HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-11/15/2023 Glenn Goldsmith,President �QF SO(/jTown Hall Annex
5437
A. Nicholas Krupski,Vice President ,`O� Old 5 Route 25
P.O.. Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski J Southold,New York 11971
Liz Gillooly ua
Elizabeth Peeples � � Q Telephone(631) 765-1892
Fax(631) 765-6641
�yCOUNT`I,Nc
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes RECEIVE®
Wednesday, November 15, 2023
DEC 1 5 2023
5:30 PM
Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President Southold Town Cleric
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,
November 15th, 2023 meeting. At this time I would like to call
the meeting to order and ask that you please stand for the
Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance is recited) .
I'll start off the meeting by announcing the people on the
dais. To my left we have Trustee Krupski, Trustee Sepenoski,
Trustee Gillooly and Trustee Peeples. To my right we have the
attorney to the Trustees Lori Hulse and Senior Clerk Typist
Elizabeth Cantrell. With us tonight is Court Stenographer Wayne
Galante, and from Conservation Advisory Council we have Caroline
Burghardt.
Agendas for tonight's meeting are posted on the Town's
website and also located out the hallway.
We do have a number of postponements tonight. Postponements
in the agenda are on page five, under Amendments:
Number 2, 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
Board of Trustees 2 November 15, 2023
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 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.
On page six, number 3, 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 3.51x12' 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.
On page 11, number 17, DEBORAH RIVERA PITTORINO requests a
Wetland Permit for the existing 1, 152sq. ft. One-story dwelling
and for the as-built reinforced floor joists, added insulation,
replaced existing/new footings, and new windows; as-built
32sq.ft. Bathroom addition onto northern side of dwelling;
as-built reconstructed 10'11"x18'7" easterly deck with steps to
ground; as-built 8' 4"x22' 11" southern deck with steps to ground;
existing ±4. 6' x ±5. 6' cement front entry; existing Bilco hatch
and stairs to crawl space area; and as-built a/c unit
replacement.
Located: 68530 Route 25, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-2-1
And number 18, Margot Coffey & Clay Coffey on behalf of
HC NOFO LC requests a Wetland Permit for a proposed two-story,
single-family dwelling to replace existing single-story
dwelling, to include an addition of a new 440sq. ft. Two-car
accessory garage and proposed 2, 465sq.ft. Gravel driveway;
existing 883sq. ft. Building to be demolished with the newly
proposed ground floor to be 800sq.ft. And a proposed second
floor that is 1, 175sq.ft. , total square footage of new two-story
dwelling to be 2, 975sq. ft. ; a wrap-around ground floor terrace
on the north, west and east sides of the dwelling totaling
1, 008sq. ft. ; a 250sq.ft. Second floor deck; one (1) 62sq. ft.
Built-in planter to run adjacent to the north side ground floor
terrace; install an innovative alternative wastewater treatment
system that will prevent nitrogen and other harmful substances
from leaching into the wetlands; install 8 ' diameter by 2' deep
drywells with gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof
runoff; and to install and perpetually maintain a 15' wide
non-turf buffer area upland of wetlands to be composed of native
vegetation. .
Located: 6370 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-5-3.3
And on page 12, numbers 19 through 22, as follows:
Board of Trustees 3 November 15, 2023
Number 19, Baptiste Engineering on behalf of ALLISON CM
FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing wood
planters and part of the existing stairs and construct a 64 '
landscape wall along the east, a 60' landscape wall along the
south_ and. a-5 ' landscape wall along .the western portions_-of.-the_
property of the existing embankment; the proposed material for
the landscape wall is formed concrete with a dye stamp; and the
lowest elevation of the bottom of the wall (BW) is 5.5' with the
highest elevation of the top of the wall (TW) is 12 .51 .
Located: 820 East Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-110-7-22
Number 20, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of ESTATE OF
RICHARD JENSEN, c/o RICHARD C. JENSEN, JR. , EXECUTOR requests a
Wetland Permit to demolish existing 1,205sq. ft. Dwelling and
garage, 140sq.ft. Patio/terraces, and abandon existing sanitary
system; construct a FEMA compliant two-story dwelling with
991sq. ft. On first floor, 1, 040sq. ft. On second floor, 414sq.ft.
Attic, a 229sq. ft. Seaward side raised deck with a 108sq.ft.
Splash pool on raised deck with steps to ground and locking
gate; install a ±195.5 linear foot long by 2 2 &- foot max. High
retaining wall (covered with veneer stone & cap) around a new
I/A sanitary system and install ±180 cubic yards of fill
material landward of dwelling; install a 3'x4.5' outdoor shower;
install an air conditioning unit stand on north side of
dwelling; install a stone blend parking area for two cars; and
install gutter to leaders to drywells, and a drywell for pool
backwash.
Located: 4155 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-6-21
Number 21, 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 4 'x 5' pressure
treated wood staircase off of landward end of catwalk; install a
31x14' 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 41x30' of new pathway to connect to new
dock location.
Located: 1120 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-9-2
Number 22, 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
Board of Trustees 4 November 15, 2023
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
Under Town Code Chapter 275-8 (c) , files were officially
closed seven days ago. Submission of any paperwork after that
date may result in a delay of the processing of the applications.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to have our next
field inspections Wednesday, December 6th, 2023, the 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
I'll make a motion to hold our next Trustee meeting Wednesday,
December 13, 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 Trustees work
sessions Monday, December 11th, 2023 at 5: OOPM at the Town Hall
Annex 2nd floor Executive Board Room; and on Wednesday, December
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 October
18th, 2023 meeting.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 5 November 15, 2023
(ALL AYES) .
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The Trustees monthly report for October 2023.
A check for $32, 607.02 was forwarded to the Supervisor' s Office
for the General Fund.
VI. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk' s
Bulletin Board for review.
VII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
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, November 15th, 2023 are classified as
Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are
not subject to further review under SEQRA:
They are listed as follows:
500 Glenn Road, LLC SCTM# 1000-78-2-23
Susan Magrino Dunning SCTM# 1000-17-1-2 .1
Christopher & Marissa Lazos SCTM# 1000-59-1-1
Paradise Point Association, Inc. SCTM# 1000-81-1-16. 10 &
1000-81-1-16. 11
KP Realty of Greenport, Corp. SCTM# 1000-35-3-12.11
Kathleen Walas �& Thomas Sarakatsannis SCTM# 1000-3-1-16
Stephen & Fortune Mandaro Revocable Living Trusts SCTM#
1000-31-17-4
Brian DeBroff SCTM# 1000-10-9-14
Katherine L. Oliver SCTM# 1000-53-4-2
William & Stacey Brennen SCTM# 1000-31-12-5. 1
Donna M. Wexler Revocable Trust SCTM# 1000-70-4-23. 1
Herbert & Susan Hoffman SCTM# 1000-66-3-10
100 Park Avenue Corp. , c/o Paul Pawlowski SCTM# 1000-123-7-3
Archivist Capital RE 70 Park, LLC SCTM# 1000-123-7-2
Archivist Capital RE 50 Park, LLC SCTM# 1000-123-7-1
Lucy Wohltman SCTM# 1000-116-2-3
Thomas Barnard SCTM# 1000-81-3-7
Gwen Hyman SCTM# 1000-111-9-8
Estate of Richard Jensen, c/o Richard C: Jensen, Jr. , Executor
SCTM#- 1000-53-6-21
Deborah Rivera Pittorino SCTM# 1000-53-2-1
HC NOFO, LLC SCTM# 1000-104-5-3.3
Allison CM Family Trust SCTM# 1000-110-7-22
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
Board of Trustees 6 November 15, 2023
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
VIII. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: In order to simplify our meetings, the
Trustees regularly group together items that are minor or
similar in nature. Accordingly, I make a motion to approve as a
group number 1, Michael Lawn on behalf of MARION LAKE
RESTORATION COMMITTEE requests a Ten (10) Year Maintenance
Permit to hand-cut Common Reed (Phragmites australis)
surrounding Marion Lake, to not less than 12" in height by hand,
as needed.
Located: Bay Avenue, East Marion, SCTM# 1000-31-17-1 & 1000-31-7-9
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, DEBORAH L. McKEAND & SHANNON J. GOLDMAN
request an Administrative Permit to repair existing 5' 4"x612"
(32. 89sq.ft. ) Shed.
Located: 100 Salt Marsh Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-68-3-11. 1
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I will recuse myself for personal friendship.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection
November 1st, noting it was straightforward.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
As such I'll make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(Trustee Goldsmith, aye. Trustee Krupski, aye. Trustee
Sepenoski, aye. Trustee Peeples, aye. Trustee Gillooly, recused) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, FRANK & MINDY MARTORANA requests an
Administrative Permit for an as-built masonry outdoor
l
fireplace/pizza oven on a concrete foundation with footings;
8' 6" wide x 5' deep x 618" tall with a 5' 4" chimney!
Located: 3450 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM#
1000-115-17-10. 1
Trustee Goldsmith conducted a field inspection November
13th, noting the need to check the permit history on the
potential buffer.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is the as-built pizza oven does not meet Policy 6.3, it was
built without a' permit.
Upon further review, this property had a previously
approved non-turf buffer, and having this structure within the
designated non-turf buffer violates that buffer, therefore, I'll
make a motion to deny this application.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
Board of Trustees 7 November 15, 2023
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IX. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Again, in order to simplify our meeting, I 'll make
a motion to approve as a group Items 1 through 3 and 5 through 13. They
are listed as follows:
Number 1, En-Consultants on behalf of DAVID GRESHAM and BENJAMIN
PARDO requests the Final One (1) Year Extension of Wetland Permit
#9764, as issued on November 18, 2020.
Located: 435 Narrow River Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-3-10
Number 2, ROBERT BABCOCK & LORA MONFARED request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit #4283 from Joseph Buczek & Christina Spornberger to
Robert Babcock & Lora Monfared, as issued on February 24, 1994, and
Amended on June 30, 1993.
Located: 3895 Wells Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-2
Number 3, KENNETH MADSEN & MICHELLE HARMON-MADSEN request a
Transfer of Wetland Permit #10359 from Shlomo & Alice Weinberg to
Kenneth Madsen & Michelle Harmon-Madsen, as issued on April 19, 2023,
and Amended on July 19, 2023.
Located: 1425 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-116-7-6
Number 5, ANDREW M. PETTERSEN & RANDY A. STATHAM request a
Transfer of Administrative Permit #10162A from William J. Earl
to Andrew M. Pettersen & Randy A. Statham, as issued on June 15, 2022.
Located: 5805 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-7-5.5
Number 6, WEST CREEK MARINA LLC requests a Transfer of
Wetland Permit #9801 from New Suffolk Properties, LLC to West
Creek Marina LLC, as issued on January 20, 2021.
Located: 3350 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-110-1-12
Number 7, En-Consultants on behalf of DAVID & ALLISON
AFFINITO requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #7165 from John
Fischetti & Deborah Deaver to David & Allison Affinito, as issued
on August 19, 2009.
Located: 1675 Pine Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-5-42
Number 8, CHITRANG PURANI & VEERA PURANI request a Transfer
of Wetland Permit #5942 from Peter Ruttura to Chitrang Purani &
Veera Purani, as issued on June 24, 2004 .
Located: 835 Waterview Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-7-12
Number 9, Martin D. Finnegan on behalf of HEATH GRAY &
MOLLY RHODES requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit #9758 to establish and perpetually maintain a 3, 442sq. ft.
Non-disturbance buffer and a non-turf buffer seaward from the
edge of lawn to the limit of non-disturbance in lieu of the
previously conditioned 50' non-disturbance buffer and non-turf
buffer.
Located: 8570 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-5-5
Number 10, AMP Architecture on behalf of ANDREAS SERPANOS
Board of Trustees 8 November 15, 2023
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10327 to
construct a 225sq.ft. On-grade bluestone patio at northern side
of pool.
Located: 19105 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-17
Number 11, MICHAEL & ROBIN COLAPIETRO request -an----- - - - -- - — " - ---
Administrative Amendment to Administrative Permit #10275A to
remove the existing 591x28' concrete driveway and replace with
new concrete in lieu of previously approved; extending concrete
driveway slab to the stone retaining wall 1319"x8 ' with pavers
on top; replace driveway extension walkway 11'x6' 9" with
concrete, in front of retaining wall stairs with pavers on top.
Located: 3800 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-17-6. 1
Number 12, Steven Affelt, AIA on behalf of JOSEPH KADILLAK
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10428 to
extend the second floor plate to make an 18" overhang off the
front face of the dwelling.
Located: 775 Mill Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-135-3-35.1
Number 13, Michael A. Kimack on behalf of JOHN & MARGARET
HOCHSTRASSER requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit #10424 to construct a 1,373sq.ft. Raised wood deck in
lieu of the previously approved raised masonry patio.
Located: 2855 Nasssau Point Road, Cutchogue, SCTM# 1000-104-13-9
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4, KENNETH MADSEN & MICHELLE HARMON-MADSEN
request a Transfer of Wetland Permit #6170 from Harold Baer to
Kenneth Madsen & Michelle Harmon-Madsen, as issued on July 20, 2005,
and Amended on March 21, 2007.
Located: 1425 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-116-7-6
Trustee Goldsmith conducted a field inspection November
13th, 2023, noting it was okay to transfer as per amended plans
stamped approved March 21st, 2007, for a fixed walkway 4'x65'
using open-grate decking with steps at the end.
It was a little confusing, the permit had a different
length, and the amendment didn't show the overall length.
So I'll make a motion to approve this transfer for a 41x65'
open-grate decking catwalk with steps at the end.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral X, Public Hearings. At this time I 'll
make a motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and enter into our
Public Hearings.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 9 November 15, 2023
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a public hearing in the matter of the
following applications for permits under the Wetlands ordinance
of the Town of Southold. I have an affidavit of publication from
the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may be read prior
to asking for comments from the public. Please keep your
comments organized and brief, five minutes or less if possible.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Amendments, number 1, En-Consultants on behalf
of 500 GLENN ROAD, LLC requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #9996 to
construct a 121x36' one-story den/dining room addition with a Bilco
door and basement below in lieu of the proposed 12 'x20' one-story
addition; and no farther seaward than approved addition or existing
covered porch to be removed; construct a 121x22.8 ' unroofed deck
addition with 4 'x4' landing and steps; relocation of proposed drywell;
and to install and perpetually maintain a 15 ' wide, approximately
1, 687sq. ft. Vegetated non-turf adjacent to the wetlands,
inclusive of approximately 765sq.ft. Of existing lawn to be replaced
with native vegetation.
Located: 500 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-23.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection November 11th, 2023,
noting it was straightforward.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application. We are in receipt of new plans stamped received November
13th, 2023, that show a 15-foot wide vegetated non-turf buffer.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicants. Good evening.
This is a relatively straightforward application to amend
Permit #9896 that was issued in September of 2021 to the prior
owner for the in-place replacement of an existing enclosed porch
with a one-story addition. That permit was issued at the time
without any buffer or other mitigation. The permit has since
been transferred to the new owners and extended. The new owners
would like to proceed with the same work but extend the length
of the addition laterally, but no farther seaward than the
existing porch or existing improved addition, and then an
un-roofed deck addition adjacent to it.
Because of the additional scope of work, the application is
accompanied with a proposed 15-foot wide vegetated non-turf
buffer adjacent to the wetland. And based on conversations and
field inspections we did submit a revised plan with some
clarifying labeling: That to more clearly indicate that the
existing edge of lawn will be relocated landward to the landward
limit of the proposed buffer; that the existing vegetation
within the buffer shall remain; and that the existing lawn area
Board of Trustees 10 November 15, 2023
within the buffer is going to be replaced with native
vegetation.
So hopefully that makes that clearer. If you have any
other questions, I can answer them.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, for that buffer clarification and
delineation. It' s much appreciated.
MR. HERRMANN: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing no further comments, I make a motion
to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted, with the new plans stamped received November 13th,
2023.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits,
Number 1, AMP Architecture on behalf of CHRISTOPHER & MARISSA LAZOS
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for
the existing two-story dwelling consisting of a 36. 4 'x34.4 '
(1,249sq.ft. ) Ground floor to remain; existing 36.4 'x34 .4 '
(1,249sq.ft. ) Second floor; existing 5.71x20' (113sq. ft. ) Second
floor front wood deck to remain; remove a 7. 6'x15 . 4 ' (115sq.ft. )
Portion of existing second floor wrap around deck with existing
3. 111x30.21 , 11. 10'x34. 4' , 7. 6'x32 . 10' (769sq. ft. Total)
wrap-around second floor deck to remain; remove existing
1, 374sq.ft. Roof and construct a 36. 4'x34 . 4' (1, 077 .5sq.ft. )
Third floor addition and 12 'x34.5' (412.3. sq.ft. ) Third floor
wood deck; construct a 7. 61x15.4 ' (115sq.ft. ) Three story
addition with ground floor section to be structural supports
with break-away walls, second and third floors to be habitable
spaces; install an I/A OWTS sanitary system landward of
dwelling; and to install two (2) 8 ' wide by 2' deep drywells to
contain roof runoff.
Located: 1200 Leeton Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-1-1.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent, for the
following reasons: 4. 1 minimize losses of human life and
structures from flooding and erosion hazards. The Coastal
Board of Trustees 11 November 15, 2023
Erosion Hazard Line splits the parcel with a shift landward to
account for the no seawall area. Part' of the single-family
residence and deck are located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard
Area.
111-4, the subject parcel is located in FEMA Flood Zone VE.
This area is highly susceptible to frequent storm surge with wave
action. Loss of 'structure will occur over time.
The proposed action does not have a functional relationship
to coastal waters and therefore is not a water-dependent use
pursuant to Chapter 275-2.
A "water-dependent use" is defined as an activity which can
only be conducted on or in or over or adjacent to a water body
because such activity requires direct access to that water body,
and which involves, as an integral part of such activity, the
use of the water. The uses include but are not limited to
commercial and recreational fishing and boating facilities,
finfish and shellfish processing, fish storage and retail and
wholesale fish marketing facilities, et cetera, et cetera.
As referred above, the proposed structure and sanitary
system are located within FEMA Flood Zone VE elevation 13, a
structural high-hazard area, with a 1% chance of annual flooding
with wave velocity. In reality, flooding occurs on a more
frequent level. Structure in these areas should be minimized and
not expanded. -
The breach of lot coverage limit sets a precedent of
potential loss in a structural hazard area.
Protect and restore natural protective features. Natural
protective geologic features provide valuable protection and
should be protected, restored and enhanced. Destruction or
degradation of these features should be discouraged or
prohibited. No development is prohibited in natural protective
feature areas except as is specifically allowed under the
relevant portions of 6 NYCRR 505.8 . Natural protective feature
areas, nearshore areas, beaches, dunes, bluffs and wetlands and
associated natural vegetation.
The natural protective feature areas as defined in 111-6
defines natural protective feature area as a land and/or water
area containing natural protective features such as a beach or a
primary dune.
New construction is prohibited in the natural protective
feature areas, primary dune. Only non-major additions to
existing structures are allowed on beaches and primary dunes
pursuant to Chapter 111-13.--
The distance from proposed actions to natural protective
features is zero feet. A minimum setback of 100 feet is required
pursuant to Chapter 275-3, findings per jurisdiction setbacks,
require that the applicant amend the application to meet above
policies to the greatest extent practicable, minimizing damage
or obstruction to manmade property, natural protective features
and other natural resources and to protect human life.
Board of Trustees 12 November 15, 2023
The Trustees most recently visited the property on November
8th and noted that we reviewed plans further at work session and
there were concerns about the primary dune. It should also be
noted that there is a letter in the file from a neighbor, which
I'll read into the record. -----
Dear Trustees, I cannot support yet other monstrous house,
this time with an improved third floor. It is impossible to be
silent and watch the destruction of the beach community that I
live on. Mistakes have been made long ago. We now have codes to
prevent it from happening again.
The house requesting a wetlands application is no stranger
to our wetlands. It was moved back from the encroaching Sound
in recent memory. It has no protection from winter storms, and
winter storms have come even closer.
We who have lived here year 'round have watched as waves
from Nor'easters drain into Leeton Drive, leaving gullies where
they pass between houses. With the removal of longstanding
native bushes and grasses, and the destruction of nicely
built-up dune on either side to allow for this house to build
upward and outward, our buffers are gone.
Keeping within the footprint, already larger than
permitted, covers up the truth. Driving supporting pilings into
our fragile dune system will only weaken it for all of us.
Please use our laws to protect, us. Thank you, Lynne
Normandia, 2100 Leeton.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PORTILLO: Anthony Portillo, AMP Architecture.
So first off it' s, the addition that we are proposing, the
footprint is 5. 1% of the existing living space. So the increase
is not considered a major addition. The increase for the, the
increase of the home is to create a stair hall that goes up to
the second floor, and it also is basically being built where
there is an existing deck. So we are not actually building down
on to any ground level, or we are not really adding to any more
mass than what is already there. '
- It's also, the addition part will be FEMA compliant. The
ground level of the home has a C of 0, that allows it to be
habitable. Currently it's used basically like a basement. There
is a laundry room, a bathroom and open rec space, and that's how
the CO reads for the building.
The Building Department has not looked at this as a
reconstruction. And so the second-floor addition, which was
scaled back a bit after a site visit with the Trustees, and
discussions with the Building Department, is on top of the
existing structure. We are not building out or larger than the
existing structure.
The question about the third level, which I don't think is
really relevant here, but was discussed with Zoning, is that
really the size or the height of the building, if it was built
Board of Trustees 13 November 15, 2023
today it would, brand new and FEMA compliant, it would be
considered, that height would be considered for a two-story home
with a lower level that would be basically empty.
But due to the fact they have a CO for habitable space, -
it's not being considered reconstruction or what FEMA calls a __ .. . _-
major substantial improvement, then it doesn't have to be
brought up to FEMA codes. And that's New York state code and
that's FEMA code as well. So that' s the reason we took the
approach of how we presented the design. /
We are proposing- an IA system, has been filed with the
Health Department in the front of the building, and we have
filed with the DEC. We have not received any responses on those
filings, but we have been through Zoning, and that's where we
are now with the project.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I guess my comments would speak to, you
know, this structure has a finished basement, it' s set up like a
full floor inside. I mean we were just there on site
inspection. There is a living room, bedroom. This is certainly
recognized as a primary dune under Town Code and by the Board of
Trustees. I personally can't see expanding 'this house within a
primary dune. Obviously if it were a new construction, we would
be looking at piles to try to protect the structure, but this
house already has two floors. It's not on piles. I mean, this is
not, you know, I don't look favorably upon this application.
MR. PORTILLO: The existing construction is a pier constructed,
the bottom floor does have pier construction. When they moved
the home back, it was like the ' 80s or 170s, they put it on top
of piers, and that has been filed, was filed with the Building
Department. So it is sitting on piers or piles. It' s not a
breakaway wall system like you would have in say a VE zone, but
the home was given a CO to use that space as habitable.
So, you know, we are not requesting more than building on
top of what is there, and then the small addition, which is not
a major addition, which should be allowed under Coastal Erosion,
so I guess, you know, I don't think that, I don't think
structure should be, I mean structurally, this is on piers, not
breakaway walls, but it's basically built on piles. I mean,
there is a record of that in the Building Department of how it
was built.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Do you happen to know what year the CO was
granted on this structure?
MR. PORTILLO: That was like '86 or something, I can actually
provide it to the Board. That' s when they moved the home.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: They moved it further landward.
MR. PORTILLO: That is correct. It was further out.
Board of Trustees 14 November 15, 2023
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So as Trustee Krupski mentioned, this is in a
primary dune. When we did field inspections there is actually a
retaining wall on the north side right in front of that
basement, to prevent sand from going into the basement, because
-that dune wants to migrate into that house and it cannot due to
the construction of the house. So it is creating an
environmental hazard and affecting the environment and the
habitat, and it is a primary dune we would like to protect.
Also it can affect, you know, the neighboring properties. If it
got moved back once before because of storm damage, last time I
checked, the seas are not getting any lower, they are getting
higher. So to try to put a line in the sand that already got
moved back once, um, I don't know if it' s the most prudent thing
to do, especially considering it is a primary dune that wants to
go into the house as existing.
MR. PORTILLO: Agreed. And I understand where you're coming
from, but we are not asking to build any more than what is
already there. And this condition that you are speaking about is
not going to change whether we had a second, add the second
floor or we don't add the second floor. And the portion of the
addition is going to be on piles and piers and built to FEMA
regulation.
So that portion of the building I think is not going to be
affecting the dunes or affecting anything that is going to be
happening, right. The basement level is there. It would remain
if no work was done. So the work we are proposing is not
increasing that.
MS. MOORE: If I could interject.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure. Pat actually works for the clients as well.
MS. MOORE: Yes. I was hired for the Zoning Board application, so
there was a very full record at the Zoning Board.
During the Zoning Board hearing there were discussions
about what would be the most appropriate way of providing
additional living space to the family, because the property has
limitations. We would not move it forward towards the street
because you would be violating additional setbacks. But to build
directly on top of an existing structure is consistent with the
Coastal Erosion law. It's also would be consistent with your
Wetland ordinance because you are not impacting, you are not
affecting the surrounding land. It remains natural.
I believe the Zoning Board wanted us to keep the land in
its natural vegetation, which is certainly how it' s been kept,
and it's not an unreasonable request I know the Board has
imposed on other applications.
You mention the sand and the movement of sand, it just, you
can actually see there, that the homes to the west are much
further seaward and so the migration of the sand is being
blocked from that direction on the west side.
Also, similarly on the east side, you have homes that are
much closer to the water as well. So it is not -- putting a
Board of Trustees 15 November 15, 2023
second floor on an existing residence is not going to change in
any way the existing conditions and the environmental concerns
that you were raising.
It looks like the rest of the neighborhood has already been
well established and the -- it' s not going to change.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That' s not true either.
MS. MOORE: One of the main concerns I have here is that I want
to be sure that we incorporate the record of the Zoning Board in
this deliberation, so I would ask that the records be
incorporated, because there was a lot of discussion.
MS. HULSE: That is not being done here. The testimony that is
taken here tonight is what they are deciding, they are basing
their decision on. It' s not incorporated as part of this public
hearing. Are you --
MS. MOORE: I'm asking that it be incorporated into this hearing.
MS. HULSE: Do you have authorization on behalf of your client?
Because we don't have that in the file.
MS. MOORE: I have authorization. I was the attorney for the
Zoning Board application. I did not know this hearing, or this
matter was on. I thought it had actually, the Trustees had
already approved this application. It happened to come before --
MS. HULSE: Could you provide that to the office for the file,
please?
MS. MOORE: Sure. I will.
You know, it's gone through a very extensive review. The
LWRP came up with their recommendation, which is their typical
second, third bite at the apple, because every application gets
the LWRP, and we did respond to the LWRP.
The application as it was submitted, the Zoning Board felt
that they were being, by the modifications that were implemented
already, it was consistent with the LWRP, and the impact of
changing the footprint of the house, adding space on the
landward side of the house would actually be more disruptive to
the property than building directly on top. So that was a very
important point for the Zoning Board, and they, I mean they do
consider environmental factors, as you know. They don't decide
things in a vacuum. So it did get a very thorough review.
If you want additional testimony, I would advise that you
get some environmental, maybe the client needs to get
environmental review of this.
We thought it was pretty straightforward having it gone,
just gone through Zoning Board and the second floor over an
existing structure.
So if that's, if the Board is inclined that you feel there
are environmental issues that are of concern, then I think the
applicant should get some review with expertise.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Excuse me, Ms. Moore. I would like to comment
that you keep referring to a second floor, but in fact it's a
third floor because while it' s labeled as a basement, I mean, I
don't know the exact definition within the Building code, but it
Board of Trustees 16 November 15, 2023
is completely above ground and it is completely surrounded
without breakaway walls. So it would be considered in my mind a
third story.
MS. MOORE: You are correct, as a matter definition, it is a
third story. And that is why it went to the Zoning Board, for
that precise issue, and it was really important to the client to
not lose the lower floor of the basement because the only thing
the second floor was providing was additional reconfiguration of
bedrooms for four kids, they have? Five?
MR. PORTILLO: Four kids.
MS. MOORE: Four kids. So to add the bedrooms and lose what
would be a family room for the kids was a real loss that would
have completely changed the project, resulting in alternatively
what do you do here, do you add, you know, everything you add on
the land would be FEMA compliant. So the only way to change the
footprint would be to add to the footprint, and that was, again,
something the Zoning Board felt was more environmentally
damaging to the property.
MS. HULSE: You are citing the ZBA over and over again, and their
review is completely separate and distinct from this Board.
The ZBA has no authority to administer the Coastal Erosion
code, which is only the purview of this Board, as well as
obviously 275 . And I think specifically with respect to their
charge, reading from the code, they must review construction of
erosion protection structures, their construction operation will
minimize or prevent damage or destruction to manmade property,
private and public property, natural protective features and
other natural resources. They are charged with making sure --
MS. MOORE: I understand.
MS. HULSE: Okay. So to cite the ZBA over and over again is
really of no use to this Board because their charge is
completely different and specific --
MS. MOORE: I understand.
MS. HULSE: And I think they are voicing their concerns with
respect to their charge as regulators of the construction of
erosion protection structures and coastal areas and they've
cited the primary dune here as a significant concern of theirs,
which obviously it is. So, I just want to make that point
that --
MS. MOORE: Yes, and what I've, the only point that I'm making,
why I keep referring to the Zoning Board, is because there is in
a sense overlapping reviews, and the Zoning Board does not just
look at the application in a vacuum.
The LWRP was a recommendation through the ZBA, which is the
exact same language that they provided to this Board. So those
issues were addressed and we had to address them in great
detail. And, but I get your point.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Mr. Moore, the application that came before
the Zoning Board of Appeals and triggered an LWRP review, the
LWRP came back and found this project to be inconsistent. So
Board of Trustees 17 November 15, 2023
while you've talked about the project being consistent with our
Wetland policies and 'our Coastal Erosion policies, we have here
in front of us a document stating the exact opposite in respect
to the Coastal Erosion policy. So protecting the primary dune
feature and preventing loss of life and damage 'to structures, in
looking at the LWRP, it cites those concerns exactly.
MS. MOORE: I understand.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And the LWRP conducts a different type of
review for the ZBA. So it is a different review. It is not the
same exact review word-for-word.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So when I look at a project like this --
MS. MOORE: I'm not sure I would agree with that, because the
LWRP policies are the same ones being cited. So the LWRP is
reviewing the policies that are set forth, and those are being
applied in both instances and cited under both reviews.
But I would ask, I would suggest that this matter be
adjourned to give you an opportunity --
MR. PORTILLO: I would like to say --
MS. MOORE: Yes. Please
MR. PORTILLO: So just furthermore and, you know, I think that if
you want to take this project and sort of rethink it or restart
it, and talking about a third story, and I can define that for
you.
This home, being where it' s located, it's at that grade
height, if you were to say build a brand new home here on that
site, you would be building basically a three-story home, based
on New York state code.
New York state code defines a story anything that is six
feet above grade. So because of the height that you would have
to be at to be compliant to the VE zone, that first level will
always be considered a first story. Then you would build two
stories above that. So that second story, the .second livable
story, would always be considered a third story. And that's very
common on Leeton Drive. All the homes that are FEMA compliant
are third-story homes, and a lot of times have to put sprinkler
systems in for that reason.
I did one not too far from here, brand new home, we had to
put a sprinkler system in because it was considered three
stories based on New York state code.
So I think what we are saying is no matter what, whatever
structure was built, is built there, if it was built brand new
FEMA compliant, it' s going to be considered a third story or
three-story home. Just like the neighboring home, that's a
three-story home. I think its 700 Leeton was brand new. That's
a three-story house. Basically any home that's two stories, FEMA
compliant in this area is considered a three-story home.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Those concepts are completely clear to me and
they are not novel. And I think that is the main concern.
MR. PORTILLO: I know they are not. I just mean that if we are
calling it a third story, regardless, it's a third story in a
Board of Trustees 18 November 15, 2023
two-story home.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I understand that. My concern with the first
story that' s the finished basement without breakaway walls in a
primary dune areas. What goes above, I don't have the ability to
enforce an architectural review on any of this, although .it
would be great.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm glad we are at a point though where we are
finally calling it a third story, because the first
three-quarters of testimony from the attorney and the agent
it was a second story. I'm glad we are on the same page now.
Did I interrupt you?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Not at all.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just want to address another couple points
from Ms. Moore' s commentary, specifically the quote "it's not
going to change. " So if we look at this profile here, it is
certainly going to change. This house is in a primary dune. It' s
located mere feet from the beach. The waves are going to be
breaking through here soon, crashing through the living room, ,
bathroom, bedrooms and basement water. Not only is it a primary
dune but there is a concern with the shading within the primary
dune and the vegetation, the surrounding vegetation from adding
to a, you know, essentially making it a tower. And then there is
a real concern over, you know, the LWRP spoke to it, but, you
know, minimizing structure damage and loss and frankly safety,
for residents.
You know, you mentioned four kids, somebody sleeping in
that basement, you know, who knows what can happen, so. And
there is very good precedence for this current Board with
structures that were already existing, they needed to raise up
make compliant, and they went on straight. piles with nothing
underneath, and that' s ultimately the lowest impact, and then we
are not talking about a three-story structure.
MR. PORTILLO: Again, let me be clear that I never considered
this a two-story structure. If I said second floor addition, I
apologize, just because my brain thinks, you know, is thinking
about the FEMA standard. But regardless, this would always, if
you put a two-story home on piles that is FEMA compliant in this
area, which is very consistent with Leeton Drive, those are
three-story structures. The only difference here is that you
would have breakaway walls at the basement level. But
requirement for breakaway walls is not subject to this property
because it' s not considered a substantial improvement.
So we are allowed that basement structure because it' s been
CO'd by the Town, so I don't think that should be a negative
impact to the owners. That structure has been there. They use
that, and in regard to sleeping down there, that' s the idea is
to have the bedroom space at this upper level or third-story
level so that there is room for sleeping since it is a very
small area that is above the design flood elevation.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think part of the issue is that they
Board of Trustees 19 November 15, 2023
currently have a two-story home that they utilize at this stage,
and they are looking to use the FEMA codes to justify raising
the home, but they are not looking to make the bottom floor
compliant.
So while you could bring the home up and have a breakaway --
first floor, to continue to have a two-story home, what you are
asking for is three livable stories.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And from our point, more structure is more
adverse environmental affect to this primary dune. And that' s
our concern.
MR. PORTILLO: I appreciate that concern but if you were to look
at, the site plan here, you could develop a lot larger home
linearly, a linear home across this site that would be outside
of CERA, that would probably be in a worse scenario than leaving
this structure that is a little bit taller. '
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: One Trustee's perspective, but pulling
structures out of CEHA is actually the goal of this Board. So
pulling things back is always beneficial.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. PORTILLO: Understood. But that is not what the owner of the
property is considering because it would be knocking down the
home, you know, drilling piles, building basically a brand new
structure there, so there is a lot of financial cost to that,
instead of adding a smaller story on the third story to create
sleeping space. And sleeping space that in my mind is, you know,
safer than even sleeping on what is currently the second floor.
Because the structure itself, if you look at the drawings, I
mean these are large piles that they put this home on. So I
don't think the home is structurally unsafe, I mean, if that' s a
concern.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak regarding this application, or any additional
comments from the Board?
MR. PORTILLO: I would ask if the Board would allow some more
environmental study toward this project and so my clients
understand what you are asking or what you are saying. They are
not here tonight, so, I would ask that we can come back and/or
maybe present something different, I'm not sure, but, I mean
they are not looking to knock the home down and build some
massive home on. the property. They'd like to get something out of
the space. I mean.
Or maybe they'd consider removing the bottom level. I
think that' s what I'm hearing, but I would have to speak to them
about that.
If the home is on piers and they consider removing that
part which is CO'd, I'm not saying they are going to consider
that, and put breakaway walls, then it would be FEMA compliant.
Or it would be compliant, right?
Then adding that story shouldn't be an issue. That should be, I
mean, right?
Board of Trustees 20 November 15, 2023
I mean that sounds like a little bit more toward what the Board
is asking.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That is moving in the right direction, for
me.
MR. PORTILLO: Right. Okay, so I would like to have that
conversation because I don't know, you know, I don't know what
they are going to say or what their thoughts would be.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Hearing no additional comments, at
the applicant' s request I make a motion to table this
application.
MR. PORTILLO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 2, Martha Reichert, Esq. Of Twomey,
Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo, LLP on behalf of SUSAN
MAGRINO DUNNING requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit to combine the existing 930sq.ft. One-story dwelling (NE
dwelling) with an existing 355sq.ft. One-story dwelling (NW
dwelling) , resulting in a single 1, 553sq.ft. One-story framed
dwelling (and decreasing the number of bedrooms from 4 to 3) , by
enclosing a 268sq.ft. Portion of an existing 318sq.ft. Covered
wood deck that runs along the seaward facade of the NW dwelling
and extends to where it connects to the NE dwelling; the
existing 327sq.ft. Of uncovered wood deck, 6sq.ft. Covered wood
plat and 11sq.ft. Of wood steps, and 19sq. ft. Wood plat and
7sq. ft. Of wood steps to remain unchanged; and to install two
(2) bay windows on the landward side of dwelling.
Located: 925 Stephenson Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-17-1-2. 1
The Trustees most recently visited the site on our November
8th field inspection date. The notes from that visit read:
Non-disturbance seaward of house recommended.
And Trustee Gillooly visited the site on the 13th of
November, and reviewed the application as well.
The LWRP found the project to be consistent with its
policies.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application, recommending an IA septic system, which would
be triggered under a larger renovation.
Is there anyone here to speak regarding this application?
MS. REICHERT: Good evening, everyone. My name is Martha
Reichert, Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo, LLP,
33 West Second Street, Riverhead, New York. I represent the
applicant.
So I think that you pretty much summarized the application.
I feel it' s pretty straightforward. I would also like to add
that the entire structure is in Flood Zone X, it' s elevated, we
have a letter of non-jurisdiction from the DEC that was issued
years ago for another renovation project, and I'm just really
Board of Trustees 21 November 15, 2023
here to see if the Board has any comments or questions for the
applicant.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Quite simple. The area seaward of the house
is pristine and a lovely coastal eco-system. I recommend and I
welcome colleagues to support my recommendation that the house
seaward be designated a non-disturbance buffer, and that the
path to the water be return to its four-foot width. In addition
to that, gutters to leaders to drywells.
Other than that, as one Trustee, I find the project to be
straightforward and well-conceived.
MS. REICHERT: Thank you. With respect to drywells, I consulted
with the applicant today and they told me that when they did
their house renovation project in 2011, everything was directed
into, you know, there are gutters on the house, there are
leaders, all goes into drywells, and that that was reviewed and
approved by the Building Department as part of their CO.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right. Anyone else wish to speak ,
regarding the application?
(No response) .
Members of the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with new plans depicting a non-disturbance buffer seaward of the
house, and a four-foot wide access path to the water.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Under Wetland Permit, Number 1, En-Consultants
on behalf of PARADISE POINT ASSOCIATION, INC. requests a Wetland
Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to dredge an
approximately 1, 730sq.ft area and 3, 750sq. ft. area of existing
+/- 20-foot wide navigation channel between boat basin and
Southold Bay to a maximum depth of -4' Mean Low Water; and place
up to approximately 240 cubic yards of resultant sand/silt spoil
in three adjacent on-site spoil deposition areas located on the
east filled-in jetty (±100cu.yds. of spoil) , west filled-in
jetty (±65cu.yds. of spoil) , and at 225 Briar Lane, Southold
where ±75 cubic yards of spoil to be placed in an approximately
925sq. ft. sandy area adjacent to the southerly property line.
Located: Basin Channel Off Paradise Point Road & 225 Briar Lane,
Southold. SCTM#' s 1000-81-1-16. 10 & 1000-81-1-16.11.
The Trustees most recently visited this site on November
Board of Trustees 22 November 15, 2023
8th, 2023, noting that it was straightforward.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council reviewed the
application and resolved to support the application. —._..
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
Paradise Point Association. Paradise Point Association
President Gordon Henry (sic) is also here.
This is a straightforward application and essentially a
re-up of a previously issued ten-year maintenance dredge permit
that just recently expired. If the Board has any questions I'm
happy to answer them. Otherwise it really is quite similar to
what the Association has been doing with respect to maintenance
dredging for many years pursuant to prior Trustee permits.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, with the plan stamped received on October 6th, 2023.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 2, En-Consultants on behalf of KP REALTY
OF GREENPORT CORP. requests a Wetland Permit for removing
1, 108sq. ft. of existing grade-level masonry patio and 179sq.ft.
area of landscape retaining walls; construct 872sq. ft. of
"upper" grade-level masonry patio, 181x46' swimming pool with
60sq.ft. hot tub, 428sq.ft. of "lower" grade-level masonry
patio, 181x31' roofed-over open-air accessory structure with a
±6' x ±31' enclosed storage shed that has closets, an outdoor
fireplace, and a basement for storage and pool equipment, an
outdoor kitchen, and associated steps and planters; install a
pool drywell and 4' high pool enclosure fencing with gates;
remove 34 linear feet of existing stone retaining wall and
construct 24 linear feet of new 2.7' high stone retaining wall;
and to establish and perpetually maintain a 50-foot wide
non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer adjacent to the
wetlands boundary, replacing approximately 3, 850sq.ft. of
existing lawn with native plantings and maintaining a cleared 4 '
wide pathway to existing dock.
Board of Trustees 23 November 15, 2023
Located: 2006 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-3-12.11
The Trustees most recently visited the site on November 8th
and made the following notes: Add several hardwoods (Oak) in
buffer area; questioned depth to groundwater for basement
proposed in accessory structure.
The LWRP found this proposal to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application with the note: That the Conservation Advisory
Council supports the application contingent that the cabana comply
with all Town Code regulations.
I'm also in receipt of a letter from a neighbor that is in
support of the application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of the
applicants.
They are also, Adam Dering and Karen Adler are also both
here, as is KP Realty. I wanted to hand up, I'll walk you
through the project a little bit, but I wanted to hand up
revised plans which address some commentst about the buffer
labeling that we discussed at the site meeting.
I'll give you a chance to get the plans in front of you.
So this is an application to remove an existing patio on
the water side of the house, and to construct a new what is
essentially bi-level masonry patio around the proposed saltwater
swimming pool, with an accessory, associated accessory
structure.
The application is fairly straightforward, except we were
trying to work our way through how best to describe the
accessory structure. I heard a question about groundwater, and
so I did want to just try to talk about the accessory structure
a little bit to hopefully make it clearer.
So we did provide some renderings, Liz, I don't know, you
don't have that on -- do you have the rendering scanned in or
no?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: They are on laser fiche, yes.
MR. HERRMANN: That' s it. Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: We have it in the file.
MR. HERRMANN: All right. So basically on the south side of the
pool, at the same elevation as the upper level patio, is
basically an 181x31' area of the. masonry patio that has a roof
above it.
It is an open-air structure except that it has one wall
which runs parallel with the existing 12 or so foot high hedge
that is just to the south of it, to the north of the southerly
property line. That one wall allows for an outdoor fireplace
and then to either side of that fireplace are these two small
enclosed units which are described, I think we had on the plan
basically as closets. I think Liz may have favored the term
"shed. " They are basically two six-foot wide spaces that provide
Board of Trustees 24 November 15, 2023
storage on either side of the fireplace. If those were empty
during the summer could somebody walk in there and gain privacy
to change in or out of a bathing suit, yes. But these are not,
there is not furniture set up and, you know, sinks or bathrooms
or toilets or wet bars or anything. These are two small storage
spaces. It is not a pool house.
What was a little confusing in the discussion when we were
there -- if you can pull that drawing up. And then, yes. So on
the right-hand side. So we were talking about the retaining
wall here, which basically goes back to what is the foundation
of the raised patio, and it is the foundation wall of what we
described as a basement.
Now, as we got to talk about this further, I 'm not sure
that "basement" is an accurate term or the one that we probably
should have chosen, because that conjures an image of, you know,
basically having like the indoor space that you would have in a
basement underneath the first floor of a house, but outside
where you'd be, you know, setting up, I don't know, billiards
tables or recreation rooms or libraries or whatever. That is not
what this space is. Basically, and Pat has some construction
plans that we can show you as well, if you want to see it in
more detail, but basically you have to create a foundation wall,
which as Elizabeth was talking about at the field inspection, to
hold up the patio. So because the grade slopes down there, and
this speaks to the groundwater issue, you basically have this
wall, which is essentially above the existing grade at that
point. So this is not a basement that is being excavated down
below the existing lawn where you are risking going into
groundwater or anything like that. You are basically enclosing
this space underneath the patio. It's got a bunch of these
substantial columns that run right through the middle of it. So
this is not like an open basement, quote unquote, the way you
think of in a house. But there is empty space under there which
they are basically using to their advantage and, I mean,
frankly, to the advantage of the adjacent neighbor, to house the
pool equipment. Is there additional space that they could use
for storage, yes. I think we described it that way and I think
Elizabeth included that in the description as well.
But I've talked about this issue with the owners ahead of
the hearing. Any sort of restrictive language or stipulations
or whatever the Board, if the use of that space is at all a
concern, they would be happy to accept any sort of that
language. They want you to understand that this is not trying to
create like an indoor basement outside underneath the patio.
This is space that basically has to exist within the walls
that are used to support the patio that is under that roof.
I don't know how much that matters with respect to your
Wetlands review, but we did want to make sure that it was clear
and unable what that ' area is, and doubly glad to go through it
because there is no issue, you know, with groundwater, for
Board of Trustees 25 November 15, 2023
example.
With respect to the Wetlands code, the pool, the accessory,
the patio, everything does, is more than the minimum required
50-foot wetlands setback for pool and related structures where I
think the minimum setback to the nearest corner of that
foundation wall is 66 feet, 67 feet, I think, to the swimming
pool, and then that retaining wall that you see on the seaward
side of all that, that is all existing and will remain, except
for the fact, as we discussed at field inspection, on that one
corner, that long angled-section of wall is being removed and
then they are just, that shows the finished condition. I'll
just point to it one more time. Right here (indicating) .
You know, right now there is an angled wall that comes back
there, which we are looking at that. That wall goes away and
then there is just this right-angle turn.
So again, in looking at the description that Liz actually
put out, I 'm not sure that the term 6'x31' shed is really,
whatever that was, is really correct. There are two distinct
spaces on either side of a fireplace and so I don't know whether
you want to call them storage spaces or closets or what, but I
just want you to understand it' s not one 31' long continuous
structure.
Regarding the mitigation for the project, again, while we
are meeting setbacks, you know, there is significant additional
structure here being proposed within your jurisdiction, and so
what we are proposing is a 50' vegetated non-disturbance buffer
adjacent to the wetland boundary. As I think we talked about
with Glenn at field inspections, when the house was constructed,
I don't know 15-plus years ago, there was a 50' buffer required
at that time. Unfortunately, I don't think you were using the
deed covenants as enforcement tools at the time. About half that
buffer seems to have actually been maintained by the prior
owners.
So as part of this plan, the current owners would actively
re-vegetate the entire lawn area that is within 50' of the
existing wetlands setback.
And so we, you know, we joked a little bit about whether we
were proposing what was supposed to be there 15 years ago. It
is more than that. And the reason for that, other than just the
physical reality of the fact that the lawn is there, and that is
going to be replaced with native vegetation, when the original
50' width was measured, it was measured from a mean high water
line from almost 20 years ago. Needless to say, that mean high
water line is now closer to the house and the road than it was
then, and that also did not appear to take into account a small
swath of high marsh vegetation that is down by the shoreline
which we delineated. We had the survey updated to show that.
And so, even relative, I think, to the DEC permit, that
they received for this project before I was involved, the buffer
that is before this Board is more extensive than that because
Board of Trustees 26 November 15, 2023
it's based on the updated high water line and an updated
wetlands boundary.
It allows for a path to the water, through the buffer area,
which you can see is depicted there off the existing steps.
I do have -- actually, there is one thing I did want to
mention, too, what we were talking about the basement term. I
don't know if that is something that we do want to correct. But
the Board last year did approve a similar concept on Nassau
Point, which I remembered only I think after we met. Permit
#10175, which was issued to 1663 Bridge, LLC. I don't know if
you would remember being there, but that was a project that was
closer to the wetland boundary than this is, but it was a
similarly proposal. There was a proposed swimming pool that was
elevated relative to the existing grade. There was an elevated
patio built above the existing grade, and the use was more
extensive because there was a proposed half bath/toilet in that
project. This, again, is a completely dry structure. There is
no water, there is no sink. Nothing. We would have to have
sanitary facilities for that. So that is not proposed.
But the language we used in that case was proposed pool
equipment was the same idea, we were hiding it, you know,
underneath. Laundry/storage and half-bath enclosure beneath
raised patio. So we probably should have just said beneath
raised patio but I guess we originally chose the term
"basement. "
So again, if that is pursuant to, I don't know, even the
Building and Zoning code, if that is not a completely accurate
term, we should change that.
So beating that to death, I did want to hand up the buffer
plans. So here is again, the first. So this buffer plan along
with the revised site plan, again going back to Elizabeth's
request, you see we add the green hatching, the red hatching,
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes, I do see that. Thank you.
MR. HERRMANN: What we are trying to show here is that within the
50-foot buffer there is extensive existing natural vegetation
which has now been hatched in green and labeled "to remain. " And
then the red area is almost 4, 000 square feet of existing lawn
that will be replaced with native vegetation. And then we added
labels, per Elizabeth's request, to show that the existing edge
of lawn is to be located, relocated landward of the 50-foot
buffer, and we added a proposed edge of lawn at the landward
limit of the buffer. So this should now be idiot-proof of what
is supposed to happen here in terms of the permanent replacement
of this lawn. And as you can see from the plan, probably a
little more highlighted now, virtually all of that lawn that is
on the seaward side of the existing stack stone wall is to now
be replaced with vegetation.
The buffer plan calls out areas of native grasses, beach
grass, switch grass or Bluestem, areas of woody shrubs, Northern
Bayberry and Virginia Rose, and some Oak trees to complement
Board of Trustees 27 November 15, 2023
some of the Oak trees that are existing even within the existing
buffer now.
So if you have more questions about any of that, I can try
and answer them, or the client can answer them. But otherwise,
we -hope at this point that we are, you know, it' s basically -a - - -
good project, it meets the setbacks, it' s really substantial
planting mitigation, it' s a good plan, and we hope the Board
will bless it.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Well, thank you, for that extensive intro to
the project.
MR. HERRMANN: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And for the updated drawings. I do appreciate
your attention to the buffer. I know we spoke about it at
length on the site and then prior to the hearing, and I think it
would be the importance of that to prevent what did happen on
this project where we lost that covenant and restriction, even
though it was not properly deeded. So this will hopefully ensure
that its in perpetuity is adhered to.
So thank you for all of that. And, you know, I do want to
just point out kind of pulling a few nuggets from your
conversation here, is that, as you mentioned, the 50-foot buffer
kind of lapsed. So we are kind of, we're bringing that back to
the project. So I want to just note that while it is an
improvement, it's a vast improvement, it' s something that should
have been there initially. What you did present to us this
evening with the buffer plantings, I think far surpasses what
probably would have been there. So I feel that is an
approvement.
And then what we are seeing here in the renderings that you
detailed for us is that the existing patio is being removed and
a pool is being installed somewhat in its place, I believe. So
we are upon keeping the buffer that we had, we are replacing the
patio with the pool. And then, so really the major structure
addition to this property is this covered --
MR. HERRMANN: The roofed-over patio.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Roofed-over storage patio, with two levels. So
that, I do see that as a quite-extensive structure, and I
appreciate that you have been very clear on, you know, it did
take a while for us to understand that it is not fully, what is
underneath that roof is not fully enclosed.
MR. HERRMANN: Right.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: However, it is a lot of structure. I'm looking
at this one view here, the rendering, and when you look at the,
it' s of the basement, and then there is a window. So these
storage areas are nice and have natural light in them.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. This wall that I'm looking at in
particular, is fairly high. Do you have the height of this wall?
MR. HERRMANN: It' s eight feet.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Oh, it' s eight feet. Okay. And that is behind
Board of Trustees 28 November 15, 2023
the neighboring privet.
MR. HERRMANN: So that's eight feet above the level of the patio.
So basically the roof of that structure will probably be more or
less about where the top of that hedge is. You've seen, I mean
the hedge is huge. That's why one of the reasons that we pointed
out when we were meeting at this site, and you can see here, so
the accessory structure basically sits about right here
(indicating) . Right. So this is where this hedge is. And the
roof sits right about here (indicating) . And this is in line
with the neighbor. And the reason that is relevant is because
this is all second floor deck here.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes, you mentioned that.
MR. HERRMANN: So the neighbor is actually at the same seaward
limit in terms of their own accessory use, at the same seaward
encroachment, at a higher level than what this structure would
be.
We had hoped you were going to actually get something in
writing from the southerly neighbor. I know Pat and Karen spoke
to them. They said they didn't have any problem with it.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: We do have the letter. I mentioned that at the
beginning.
MR. HERRMANN: Did you get two letters?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Just one.
MR. HERRMANN: The northerly neighbor also commented, you know,
just offered their support, but Pat and Karen did speak to the
southerly neighbor. That' s to the right in your picture as well.
And they had verbally indicated, you know, based on what they
told me, that they had no issues with it, and if you don't have
anything in writing to the contrary and if they are not here
tonight, I assume that must be true.
But as I said, we were hoping that they would e-mail you
something with active support. But again my point is relative to
what is there. You know, basically all of the construction down
along this shoreline is quite a bit farther seaward than this
house, and even with that roofed-over patio area with the wall,
it sits on the interior side of that hedge, and the neighbor' s
accessory structure protrudes the same distance at a higher
height than this would be.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And one thing that I just wanted to point out,
when we were in our discussion during the work session, was, you
know, understanding that this is for storage and for an area to
hang out undercover, is there a possibility that the structure
could be dialed back a little bit further landward.
(Unidentified Voice) . I guess we could talk about that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And the reason we bring that up is it's
extensive. Retaining walls, and all these things, I understand
there is some currently on the property, but that was a
discussion that we did have as a Board during the work session.
MR. HERRMANN: Did you have something in mind or come up with
something and, I mean, again, I think as it' s proposed, it's --
Board of Trustees 29 November 15, 2023
because it' s only a roof over an existing, patio area, it' s not,
and again, they would be willing to accept really any limiting
language that the Board wanted to impose in terms of, you know,
it could never be enclosed, you know, the basement could never
be, basement could never be developed.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: No running water.
MR. HERRMANN: Right, that it has to remain a dry structure.
Whatever your concerns are, and you'll have to correct me if I'm
wrong, but to me given the extent of the surrounding structures,
given the open-air nature of it, and I'm not sure, I mean, it' s
over patio, so whether it' s roofed or'--not, it' s impervious
surface, right? So I don'.t know that it' s really the size, like
the scope of the roof that is terribly relevant. I'm feeling
like there may be more underlying concern here about what the
use could be or might really be or turn into. And that' s why I'm
saying the motives here are genuine, and so whatever imposing
language that the Board might want to suggest, I mean, I would
ask you to tell us what it would be before you, you know, vote
on it, but I think they would be open to any, really any
restrictive language we have, that you might have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Herrmann, do you have a Building
Department permit for that shed, roof, whatever you want to call
it, basement?
MR. HERRMANN: Well, not yet. Because we would not be able to
obtain a Building permit until we obtain a Wetlands permit.
MS. HULSE: Are you going to need variance, though, for the
accessory structure?
MR. HERRMANN: We don't believe so.
MS. HULSE: Based on?
MR. HERRMANN: What do you mean "based on"?
MS. HULSE: I mean why do you not believe so, based on the size
of the accessory structure?
MR. HERRMANN: What do you mean based on the size of the shed.
Oh, well, I never called it a shed. Elizabeth wanted to call it
a shed, and that' s what went in the description.
Do you have it, the plans, so I can show you.
(UNIDENTIFIED PERSON) : (Handing) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Mr. Herrmann, for a moment, if I could just
voice my concerns for the project. I think it's very
thoughtfully conceived. I would be, as one Trustee, in support
of the application were the structure you are going to reference
in a few moments be pulled back in line with the pool, to
prevent a precedent of seaward creep of structures like this and
others.
That" s one concern that I had. The other one is if you
could speak to the dock in the configuration that you've given
us here on the plans that you submitted tonight. Is the dock
that is' depicted here, obviously it is what is in the field. Is
it what is currently permitted with our office or any other
office in Town?
Board of Trustees 30 November 15, 2023
MR. HERRMANN: The answer is I believe so. But you are really
making me switch gears here. So let me try to do that.
Long story short, the two parcels that you are looking at,
one is vacant and one is the subject parcel, used to be one
parcel. And it was subdivided. There is a permitting history
related to the dock that dates back to 1984. There is a bunch of
different permits that were issued, one is permit 157, one is
permit 1826, one is 3873. The problem with a bunch of these
permits, as we talked about, is that they all talk about
floating dock assembly, adding a 4x14 float, adding a 6x36
float. But there are not real clear plans that go along with it:
So the clearest permit, and I'll submit this for the
record. And obviously I'm getting all of this from your online
records. There was permit 7726 that was issued to William and
Janice Claudio on February 22nd, 2012. And that was when that,
you know, what was described in this permit as a ldw-profile
rock revetment that you see along the shoreline, was permitted.
And part of the stated purpose of that application was to
prevent the shoaling that was occurring around that floating
dock assemblage. So the permit describes recovering 20 to 22
cubic yards of eroded sand from inshore and a floating dock
assembly, placing recovered sand as backfilled land with new
rock revetment. And the floating dock assembly that is on that
permit is exactly what you see in the field today. So I don't
know if you want to pass that down and turn it into Liz.
I could probably spend 30 more minutes talking about all
the permits that came before that --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That's okay.
MR. HERRMANN: (Continuing) but I'll save everyone here from
killing themselves.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: No, I just appreciate the homework that
you've done and that because I had a wetland transfer permit in
that what I saw in that file did not match what was in the
field, so I thought I 'd ask. And you just provided us with what
I think is sufficient evidence of the dock.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. So let me hand you these plans. Lori, do
you mind if I move your nameplate. (Handing) .
So a couple of different things. So this is the main
sheet. So this is the floor plan of the roof over. Okay. So
there is the 18x31 dimension, which we are talking about
potentially scaling back, is the roof over that patio area.
There is a single wall here. That' s the one that runs parallel
with the hedge. And there is a fireplace, gas fireplace, in the
middle.
There are two, what are the dimensions here, 5'8" by
whatever that length is. But there is basically two boxes. So
what's, and I don't, again Liz, I'm not meaning to say that
you're at fault for this, but it was why I had objected to the
use of the term "shed. " It' s really not a shed. It's the two
storage spaces here. I guess you could call it a shed. It's a
I
Board of Trustees 31 November 15, 2023
pretty small shed.
But they're also, they are distinct and separate, right? So
there's not one big long room that is enclosed. They're two
small enclosed spaces. Everything in here is completely open.
Right? So, I mean, I guess the question is, is your main -- -----------
concern about this the fact that there is this 18x31 roof over
this patio area. Because to me that is the only thing that makes
this different from ten million other pool patios that you've
approved. We far exceed the required wetland setback. We' re, you
know, well in line with the neighboring accessories. We are
much lower than the neighbor's accessories. Everything is set
well back relative to, you know, what you would talk about as a
traditional pier line along the shore.
Now, pier line in your code doesn't speak to accessories,
it speaks to dwellings. But if you are comparing apples to
apples, everything is set well behind that. So I guess -- oh,
I'm supposed to be giving this to you.
So I guess the question is, is the concern the roof?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: To answer your question. It is a little bit the
roof because that is a quite large structure. As one Trustee I'm
looking at the retaining walls as well. So when you kind of
walked us through all of this, there is a grade change, it' s
pretty significant, that then almost ends up with, I don't want
say -- two areas that are on top of each other. So you do have
quite a high retaining wall that is on that side of the
property, next to the neighbor with the privet.
So by dialing the structure back landward, then you do
reduce the retaining walls, you reduce the roof square-footage,
and I see on the plan that there is quite a wide staircase that
is in between that structure and the home. So, you know, it
seems to be a little bit of room to play with. And the fact that
you just explained to us that there are two separate square
storage units, they could kind of --
MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And we are not saying, you know, don't have the
structure or, you know, redesign it, but it' s just can we pull
it back a little bit so that it's not quite --
MR. HERRMANN: Can I just ask for your point of reference. Eric,
I'm not sure if it was you that just said this. Somebody just
said, this would be pulling the accessory so that it was back in '
line with the pool.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That's what I said.
MR. HERRMANN: That' s what you said. Okay. Is that okay?
(Mr. Herrmann is conversing with his client) .
I mean, I would say that we could agree to that. Obviously
I would have to bring you back revised plans with different
dimensions and bla, bla, bla.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Excellent. Yes.
MR. HERRMANN: But, yes.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes. And use computers for those plans,
Board of Trustees 32 November 15, 2023
right?
MR. HERRMANN: Somebody does. We won't be writing on it.
(Perusing) .
So I wanted to go back -- Lori, may I ask why you are
asking me. Is there something you see about it that might -- -- ---- ------------
require a variance.
MS. HULSE: By code the size of a shed would be, that would
clearly exceed it. So I'm just curious if this is something that
you've actually submitted with the Building Department and just
to determine whether you'll need a variance or not.
MR. HERRMANN: It' s not a shed though.
MS. HULSE: I don't know that sitting here, but what I'm saying
is just looking at the description it' s something that I would
ask the question, certainly.
MR. HERRMANN: The description is incorrect.
MS. HULSE: Okay.
MR. HERRMANN: That' s what I keep trying to say.
MS. HULSE: I heard you. I 'm just curious if you've gone to ask
about that. The only concern that I have is obviously we don't
want to approve something that will require a variance down the
road.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. So full transparency for me, and I don't
know, Pat, if, you can correct this. When this all started, I had
asked the architect to verify with the Building Department that
the structure did not require a variance, because I had
explained to him that this needed to be clear, that this was not
like a pool house. Because the zoning code has very specific --
so, again this is basically a roofed-over patio. The only
structure is this, again, basement, with these two storage
spaces above it. But we can certainly consult with the Building
Department.
In other words, here is what I guess I would ask. Is we
could revise the plan to pull the length of this back per what
Elizabeth and Eric were just saying so that it aligns with the
pool, redesign that, and then before coming back to you, go to
the Building Department with those plans, verify that no
variance is needed, and then if we are able to verify that, then
come back to you with revised plan with the structure cut back.
Does that seem reasonable?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes.
MR. HERRMANN: I know you're still going to have separate and
unrelated queries about the dock. When I tell you I've spent
like three hours boring through your files, I have. So hopefully
that can be treated as a separate matter. But my conclusion
that was drawn is based on these other permits, that the
configuration that is there has been there since that permit
that is drawn and referenced, and there is no permit that calls
out every piece of the dock in a traditional way that you would
want. And that's something we can deal with, separate from
this, to try to get an actual permit that describes each
Board of Trustees 33 November 15, 2023
component of that dock so we are on record with it.
But there is nothing about the configuration that appears
different from the most recent permit that it spoke to.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think what you're referencing is you have
seen other permits that have this configuration on it but just
don't specifically call out the lengths and shape of the dock.
And I think that what we would like to avoid here is another
situation where this will be approved or on file with the same
configuration, without specifically calling it out. So if there
is a way to remove it from the plans at this stage, just not
referencing it, I think that would be preferable in order to not
confuse future people who are searching down the road and see
this, you know, since we are not talking about the docks today,
I don't think it should be on the plans today.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay, so I would propose a slightly different
alternative. I can't remove it from the plans because it' s
there. So we can't hide a structure that exists. But we can
agree to file a separate application that addresses the dock.
And just to clarify one thing, Liz, you said is on that last
permit that I just handed up, I think I handed it up to you --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes, we have it.
MR. HERRMANN: It doesn't call out the dimensions but it does
show the configuration of the dock. But I get what you are
saying, if we don't address it at some point it' s just going to
sort of continue.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So in an attempt to speed this up, how about
just a call out on the dock that says, you know, recognize the dock
is not approved, or this, you know, application is. not approving
the dock at this time, in the set of plans.
MR. HERRMANN: We could call out that maybe Lori can help me with
the language, but that we don't intend to seek, you know,
passive approval or something for the dock and that that would
be, or even put a condition in your permit that the permit does
not approve the dock, and the Board is requiring --
MS. HULSE: It's really got to be addressed on the plans, because
that will be what causes the confusion.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. But I'm saying those two things can be
combined. The condition could reference -- in other words, I
can't ask the surveyor to take the dock off. It' s there.
MS. HULSE: Why can't he label it so that it's clear that it's
not something that --
MR. HERRMANN: The architect can, yes, on the site plan.
MS. HULSE: I think that's what's being suggested.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes.
MR. HERRMANN: Sure. We'll come up with some language that you
can tell me is okay or not.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
MR. HERRMANN: You want me to deal with this anyway.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Mr. Herrmann, were you submitting this as part
Board of Trustees 34 November 15, 2023
of the record or is this your file that you would like to take
back?
MR. HERRMANN: No, I was submitting that as part of the record in
response to Eric' s request that I have any sort of prior permit.
Again, it' s like there's a thousand -- at some point John Brader
(sic) built a houseboat on top of that dock and got, you know,
fined for it.
So there' s just hundreds of pages of history in your
records about this dock. But that is the most recent and the
clearest thing in your records that I could find.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. So in an effort to kind of wrap this
conversation up, would be helpful if I kind of reviewed what we
discussed to make sure we are on the right page?
MR. HERRMANN: I would love that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. So we talked about dialing back the pool
house so that it' s in line with the pool, and any
reconfiguration that is necessary there.
We would like to condition as per the discussion we had, no
running water within the structure. And that it will not be
enclosed in the future. I mean, that would just be part, maybe
you can make notes on the plans on that.
MR. HERRMANN: I can.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And that you are going to seek Building
Department review. You are going to note on the plan some sort
of verbiage about the dock.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And then one other thing I just wanted to just
mention is we noted some of the up-lighting on the landscaping,
so perhaps that could be addressed.
MR. HERRMANN: Make sure that it' s Dark Sky compliant
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. Make sure it's Dark Sky compliant, yes.
Okay, so, Mr. Herrmann, I believe I got everything. I'll
just check with my colleagues up here on the dais and make sure
I didn't forget anything, if there is any other comment.
MR. HERRMANN: We are good.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And then I believe there was a request to table
this application.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, so we can deal with everything you just
requested.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, sound good. With that, all that said, I
make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. Nick, you look like you're in pain.
Thank you, for hearing us. I know it's a little different
application.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, for working with us.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, AMP Architecture on behalf of
I
Board of Trustees 35 November 15, 2023
STEPHEN & FORTUNE HANDARO REVOCABLE LIVING TRUSTS requests a
Wetland Permit to remove the existing 41x4 ' (16sq.ft. ) Outdoor
shower, 6'x5' (30sq. ft. ) Front entry stoop, 418sq.ft. Rear brick
patio at grade, 20. 61x20. 6' (420sq.ft. ) Rear portion of existing
roof, existing septic system and existing foundation locust
posts; lift the existing 4013'-�" x2016" (800sq. ft. ) One-story
dwelling; install an open foundation of approximately (15) 18"
concrete piers with breakaway walls; construct an 8 'x14 . 6'
(116sq.ft. ) Second story addition; construct a 3. 61x8 '
(48sq.ft. ) & 4'x7 .6' (30sq. ft. ) Front covered porch with
stairway; construct a 31x11.41 (34sq.ft. ) Rear entry stairway; a
4. 61x11. 10' (60sq. ft. ) Mechanical platform; a 20. 6'x16. 6'
(338sq. ft. ) Second floor addition over existing first floor; a
21x7' , 41x20. 6' (total 96sq.ft. ) Second story balcony over
existing first floor'; a 41x4 . 6' (16.5sq.ft. ) Outdoor shower
(open to above) ; install a new I/A OWTS within raised grade; for
the proposed raised grade over I/A septic system add
approximately 813sq.ft. Surface area, existing average grade is
2.8' , grading height only over septic proposed to be 3.2' ;
install 241x816" stormwater chambers (204sq.ft. Below' surface
area) ; install an approximate 432sq. ft. Pervious driveway;
approximately 2,760 cubic feet of earth, to be removed for
proposed septic components excavation; all fill to remain on
site for backfill with 325.2 cubic feet to be used for proposed
regrading.
Located: 2135 Bay Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-17-4
The Trustees most recently conducted a field inspection
November 8th, 2023. There was a little bit of confusion with
some of the flagging. And notes that say now using a pressurized
system to enable removal of retaining wall.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
We do have a number of letters, e-mails in the file. I'll
note them quickly. From Julianne Loudato (sic) , she notes that
she didn't receive the notice until late, so she didn't really
have a chance to attend. Same thing with a Susan Kamrowski
(sic) . We also have letter from Maureen Beaury (sic) basically
objecting to the application. Concern about the runoff from the
property. She sent pictures and videos of the area flooding, so
she's concerned that this project will increase the flooding
onto her property and neighboring properties. And we also have a
letter, objection from Julianne Lodato who is the neighbor. Her
concerns about a fence that is located on her property. And also
concern about the runoff from this potential project.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PORTILLO: Good evening again. Anthony Portillo. AMP
Architecture.
I think we had a few renditions of this project and at our
i
Board of Trustees 36 November 15, 2023
last site visit me and Mr. Mandaro took into consideration all
the Board' s comments, I believe. I think one of the big things
was scaling the project back. to not being a reconstruction,
which no longer it would be considered a reconstruction. We are
elevating the existing structure to be FEMA compliant. We .a re- -- - -------
putting in flood vents throughout the structure to allow water
to flow in and out of the lower level that would be not
habitable.
The addition is a lot smaller than what our original
proposed design was, and really that is for a stair to go to a
second floor, which is basically going to be kind of an in-suite
bedroom.
And we are proposing a pressurized septic system. I spent
a lot of time at the Health Department on this property and this
is what they said would work best, and it would allow us not to
have retaining walls and really reduce any of the grading.
I do have approval with, I do need to get approval from
this Board and DEC, but basically approval on this system that I
proposed, saying that we can have the leaching at the six inches
below grade instead of normally it's one foot or sometimes they
want it at two feet. In this scenario, because of the situation
we are in, they allowed us to be six inches below grade on the
drainage fill..
So again, this was an extra expense, obviously, to Mr.
Mandaro, to put in a pressurize system, but, you know, we want
to try to work with the Board.
With regards to the flagging, I apologize. The flags that
were closer to the shed and closer to the road were actually
showing the drainage fields. We were showing you like the ends
of the drainage fields so you had an idea where they would be
located. The ones that we discussed that I was on the phone,
that was the addition and the landing and staircase.
I 'll just make sure I have all my points. (Perusing) .
That's basically what we did to come up with a better project, I
think, in trying to work with the Board' s suggestions.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So I would like to thank you and commend, you
know we went from a five-foot retaining wall on the property
line to now five inches of fill in the middle of the property.
So, you know, thank you, for listening to our concerns, the
neighbors' concerns and addressing those.
We did have one question regarding the proposed storm water
chambers. Can you elaborate on those, what those are?
MR. PORTILLO: Sure. So there is, actually I thought I had a
section there. I could provide a section which was provided to
the Health Department. But there are low-lying chambers that
basically are going to be six-inches below grade as well, and
they are going to be running like a tubular structure that we
can let drainage into and at least bring it down to some sort of
drainage field. Currently there is no drainage there.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is that where all the leaders and everything
Board of Trustees 37 November 15, 2023
will connect?
MR. PORTILLO: That's the plan. Yes, sir.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And is it a self-contained system?
MR. PORTILLO: Well, it's a perforated drainage field.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Because it had some sort of name you referred .. ..._ _ ..... . _.
to it as. It just seemed like it was something specific.
MR. PORTILLO: I can provide the Board with a section. On the
Health Department application, our drawings, we did provide a
section of what that looks like so you can see. But essentially
it's a one-foot chamber that runs, you know, parallel with each
other. It goes back and forth, as a drainage field.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And is there concern with it being kind of
close to the wetland there?
Will it still, I mean, when you reviewed it, would it still be
effective?
MR. PORTILLO: Again, this was part of my application to Suffolk
County Health Department was putting in the drywell, because
they do review the drywells with the septic. And this was
determined to be a solution.
Like I actually went there about three times to kind of
figure out what to do here. But I believe so, yes. I mean if you
need further documentation from the Health Department. I did
bring this, I can hand this in. This is from -- (handing) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: This is from the Health Department.
MR. PORTILLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, pass that down.
MR. PORTILLO: Basically saying that this design would be
adequate for the site, and that we are exempt from Article Six,
Section 760 614.
MS. HULSE: Was there a reason the non-turf buffer was not put in
the description?
MR. PORTILLO: No. I mean we are proposing a vegetated ten-foot
non-turf buffer.
MS. HULSE: Which is required by the ZBA right?
MR. PORTILLO: That' s required by the ZBA.
MS. HULSE: Okay.
MR. PORTILLO: I should probably mention, too, part of the
revision to the drawings was us getting the second floor not
pass the pier line. That' s another thing we accomplished. We do
meet, we did have to go to the ZBA to get side yard variance,
which we did receive, and get pyramid. And one of the things
they asked was that we could not get the front yard variance.
That' s part of the reason the second floor pushed back, but it's
even further back than what we originally proposed. But we do
have ZBA approval, yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
MR. MANDARO: Yes. Good evening, Trustees, thank you, for
serving. I'm Steve Mandaro, owner of the property. I've owned
the property for 30 years. I have been on Bay Avenue for 56
Board of Trustees 38 November 15, 2023
years, since I was a kid. I raised my family there, and the
desire here is pretty straightforward: To raise our present
house up above the floodplain.
You all know that area got decimated in Sandy. Three feet
of water. As far as what we are doing, it' s nothing major. We
are really just raising the house above and we are putting a
little more of an in-suite bedroom on the second floor. And we are
really losing a bedroom on the first floor. So we are really
trading off here.
As far as this letter about a fence. I've owned the
property for 30 years. If there is a fence on the side line, if
it's on their property, I 'll remove it. But as far as I know,
it' s not. We have been at this two years. These letters have
just started to come in, I guess, I'm not sure why, and I'm not
going to address them.
I raised my kids there. I never rent the place. All of my
neighbors pretty much now are in investors who Airbnb every
weekend. I'm still living there. It' s my home. I happen to make
money in New Jersey, but I really live in East Marion. I always
have. My daughters have lived there. My grandchildren. Our
goal here is to make this property a place where I can live all
year-round and leave New Jersey and not have to just spend three
quarters of the yearly here but spend the whole time.
I live on, we're on Marion Lake, so the whole point of the
septic system is to protect Marion Lake. Why? The septic system
is 80 years old and it' s non-functional almost.
I'm a Board member of the Marion Lake Restoration
Committee. I've been on that group 20 years. I'm not going
anywhere. In fact, I plan to live the rest of my life on Bay
Ave. I could sell that place and go find a piece of property in
Orient and build a real house. All my memories are on Bay
Avenue.
So with that said, I'm seeking your agreement to give us an
approval. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak to this application?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just referencing what you just spoke of, I'm
looking at the plans here and it does appear that the fence
referenced on the plans is outside of the property line. So I
just want to make that note for the record.
MR. MANDARO: Is that fence on the right side as you are looking
at the property?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I 'm sorry, apparently this is not my purview,
so I 'll rescind my comment.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, sir?
MR. BEAURY: Hi, my name is Frank Beaury, I live at 35 Rabbit
Lane, and I guess I just want to address, I guess they view it
as complaints. It's more like concern. The original plans were
outrageous, and we went through this with his cousin that it's
still being built, I don't know if it will ever be finished. And
Board of Trustees 39 November 15, 2023
when that property was raised, was next door to mine, I had
people coming in, the workers, urinating in my shower, urinating
on my deck, eating their lunch on my deck, leaving garbage. And
at one time I was there with my daughter, she was about, I guess
12-years old at the time, and the workers were pumping water
from the lake to do their cement, and I made countless phone
calls to the Town. Nobody cared, I guess, but me. So I had to
call the police to get them off the property because they told
me they were not leaving.
As a matter of fact, they picked up a shovel and they came at
me with a shovel, and they were cursing at me, and whatever.
And when I called the police, thank God they came right away,
they told them to leave the property. As soon as the police car
left, they came back at me. This time there was a whole bunch of
them coming at me.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sir, I don't mean to cut you off, but can you
keep your comments to this project that is in front of us.
MR. BEAURY: Okay. What my concern is, I went through the
backyard what they are doing, and I don't want to have to go
through that again. I don't want people peeing on my deck. I
don't want to be assaulted. I don't want my daughter being
assaulted. I don't want to listen to music and cursing all
throughout the year with them working there. I don't want them --
later they finally made them get a bathroom. A port-a-potty. So
I guess that helped. And I see down the road where the BNB,
they're doing a big project there. I guess the Board what made
them get a fence, and the fence, so no one can go in there.
Before there was kids going in there. There was people going in
there, looking at what they were doing. Because it went on for
years, and it' s still going on. And I think something like that
should be done.
And I want to make sure that no one comes on my property to
ride around the back to do work. Because that was done. And
when I called the Building Inspector at the time, Verity, he was
all for it. As a matter of fact when I went down there and I
have it on tape, he told me that he would have me arrested. I
said arrested for what? I'm asking you for the thing. He says I
could have you arrested for whatever I want.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That sounds like a terrible situation sir, and
certainly my condolences with that. But, you know, we can
certainly consider a stipulation that, you know, no access
through neighboring properties for the project. And I do think,
I'm sure the agent for the application could speak to that, too.
And it is also, it' s not the same homeowner. That family, you
know. I have some funny cousins, too. But I understand your
concern. And I appreciate that. So, thank you.
MR. BEAURY: So, but it's the same thing. And what it is, it's
without the walls there, it's definitely better, but my concern
is the flooding in the back. As you see, no one could come to
this meeting because we were notified Wednesday. I know myself,
Board of Trustees 40 November 15, 2023
I could speak for myself, at 4 :00 PM, the mailman came for us to
sign the thing. I couldn't get off. I came here at almost 6:30.
I raced out here as fast as I could, and the other people
couldn't come. My wife sent a video. If you seen that flooding
you would not believe it. It's not a puddle, it' s a river. So
what the Town did is they prevented the water from going in the
lake at the road. So now it comes down and goes through my
property and goes to the lake. So whatever.
And we say that these projects you hear, that it's near the
wetlands and stuff. And I'm all for the wetlands, and I have
been going out there, I'm 58-years old, I been going out there
since I was a baby on Bay Avenue. I spent my summers out there
as a child, and when I had the opportunity to buy a house, I
bought it. I remember that house and I bought it. And I love
that area and I hate to see be destroyed. I bought a cottage,
and that's what I bought and that's what it will remain being. I
didn't buy a house, I bought it. I remember that house, and I
bought it. And I love that area. And I hate to see it be
destroyed. I bought a cottage, and that's what I bought, and
that's what it will remain being.
I didn't buy a seasonal, I didn't plan -- I have a huge
piece of property. I'm not developing it, and it seems,
especially with the walls and everything else, we use the thing
before, you didn't want to be compared to Queens, but I was down
in Breezy Point, you wish, they don't want to be compared to
what' s going on there. Because down there, it' s great. And you
don't even notice the difference. There is no big walls, five,
five-foot walls.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, sir. Just for the record, there
are no more retaining walls on this property. That' s been
addressed.
MR. BEAURY: That' s wonderful. I wish them luck. But to say they
are complaints. They're concerns. Because I'm concerned.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, sir. We appreciate that.
MR. PORTILLO: I want to correct myself. I was thinking of
another application. We'll have columns of brick lay walls on
this application. I apologize. I think I said foundation walls
and whatnot. Just to clear that up.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And, Mr. Portillo, just for the record, limit
access to the owner's property only.
MR. PORTILLO: That' s not a problem. That's fine.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any more questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just briefly. Given the extremely close
proximity to Marion Lake, I think it would be appropriate to do
an inspection of the silt fence and hay bales prior to
Board of Trustees 41 November 15, 2023
installation of the storm water chambers or any of the
construction work from the Trustees. And I also think it might
be worth noting that the first floor should remain unfinished,
with breakaway walls in perpetuity.
So, I don't know if that' s --
MR. PORTILLO: That' s fine. By FEMA, we can't use it for
anything other than storage. So we are in compliance with that
matter. i
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, perfect. Thank you.
MR. PORTILLO: And then in regard to the inspection, I don't
think Mr. Mandaro has a problem with that. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Are there any other questions or comments
from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the following conditions: A 30-foot vegetated non-turf
buffer at the first floor be storage only, in perpetuity. A silt
fence hay bale inspection prior to installation of the storm
water chambers, and that access for this project is through the
applicant' s property only. Thattis my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. PORTILLO: Thank you, Board.
MR. MANDARO: Thank you.
.TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 4, AMP Architecture on behalf of
KATHLEEN WALAS & THOMAS SARAKATSANNIS requests a Wetland Permit
for the demolition and removal of existing 21. 11x33.3'
(700sq.ft. ) Second-floor of dwelling, 30.7 'x19. 9' (611sq.ft. )
Rear wood deck and stair, 9'x5.5' (49. 6sq.ft. ) Outdoor shower,
8.7 'x7. 9' (69sq.ft. ) Front landing, 24 .3'x7.5' (138 . 4sq.ft. )
Front ramp and stair, 7.81x9.2' (61. 6sq. ft. ) Rear stair and
landing, existing septic system, and leaching pools; construct a
proposed new dwelling consisting of an elevated and renovated
first floor with a 1' 8" lift, 13. 6'x13.9' + 30.8 'x49. 4'
(1,700sq.ft. ) Living area and a 14.11x13. 6' (192sq. ft. ) Rear
addition; an elevated and renovated garage with a 1' 8" lift,
13.8 'x20.7 ' (282.2sq.ft. ) ; a 30.7'x49. 4' (1, 511. 6sq.ft. ) Second
floor; a 4 'x18. 6' (73.8sq.ft. ) Second story balcony; a
23.3'x4.2' (94. 4sq. ft. ) Front covered porch; a 13. 91x10. 6'
(148sq.ft. ) Rear screen porch; 6. 9'x10' (69sq.ft. ) Rear steps
and landing; 8. 6'x18.5' (159sq.ft. ) Rear steps and landing; a
13'x10' (130sq.ft. ) , 4 ' deep pool; a 101x12. 10' + 5. 6'x18 .5 '
(247sq.ft. ) Rear patio at grade; proposed septic system with
grading above; proposed Cultec stormwater chambers; a 41x4 ' pool
Board of Trustees 42 November 15, 2023
drywell; proposed 51x5' (25sq.ft. ) Outdoor shower; 31x8 '
(24sq. ft. ) Pool equipment shed; approximately 2, 995.5 cubic feet
of earth to be excavated for proposed improvements and all
2, 995.5 cubic feet to remain at site for backfill.
Located: 750 Brooks Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-3-1-16
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not support the
application. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support
the application because setback of the proposed pool is not in
compliance with Chapter 275, and there is no concern with the
addition of fill.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
leaching galleys are located in FEMA flood zone Elevation Seven.
Will expansion of the house add more sanitary flow and potential
impacts to the high quality Pipes Cove eco-system. If so, how
much over existing conditions.
What is the modified vegetation buffer refer to. And what
is the finished grade slope, will storm water flow into surface
waters.
The Trustees last visited this site on the 8th of November,
questioned the amount of fill and grade change. Will the plans
show overlay. Struggle to balance environmental concerns with
expansion. Remove invasive Fountain grass, re-vegetate with
natives and a large non-turf buffer. Also silt fencing, hay
bales, et cetera.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PORTILLO: Yes. Hi. Again, Anthony Portillo, AMP
Architecture.
So our proposal is to remove a large structure that is
currently seaward, which is a covered deck area, and then the
deck that is adjacent to that, we are proposing an addition in
that area. The large structure that is covered, the large deck
structure that is covered is where we are proposing to locate
the plunge wall, which would be at grade, really less invasive
than what is currently there.
We are elevating the structure to FEMA compliance, and this
is the one that is solid walls with flood vents. It's in an
A-Zone.
We are removing what is currently two cesspools, and we are
providing an IA system, really in the only location we see
possible on the site, and providing drainage fields for
rainwater collection, for rainwater.
We did have to go to Zoning for this application because
it's considered a reconstruction due to the amount of work,
based on Southold Town code. There are no real neighbors to this
property, no adjacent neighbors to this property. The only
neighbor would be the property next to what is, it' s owned by
the Town, and the other adjacent lot is owned by the county.
The home is accessed only by a right-of-way road. And we
were approved for the setback variances and the pyramid variance
Board of Trustees 43 November 15, 2023
that we requested.
I do think that, I do think that the approach to the design
is trying to bring the addition structure away from the seaward
area and more toward the landward side. You know, this lot is
somewhat a 180, you know, water, and it is a difficult scenario
to try to accomplish, you know, the square footage that we are
trying to get out of it.
Also that addition area I would like to just indicate that
is only one-story and that was done really to kind of keep that
area lower, as it was coming out toward the water. And, yes,
that was done on purpose. And really keeping the second-floor
structure where there already is a current second-floor
structure. It' s just more of a one-and-one-half story, I guess.
So it' s like, it has dormers and things like that. It' s just not
really a great second floor. So that' s a big reason we are doing
this, to really have a real second story.
So I think I hit all my points. If you guys have any
questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just for clarification, looking at the plans,
the current, you know, rough elevation of the site, is four, and
is the finished with the septic and the house going to be six?
In terms of grade of property surrounding the structures?
MR. PORTILLO: Um, so the grade currently at, I mean, it varies a
little bit, but it' s between six and five at the existing home.
Where we are proposing the septic is like at a four, and we are
proposing to be at 5.8. And basically it's the six is being sort
of, it's pretty minor that grading where we are going up to six.
It's about half a foot, really. Because six comes out around,
currently, six comes out seaward of the side of the home. So we
are just sort of taking that grading and going around and
keeping it at six instead of it being -- it' s probably about a
half a foot that we are raising it around the home.
And part of that is trying not 'to, we eliminated all
retaining walls. I know when we met on site, we had a retaining
wall, listening to the Board and trying to take these into
consideration, you know, that was, we proposed a way to do that
which would be to have just a one to three slope, which is
allowed by the Health Department for our leaching. And that was
our approach.
We have submitted this to the Health Department. I do have
from them basically an approval with approval from this Board
and DEC. So that would be the last leg of us getting septic
approval.
So, I think in their minds with discussions and lines on
this and, you know, us taking those cesspools out and being able
to put that IA system in its place, because they obviously don't
want us putting in a system closer to wetlands "either. That was
sort of, I think what they're thinking. I have that if you guys
would like to see that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, that's okay. We have it.
Board of Trustees 44 November 15, 2023
The other major concern is that under Chapter 275, we don't
allow pools within 50 feet of the wetland line, so although we
are close, we have moved applicants back, even to be a foot
before.
MR. PORTILLO: I think we could probably work within that
constraint. We are at 47.4 right now, so I don't see an issue
getting back to 50.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To the south of the home, you have what I
assume is a leaching field, but it' s unlabeled on the plans.
MR. PORTILLO: Yes, that' s the leaching chambers, leaching field.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And that's for the entirety of the site?
MR. PORTILLO: That' s correct, we would have to pipe that in. We
have some constraints obviously, with being close to the septic
and wetlands property. So this was, this was also how we
presented it to Suffolk County in regard to the septic, and I 'm
not sure if we could fit another field anywhere else. I don't
know, if you guys have any ideas.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And how wide is your, it says modified native
vegetation buffer. We need to clarify that a little bit, too.
I'm not sure, you know, number one, I would like to see a
measured number for that. And also, I mean, for tonight if you
could clarify for this Board, you know, what exactly you mean by
that, I think -- the LWRP was confused, too.
MR. PORTILLO: Yes, I think the issue here with this site is, you
can probably see it on the map there, is the site, it's somewhat
flat and sort of dips down, so you don't really have like a
straight line delineation of how wide this buffer is, right.
So there is already a buffer there and the idea was to just
sort of maintain it. And we sort of just, and you can see our
lines, how we're presenting the edge of lawn. It' s not
necessarily just straight. We sort of have, on the plans you can
see how we sort have drawn a line around, capturing that raised
patio.
So it' s not, I can get maybe like an average of what it is,
I mean unless we just take a radius and sort of make a buffer.
The site doesn't really qualify, it' s hard to say, hey, this is
20 feet. Like it would be 20 in one spot and 18 in one just
because of the contours.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The beauty of this property, I mean in an
environment sense, is that it abuts a county land, it has an
amazing protective sand beach, with tidal fluctuations happening
in front of it. There' s lots of sea birds, fish, crab species.
It really is an amazing location. And the buffer would be really
important in this location, not only in terms of the habitat
that it creates surrounding the property, but also in terms of
its esthetics, because of people enjoying the waterways and
their kayaks and swimming and walking and seeing that property
with the healthy vegetated buffer, it's really important for
those two respects.
One thing I noticed in the field is that you have a few
Board of Trustees 45 November 15, 2023
non-native species in that area, some miscanthus grass, which
everyone loves to plant because it's beautiful and breezy and
beachy, but it' s actually an invasive which I've seen take over
farm fields and other wetland areas if it' s not removed and
eradicated properly. -------- -- -----------
So to see that buffer in its most-natural state would be
important to me as a Trustee, and also to avoid what happened in
the adjacent house where human activity has removed the wetland
marsh and created instead a kind of like a beach hangout place
where we don't have any kind of, other than the occasional
fiddler crab that risks its life crossing that area.
MR. PORTILLO: To your point, Eric, not to cut you off, is the
owners have been there for 15, 16 years, and the buffer is like,
they're really into the buffer. I don't think it's something
they are looking to -- I think they are even okay increasing the
buffer, and that's what we would be proposing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes, I would be interested in having that
happen.
MR. PORTILLO: I'm not looking to do what Mr. Heinz did there
with the sand and beach and all that. I think their enjoyment is
the buffer and the grasses, and whatever plantings may have
happened over the 16 years, I 'm not sure. But they are here,
they can speak to that. But I'm sure eradicating that is not an
issue. I don't know if the Board has a proposed offer that we
can consider that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I mean, I'm taking a look at just the aerial
photographs and having been there in the field, I think a buffer
that would be inclusive of the stone patio and wraps around the
property. So, I don't know what that is, an additional eight
feet or so. To put a number on it.
I'm not sure about the dual access to the water. One of
those access points is sand, to go by foot to the creek. The
the other one is by dock. So it seems important to choose what
you want.
MR. PORTILLO: That' s understandable.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Because usually Trustees permit one four-foot
access path to the waterways. And with the dock you do have
significant access to the water there.
And there's a lovely bridge as well, just down the road, to
access the beach. Those are my concerns.
MR. PORTILLO: Noted. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One other thing we are looking at is, there is
the proposed addition going seaward, however it is, I am taking
into account that it is in line with the current house. However
the, then we are also bumping out with the screened-in porch
over, you know, there's a walkway there and there' s a shower
there, but there is not much else. So it just kind of seems we
are creeping a little bit with that. So I would kind of be
looking to dial something, you know, the pool obviously has to
get dialed back by code. I would like to see that creep kind of
Board of Trustees 46 November 15, 2023
dialed back if possible, too.
MR. PORTILLO: Can I make a make a comment on that though, Nick?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Certainly.
MR. PORTILLO: That measurement really is our furthest
measurement from that delineation line. It' s 79 feet. So, I
mean, we're almost at 80 feet, where the other portions of this
home is 55 currently. It' s really the only area where I believe
an addition makes sense on a lot like this, how it' s plotted
there. And, you know, it's, again, to get somewhere to sit
outside where there' s mosquitos, this would, it would have been
difficult to really put it anywhere else. I don't think there
is much other location. And I think it is a sensible location
given that that is the widest area, if you look at the rest of
the building, or the structure.
Again, that is just my, the reason, that' s my reasoning why
I located it there. I thought it fit nicely, and I noticed that
it was 79 feet from the delineated wetlands, so, you know, I
thought it was really the least intrusive of anything. So,
that's my two cents on that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Go ahead.
MR. PORTILLO: It may be 80 feet, I don't know. It would seem
pretty minor if it was 79 to 80. And it's not a huge screened
porch as you can see. It' s 10x13 1/2. I mean you could really
fit just a table out there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It' s under the screened porch?
MR. PORTILLO: That would be done with -- it would be open. It
would be a deck. There' s no, I mean, I know what the
circumstances are. They're not looking to close it. They want a
screened porch. They want to enjoy that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think just to summarize what has been
discussed here tonight, you know, we have the limit access by
code to one access --
MR. PORTILLO: Got it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Through a buffer. I think the Board is looking
to expand the vegetated buffer, remove the miscanthus and
replace it with native vegetation. I think it would probably
make sense to include a few native trees in the application. And
the pool would have to be moved out of, you know, past the
50-foot mark. And then I personally would just consider, you
know, downsizing the screened porch to pull that back slightly,
because it is kind of just, everything is just creeping. Did I
miss any other commentary?
(Negative response) .
MR. PORTILLO: Thank you, very much. So we'll just table and
present a new --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you wish to table, sure.
MR. PORTILLO: I would. Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application? Any additional comments from the
members of the Board?
Board of Trustees 47 November 15, 2023
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. PORTILLO: Thank you.
MR. SEPENOSKI: Number 5, Dameron Architecture, PLLC on behalf of
BRIAN DeBROFF requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 2, 376
gross square foot two-story dwelling (including existing
unfinished garage/walkout basement level) , with a 941sq.ft.
Footprint and ±468sq.ft. Seaward deck with steps to ground;
remove portion of roof line to construct a ±235sq.ft. Dormer
with windows; and to repair and replace areas of the roof that
require maintenance.
Located: 271 Gloaming Extension, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-9-14
The Trustees reviewed the application at our November work
session on the 8th.
The LWRP coordinator Mark Terry found the project to be
consistent with its policies.
The Conservation Advisory Council was not able to make an
inspection and therefore was not able to make any
recommendations to this Board.
We are in receipt of plans from August 7th, 2023.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application
(No response) .
Members of the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further wish to speak, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion for a five-minute recess.
(After a brief recess, these proceedings continue as follows) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All right, back on the record.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 6, Frank Uellendahl, RA on behalf of
KATHERINE L. OLIVER requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
two-story dwelling (1, 816sq.ft. Footprint) ; expand the existing
8'x±34 ' screened porch an additional 3.4 ' for an 11. 4 ' wide by
±34' long screened porch; ,slightly extend the existing 190sq. ft.
Brick steps and surrounding brick path to accommodate screened
Board of Trustees 48 November 15, 2023
porch extension; a one-story 131x16' den extension; a 14'x9'
one-story front entry extension, and extend the existing
130sq.ft. Front deck to accommodate front entry extension; a
16'x40' in-ground swimming pool with associated ±1,340sq.ft.
Paved patio with drainage; and an 81x18' shed for pool
mechanicals and storage.
Located: 1255 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-4-2
The Trustees most recently visited this site on November
8th, noting that the pool pulled back to be in line with
extension patio oversized in close proximity to
beach/unconsolidated soils. The current porch exceeds pier line.
Additional porch would also. Add buffer on seaward edge to
protect soils and support habitat.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
consistent, and recommended a vegetated buffer to protect this
high-quality marine eco-system area.
And the Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this
application and resolved not to support the application as
submitted.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
Application?
MR. UELLENDAHL: Good evening. My name is Frank Uellendahl, on
behalf of Katherine Oliver.
Well, she started with three small additions in the front
and the back, closest to the wetlands, obviously, a screened in
porch to make it more functional. It's very narrow. And then in
order to mediate the, having access to the garden, the
first-floor elevation is about more than three feet above grade.
And there are two staircases in the front and in the back of the
screened-in porch, which makes it difficult to actually make
use, easy use of land.
Most of the property is empty and it's not being used. So
she would like to have a swimming pool with the deck so easy
access could be done.
I pushed the pool back a little bit, I don't know if you
noticed, it's going to be more than 20 feet off the top of the
bank. I can submit a revised site plan. I felt the, there is a
small difference in grade toward the wetlands, which I didn't
like, so I pushed it back eight feet. And I think this will
actually work much better as far as the construction is
concerned.
As far as, you may have noticed that there are no, gutters
-- there are some gutters but there are no drywells on the
entire property. So my calculations that are submitted include
the entire roof of the entire structure, including part of the
patios. All of the roof runoff, including most of the patio roof
runoff, will be guided into drywells. You see a couple of
French drains that take care of the immediate adjacent deck
area, and then I would like, I think I gave you an inspirational
photo of what the patio will look like toward the wetlands. I
Board of Trustees 49 November 15, 2023
would like to sort of chisel it into a more natural border, not
as rigid as you may think. And this will help with the drainage
into, the natural drainage basically towards the wetlands.
The area between the deck and the buffer zone, I don't see
as grass. I think it will be vegetated and it will be a - ---- --
pervious situation back there.
So, if there are any questions, I would be happy to answer
them.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think one of the first questions is where
you have the line for the edge of the wetlands. I think that
what we would want to see measurements from is the top of the
bank here. So we would definitely want to see that changed. And
with that, the seaward extension of the covered porch becomes
actually quite close to the top of the bank there.
MR. UELLENDAHL: It' s about 25 feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So this is on the extension of the, covered
porch we are discussing now, right?
MR. UELLENDAHL: Right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So unfortunately this house is already ahead of
our legalized pier line within the code, so we would not be able
to bless any further seaward extension on that.
MR. UELLENDAHL: All right. Well, she may be disappointed on
this. All right. Is there anything else I need to report back to
the owner.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think the pool. You've mentioned that you
moved it back to about 20 feet. In the field we were noticing
there is quite a lot of room landward of the house, landward of
the wetlands area in which to situate a pool so as to minimize
its proximity to the wetlands. One location that looked fairly
straightforward to me was the one off of the extension on the
side of the house, to the right of the image we are looking at
now.
MR. UELLENDAHL: Which is off the den.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes. To bring the pool in line with that.
MR. UELLENDAHL: That' s quite a distance. I mean, there are
examples in the immediate neighborhood where the pools are
relatively close to the wetlands.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, certainly, I would agree with you. And if
you look at the aerial two houses over there is a pool in the
wetlands, which this Board would never permit. So I certainly,
you know, mistakes were made in the past, not by this Board, but
we are going to look to not remake them, and if I had to guess
when that pool was permitted, they bay probably was not quite so
close to the structures at that time.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And in that location, Trustee Krupski, I
notice also there' s been a rock revetment that' s been installed
probably to protect those features. We would want to avoid
having to install a rock revetment to protect any pool that is
put in that location as a preventative. Those are my thoughts.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand where you are coming from in this
Board of Trustees 50 November 15, 2023
application and what you are looking to do. If I'm speaking
quite frankly, though, I think we are pretty far from an end
result here. I think everything has to go way landward away from
the wetland, which is certainly not what you are asking and I'm
sure not what your client wants. But that is sort of in -keeping
with best practices with what this Board regularly does and
that' s what we would need to see.
MR. UELLENDAHL: Nick, can you give me some kind of distance from
the top of the bank that would be approvable by the Board?
I mean right now I have more than 20, probably 25 feet, because
I pulled the pool back eight feet already.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think to Trustee Sepenoski's point, using
that deck extension on the east side of the property, as, you
know, like no further seaward than that extension is what was
discussed.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I believe you referred to it as the den?
MR. UELLENDAHL: Well, it' s a living area. So we are going to
actually lower the finished floor of the den by a few steps to
basically what I call to mitigate, to have easier access to the
deck. Right now there are no decks, so people are actually
staying, I don't want to say they are trapped in their houses,
but they are not going to easily enjoy the outdoors. And the
pool will give them the opportunity to do that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And you do have a beautiful spot with a very
extensive lawn area that you can incorporate a lot of, you know,
pool and patio and shed, but from our perspective, the further
away from the wetland those proposed structure are, the better.
And I think that there is a way to accomplish both here; to give
your client access to that outside, and at the same time protect
the wetlands, which is what we are trying to accomplish. So a
couple of distance changes might accomplish that.
MR. UELLENDAHL: Could there be something in between lining up of
the den and where I already pulled the pool back from?
Right now, the pool lines up with the existing covered porch.
It's in line with the existing covered porch.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So we don't have a copy of the plan that shows
that.
MR. UELLENDAHL: No, you don't. But I can show you. I would pull
everything back to the line of the existing covered porch and
everything else. So, I mean, anywhere in between, I think we can
have a deal. I don't necessarily want to pull it all the way
back to the line with the den. But I mean this is not, I mean
I'll have to talk to her, obviously.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would say, and just so that we get on the
official record -- if you can get back to the mic. Just, you
know, in trying to be transparent here, for me, and I think for
most of the Board, you know, this is a tricky one. It's a very
low-lying area. The structure, living structure, is already
extremely close to the bay. I would need to see, you know, there
is a beautiful beach to swim on. There is a great piece of bay
Board of Trustees 51 November 15, 2023
front to swim on. I would have to see a pool pulled very far
back to support the application. And patio. Because it, you,
know, Bayshore Road is, you are essentially in a swimming pool
at your house. It's right there, in terms of elevation and
property size and proximity, you know, from your front door to
the bay.
So, environmentally speaking and in terms of overloading
the properties, it' s going to have to be pulled quite a bit back
for my support.
MR. UELLENDAHL: So you are saying if I pull the pool back to
align with what I call the den, that would be --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I can't really speak to that specifically. It
will have to be considerably far back. I don't know exactly
what that measurement is. But, yes.
MR. UELLENDAHL: All right, I'll then talk to my client. I'll
revise, I will come up with a new pool location. But you
mentioned the deck, the stone patio.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Sure. If you would like I can summarize what
we've talked about here. So we are talking about the pool being
moved back to extend no further seaward than the extension on
the east side of the property. We are talking about no
extensions of the covered porch on the north side of the
property. Unfortunately. And I think that on this plan we would
also like to see a vegetated non-turf buffer from the top of the
bank at least ten feet. And then on the plans --
MR. UELLENDAHL: Which is probably close to ten feet right now.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It probably is in what exists, but we would
like to see that delineated on the plan. Additionally,
everything seaward of the top of the bank, we would like to see
that clearly delineated as non-disturbance area. Right now it' s
just beach, but we want to make that clear.
MR. UELLENDAHL: Okay.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Are there any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: One small comment, Mr. Uellendahl. In the
future it would be beneficial to book your clients and ourselves
to meet into the field for a pre-submission inspection, discuss
some of these details, to give you a better sense of where the
Board might fall on the decision.
MR. UELLENDAHL: Last time I actually did this on another
project, but I was not available, unfortunately.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Appreciate it. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Are there any other comments?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application at the
applicant' s request.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. UELLENDAHL: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
Board of Trustees 52 November 15, 2023
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 7, Hideaki Ariizumi on behalf of
WILLIAM & STACEY BRENNEN request a Wetland Permit for the
existing 1, 922sq. ft. One-story dwelling with existing ±329sq.ft.
Of decking; remove the 13.4'x9.8 ' (131sq.ft) . Deck and construct
a 13.4 'x9. 8 ' (131sq.ft. ) Sun-room; existing ±198sq. ft deck to -
remain; and on landward side of dwelling construct a ±10.5'x±14 '
(±144sq.ft. ) Mudroom leading to a 241x26' (600sq.ft. ) Two-story
garage.
Located: 1050 Trumans Path, East Marion. SCTM#' 1000-31-12-5.1
The Trustees recently visited this site on November 8th,
2023, and made the following notes: Request drywells for roof
runoff on plans. Straightforward with respect to garage. New
plans with drywells submitted was an additional note. And we are
in receipt of that plan, stamped and dated November 9th, 2023.
The LWRP found this application to be consistent.
And the CAC resolved to support the application with the
recommendation of an IA septic system.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak in regard to
this application?
MR. BRENNEN: William Brennan, homeowner. Unfortunately my
architect had to go to Japan for a family emergency. I believe
he got the revised plans as to what we discussed when we met, so
I would be happy to answer any questions. If I could.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: He did.
So we do see the revised plans here show the drywells, and
we just want to make sure that the, the condition that basically
the gutters and leaders do connect to those drywells.
MR. BRENNEN: Absolutely.
J TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So I don't see a note on here but I'm assuming
that' s the case, and I'll just add that into the permit as a
condition.
MR. BRENNEN: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Trustee Peeples, I think that one comment we
had in the field we discussed this application was to stipulate
a non-disturbance buffer from top of bluff to Marion Lake and
non-turf buffer from top of bank to the house.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Right. Seaward. That' s correct.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay.
MR. BRENNEN: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. And I believe just based on the location
there you have a lot of trees, so maybe if we talk about maybe a
ten-foot non-turf buffer that would --
MR. BRENNEN: Like you saw when you were there, it's a nice,
solid moss. Everything blows nice off of it. And I only have to
cut the lawn growing stalks like once a year. So it' s perfect.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. The moss was beautiful. And you were busy
raking leaves.
So I believe those are the only comments from the Board.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak?
(No response) .
Board of Trustees 53 November 15, 2023
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(No response) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just a reminder, given all the beautiful trees
that, if you ever need to trim a dead branch or cut a tree for
any reason, you would have to apply to the office for a tree
letter.
MR. BRENNEN: Yes, I 'm aware of that. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Great.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Any other questions or comments?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application
with the stipulation that the gutters to leaders do connect with
those drywells, and that there will be a ten-foot non-turf
buffer that is landward of the top of the bank and then the area
seaward of the top of the bank is non-disturbance.
MR. BRENNEN: Perfect.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: With the new plans depicting the following,
that is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. BRENNEN: Thank you, all. Have a good night.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 8, Tom Quarty on behalf of DONNA M.
WEXLER REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 2, 080sq. ft. Dwelling; construct a 101x14 .8 ' addition in
place of existing deck section on southeast corner of dwelling;
on landward side of dwelling construct a 31x9. 1' one-story entry
addition; a proposed 3'x6' porch addition; a proposed
19.7 'x22.7 ' roofed over car port; and existing ±42. 6'x10'
seaward side deck.
Located: 1175 Hill Road West, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-23.1
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on November 11th,
2023. The notes say question that this meets Town Code
definition of a "demolition. " If it does, it would trigger an
IA system. Also, review previous permitting history.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just state your name for the record.
MR. QUARTY: Tom Quarty. If there are any questions I can answer.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I don't think we have any questions. We did
speak with the Building Department and this does not meet the
definition of a demolition. If it did, that would trigger an I/
Board of Trustees 54 November 15, 2023
OWTS system. But as it stands now, it does not.
The only other thing that we had discussed, which basically
exists now, is seaward of the house and the deck between the
house and the bulkhead, be a non-turf buffer. It is now gravel
and things like that, so we would like to condition that it
stays as a non-turf buffer, no turf or anything like that. So we
would require a new set of plans showing that.
MR. QUARTY: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
Any other 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) .
I make a motion to approve this application as submitted,
with the condition of a non-turf buffer seaward of the house
between the house and the bulkhead, with new plans showing the
non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. QUARTY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Have a good night.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 9, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of HERBERT
& SUSAN HOFFMAN requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing
timber retaining wall and replace with a new 79 linear foot long
retaining wall in new landward position; install a 10 linear
foot long return on the north end and a 6' return on the south
end; the new retaining wall to be installed at a raised height
of 30 inches above top cap of existing retaining wall; 4' wide
by 5' long steps to water using Thru-Flow decking surface to be
installed; prior to removal of the existing retaining wall there
shall be 17 cubic yards excavated from landward side from
between old wall and new wall, this material shall be used as
fill along with 13 cubic yards from upland sources behind the
new retaining wall to raise grade; proposed intertidal plantings
shall be placed immediately seaward of proposed retaining wall
to create a wetland area; plantings to consist of salt hay
(spartina patens) , seaside lavender (limonium carolinianum) and
saltwort (salicornia spp. ) ; ,-plants shall be planted in
accordance with NYSDEC guidelines; and to install and
perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the retaining wall.
Located: 1605 Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-66-3-10
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support
Board of Trustees 55 November 15, 2023
the application due to the potential impacts to the neighbor' s
property on the north.
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 8th and
noted that the non-turf buffer should be vegetated seaward of
the bulkhead, delineate non-turf buffer area .to be cleared, and
then questioned the return on the northern side.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application? '
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant.
The comments that we already were the buffer on the north
side. We are removing the existing, there is a return there,
and you saw that wall. It' s partially falling down as it stands
right now, so we really want to stabilize the entire shoreline.
And as part of this project, with regard to any disturbance to
the property to the north, we are going be doing wetlands
plantings seaward of the proposed retaining wall. And those
plantings can be extended beyond the property line into any
disturbed areas.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, thank you. Is there anyone else here
that wishes to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
Or any additional comments from members of the Board?
(No response) .
It should be noted for the record that there is a pretty
steep drop off right now, and the applicant at one point had
erected an illegal bulkhead/retaining wall. It' s difficult to
say at that point.
We do not allow new bulkheads on the creeks. This
application pulls that wall significantly back and removes that
wall, puts a new wall in, which is significantly further inland.
It will probably eventually need to seek, as everything seems to
be rising here, but in the foreseeable future it will function
as a retaining wall.
MR. PATANJO: Just for the record, that was presented by the New
York state DEC, so they did ask us to pull it back and do
additional wetlands plantings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That' s right. Thank you.
MR. HOFFMAN: One comment. Herbert Hoffman. I'm the current
owner. The wetlands was, the DEC said we had two violations.
One was the wetlands was disturbed, and the other one was the
retaining wall. Those were done in 2019. We purchased the house
in November of 2021. So it was the previous owner that did
that, so we are trying to rectify what she did without permits
and all that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Understood. Thank you. Would anyone else like
to speak to this application?
(No response) .
Hearing no further comments, I 'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
Board of Trustees 56 November 15, 2023
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the stipulation that the ten-foot non-turf buffer landward
of the new retaining wall be vegetated.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
(ALL AYES) .
MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you, very much, everybody.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 10, AS PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AND PLANS RECEIVED 11/9/2023 Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of 225
WILLIAMSBURG DRIVE, LLC, c/o WILLIAM TOTH requests a Wetland
Permit to remove and replace 101 linear feet of deteriorated
timber bulkhead in-place with new vinyl bulkhead including one
16' vinyl returns on north side of existing 141x16' wood ramp
which shall be removed and void filled with clean sand/gravel
from upland sources; construct a new 4 ' wide by 40' long
boardwalk on-grade with untreated timber decking; install and
perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the bulkhead; demolish existing 58 . 4 'x24.4 '
dwelling and garage, leaving existing foundation and garage
slab; construct a new 58.4 'x24.4 ' two-story dwelling in existing
foundation footprint with attached garage on existing slab;
construct a 201x23. 9' single story addition on south side of
dwelling; construct a 16'x20' covered porch with second story
balcony above on south side of dwelling; construct a 5. 9'x20'
front covered porch; install two a/c units and a Bilco door;
replace existing conventional sanitary system with new I/A style
sanitary system landward of dwelling; and install gutters to
leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff.
Located: 145 Williamsberg Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-13
The Trustees reviewed the application on October 11th,
2023. There are notes from that review: Ask for new plans for
the pier line, conceptual pier line, from the vacant lot
adjacent, a one-to-one tree replacement, and concerns about
location of pool in proximity to creek. And to review the ramp.
The LWRP coordinator Mark Terry found the project to be
consistent, recommending that they maintain the existing trees
in and near the buffer, the use of turbidity controls, and the
minimization of CCA treated materials.
The CAC resolved not to support the application because the
setbacks for the pool, porch, proposed addition are not in
compliance where Chapter 275, and recommends a ten-foot buffer
planted with native vegetation.
We were just handed an updated project proposal on the dais
this evening by Mr. Patanjo.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. These
revised plans that are presented to you today reflect the
comments that were addressed at last month's public hearing for
Board of Trustees 57 November 15, 2023
this project. Changes made to the plans are removal of the pool,
the pool fencing, all the pool equipment. There is no longer a
pool in the application. Also it is removing the existing wood
boat ramp that is there today. So we are going to bulkhead
straight across that with the return on the north side. And, um,
there will be no other changes other than the pier line to the
houses. '
I did a proposed house on the vacant lot that is to the
south, as requested by the Board, and I showed two different
pier lines here. One pier line goes from the existing house and
it should be noted that there is no seaward projection by way of
this project from the existing house. The pier line from the
existing house, which is this house number 225, and then going
to the house, proposed house just one to the south, and then to
the existing house to the south of that lot. So the pier line is
in parallel to the bulkhead line with no seaward projection of
the proposed house.
And then a secondary one was done to the house from the
proposed house which is just placed on there within the building
setback line, and in line with the other houses as you see. And
it shows the connecting, the house to the north, which is by way
of its construction back several years ago, , it's set back
further from the bulkhead line than the majority of the houses
on this entire block. So I represented the two different pier
lines.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you. These plans that you just provided
the Board, I noticed that there is a word "demolish" existing
house and construct proposed two-story house over existing
foundation. And the months prior we had a similar application
come before our Board in which a house proposing to reuse the
foundation for economic reasons failed to address the pier line
law and the environmental concerns that we had. So thinking back
on that application, the process we went through with the
homeowner on that situation, brings me to a similar frame of
reference with the application you have here tonight, Mr.
Patanjo.
I see room in the property to shift the house landward to
conform with the pier line law that the Board passed. The Town
Board, that is. And also see room for the addition of a non-turf
buffer, ten-foot wide, could be vegetated as well, to address
some of the LWRP concerns.
MR. PATANJO: The proposed plan does include a ten-foot wide
non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Vegetated.
MR. PATANJO: Oh, yes, we can modify that for vegetated.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Correct.
MR. PATANJO: And we also did, if you see on the float, I did add
as requested at the last hearing, any trees that are removed
there will be a one-for-one replacement, and no tree removals or
trimming during the long-eared bat season, which were comments
Board of Trustees 58 November 15, 2023
that were addressed at the last hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: With the DEC, yes. So remains to be seen how
you address the pier line law.
MR. PATANJO: Well, we have two choices. And unfortunately they
are in North Carolina, something like that, so I don't have them
here, Virginia, actually, to help me out with this. So if in
fact we went with this same application, I know you can't say it
because this is not open, so this is complicated. This is the
choice to table or to just get a rejection and then figure it
out from there.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Based on the pier line law and what you
proposed, and keeping in mind you have gone through great
lengths to remove the pool and address the other concerns that
the Board has brought to you, however, the pier line is a
significant factor here, and based on what I'm looking at right
now, I can't motion to approve an application with that
outstanding concern.
MR. PATANJO: Is the remainder of the Board of the same shakes
and likes?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I can't speak for them.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes.
MR. PATANJO: I'll table on behalf of the applicant.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Anybody else want to speak on behalf of the
application? Members of the public or members of the Board?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: In regard to the pier line that Trustee
Sepenoski is talking about, the -- oh, that is a cover porch. So
the covered porch would be part of that pier line consideration.
MR. PATANJO: Right.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: If it were a deck, an open deck, that would not
be a part of the pier line consideration. So just when you are
going back to review that. And then I'm also noticing, I mean,
I'm not sure how much it gains you, maybe one foot, but it
actually looks like if you look where you plotted the possible
residence within the building envelope for code, that it' s
actually not on the pier line. So maybe that' s gaining you a
foot there, but I'm just noticing that and appreciating the
straight pier line on the updated drawing.
MR. PATANJO: Sure, yes. And if we can go just a little further,
with regard to this proposed house that I plotted here to the
south, you know, within building setback lines, I believe the
rear lot is 50 feet, I could potentially move that house back to
the building setback line. I will need a variance from the New
York state DEC, however if I move that building back to the
buildable lot area, I can potentially have -- never mind. I
can't do that. I take that back. Delete that from the record.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So do you wish to table the application this
evening?
MR. PATANJO: Yes.
Board of Trustees 59 November 15, 2023
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to table the application at
the applicant's request.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 11, David Bergen on behalf of 100 PARK
AVENUE CORP. , c/o PAUL PAWLOWSKI requests a Wetland Permit to
remove and replace in-place the functional wood groin beginning
at Mean Low Water and extending landward to proposed terminal
end; new groin to be ±60' in length; elevation to be no more
than 18" above grade on down drift (west side) ; groin to include
6' vinyl C-Loc sheathing with 10" diameter piles, 10' in length
with 10" batter piles on down drift (west) side of groin, 6"x6"
stringers and aluminum grate cap; terminal seaward end to
include four (4) 10" diameter pilings.
Located: 100 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-7-3
The Trustees most recently visited the site on November
8th, 2023, noting bulkhead replacement looks to replace or
reduce length and height no higher than 18 inches. Apply to DEC
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this
application and resolved to support the application.
Is there anyone here wishing to .speak?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen on behalf of 100 Park Avenue Corp. I
thought I heard you say lower the bulkhead to 18 inches. I
think you meant the groin to 18 inches? Because this groin does
attach to a bulkhead. I just want to make sure the record
doesn't involve the bulkhead at all.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I'll blame Trustee Krupski' s sloppy
handwriting on that one.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Indeed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Fair enough.
MR. BERGEN: Yes, we are reducing this groin from presently 79
feet down to 50 feet. It' s also going to be what I would say a
low-profile groin, 18 inches, no higher than 18 inches on the
down-drift side.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, at what stage are you with the DEC?
MR. BERGEN: We applied. It made it through the technical review
and it's now, my understanding is with habitat review. But it's
cleared through technical review already.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Being that there's three groins in a row here,
it's been a regular practice of this Board to wait until the DEC
has a more extensive, you know, overarching program, until you
receive approval from them, just to make sure they are not
Board of Trustees 60 November 15, 2023
looking to remove one or something along those lines. So
typically we table for receipt of DEC approved plans.
MR. BERGEN: Well, DEC is a completely separate organization,
permitting agency, from the Trustees. And these are, this groin
is owned by a different property owner than the other two. They
are independent. So I'm not sure why, what is preventing the
Trustees from proceeding forward with their review and their
approval. To wait for the DEC and then come back to the Trustees
again is, you know, extra work for the applicant.
Obviously if the Trustees approve what is submitted and the
DEC for whatever reason decides to either disapprove, then it
can't be built. Or they come back with a condition that it has
to be modified in some way, we would have to come back for an
amendment to the permit with the Trustees.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Mr. Bergen, having been a Southold Town
Trustee in the not-too-distant past, are you able to speak to
the functionality of that groin and also its proximity to the
adjacent property to the west?
Do you find that the groin is an effective device for mitigating
littoral drift, collecting sand in that area? ,
MR. BERGEN: If you look at the pictures that were submitted, I
believe there is one picture of 100 Park that shows the, and
this was back in September, after a storm, the sand right to the
top of the groin, and then of course it spilled over and went
into the next area -- that' s the purpose of groins -- versus
when you went out there just the other day and there was
actually some room between the top of the groin on the up-drift
side.
So in other words, the -,groin is functioning .very well. Its
purpose is to maintain the beach. And so the 100 Park, just by
the picture plus I think that picture was back in the beginning
of September, and just this past week or so, shows,
demonstrates, how effective this groin is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm just. going to slide back into the record
here. You mentioned it would be more work for your client. But
that's not the case because often times people apply to DEC,
they get a different number and then have to come back to us
regardless. That happens on an extremely regular basis. This has
been the precedent that at least Trustee Goldsmith and I have
been doing for eight years. I don't really see a reason to
modify it. I will say, on the record, with the reduction of
length and height, I do, I would support this application. I
just, I like to take a viewing a site, and that is not something
that is in the purview of this Board saying let's remove the
middle groin. It' s not something we would do. That' s why I like
to take that, however I 'm not holding the file, so it's not up
to me to make that determination. But that would certainly be
what I would like to see done.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Are there any other comments from the public?
l (No response) .
Board of Trustees 61 November 15, 2023
Any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application
pending approval from the DEC, and stipulating that the groin be
no higher than 18 inches above grade on all sides.
MR. BERGEN: I know the hearing is closed, but that' s different
from what was previously --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: That's my motion.
MR. BERGEN: I would make a request to reopen the hearing for
further comment on that.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to reopen the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. BERGEN: It' s my understanding is groins are, a low-profile
groin, if it' s functioning you are going to have a drop in
elevation on one side over the other side. So to request an
18-inch minimum on both sides doesn't make much sense. It
doesn't meet the definition, I think, and don't quote me on
this, I think in Chapter 275 there is a definition of low
profile groin, it's 18 inches on the down-drift side. So that's
what we are trying to do. We are trying to meet the definition.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I believe I said no higher than 18 inches. MR.
BERGEN: I thought I heard you say on both sides.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: No higher.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know why this has become such a
confusing subject for the past two months. I don't know if
people are not listening to the record or what exactly it is.
But it's no higher than 18 inches on either side. So one side
will be zero, and one will have 18 inches showing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It can be lower, but just not higher.
MR. BERGEN: Okay. I think we are talking the same language from
two different directions. Because I'm trying to talk to the
language I thought is in 275 in the code and trying to mimic
that.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY:) I make a motion to approve this application
pending approval from DEC and noting that the groin shall be no
higher than 18 inches above grade on all sides. That is my
motion. t
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
MS. HULSE: Just to clarify, are you suggesting that we hold off
on considering this an approval until we get the DEC permit or
Board of Trustees 62 November 15, 2023
can we approve it tonight and hold the permit until we get the
DEC approval?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Approve it tonight and hold it until the DEC
approval.
MS. HULSE: Very good. Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 12, David Bergen on behalf of ARCHIVIST
CAPITAL RE 70 PARK, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace in-place the functional wood groin beginning at Mean Low
Water and extending landward to proposed terminal end; new groin
to be ±66' in length; elevation of new groin to be no more than
18" above grade on down drift (west) side; groin to include 6'
vinyl C-Loc sheathing with 10" diameter piles, 10' in length,
with 10" batter piles on down drift (west) side of groins, 6"x6"
stringers and aluminum grate cap; terminal seaward end to
include four (4) 10" diameter pilings.
Located: 70 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-7-2
The Trustees most recent revisited the site on November 8,
2023, and noted no higher than 18 inches. Apply to DEC.
The LWRP found this application to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
this application.
We;have plans stamped and dated October 5th, 2023.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, on behalf of Archivist Capital Re 70
Park LLC.
As with the previous application, this is another one that
is being reduced in height so it meets the definition of a low
profile groin. We are reducing the length of this from 97 feet
to 66 feet so that it ends at the low tide mark. And I'm here
though answer any questions you might have.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you, for reviewing it to reduce the
length of the groin.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak, or any other
questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that the release of the permit is contingent
on DEC approval, and the stipulation that the groin is no higher
than 18 inches. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 63 November 15, 2023
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 13, David Bergen on behalf of
ARCHIVIST CAPITAL RE 50 PARK, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to
remove and replace in-place the functional wood groin beginning
at Mean Low Water and extending landward to proposed terminal
end; new groin to be ±60' in length; elevation of new groin to
be no more than 18" above grade on down drift (west) side; groin
to include 6' vinyl C-Loc sheathing with 10" diameter piles, 10'
in length, with 10" diameter batter piles on down drift (west)
side of groin; 6"x6" stringers and aluminum grate cap; the
terminal seaward end to include four (4) 10" diameter pilings.
Located: 50 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-7-1
The Trustees conducted field inspection November 8th, 2023,
noting the groin to be no higher than 18 inches above grade.
Also to apply to the DEC.
The LWRP found this application to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Would anyone like to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. BERGEN: Yes. Dave Bergen, on behalf of Archivist Capital Re
50 Park, LLC.
Again, like the other two, this is one where it' s going to
be a low profile groin, and we are reducing the length from 103
feet to 60 feet. So we are greatly reducing this. And I would
just ask for consideration in the motion that it' s 18 inches
above grade. The last motion was groin, 18 inches high.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve in application
with the condition that the groin be no higher than 18 inches
above grade, and that the release of the permit is conditioned
upon DEC approval.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. BERGEN: Thank you. Have a good night.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 14, AS PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
RECEIVED ON 11/3/23 Patricia Moore, Esq. On behalf of GWEN HYMAN
requests a Wetland Permit for the existing two-level dwelling
consisting of a 2, 178sq.ft. Upper level and a 2, 868sq.ft. Lower
Board of Trustees 64 November 15, 2023
level that includes utility/storage space; construct a
1, 302sq.ft. Landward addition including attached garage;
construct a 157sq.ft. Front entry court with steps to grade;
construct an 810sq.ft. On-grade southerly terrace with a 14 .2'
outdoor kitchen and pizza oven on west side of terrace, away
from bluff; install a 37. 6' long ; (inclusive of trash enclosure)
privacy fence/screen and trash enclosure along south side of
lower terrace and 10' from Carpenter Road; if existing
vegetation is removed adjacent to Carpenter Road, vegetation
will be re-planted to maintain privacy; new drywells, as needed,
on the south side of the property and install drywells away from
the top of bluff to contain storm-water runoff; the existing
curb along Carpenter Road to remain; reconstruct 4' wide steps
from the terrace to 42' 8"x15' seaward side deck (to be
reconstructed in-place) , with a 15'x2416" pergola over portion
of deck; replace existing 576sq.ft. Deck; 4 'x41' set of steps
from grade to deck (each segment measures 1315", 13' 91-�", & 13'
9;�") off northerly side of deck; construct a 1315"x9' 11"
northerly deck off master bedroom with steps to a 1919"x3012"
on-grade patio; remove existing landscape ties and handicap
walkway on seaward side of property; existing ±255 linear feet
of wood walls to remain with 95 linear feet along top of bluff
and continuing along both the south (±75 L.F. ) and north (±85LF)
sides of the property; replace in-place existing 31x±34 ' wood
walkway to top of bluff; and establish and perpetually maintain
a 10' wide vegetated Non-Turf Buffer area along the top of the
bluff.
Located: 4565 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-9-8
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The survey states
any existing vegetation removed will be replaced with natural
vegetation. Vegetation removed should be approved by the Board
and any species should be native and drought tolerant. What is
the size of the deck at the bottom of the bluff. Is it
permitted.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
the application. The Conservation Advisory Council does not
support the application because the proposed patio is located 27
feet from the top of the bluff, and out of compliance with
Chapter 275 setbacks.
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 8th of
November, looking for a clarification on trees along the west
side if any were to be removed, and review the wall height and
location.
I'm also in receipt of an e-mail from Ms. Moore clarifying
that they are not touching any of the trees and might even add
more after construction. Also questioning about the wall, which
I think we should address at the hearing.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore, on behalf of the applicant. Yes, I
l
Board of Trustees 65 November 15, 2023
didn't know, are you saying the privacy screen is a wall?
I didn't know what wall, I'm sorry.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I think the only wall in the application is
the pizza oven wall, correct?
MS. IMOORE: It's not a wall. It's a -- let me look at the
elevations. What it looks like.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, it's a structure. I don't really know if
it's what you call it. That's what we are referencing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It was confusing when we were reviewing it, and
I think the big concern is seeing the height of over ten feet
for that portion, whether it' s a wall or a mid-wall, or whatever
that is, but it has a height of ten feet and I think what we
just wanted to make sure was that that was not a long wall that
was kind of adjacent to that public access. I know there' s a
six-foot screen, 618" screen, I think.
MS. MOORE: Yes. So this is my understanding of what is there.
The screen is really just a fence. They called it a screen
because it' s only a portion between, it' s really, it' s blocking
the patio. So it' s six-and-a-half feet, which is the height of
the fence. And it's, but it doesn't really enclose anything. So
they didn't call it a fence, they call it a screen. And that
is, I had it staked so you can see that it is significantly into
the property. So it' s out of, there is a lot of vegetation.
There is the existing driveway that is closer to Carpenter
Street, and this screen is much further in. So I think your
concern was where it was when we were in the field in relation
to Carpenter Road and the trees that were there and the
vegetation and it' s not interfering with any of the trees or
vegetation.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It's actually perpendicular; is that correct?
MS. MOORE: It' s parallel -- are we talking about the screen?
The screen is, let's makes sure I have the right --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: The screen is parallel to the access.
MS. MOORE: Yes, the screen is parallel to Carpenter Road.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. And then the brick is perpendicular to --
MS. MOORE: This is the outdoor kitchen.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And that's the brick wall we are referring to,
correct?
MS. MOORE: It's a staircase, and it's adjacent to the staircase.
So it' s kind of the back side of a staircase.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So if you are walking down Carpenter Road --
MS. MOORE: You won't see it.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: You won't see it. Okay, that' s what we wanted
to clarify.
MS. MOORE: Yes, it's perpendicular to Carpenter.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: To the screen, yes.
MS. MOORE: And perpendicular to the screen, yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
MS. MOORE: The only thing I did notice, because I 'm sorry I
missed you. I was there and I thought you had not gotten there,
i
Board of Trustees 66 November 15, 2023
so I waited a while, but you must have gotten there, because I
saw the gate was closed, so I had not realized you had been so
polite and closed the fence.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did wave to you actually on Skunk Lane.
MS. MOORE: Oh, you did?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You were going past, you probably didn't see
US.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I did honestly assume you saw us.
MS. MOORE: I didn't. But, Dave Chic was at the other one. So I
said, are they over there. Sorry.
The only, I want to just clarify, because something that
was a little confusing to me when I was out there, I know that
the surveyor had the wrong location of the drywell. It had an
original location which was closer to the top of the bluff. The
actual location of the drywell is further back and it's, again,
very, next to the screen. So that is where everything was pushed
away from the top of the bluff. So.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Thank you.
MS. MOORE: Any other questions?
My clients, obviously from the look of the property, they have
been there for quite a while, they like vegetation. They like
natural. So given everything that how they've lived so far, they
have no problem with maintaining vegetation, so.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And in order to do this, speaking of
vegetation, are there any trees that would need to be removed
for this project?
MS. MOORE: Well, I think where the garage is going, in the
front. And the sanitary, if you recall, you issued a permit for
sanitary system in the front, an IA system. So in that area,
most of the trees are in the front, and that area will be
disturbed with the excavation, yes. But it' s front yard.
,TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak
regarding this application, or any additional comments from the
Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
based off the plans stamped received by the office November 6th,
2023, with the stipulations the existing deck alongside the
bulkhead is existing and on grade, as per Trustee field
inspections; any vegetation removed be replaced one-for-one with
native vegetation; and that- ail of the seaward side of the home
is to remain a non-turf buffer. That is my motion. Thereby
bringing it into consistency with the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 67 November 15, 2023
f
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 15, Patricia Moore, Esq. On behalf of
LUCY WOHLTMAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 151x50'
in-ground lap pool; a 121x25' patio on the south/east side of
pool and a 10' patio surrounding the pool; install pool
enclosure fencing with gates; install a pool drywell and pool
equipment area; and to install and perpetually maintain a 10'
wide vegetated non-turf buffer area using native species located
along a portion of the south property line between the pool area
and the edge of tidal wetlands using approximately 125
plantings.
Located: 4955 Moores Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-1116-2-3
The Trustees did a site inspection on the 8th of November,
noting the project is straightforward.
We have a consistent report from the LWRP, reviewing its
policies.
And Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support
the project because of its proximity, 20 feet from the wetlands,
which is outside of Chapter 275.
We are in receipt of a plan for the project stamped into
our office on November 15th, seven days after our field
inspection. And this plan it depicts a ten-foot wide non-turf
buffer planted with native plant species, from the pool area all
the way westward to the property line. Which is something
beneficial to the environment.
And the Cole Environmental Services flagged the wetlands at
50 feet from the corner of the pool.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore, to answer any questions that you
might have. Dave Chicanowicz was here, but he left me to go
home, so.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: With the pool being at 50 feet from the
wetlands with the non-turf vegetated buffer running the entire
length of the pool, between the pool and wetlands all the way to
the property line to the west, I look favorably upon this
application.
With speaking with Mr. Chicanowicz in the field, there was
one point of discussion around the removal of the miscanthus
grass that is also bordering that wetland area. If the other
applications before the Board tonight are any indication as to
which way I lean, I make it clear, I think the miscanthus
removal is important. It's not a native species, and I think
its ability to spread rhizomally and quite frankly unscrupulous
landscaping companies that do not care to remove its seed heads,
I think that would be a smart choice environmentally at this
location. Any other comments from --
MS. MOORE: I'm assuming you mentioned that to Dave since he's
doing the landscaping.
Board of Trustees 68 November 15, 2023
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes, I mentioned it. Several of the Trustees
noticed it as well. I think in the field he was reluctant to
remove it because of budgetary concerns.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: He's possibly using it as screening between
the road as well. But I think with the native plantings proposed
it would provide an additional screening for that purpose.
Are there any other comments from the public or members of
the Board?
(No response) .
All right, hearing no further comments, I make a motion to
close the application.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted, with new plans stamped on the 15th of November, and
the removal of the miscanthus grass between the pool area and
the wetlands area.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 16, Patricia Moore, Esq. On behalf of
THOMAS BARNARD requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built 31x16'
steps to a 13.8 'x16. 6' wood deck at top of bulkhead with 3'x6'
steps to the beach; existing 29. 9'x23. 6' seaward side deck
attached to dwelling with 8 .2'x5.5' steps to ground set into the
deck; existing 2, 500sq.ft. Dwelling with attached 24 .3'x36.3'
garage and as-built east side entry with 3'x3' wood platform and
steps to ground; existing 5'x12' outdoor shower on top of 45'
long by 4'-5' (variable width) decking along east side of
dwelling; existing 19' x 6' and 45'x 6' covered walk/breezeway
from dwelling to garage.
Located: 4240 Paradise Point Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-3-7
The Trustees most recently visited this site, on November
8th, noting gutters to leaders to drywells, and request no
fertilizer on lawn.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent with LWRP Policy 6.3.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this application
and resolved to not support the application because the as-built
and all pre-existing structures, including the decks and sunroom
are out of compliance with Chapter 275.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application.
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore. Mr. Barnard is here, Tommy, the
owner, is here. So if there are any questions that I can't
answer, I may ask him.-
This
im:This is a project where my client purchased the property
Board of Trustees 69 November 15, 2023
from the family so all the structures that are here were
previously constructed by his father, who is in his 90s now --
93. If there were permits for things like the outdoor shower,
in 1990, the breezeway, what we found were that there were just,
the Building Department didn't have clean records, so they sent
us to update the permits, but in order to do that we had to go
to the Zoning Board, and here we are to finish up the process.
So everything is existing. We do know that you want, I went
back to the client, explained the leaders, gutters to drywell.
We have the architect working on that now. So unfortunately he
couldn't have the drawing in time for today, but we are showing
it so that they will all be put in, connected into drywells.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Great.
MS. MOORE: There will be no fertilizer. He doesn't use
fertilizer. It was seeding.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, is there anyone else here wishing to
speak regarding this application?
MR. BARNARD: Are there any questions for me?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Any questions from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application
with the stipulation of no fertilizer used on the lawn; gutters
and leaders to drywells; with new plans to depict location of
drywells, and with these benefits and by issuing a permit we
will thereby be bringing this application into consistency with
the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Re pectfully submitted by,
011
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees