no additional
lighting other than on the power pedestal. And by
stipulating the open-grate decking, that brings it into
consistency with the LWRP. And I make a motion to deny the
Coastal Erosion application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. NEILSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland Permits, Number 1, Docko, Inc.
on behalf of SEAN DAVID RIVERS requests a Wetland Permit to
retain and rebuild as necessary existing ±15 linear feet of 15'
wide and ±24 linear feet of 7 ' wide pile supported pier
including two (2) existing tie-off piles, a seasonal ships
ladder to the water, a paddle board rack, a single light, and
water and electric services; replace existing floating dock with
new 8'x15' floating dock including four (4) associated restraint
piles and two (2) mooring whips; install a new 3.51x±18'
adjustable ramp from fixed pier to floating dock; and to install
five (5) additional tie-off piles for a total of seven (7)
tie-off piles.
Located: 219 The Gloaming, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-9-15. 4
The Trustees conducted a field inspection August 2nd, 2023,
Board of Trustees 24 August 16, 2023
noting submit the pier line with the neighboring dock to the
east.
The LWRP found this to be consistent. The dock is a
permitted structure.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection, therefore no recommendation was made.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. NEILSON: Yes. My name is Keith Neilson, I'm with Docko,
Inc. , and we prepared the application documents and the drawings
before you tonight.
As my first order of business I would like to hand in the
notifications and certification of mailing. (Handing) .
This dock for the Rivers family is located at basically the
throat of Pirates Cove in the far southeast corner of West
Harbor, and it's immediately adjacent to the DeBroth (sic)
project to the west, and there is not on the Brook's property,
but there a fairly heavy-duty docking facility over on BD
Construction where they operate their water taxi for their
construction crews.
This aerial photograph also has a detailed representation
of our hydrographic survey, which covers immediately adjacent
properties as well as the project site, so that it could be
clearly seen that navigation is being maintained through the
proposed dock area.
The project is to basically rebuild and repair the existing
landing system or deck, the pier, , and to install a new floating
dock and a ramp. I know that the 120-square feet is a typical
standard of your Trustees guidelines, but instead of using 6x20
we wanted to use an 8x15, because the eight-foot float is
clearly more stable than the six-foot float, and it did not
create any kind of a navigational issue or restriction on the
usage of the property.
Because of the DeBroth' s project and the potential for a
project over at the Brook's property, we have kept the tie-off
pile configuration very tight to this dock. As a matter of
fact, the application drawings that we sent to you as a revision
show the tie-off piles on the east side of the float being two
feet closer to the float than the original drawings. And that
was at basically an agreement that was worked out by us between
Mr. Brooks, neighbor to the east, and Mr. Rivers, that would
allow them both to have adequate docking facilities that would
stay clear of the area that was of concern to BD Construction,
since their boat is larger and less maneuverable, and utilized
three and four times every day.
We have reached the recommended four-feet of water by the
DEC. There was no eel grass in here. We had a botanist,
professional botanist, certified botanist, do the eel grass
survey. He did find some across the channel, but none in this
project area.
We have also laid this dock system out so that it is
immediately south of and two-feet off of the coastal erosion
Board of Trustees 25 August 16, 2023
line so that we would not have to get into the usual variance
field request.
It' s a balanced project that provides excellent facilities,
and I would also point out that Mr. Brooks has asked us to look
into getting an authorization for a dock from him, and both the
Rivers' and the Brooks' families request that when it comes time
to look at that application, consideration be given to sharing
the tie-off piles that run between the two properties so it
would eliminate at least three and possibly four piles.
I would be happy to answer any questions you all might
have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So I have one question on the tie-off pile to
the west. The most seaward tie-off pile. What is the purpose of
that one?
MR. NEILSON: We were attempting to put the piles strategically
in an area that would give adequate lateral and fore and aft
stability to a boat with a three-foot draft in that area.
Because of the bottom contouring, the boat will have to be bowed
ashore, and we wanted to have that line out as, like I said, to
give an angle advantage for both lateral and fore and aft
stability.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there any way to pull that one in?
MR. NEILSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because Chapter 275-11 (C) (2) (c) [1] [f] ,
states: With tie-off poles, the poles shall not project father
seaward than the outer edge of the float. So we can't really
allow you to have a tie-off pile that extends further than the
seaward edge of the floating dock. So if you could pull it back
in line with the edge of that float, that would comply with
code.
MR. NEILSON: We'll pull it back to the line.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
Any other questions or comments -- sorry.
MS. MOORE: I just want to, since the client expected me to
participate here, I just wanted to confirm everything that Keith
put on the record. Mr. Brooks reached out to me, which I
immediately said we should reach out to Keith so that we could
express our, some issues that have been resolved. The plan that
is before you is a plan that both Mr. Brooks' family and the
applicant are all in agreement with.
So we would support the application, and further I advised
the client to hire Docko to prepare the application for Brooks,
so that things would be submitted all simultaneously, in a
certain sense, and with proper planning.
So I just wanted to put that on the record because we had
all agreed to everything and there is agreement between
neighbors here. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any questions or comments from the Board?
Board of Trustees 26 August 16,2023
(No response) .
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
application with the condition that the western seaward-most
tie-off pile be pulled back in line with the seaward edge of the
float, bringing it into consistency and compliance with the
Code, and new plans submitted showing the new tie-off pile
location. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. NEILSON: Thank you. And we'll be back to you shortly
with your revised drawings.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 2, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on
behalf of BRADFORD R. BURNHAM requests a Wetland Permit to raze
the existing dwelling and construct a proposed 4,805sq.ft.
Single family dwelling with associated I/A OWTS system; a
679sq.ft. Garage; 2, 587sq.ft. Of decks; a 386sq.ft. Porch;
272sq.ft. Of walkways; a 461sq.ft. Planter; and 373sq. ft. Of
paved area; install six 81x6' drywells for roof runoff; remove
and replace underground utilities; remove and replace water
service; remove existing gravel driveway and restore with loam
and seed, and install an new gravel driveway.
Located: R.O.W. Off Peninsula Road, Fishers Island. SCTM#
1000-10-4-13.10
The Trustees inspected this site on the 2nd of August,
noted there should be a one-to-one native tree replacement, and
non-turf buffer seaward of the structure, the house.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The LWRP does not
support the expansion of building within a FEMA flood zone.
These areas experience structure loss in storm events.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection.
It should also be noted that the office is in receipt of a
letter from the neighboring property and their attorney, with
concerns over use of the private roadway that they have some
utilities in and access to the waterfront.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. JUST: . Good evening. Glenn Just, agent for the applicant. I
have not seen a letter, Nick. Is that something that just came
in?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It just came in today. I summarize, because
it' s a little lengthy, but they are essentially asking that the
right-of-way, the private roadway adjacent to the property be
respected and, you know, they have utilities running through it,
as I said, and --
Board of Trustees 27 August 16, 2023
MS. HULSE: They don't want the other property owners to be
inconvenienced unduly, is the tenet of the letter.
MR. JUST: Are there any questions as far as the project itself?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't believe so.
MR. JUST: If you look at it, I was thinking about a 15-20 foot
buffer along the bluff there. It dips down and goes back up. The
bluff line is chest high on me along there, and it's a nice spot
for a buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we were looking to do non-turf seaward
of the majority of the house there.
MR. JUST: That's quite a big area.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, it drops off pretty quickly. That' s what
we talked about in the field. Right?
MR. JUST: I didn't think we were, when we were in the field, I
didn't think we were talking that big of an area, quite frankly.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It very quickly drops from that house down a
bank and then a small, flat area and then another bank.
Certainly I don't think we are asking for non-disturbance
in that area, given what is there now, but I think we are
looking not to have turf there.
MR. JUST: Oh, turf. Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And it was a fairly naturalized area already.
MR. JUST: It was, I didn't pick up the term "non-turf. "
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes.
MR. JUST: Just if you have any questions, I'm fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is 'there anyone else that wishes to speak
regarding this application, or additional comments from the
Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve the application with
the stipulation of a one-to-one native tree r.eplacement for any
trees removed during construction; new plans showing a vegetated
non-turf buffer seaward of the house. And with the Board's
review of the site at field inspection it is determined that the
property and project are elevated appropriately and removed far
enough back from the wetland that it will thereby bring this
into consistency with the LWRP coordinator. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number three, J.M.O. Environmental
Consulting on behalf of JENNIFER RUSSELL requests a Wetland
Permit for the existing 2, 312sq.ft. Dwelling that includes
868sq. ft. Of existing decks and porches; construct a
22.75'x20' one-story addition which includes a 5'x12 '
covered porch construct a 6'x8 ' porch; total new size of
dwelling to be 2,708sq.ft. , and decks and porches to be
Board of Trustees 28 August 16, 2023
887sq.ft; install gutters to leaders to two (2) 8'x4 '
drywells to contain roof runoff; and to establish and
perpetually maintain a 25' wide No Mow Buffer area along the
top of the bank. Located: 1562 North Hill Road, Fishers
Island. SCTM# 1000-6-1-19.
The Trustees visited the site on the 2nd of August,
2023, and found the project to be straightforward. We are
in receipt of plans stamped July 7th, 2023, depicting the
scope and scale of the project.
The LWRP found the project to be inconsistent with
Policy 6.3, the as-built structures were constructed without
Board review.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to
support the application as submitted.
I welcome comments from the public.
MR. JUST: Glenn Just. Once again, I did that house first back in
1980. I'm surprised the Trustee records don't reflect it. I'll
double check my end. Like I said, it's pretty standard. I think
you can appreciate the buffer zone we established there. 25 foot
buffer zone.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes, I agree. Is there anyone else who would
like to address the Board? Members of the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close
this hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And by granting this permit we bring it into
consistency with the LWRP. Do I need to rescind the motion?
MS. HULSE: No.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 4, Costello Marine Contracting
Corp. On behalf of SILVER SANDS HOLDINGS I, LLC, c/o
ALEXANDER PERROS requests a Wetland Permit to remove and
dispose of 146' of existing bulkhead, 14' east return and
20' west return; construct a new 146' long bulkhead, 14'
long east return and 20' long west return all in-kind and
in-place using vinyl sheathing.
Located: 1135 Shore Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-47-2-15
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the
8th of August, 2023, noting the rock groin not to be
expanded at this time without permit. Otherwise
straightforward replacement.
Board of Trustees 29 August 16, 2023
The LWRP found this to be an exempt application.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to
support the application.
Is there continue here wishing to speak regarding
this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, on behalf of the applicant. Just
here if you have any questions. It's pretty simple.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: We agree. It did look straightforward in the
field, and the only note was the rock groin as depicted in the
plans seemed to be much bigger than what is currently there.
Is there any plan to add rocks at this time?
MR. COSTELLO: No.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay. So if you were going to do that, you
would come back in for another permit.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. We are not doing that. That's not going to
happen.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: All right. Is there anyone here wishing to
speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Questions or comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 5, Jennifer DelVaglio on behalf of
JONATHAN VIGDORCHIK requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
proposed 18 'x40' in-ground gunite pool with an approximately
1, 876sq. ft. On-grade pool patio; existing ±50' long by ±6'
high retaining wall; install pool enclosure fencing with
gates; install a pool drywell and pool equipment area.
Located: 17975 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-7
The Trustees most recently visited the site on
August 8th of 2023, and made the following notes: Questions
about pool fence and non-turf buffer on the plans.
I'm in receipt of plans stamped and dated August
8th, 2023.
The LWRP found this application to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council supports the
application with the condition the setback of the swimming
pool is in compliance with Chapter 275.
I'm also in receipt of a letter from a neighbor, the
letter is dated August 16th, 2023, and the neighbor lives at
18075 Soundview Avenue, noting their property abuts to the
east of the application, and is concerned about infringing
on the hundred feet of protected land in front of the bluff.
Board of Trustees 30 August 16,2023
And notes the, that there is a very high retaining wall on
the property of this application, just north of the pool
area, and notes it is logical to conclude that the
installation of the pool put incremental stress on the wall;
additional construction and weight in the form of an
extended patio could have potentially catastrophic
consequences. And that is generally the gist of the letter.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard
to this application?
MS. DELVAGLIO: Good evening, I'm Jennifer DelVaglio
representing Jonathan and Katy Vigdorchik for this
application, and I am here to answer any questions that you
have and also I would like to just bring out a couple of
points with some findings for the neighbor that had put in
some concerns.
I think most recently Jonathan and Neil had a
conversation. Neil' s concern seemed to be more about a
15-foot setback of the pool. But I just want to make note
that on the adjacent property, which is the Kearns' property
that put in the letter, they have a lot of variant relief on
just about every single structure in every single area of
the property. But I know that that is really not part of
this application here.
Also, there was a lot of construction that was done
on the neighboring property, the Kearns' property, and the
access was through the Vigdorchik property to get that
revetment and extend the front yard toward the water side.
Seaward side.
You guys know that we did a field inspection, I
think back in November, so we have been working for a long
time to try to get this pool installed. We are really only
asking for four feet on just one corner of the pool. The
other corner of the pool that is parallel to the bluff is at
101 feet. We are quite far off of that retaining wall that
was made mention of. I'm just going to get a number.
(Perusing) . Yes, so the pool is about 15 feet off of that
existing retaining wall, and we only have about a two-foot
over-dig, so I'm not concerned with the integrity of that
structure, in any way, shape or form.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you. So the patio, according to the
application, the patio does actually abut the current existing
retaining wall. Did you have any sort of plans in place to
address any sort of storm water runoff that might result from
that or, you know, there is, essentially hardened surface up
against a hardened surface. Then it's quite a high retaining
wall. We understand it's been there for a long time. It is, you
know, reasonably setback from the bluff, but there is a concern
obviously with all that hardened structure, so, what were your
plans to address kind of how the patio abuts that retaining
wall?
MS. DELVAGLIO: Well, we can certainly put in a channel drain and
pitch back toward the pool if that would make everybody feel
Board of Trustees 31 August 16, 2023
more at ease and then put it into a drywell that we have
scheduled for the pool.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think that would be very agreeable.
One other thing that kind of came up in discussion is if
that patio that we are talking about, the north side of the
patio, if that were pulled back slightly, and also some
vegetation were also installed there, against that retaining
wall, that perhaps there would be additional, in addition to the
drain there would also be that little bit of a buffer there, so
that we would try to mitigate any sort of, you know, pressure
against that existing retaining wall.
MS. DELVAGLIO: Okay, I'm sure that would be fine.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, if that would be agreeable, that would be
great.
And then the other comments are, I see, it essentially
looks like the pool fence kind of runs around the perimeter of
the property; is that correct?
There are concerns about any sort of structure at the top
of the bluff. So the, you do have a vegetated buffer here, a
ten-foot non-turf buffer. We would like to see that fence pulled
back to the landward side of that buffer.
MS. DELVAGLIO: Currently there is a fence there. You just can't
really see it so well, so we were going to try to just make sure
that that was pool-compliant and keep it so that we were not
doing any more fencing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: If I recall, the fence that was there was kind
of looked like two-foot -- granted I was looking at it from up
on top of the retaining wall. But it looked like it was maybe
two-foot high metal stakes with just sort of wire mesh.
MS. DELVAGLIO: Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So a pool-compliant fence is a little bit more
substantial than that.
So, I think, you know, we really do not want to see any
sort of structure that is at the top of the bluff.
So if that would be agreeable to move that fence back to
the landward side, that would be appreciated.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: There may be another way to construct a fence
just around the pool, like closer to the house, so that you
would not have to make it around the entire property. Just like
in the walkway there, so.
MS. DELVAGLIO: Well, we are trying to obviously limit any kind
of restriction on the view, so, but I appreciate what you are
saying.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is there 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) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application
Board of Trustees 32 August 16, 2023
with the following conditions: Stipulate the increase of the
vegetated -- of the buffer on the top of the bluff to 15
feet as a vegetated buffer. And to move the pool fence to
the landward side of said buffer.
I would like to also condition a trench drain on the
seaward end of the patio, that connects to the drywell and
that the patio is offset from the retaining wall, with the
addition of a line of native vegetation between the patio
and existing retaining wall.
I just want to make sure that the vegetated, 15-foot
vegetated, is a non-turf buffer. I'll just clarify that.
MS. DELVAGLIO: That's the only part that I'm not sure that they
would be amenable to.
MS. HULSE: I'm sorry, this is not the proper time to speak.
They actually made a motion, so they are considering that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And all of that is subject to receipt of
updated plans. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 6, DANIEL FERRARA & JAMIE SCHWARTZ
request a Wetland Permit to construct a proposed 32'x40'
(2, 169sq.ft. ) two-story, single-family dwelling; a raised
101x40' (485sq.ft. ) seaward side deck with 101x40' on-grade
concrete patio under; an 81x12' (96sq.ft. ) front porch; install
a new I/A OWTS system; install shrubs along the "Limit of
Clearing, Grading and Ground Disturbance" line located ±5'
seaward of proposed patio in keeping with the natural
landscaping; install a 601x±12' (±755sq.ft. ) gravel driveway;
and to remove 9-10 trees due to construction or dead/damaged.
Located: 1805 Laurel Way, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-121-4-24
The Trustees conducted a field inspection August 8th, 2023,
questioning the flagged trees, noting the need for a large
non-disturbance buffer, and also noting that the planting plan
for the property with all trees to remain.
The LWRP found this to be consistent. However there is no
-- Laurel Lake is a critical environmental area. The use of a
treed buffer to protect water quality is important.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with the condition that a proposed dwelling is
located in the area of the swale and to retain as many trees as
possible, including the White Pines near the road.
We do have a number of letters in objection to this
project. We have one from a Mary Lou Gagliano, who voices two
concerns: The proximity from the lake as well as whether the
project will add to the nitrogen problem for Laurel lake.
We have another letter from Nancy Eshelman expressing
concerns about the environment and the proximity to the lake.
There is also one from Lee Israel, again, having concerns
with the environmental sensitivity of the area and the proposed
project.
Board of Trustees 33 August 16, 2023
And lastly we have one from a Michael Ryan, again, talking
about the environmental sensitive location and the placement of
the structure.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. FERRARA: Hi, I'm Dan Ferrara, the owner. Can I --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, go for it.
MR. FERRARA: Obviously you see the plans and you saw the DEC has
already given me approval as drawn, and I'm hoping you do as
well. It' s a small footprint house. I'm aware of the location.
That's what drew me to the location, I think it' s really neat. I
love the woods. And as I told Elizabeth, I'm actually trying to
leave it as natural as possible, with the minimal amount of
trees, or things like that, taken down.
The trees that I flagged in front of that 100-foot line,
some of them were dead, some were giving me a little bit of a
site line, and I might not even take them all, but I want to at
least have them flagged, so if you see them and you are
wondering why, you know the trees are taken down. I don't plan
on rooting them. I don't want the disturbance. I just want to
cut them. We are only looking for the corner of the house to be
past the line, not even symmetrical across the line. It goes on
an angle and obviously a little bit of the porch.
I did receive a copy of the letter from the two women,
which are actually sisters, they own the house next door. I
don't have copies of the other letters. I think a lot of them
don't know that I have the DEC approval already. Obviously I
need yours as well, so I'm hoping I get that, and I'm very
cognizant of what is going on with the trees and the lake, et
cetera. I don't think my house will contribute to any algae.
Obviously I have gutters, leaders, drywells. I know some of the
other houses don't. That's a different issue. But I think that
was one of the concerns.
I'm not really sure on some of the things they said. One
of them said my driveway wasn't long enough. 60 feet. I think
it' s more than long enough to park a car. They said that cars
might come into Laurel Way, it's just not going to happen. The
esthetics of the driveway, it's gravel just like everyone else.
That was a comment in there. There are some things I just don't
think were applicable or make any sense to me. But that' s really
just what I'm trying to do.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just after visiting the site, I mean, I'm
going to echo everyone's concerns about it is a very
sensitive area. And, you know, you did apply to pull the
house back fairly far, and it would just be critical to
preserve that wooded area as much as possible.
MR. FERRARA: Yeah, and it shows it on there, I 'm also going
to put, while we're doing construction. The land goes up a
Board of Trustees 34 August 16,2023
little bit, down a little bit and sits kind of like in a
flat. That's why I put it where I put it.
I also wanted to be a little more respectful to Mike
because I didn't want my house, although it' s a little more
flat, straight and even with his, I thought it was just nice
to set it back. I'm still going to have what I want, the
nice view, et cetera. It' s really just what I'm trying to do.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: With that said, there' s code that you have to
be within or behind your neighboring houses. It' s called the
pier line.
MR. FERRARA: Okay. So I am, that' s good.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And also with that area being a
non-disturbance, we would want or we'll require it to stay
native as is, with no tree removal within that area.
Any other questions or comments?
MR. FERRARA: If there is a tree, because I marked a couple of
trees, and I don't mind. Like I said, if we need to leave
whatever we need to leave. There' s trees like close proximity
overhangs. I know there' s like a few. Am I allowed to at least
take those? I wouldn't want them, for insurance purposes,
hanging over my house.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. So what we are proposing will be a
non-disturbance area seaward of your house.
MR. FERRARA: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: If you need to remove some trees for the
construction or for safety for the proposed structure, I don't
think we'll have a problem that. However the non-disturbance
area that is between your house and Laurel Lake will need to
stay untouched.
MR. FERRARA: Oh, yeah. As I told Elizabeth, and, hi, Elizabeth.
Elizabeth has been super helpful for me. That's really what --
I want it natural. I think it's really cool. I know a lot of
other people have really been wholesale clearing and I 'm just, I
don't know why. I mean, that's what drew me to the place, the
woods.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And just to be clear, if you do want to take
down, because there were some flagged trees there, and I mean,
the Trustees recommended a site survey. I understand you didn't
completely want to go that route. If there are trees within the
non-disturbance area you would have to come to the Board with a
tree letter to ask for permission to remove them. Dead or not.
Otherwise you have to come back to the Board.
MR. FERRARA: Right. I'm familiar with that. That's fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Are there any other questions or comments?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(All ayes) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
Board of Trustees 35 August 16, 2023
application with the condition of a non-disturbance buffer that
will be seaward of the limit of clearing, grading and ground
disturbance, as shown on the plans stamped received June 30th,
2023, that is six feet seaward of the proposed edge of the
concrete patio. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. FERRARA: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 7, AS PER REVISED PLANS & PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED ON 8/7/2023 Cole Environmental Services on
behalf of PANKAJ & NATASHA KHOSLA requests a Wetland Permit to
remove existing dock and construct in-place a proposed fixed
catwalk consisting of a 4 'x10' landward ramp to grade to a
4 'x48' fixed catwalk with steps at terminus to a 4 'x20' "T"
configuration fixed dock using Thru-Flow decking throughout;
install a ladder for water access; fixed catwalk to be at least
4 ' above existing wetland vegetation; Spartina alterniflora to
be planted around dock area as needed; establish and perpetually
maintain a 10' wide Non-Turf Buffer area along the landward edge
of the wetlands along south side of property; and to trim the
phragmites to a height of not less than 12" two times a year by
hand with existing native vegetation to remain.
Located: 1580 Corey Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-4-19
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 8th of
August and noted they would like to confirm the length of the
proposed versus existing.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent,
although a dock permit, wetland permit, was issued in 1982,
however the current dock does not meet the original permit
specifications. The water depth at the end of the dock is 1. 6 -
1.8 mean low water trending shallow to the shoreline and with
concerns of navigation to and from the dock could result in
bottom impacts.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. COLE: Chris Cole, Cole Environmental, agent for the
applicant. Just a little context, as you can see on the aerial
here, the homeowners purchased the property in 2022 and
essentially cleaned up. There was debris and lots of things that
you can see on the aerial. So the homeowners have been working
to clean up that area.
The length of the dock, we are bringing it back to be in
conformance with the pier line, with a 4x20 fixed pier, and it
looks to be, I don't have the exact length, but it looks to be
roughly 20 to 21 feet shorter than what the current existing
dock configuration is. And I'm here to answer any other
questions that you may have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that
Board of Trustees 36 August 16, 2023
wishes to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Or any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I make a motion to approve this application
based on the new plans and project description received in the
office August 7th, 2023, noting that the dock is a fixed pier
and in conformance with the pier line, thereby bringing it into
conformity with the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
(ALL AYES) .
MR. COLE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 8, Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. On behalf of
NICHOLAS ALIANO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
proposed two-story, single-family dwelling with a 905sq.ft.
Footprint (a total of 1, 810sq.ft. Combined floors) ; construct an
8 'x11.5' covered entry patio on south side of dwelling;
construct ±3' x ±8 ' and ±4' x ±11' second story balconies;
install an I/A OWTS system; install gutters to leaders to
drywells to contain roof runoff; and install a stone blend
driveway.
Located: 3705 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-83-1-12
The Trustees visited the site on our August field
inspections on the 8th, and the notes from that visit read:
Alarming proximity to heavily eroding bluffs; and the project
does not appear staked.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support
the application, and it says despite the decision of the Zoning
Board of Appeals, the Conservation Advisory Council does not
support the application due to the instability of the area, and
the proposed project is not in compliance with Chapter 275 and
the LWRP.
The LWRP issued a letter in regard to this application and
stated that it is recommended that the Board of Trustees
consider the ZBA consistency determination, which the Board did
at our work session this month, and studied closely the ZBA' s
determination, and the LWRP issued to the ZBA on April 26th of
2023.
Its inconsistency to the ZBA application reads: 4 . 1, the
project does not minimize loss of human life and structures from
flooding and erosion hazard. The parcel contains a large area of
slopes, 20% and greater. The proposed residential structure will
be constructed upon such slopes.
Chapter 236, adopted in 2006, prohibits the development of
slopes greater than 20%, even with a storm water management
control plan.
The proposed construction of a single-family residence does
Board of Trustees 37 August 16, 2023
not meet the criteria below for development or disturbance of
slopes.
And then it cites performance standards for approval of
storm water management plan #5, no land having a slope equal to
or greater than 20% shall be developed or disturbed, except for
conservation measures, or measures intended to remove debris
which inhibits the functioning or natural or engineered drainage
of erosion measures except access ways to shoreline.
The LWRP provided satellite imagery and shaded areas of the
property that were within that 20%. It also noted, in its
determination to the ZBA, that the Duck Pond Road is a private
road end that leads to a beach. Any further hardening of the
toe of the bluff will affect the long-term viability of the
beach by eliminating a sand source.
So that was its determination of the ZBA. And in our review
of the ZBA' s determination, this Board discussed the lack of any
description or explanation as to why the expert testimony
provided in the ZBA hearing addressed the erosion concerns of
the LWRP, and the instability of the bluff, and damage to the
environment in that area.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the
application.
MR. CUDDY: Yes, I do. My name is Charles Cuddy, I have an office
at 445 Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, New York. I appeared at the
Zoning Board as well.
Starting off, I think that there may be a complete
misunderstanding of what we did at the Zoning Board. What we
showed at the Zoning Board was that having improved this site,
as to the other sites along that subdivision have been improved,
actually stops the erosion.
But I think that should, I would hope that you know that
this is a 12-lot subdivision, with ten lots that are built upon.
Three of four of the lots on Duck Pond Road actually are steep
if not steeper than this particular lot.
I have with me tonight, and I think they should address you
also, the engineer who appeared, Doug Adams, who is also a
geologist, and I have Chuck Goldman who is a builder.
We believe this site is appropriate to be built upon. In
fact saying that it can't be built upon essentially takes away
from the its use. I mean, the only use that it has is as a
residential lot. And I would hope the Board would keep that in
mind, because that is the use for this lot. And all of the
other lots, with the one other exception, have been built on.
They have bulkheading on them. We would have bulkheading on
this.
So I think that when you say you have problems with it, I
think you have not really considered all of the facts. And I
would like to hand up so it's part of your record, the
engineering report from Mr. Adams before he speaks.
Do I hand that to you?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: You can you hand it to me, you can hand it to
our clerk.
Board of Trustees 38 August 16, 2023
MR. CUDDY: (Handing) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Understanding that issuing an engineering
report during our public hearing may not give us enough time to
fully review it.
MR. CUDDY: I understand that. I 'm just bringing it to your
attention because I didn't know what you would be saying.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you.
Okay. So I would also like to make clear that I did not
state the lot was un-buildable, merely that the application
before us presented certain challenges with respect to erosion
control and environmental impact on slopes greater than 200.
MR. CUDDY: We think that we can answer that. Mr. Adams can
answer it. So I'll let him speak before I speak further so you
can have an answer to those questions.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
MR. ADAMS: Good evening. Douglas Adams, Young Associates,
offices in 400 Ostrander Avenue, Riverhead.
So the report before you I think summarizes at least my
opinion on the property, but in just short summary, I think that
you can clearly see in the photos that the bluff is severely
eroded, and it is the only property in this subdivision that
doesn't have toe protection. So any proposal for this house,
for a residence on this property would include a hardening of
the toe of this and some sort of restoration of the slope to
keep it from getting worse. But the development of the upland
portion of the property, in my opinion, would have no effect on
bluff erosion. That's clearly happening without any development
on the property and it' s 100% from standard headward erosion of
the bluff.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I understand that your opinion is that the
protection of the toe of the bluff would prevent future erosion,
as it has in other locations. However, the application before
our Board this evening does not propose any such hardening of
the toe of the bluff and therefore I see no way in which the
erosion is mitigated by this hardening.
Essentially, proposing a house without any armoring at the
toe of bluff at 20% slope, as the LWRP stated, makes it
extremely problematic, to say the least.
MR. ADAMS: Charles just informed me that one of the requirements
of the ZBA approval was to include shore hardening in a
revetment or bulkheading. And I think as an action of this
Board, I guess we are looking to have the opportunity to do
that.
MR. CUDDY: Just to go a step further. We didn't have the
bulkheading really as far as dimensions and type of bulkheading,
whether it was revetment with rocks, which is the east of us is
done completely, on the electrical contractor site, or just
regular bulkheading. We can propose that because that was part
of our next application, we were going to do that.
We just wanted to get a sense of the Board that we could
build, as I say, on this lot, with bulkheading, with erosion
Board of Trustees 39 August 16,2023
control, with as the Zoning Board pointed out, having
non-disturbance buffers, having actually two separate buffers.
We think we can do it and they thought we could do it, and I
don't think, quite frankly, that it is inconsistent with
anything at this point because all of the houses there have
essentially stopped the erosion that would otherwise take place.
So if you'll let us, we'll bring back a bulkheading
schedule for you to show you how we can do that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, it's hard for me to look at this
application and, you know, I do appreciate that you come in
saying you do intend to do something about the erosion, to
mitigate the impacts of say a new build sliding down the slopes.
But, I mean, in my mind it' s an incomplete application then
because we really should have, rather than segment it, we really
should have bought it together as one.
The second thing is that certainly this is way more of an
appropriate situation for a rock revetment, similar to what is
in front of the former Beachcomber, which is now I think the
IBEW hall, in terms of protecting this property.
But I do think, you know, given the current application and
applying to build a structure on a bluff, it 2023, just seems
like a reckless action, I mean certainly the two houses on the
way down to the end of Duck Pond Point are on very steep slopes
and they are not within our jurisdiction. Do I think that was an
intelligent build? No. But that's not within our jurisdiction
and not what we are looking at now, so.
MR. CUDDY: Well, then until we have a complete application, I
withdraw this application. We'll be back with a further
application.
MS. HULSE: Mr. Cuddy, you will be withdrawing this application
at this juncture?
MR. CUDDY: Yes, I am.
MS. HULSE: Withdrawn.
MR. CUDDY: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 9, AS PER REVISED PLANS AND PROJECT
DESCRIPTION SUBMITTED ON 8/14/23 Patricia Moore, Esq. On behalf
of LASCELLE FAMILY TRUST, c/o ROBERT & LISA LASCELLE, TRUSTEES
requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built 41x24 ' catwalk with
Thru-Flow decking and raised 18" on existing piers; a 3'x12'
aluminum ramp; a 6'x18 ' 8" floating dock with a 41x2' floating
platform for aluminum ramp (total square footage of all floats
not to exceed 120 sq.ft. ) ; three (3) 8" diameter piles to secure
the floating dock and platform; and existing dock to be
relocated @ 3' to midpoint of floating dock.
Located: 4210 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-28
The Trustees most recently visited the site on August 8th,
noting to limit floating docks not to exceed 120 square-feet.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council reviewed the
application and resolved to support it.
Board of Trustees 40 August 16,2023
Since our meeting in the field, we have received new plans
stamped August 15th, 2023, depicting the floating dock at 120
square-feet.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore, and I have Robert here as well.
We thank you for the opportunity to meet with you out in the
field. We did revise the plans to modify the float. We've also
proposed moving one of the current piles that are at the corner
of the dock to the center point of the dock. So that is shown
on these plans as well.
Aside from that, it' s what was originally provided to you,
and I hope you'll support this application. If have you any
questions, we are here to answer them.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. So this would include the removal
of the other floating dock that we saw on site?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing 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 PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this
application noting that the last line of the description has
a typo and should read: Quote, and existing pile to be
relocated at three feet midpoint of floating dock.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 10, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of I.
bMRKOTSIS IRREVOCABLE TRUST, c/o IRENE MARKOTSIS requests a
Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place 103 linear
feet of deteriorated bulkhead and a 10 linear foot long
return with new vinyl bulkhead and return, and to raise the
height an additional 18" above existing; and to install and
perpetually maintain a 15' wide Non-Turf Buffer along the
landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 6540 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-12
The Trustees visited the site on August 8th and made
the following notes: That this application is
straightforward.
The LWRP is exempt from, noted that this is exempt
from their review.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the
application with a 15-foot non-turf buffer planted with
Board of Trustees 41 August 16, 2023
native vegetation.
I am in receipt of plans stamped received on June
29th, 2023.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard
to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. Any
questions I would be happy to answer.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: You have a 15-foot wide non-turf buffer,
correct?
MR. PATANJO: I just noticed that. It shocked me, too.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: We appreciate that.
MR. PATANJO: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Oh, I think the CAC suggested planting with
native vegetation, that's why.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak further or any
other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve the application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 11, 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
The Trustees most recently conducted a field
inspection on August 8th, 2023, noting that the dock would
be prohibited under Chapter 275.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency is the new dock is not possible in Long Creek
pursuant to Prohibited Location Activities, A: No new docks
will be permitted over vegetated wetlands or such that is
causes habitat fragmentation or vegetated wetlands in the
following areas: Downs Creek, Hallock' s Bay, Arshamomaque
Creek and Pond, Long Creek, branch of Mattituck Creek east
of Grand Avenue bridge, Pipe' s Cove Creek and West Creek.
Critical environmental areas: At the discretion of
the Board of Trustees and the operation proposed in critical
environmental areas may be more subject to more stringent
requirements than detailed in this section. Such
requirements may include but are not limited to denial of
certain operations, shortening or reducing the size of
structures, and increasing the width of non-disturbance
buffers.
Board of Trustees 42 August 16, 2023
The Conservation Advisory Council does not support
the application in accordance with Chapter 275-11
Construction Operation Standards, where no new docks will be
permitted in the branch of Mattituck Creek east of Grand
Avenue bridge.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. The
application was submitted, meets the typical requirements for
Chapter 275, and the basis of this is that there are other docks
along the creek in that area, um, you know, further to the south
of there. So it appears to be that there is some consistency
with the additional, older docks, that have been previously
permitted in the area.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This dock is located east of Grand Avenue
bridge?
MR. PATANJO: East, yes. And there are docks further within the
Grand Avenue bridge and this one. I guess you would say that is
further to the south.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Southold Town code Chapter
275-11C(2) (b) [3] [a] specifically states: No new docks shall
be permitted in the following areas: Downs Creek, Hallock's
Bay, Arshamomaque Creek and Pond, Long Creek, branch of
Mattituck Creek east of Grand Avenue bridge, Pipe's Cove Creek
and West Creek.
Since this proposed dock is located in an area that is
prohibited under Town Code, and it is a new dock, I'll make a
motion to deny this application. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 12, AS PER REVISED PLANS & PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED ON 8/16/2023 Michael Kimack on behalf of
VERONICA H. NASARY requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
18'x36' (648sq.ft. ) In-ground pool; existing 1,755sq.ft. Pool
patio surround; as-built 289 linear feet of 4 ' high pool
enclosure fencing with two (2) gates; as-built 4 'x8 ' landing to
a 41x12' staircase down embankment; remove 31x66.5 ' section of
existing on-grade catwalk, cut existing pilings to grade and
construct a proposed 41x69.5' section of raised catwalk using
Thru-Flow decking; remove decking on as-built 51x69. 1' section
of fixed catwalk, reframe this section and install 4 ' wide by
Board of Trustees 43 August 16, 2023
69. 1' long section using Thru-Flow decking; the total length of
4 ' wide catwalk to be 135.5 linear feet; as-built 3'x16'
aluminum ramp, and as-built 61x40' floating dock situated in a
"T" configuration secured with four (4) pilings; the as-built
seven (7) electric lights at pool and along catwalk to floating
dock to be converted to Dark Sky compliant fixtures; and to
establish and perpetually maintain an approximately 2, 950sq. ft.
Non-Turf Buffer Area within the entire area that is seaward of
the pool fence line to top of the bank.
Located: 900 Fox Hollow Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-6-22
The Trustees last visited the site on the 14th of August,
which was an inhouse review. Prior to that it was reviewed at
length the month prior at the site.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
as-built dock does not comply with the Wetland permit 1518
issued in 1982. The remaining as-built structures are
recommended as inconsistent; it is further recommended that the
storm water capable of entering the wetland from runoff is
addressed; the property slopes toward the creek; a pool
dewatering well should be required; a vegetated buffer is
recommended landward of the wetland boundary; an integrated sand
sink is also recommended to help control storm water.
The catwalk is close to grade. Past permit required the
catwalk be elevated three-feet above grade; flow-thru decking
was not used; the dock appears to extended past the pier line
and does not meet Chapter 275 standards.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with thru-flow decking.
I should also note that I'm in receipt of new plans and a
project description stamped received by the office August 16th,
2023.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant.
At the last time we were here you had requested, at that
particular time I had previously submitted revised detail sheet
that showed, as you had requested, that the walkway be elevated
all the way through, as opposed to about 50 feet. And that
drawing is before you, that detail sheet is before you. With
all thru-flow all the way, from the existing staircase all the
way out, primarily. Establish a non-turf buffer seaward of the
pool fence to the top of the bank.
As far as the pool is concerned, there is not a drywell
there. The pool was built in 1984, and it's a seawater pool. It
had been the, historically it had been the policy of this Board,
and prior Boards, that if you have a seawater pool you would not
necessarily have to have a dry well anyway. And this obviously
was built within that particular window of that type of
decision. And I would hope that the Board would take that in
consideration in this particular matter.
I did submit at your request the last time, you wanted all
of that information on one survey site plan, which I was able to
Board of Trustees 44 August 16, 2023
get from the surveyor and run through the Board' s door the day
before it was closed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to
speak with regard to this application, or any comments from the
Members of the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
based off the new plans and project description stamped received
by the office August 16th, 2023, with the addition of a drywell
for the pool backwash, and based on the current applied-for
plans. This will thereby bring this into consistency with the
LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSK: Number 15, Michael Kimack on behalf of
MADELINE DOSTAL requests a Wetland Permit to remove 209 linear
feet of existing wood bulkhead with 6' return and wood
staircase; construct a 209 linear foot long vinyl bulkhead in
same location and same top elevation with a 10' long return on
the westerly property line; backfill new bulkhead with
approximately 40 cubic yards of clean fill; establish and
perpetually maintain a 10' wide Non-Turf buffer along the
landward edge of the bulkhead with one layer of jute
(2, 090sq.ft. ) Fastened with 6" spikes and planted with American
beach grass one foot on-center; and to install a new 3'x4 '
staircase in same location as existing.
Located: 540 Lesters Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-114-7-9
The Trustees visited the site on 8/8/23. Notes from the
visit read: Ten-foot non-turf buffer landward from top of bank.
Non-disturbance buffer seaward from top of bank.
The LWRP found the project to be consistent with its
policies.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application.
Does anyone wish to speak regarding this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant.
It' s a replacement of a wooden bulkhead in-place at the
same height elevation, primarily. I didn't have an opportunity
to be there with you, but I'm sure it was pretty -- you could
see there is some erosion behind the existing bulkhead. I so
noted that the amount of material that has to be replaced behind
the bulkhead, and then the ten-foot, basically, with the
American beach grass, pretty much takes it back as far as, the
lay logs would be basically going, and the tie logs. So that
would be the disturbed area anyway. Beyond the ten foot it
begins to rise up from pretty much the toe, rising up to the top
of the bank, or the top of the bluff.
Board of Trustees 45 August 16, 2023
I did a return on one side because you would have noted
there was already beginning erosion, if you're looking at the
water on the left-hand side, in order to prevent that from
continuing. That's it. Any questions of me?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is it tying into a neighboring bulkhead?
MR. KIMACK: Yes. We talked to the neighbor, the neighbor had
called me. If you look at the drawing, we do go across the
property line by about two or three feet, but it ties into the
next-door neighbor and closes off.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And do you have permission from the neighbor?
MR. KIMACK: Yes, we do.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
MR. KIMACK: As matter of fact, he so wanted it because
apparently he' s concerned about the erosion on his property.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The project seems pretty straightforward to
me. I think that the mitigation efforts recommended by the
field inspection notes would be sufficient to move this
application forward, in my opinion.
Anyone else wish to speak regarding the application?
(No response) .
Members of the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with the condition there is a ten-foot non-turf buffer landward
from top of bank and a non-disturbance buffer seaward from top
of bank. Submission of new plans depicting that, and the new
written description outlining that language as well.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. KIMACK: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
s ectfu y bmite by,
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees