HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-12/13/2023 Glenn Goldsmith,President OF SU!/rTown Hall Annex
A. Nicholas Krupski,Vice President ,`O ��� 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski l l Southold,New York 11971
Liz Gillooly G Telephone(631) 765-1892
Elizabeth Peeples • �O Fax(631) 765-6641
o�ycou ,�
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes JAN 19 2024
Wednesday, December 13, 2023
Southold f®ten Clerk
5:30 PM
Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Eric Sepenoski, Trustee
Liz Gillooly, Trustee
Elizabeth Peeples, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Administrative Assistant
Lori Hulse, Board Counsel
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Good evening and welcome to our
Wednesday December 13th, 2023 meeting. At this time I
would like to call the meeting to order and ask that you
please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance is recited) .
I'll start off the meeting by announcing the people
on the dais. To my left we have Trustee Krupski, Trustee
Sepenoski, Trustee Gillooly and Trustee Peeples. To my
right we have attorney to the Trustees Lori Hulse, Senior
Clerk Typist Elizabeth Cantrell. With us tonight is Court
Stenographer Wayne Galante, and from Conservation Advisory
Council we have John Stein.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Agendas for tonight's meeting are
posted on the Town' s website and also located out in the hallway.
We do have a number of postponements tonight. In the
agenda the postponements are, on page three, 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
Board of Trustees 2 December 13, 2023
4 ' wide staircase to ground at landward end leading to a
4 'x46' catwalk to a 31x12' aluminum ramp to an 18 .71x6'
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,
has been postponed.
On page four, 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 5.7 'x20' (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. 111x30.2' , 11.10'x34 .41 , 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 . 6'x15. 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,
has been postponed.
And number 2, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on
behalf of W. HARBOR BUNGALOW, LLC, c/o CRAIG SCHULTZ
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for
the existing 6.5 'x53' fixed dock with a 11'x11' fixed
portion in an "L" configuration; existing 3.5'x12' ramp
and existing 81x20' floating dock; the 6.5'x53' fixed dock
and 11'x11' fixed portion in the "L" configuration to
remain; remove existing ramp, float and two piles and
install a new 41x20' ramp with rails and an 81x18 '
floating dock situated in an "I" configuration secured by
four piles; and to install four tie-off piles.
Located: 371 Hedge Street, Fishers Island SCTM# 1000-10-7-18,
has been postponed.
On page eight, Number 13, Margot Coffey & Clay Coffey
on behalf of HC NOFO, LLC 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
Board of Trustees 3 December 13, 2023
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,
has been postponed.
And Number 14, 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, 18 'x31' 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.
Located: 2006 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-3-12 .11,
has been postponed.
On page nine, Number 15, AMP Architecture on behalf
of STEPHEN & FORTUNE MANDARO 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. 6'x20. 6'
(420sq. ft. ) .Rear portion of existing roof, existing septic
system and existing foundation locust posts; lift the
existing 40'3'-z" x20' 6" (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
Board of Trustees 4 December 13, 2023
stairway; construct a 3'x11.4 ' (34sq.ft. ) Rear entry
stairway; a 4. 6'x11. 10' (60sq.ft. ) Mechanical platform; a
20. 6'x16. 6' (338sq.ft. ) Second floor addition over
existing first floor; a 2'x7' , 4'x20. 6' (total 96sq. ft. )
Second story balcony over existing first floor; a 4 'x4 . 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,
has been postponed.
And number 16, AS PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND
PLANS RECEIVED 11/9/2023 Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of 225
WILLIAMSBURG DRIVE, LLC, c/o WILLLIAM 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 14 'x16' 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,
has been postponed.
And on page ten, Numbers 17 through 19 have been
postponed. They are listed as follows:
Number 17, 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
Board of Trustees 5 December 13, 2023
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,
has been postponed.
Number 18, 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
3'x14 ' aluminum ramp; install a 61x20' 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,
has been postponed.
And Number 19, AS PER REVISED PLAN & PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED ON 5/10/2023 Young & Young on behalf
of STEPHEN & JACQUELINE DUBON requests a Wetland Permit
for the existing 1, 118sq.ft. One-story dwelling and for
the demolition and removal of certain existing structures
(project meets Town Code definition of demolition) , within
and outside of the existing dwelling to facilitate
construction of the proposed additions and alterations
consisting of a proposed 45sq. ft. Addition to northeast
corner, and a 90sq. ft. Addition to southeast corner for a
1, 195sq.ft. Total footprint after additions; construct a
1, 195sq.ft. Second story addition; a 70sq.ft. Second story
balcony; replace and expand existing easterly deck with a
320sq.ft. Deck with 69sq.ft. Of deck stairs to ground;
replace and expand existing porch with a 40sq. ft. Porch
and 20sq. ft. Porch stairs to ground; construct a 38' long
by 2' wide by 12" to 24" high landscape wall with a 3'
wide by 8"-12" high stone step; install one (1) new
drywell for roof runoff; abandon two (2) existing
cesspools and install a new IA/OWTS system consisting of
one (1) 500 gallon treatment unit and 46 linear feet of
graveless absorption trenches (i.e. one (1) 24 'L x 4 'W
trench and one (1) 22 'L x 4'W trench) ; and for the
existing 84sq. ft. Shed.
Located: 5605 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-4-3.2,
has been postponed.
Board of Trustees 6 December 13, 2023
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Town Code Chapter 275-8 (c) , files
were officially closed seven days ago. Submission of any
paperwork after that date may result in a delay of the
processing of the application.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I 'll make a motion to have
our next field inspection on Tuesday, January 9th, 2024,
at 8: 00 AM.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL YES) .
II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I 'll make a motion to hold our next
Trustee meeting Wednesday, January 17th, 2024, at 5:30 PM
at the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
III. ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I 'll make a motion to hold our
organizational meeting Thursday, January 4th, 2024, at
5:15PM at the Town Hall Annex 2nd floor Executive Board
Room.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IV. WORK SESSIONS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next
work session Thursday, January 11th, 2024, at S:OOPM at
the Town Hall Annex 2nd floor Executive Board Room; and on
Wednesday, January 17th, 2024, at 5:OO2M at the Main Town
Hall Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
V. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral V, Minutes, I'll make a
motion to approve the Minutes of the November 15th, 2023
meeting.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
Board of Trustees 7 December 13, 2023
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
VI. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VI, Monthly Report,
the Trustees monthly report for November 2023, a check for
$30, 724 .46 was forwarded to the Supervisor' s office for
the general fund.
VII. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral VII, Public Notices.
Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin
Board for review.
VIII: STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral VIII, 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 XI Public
Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday,
December 13, 2023 are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not
subject to further review under SEQRA, as written:
John Nastasi SCTM# 1000-35-4-18
Carmen Brooks SCTM# 1000-10-9-16
SHM Greenport, LLC SCTM# 1000-36-1-1
Deborah Rivera Pittorino SCTM# 1000-53-2-1
Conkling Advisors, LLC SCTM# 1000-57-1-38.3
Joseph Sbarra SCTM# 1000-113-8-6
Estate of Richard Jensen, c/o Richard C. Jansen, , Jr. ,
Executor SCTM# 1000-53-6-21
David & Allison Affinito SCTM# 1000-70-5-42
Janice H. Ziegler & Karl A. Groskaufmanis SCTM# 1000-71-2-11.5
David & Mary Desetta SCTM# 1000-35-4-14
Andrew Pace SCTM# 1000-35-4-28 .45
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IX. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Resolution - Administrative
Permits, number 1, BARBARA B. DOW REVOCABLE TRUST requests
an Administrative Permit for an as-built 800sq. ft. deck
Board of Trustees 8 December 13, 2023
with 18 'x5' stairs and railings.
Located: 725 Munn Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-17-2-6.3
Trustee Sepenoski conducted a field inspection
December 11th and noted the application is pretty
straightforward.
The LWRP found the project to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency is the as-built work was completed without a
Board of Trustee review or permit.
I'll make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, and by granting it a permit will bring it into
consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, Eastern End Pools d/b/a East
End Pool King on behalf of PABLOPEG LLC requests an
Administrative Permit for an as-built 23'x23' on-grade
stepping stone paver area set on bed of RCA approximately
19'x281 , with seven (7) additional stones in southeast
corner.
Located: 375 Reydon Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-79-5-23. 1
Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection December
6th, 2023, noting the project was straightforward.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency is that the as-built work was completed
without Board of Trustee review or permit.
I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, and by granting it a permit will bring it into
consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
X. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral X, Applications for
Extensions/Transfers/Administrative Amendments.
In order to simplify our meetings, the Board of
Trustees regularly groups together actions that are minor
or similar in nature. Accordingly, I make a motion to
approve as a group Items 1 through 6, as follows:
Number 1, En-Consultants on behalf of EVAN M. &
ELIZABETH A. MINOGUE requests a Final (1) Year Extension
to Wetland Permit #9786, issued on December 21, 2020.
Located: 5650 (a/k/a 5550) New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck.
SCTM# 1000-115-10-6
Number 2, En-Consultants on behalf of ALISON M. BYERS
c/o ALISON M. BYERS, PsyD, VP requests a Final (1) Year
Board of Trustees 9 December 13, 2023
Extension to Wetland Permit #9806, as issued on January
20, 2021.
Located: 10075 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-119-1-13. 1
Number 3, HUFFLEPUFF, LLC requests the Final One (1)
Year Extension to Wetland Permit #9808, as issued on
January 20, 2021.
Located: 1580 North Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-12-34
Number 4, HUFFLEPUFF LLC requests a Transfer of
Wetland Permit #9808 from Peter Burton & Caroline Burton
to Hufflepuff LLC, as issued on January 20, 2021.
Located: 1580 North Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-12-34
Number 5, LITTLE DUCKS REALTY LLC requests a Transfer
of Wetland Permit #218 from Michael Lilly to Little Ducks
Realty LLC, as issued on May 6, 1985.
Located: 2095 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-13-3
Number 6, DEKKA, LLC c/o Christian Baiz requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #9895 to
include 78 ' of existing timber bulkhead with return, and
to reset or repair same.
Located: 120 Bay Home Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-5-1.3
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral XI, Public
Hearings, at this time I'll make a motion to go off our
regular meeting agenda and enter into public hearings.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a public hearing in the matter
of the following applications for permits under the
Wetlands ordinance of the Town of Southold. I have an
affidavit of publication from the Suffolk Times. Pertinent
correspondence may be read prior to asking for comments
from the public. Please keep your comments organized and
brief, five minutes or less if possible.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 1, Creative Environmental Design
on behalf of JOHN NASTASI requests an Amendment to Wetland
Permit #10263 to construct an approximately 56' long by
height ranging from 1' to 3 1.�' from grade masonry
retaining wall adjacent to in-ground swimming pool.
Located: 706 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-18
The Trustees most recently visited this site on the
Board of Trustees 10 December 13, 2023
6th of December, noted that we discussed fill to raise
grade along seaward side of retaining wall, and native
plantings seaward side of wall and seaward side of stairs,
connected to deck.
The LWRP coordinator found this amendment to be
consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to
support the application with the installation of a pool
enclosure fence as soon as possible.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding
this application?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Dave Chicanowicz, representing John
Nastasi on the application, and I'm happy to answer any
questions or concerns you may have. But I think we pretty
much covered it at the site visit.
I talked to the owner about adding some, you know,
native grasses and such, seaside, seaward side of the wall
and the staircase, and there was no objections or problems
with that, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else that
wishes to speak regarding this application or any
additional comments from members of the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this
application with the condition of new plans submitted
showing native plantings on the seaward side of the pool
and retaining wall and deck stairs leading to deck.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Under Wetland Permits,
Number 1, Docko, Inc. on behalf of CARMEN BROOKS
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a proposed dock
consisting of a new ±6'x±8 ' landward landing with rails to
41x±14 ' stairs with rails to a 4 foot wide by 36 linear
foot long wood pile supported pier with rails and
utilities; a 3 foot wide by ±26 linear foot long hinged
ramp to an 8 foot wide by 15 linear foot long floating
dock secured by four (4) restraint piles; and to install
seven (7) new tie-off piles.
Located: 1232 The Gloaming, Fishers Island SCTM# 1000-10-9-16
The Trustees reviewed the application during our work
session on December 6th, 2023. We are in receipt of plans
Board of Trustees 11 December 13, 2023
from October 31st, 2023.
The LWRP coordinator found the project to be
consistent with its policies.
And the Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection, therefore no recommendation was made.
The Board welcomes comment from the public.
MR. NIELSON: Good evening. I'm Keith Nielson, and I
prepared the application documents that you have before
you tonight. And I know that we reviewed this project
during work session, and we reviewed in close detail the
Rivers' dock application right next to the site during
field visit several months ago.
To start off, I would like to hand in all of the
original postings and certificates of mailing. (Handing) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
MR. NIELSON: I've prepared my usual artwork for my
presentation tonight. This is a tight site. It' s, as
you'll remember from the workshop, we are nestled between
BD Construction and the Rivers' property, and both of these
docks, for Rivers and for Brooks, are angled slightly
because of the contouring of the water and the need to
stay out of the maneuvering area for the vessels used by
BD Construction for their transport of construction
workers.
In addition, our application drawings show reference
lines to adjacent dock structures so that you can see that
we are clear of any headland concerns, and other than that
our object was to reach four-feet of water depth, in
accordance .with DEC permitting standards. And we did that
by projecting out basically straight from the existing
property, down to the bottom of the existing stairs on the
site, which are stone work, out about another 15 feet and
angled off about ten degrees counterclockwise to a ramp
and a floating dock. And the floating dock is a 15x8
instead of the 6x20, just to give better lateral stability
of the float itself.
The tie-off piles are arranged as we had previously
discussed, with one pile being beyond the limit of the
floating dock but within the headland line that we had all
agreed to during the workshop.
This drawing represents no change to anything that
was presented during the workshop, and we are compliant
with all of our design standards for the US Army Corps of
Engineers, Department of State, DEC, as well as the Town,
and so we are requesting your approval tonight.
I would be happy to answer any questions you might
have.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I found the application to be thorough
and well thought out. Thank you, for the brief
presentation.
Board of Trustees 12 December 13, 2023
V
l
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding
the application?
(No response) .
Members of the Board?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Nielson, I think it was said, you
got a letter of permission from BD Construction that
they're okay with the project?
MR. NIELSON: We did. And it was included with the
application documents. It was very short, but basically
said they were okay with it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Any other members of the Board'?
(No response) .
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close the
application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL YES) .
MR. NIELSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
Number 2, Latham Sand & Gravel, Inc. , on behalf of
SHIM GREENPORT, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to replace
approximately 1, 025 feet of existing bulkhead
in-kind/in-place using vinyl sheathing and raise bulkhead
an additional 18" maximum in elevation; reclaim lost
material by incidental dredging within 10' of new
structure; temporarily move and re-install existing frame
irregularly shaped building after construction;
replacement of building support pilings as necessary; and
to install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-'turf
buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead; with the
condition of the use of turbidity controls during
construction.
Located: 1410 Manhanset Avenue, Greenport SCTM# 1000-36-1-1
The Trustees most recently visited this site on
December 6th, noting inhouse review.
I do have- a report from the LWRP who finds this
action to be consistent with the LWRP policies.
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. HOCKER: John Hocker, Latham Sand & Gravel, here to
answer any questions you might have. This was already
Board of Trustees 13 December 13, 2023
permitted a while ago but I allowed it to lapse. The
project is already about three quarters complete.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Is there anyone else here
wishing to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve the
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 3, AS PER REVISED PROJECT
DESCRIPTION AND PLANS RECEIVED 12/6/23 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 with the 3.4 'x34 ' extension cantilevering over
existing porch foundation; a one-story 13'x16' den
extension; a 141x9' one-story front entry extension, and
extend the existing 130sq.ft. Front deck to accommodate
front entry extension; existing brick stoop would support
(4) new wood steps, 7. 6' wide and 10" deep; a 161x40'
in-ground swimming pool with associated ±1,250sq.ft. Stone
patio with drainage; stone walkways; an 8 'x18 ' shed for
pool mechanicals and storage; install pool enclosure
fencing; install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain
roof and a substantial portion of patio runoff; and to
establish and perpetually maintain an approximately
2, 050sq.ft. (A minimum of 25 ' in width) non-turf buffer
area planted with native plantings and mixed in gravel
beds.
Located: 1255 Bay Shore Road, Greenport SCTM# 1000-53-4-2
And note that as per the revised project description
and plans received on 12/6/2023.
The Trustees most recently visited the site on
December 6th, 2023, and made the following notes:
Review all new plans at work session..
And we are in receipt of plans stamped and dated
December 6th, 2023, along with that description.
The LWRP found this application to be consistent, and
made the following note:
One, a vegetated buffer is recommended to protect his
high-quality marine ecosystem area.
Board of Trustees 14 December 13, 2023
The Conservation Advisory Council does not support
the application as submitted.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to
this application?
MR. UELLENDAHL: It would be me, Frank Uellendahl, on
behalf of Katherine Oliver.
I submitted the revised site plan based on our
discussion last month. I think we are all in agreement as
far as the additions are concerned in the front. There
were no problems. The den extension was basically
approved, but the pool location was not. So we talked
about this and we had to push it back to align with the
foundation of the den extension, which I submitted to you.
So the result is that the stone patio became a little
bit smaller, the non-turf was drastically increased, and
it's a minimum of 25 feet to the top of the bank, and
actually up to 31, 32 feet.
So this is all going to be gravel beds, and low
native plantings that should have the feeling of the beach
beyond the bank.
And then we have of course the existing plantings of
the existing buffer.
So the only item that I think is still up for
discussion is the extension or widening of the swinging
porch.
Katherine Oliver would love to have the dining table
there, which is not possible right now. I said, okay,
well, I can find a solution without disturbing the ground
because we are close to the flood zone, and this is
probably what Nick was actually referring to, and I can
come up with a solution which I think I showed you in a
small section on my site plan that we can cantilever the
three feet. This would be supported on the existing
foundation, and even the new steps, which are much
smaller, could be supported on the existing brick stoop.
So if this is something that you can approve,
Katherine Oliver would be very happy. Other than that, I
think we are in compliance with what you requested last
month.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Well, thank you, for walking us through
all that.
We are in receipt of these new plans. They are very
nice looking plans and very, you can tell, a very well
thought-through project here.
There are a couple of comments that the Board noted
both with when revisiting the site and then during our
work session this week on Monday.
The first I'll address is that the cantilevered porch
extension that you, I think that is a very clever solution
to something, however there may have been a little bit of-
Board of Trustees 15 December 13, 2023
misunderstanding in terms of what the Board was looking at
when we saw the request to extend that porch seaward.
If you look at the map that is up on the projector
right now, what we were concerned with the extension
.of this covered porch area is the pier line, and the fact
that with that seaward extension it would exceed the pier
line. And in fact currently if you drew the pier line with
the existing structure, it's possible that a portion of
that may already exceed the pier line. And that is
something that we observed when we were onsite.
So any addition that would proceed further seaward
would actually be penetrating that pier line and therefore
would not be something this Board would be able to
approve.
MR. UELLENDAHL: Well, would you please explain to me what
it actually means, "the pier line"?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Absolutely.
MR. UELLENDAHL: We are now, I'm just going to cantilever,
I mean, we are not touching the ground, obviously, but
please explain to me so I can relay this.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Absolutely. So the pier line deals with a
viewshed, and allowing that viewshed to be accessible to
the adjacent neighbors. So the idea is that by, we
recently this past year, codified the definition of the
"pier line" to be immediately adjacent structures, primary
structures. So you draw a line between those immediately
adjacent structures, and anything that would exceed that
pier line, seaward of that pier line, the concern of the
Board is that you end up with sort of a marching forward
of primary structures of homes, of docks, that sort of
thing.
So in order to not mar that view for the neighbors,
that is something that we have kind of stayed pretty true
to.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The pier line also has to do with not
just the viewshed but also infringing upon wetlands and
other dunal features, protected features of the Town. So
the idea whether it's cantilevered or not, if it' s a
porch, if it's a covered porch, it counts as primary
structure.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Now, if it were a deck, that is
different, because we are kind of looking at primary
structure or covered structure. So that is kind of how the
Board has reviewed applications.
MR. UELLENDAHL: Well, a swinging porch obviously needs to
be powered.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Exactly. Exactly.
MR. UELLENDAHL: Okay. I will have to discuss this with
Katherine Oliver. I think she will have to cave in and
admit that she is not going to have that widened porch.
Board of Trustees 16 December 13, 2023
I'm not going to be around next month for the next
meeting, but I 'm going to revise the site plan to,
basically to the existing condition as far as the
screened-in porch is concerned.
Is there anything else that I should be aware of?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes, there were a few other notes that we
have. So, since you are going to be updating and modifying
the drawing, one of the other items, when, I know that you
did pull back the pool, based on our last conversation,
and then when we were onsite -- let me just -- actually
before I talk about the pool, let me just talk about,
there is, on your drawing you have the top of bank labeled
here. And it' s also then you have the edge of rock and
sand. And I think when we were reviewing the, at the site
again, it's what you labeled as "top of bank" is sort of
the delineation line between the lawn or the, you know,
the area --
MR UELLENDAHL: (Indiscernible) .
TRUSTEE, PEEPLES: Exactly. And then also the beach.
So what we decided, as a Board, discussed the idea of
redefining that, instead of the top of bank, is sort of
the unconsolidated soils. And that delineation between
the material of the lawn and of the beach.
So we were wondering if you could relabel that so
it' s not necessarily the top of bank but as the division
line of the unconsolidated soils between the beach and the
lawn.
Then we, when we were looking --
MR. UELLENDAHL: Can you tell me exactly what you want me
to put on, the site plan, the division line of the --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It' s the delineation of the
unconsolidated soils between, and you have, I think what
we also were reviewing with all of that is this edge of
rock and sand, which is very helpful. That essentially is
that unconsolidated soils, and the difference between
those two materials. So in our mind we were sort of
looking at that as the line of jurisdiction. Drawing from
that line.
And you have here noted the 113 feet that you are
drawing from the edge of wetlands or essentially the water
line of Pipes Cove, so that is a fairly prominent
dimension, and I think that is something where, while we
appreciate seeing that dimension, the one that we are most
concerned with is the line and the dimension from that
edge of rock and sand. Because that is sort of where we
would consider the line of jurisdiction is from there
landward.
MR. UELLENDAHL: Okay. So that, the dimension from the
edge of rock and sand to the den extension and to the
pool.
Board of Trustees 17 December 13, 2023
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That's correct. And so then let's hop
over to the pool conversation.
So I think when we were reviewing that, we said that
would probably gain about five feet in your favor, of
dimension, and so with that in mind, when we reviewed
onsite the pool location, we did feel that while we
understand that you took our comments into consideration,
we did feel like it would be ideal to pull that back a '
little bit further.
MR. UELLENDAHL: So you changed your mind.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: We did, upon further review. And I think
what I'm trying to explain here is that by giving you sort
of that extra five feet in terms of redefining that
border, that would take your 35 feet plus the five feet,
and then if you could give us kind of another ten feet
landward of the pool location, that would put the pool
then at 50 feet. And that is something the Board would be
much more comfortable with.
MR. UELLENDAHL: Wow.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So essentially, gaining the 15 feet but
only moving the pool back ten feet.
MR. UELLENDAHL: Well, if that's really what you feel most
comfortable with, but, I mean, I feel comfortable with
what we decided last month, and now you are pushing the
applicant to even push the pool even further back.
And there are other examples, in the immediate
neighborhood, where pools were approved by the Trustees.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, Mr. Uellendahl, we are jut trying
to be consistent here. We kind of held to that 50-foot
mark; even last month when we had this application before
us, there was another application that we moved back three
feet to get to the 50-foot mark, so we are just trying to
be consistent so everybody can play by the same rules.
MR. UELLENDAHL: I do remember I asked you, give me a
number, and you didn't give me a number.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So it's that 50-foot number from the
edge of the beach.
MR. UELLENDAHL: So you changed your mind.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I don't know if we changed our mind.
We, you know, defined it a little better. A little
clearer.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And we did also in that conversation
redefine the jurisdictional line, so in a sense, you know,
shifting that a little bit, five-feet seaward, to your
benefit, in this case.
MR. UELLENDAHL: Well, listen, I mean a survey is a survey.
I mean, it's not a defined line exactly by ,feet and
inches. I mean this is what the survey does. I mean, it
could be one or two feet off either way. But anyway, so --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Our diligent attorney, who takes very
Board of Trustees 18 December 13, 2023
detailed notes, just pointed out to me that what we in
fact said last time was that you need to pull the pool
back significantly. We didn't give a number. So
significantly.
MR. UELLENDAHL: No, no, no.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Now that "significant" is at 50 foot.
MR. UELLENDAHL: No, we decided to -- you actually, Glenn,
asked me to pull it back to align with the den extension.
And that is exactly what I did.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There was a discussion on that in terms
of what we were looking for, however upon further
investigation both in the field and at work session, we
realized where on your plans and survey you were measuring
from, the Trustees routinely and are able to take
jurisdiction from either a bank, obviously_ a bluff, a
beach, different dunal areas.
So the Trustees in this case are taking jurisdiction
from your beach, and as per our code we want that pool
back at 50 feet. So we certainly didn't come to a .
determination last month or we would have voted on the
application.
There was some discussion about pulling it in line
with the extension, but ultimately we realized, after
doing our due diligence, that that pool did in fact have
to come back significantly further to satisfy our code
requirements.
MR. UELLENDAHL: Well, you didn't tell me this.
MS. HULSE: But it' s in the code, sir. It' s actually in the
code.
MR. UELLENDAHL: I would have liked to know the code last
month.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You are more than welcome to download, I
think it' s E-316, read the code.
MR. UELLENDAHL: I was here, we were talking. We had a
discussion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand that, sir.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Mr. Uellendahl, how much, on your plans
here you have the pool at 35 feet from the bank.
And there is how much more footage in the front yard that
you don't show on the plans?
MR. UELLENDAHL: Well, you see it on the survey. Yes, there
is ample space in the front yard, but she doesn't want a
pool on Bayshore Road.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay. She doesn't have to have one. The
applicant doesn't have to have a pool on Bayshore Road. We
are talking a matter of a few feet. So the applicant is
making a sacrifice --
MR. UELLENDAHL: I'm not in favor of pools anyway, but I
have to --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So we do come to an understanding about
Board of Trustees 19 December 13, 2023
the necessity of an amenity rather than -- so it' s not a
necessary structure. So I think we can find a common
ground somewhere.
MR. UELLENDAHL: I agree with that, yes. All right, so it' s
50 feet, that' s what you are telling me.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes. From the line that Trustee Peeples
has indicated to you based upon our observations in the
field, from that line, 50 feet landward.
MR. UELLENDAHL: Okay, Eric. So, Elizabeth, is there
anything else that I should be aware of.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: A couple of things I just wanted to
clarify in terms of the pool. It' s possible that this is
the kind of block that is used to depict the pool. It
appears that there is a deep end. What is the overall
depth of the pool?
MR. UELLENDAHL: Eight feet.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Eight feet. And that's the deepest?
MR. UELLENDAHL: Well, that' s not the overall --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I 'm sorry. In the deepest part. And what
is your depth to groundwater in this area?
MR. UELLENDAHL: I don't have that information right here.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. If you would provide that for us,
that would be helpful, please, when you are resubmitting
everything.
MR. UELLENDAHL: Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I believe that was all I had in my
review. Was there any other comment from the Board?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: No.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak
in regard to this application?
(No response) .
So based on the conversation that we had, would you like
to request to table the application?
MR. UELLENDAHL: Well, as I said, I'm not going to be
around in January, so I'm going to submit a revised site
plan for you showing the 50-foot line that you requested,
and eliminating the widening of the porch. And I think
there was the depth of the groundwater, which I, I mean,
it's something that I have _to find out.
Yes, I mean I guess you have to table it, unless you
want to approve it based on the plan that I will be
submitting tomorrow.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I 'm comfortable with that. The
recommendations that the Board has made, they are fairly
straightforward, and you are a talented surveyor and
drawer, I think you can get it done.
MR. UELLENDAHL: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, anyone else here who wishes to
speak?
(No response) .
Board of Trustees 20 December 13, 2023
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I 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 following conditions: That the pool
will be moved back to the 50-foot mark; and the extension
of the screened-in porch will be removed, the cantilevered
porch; and that the delineation line of the top of bank
will be removed; and the delineation line that states
"edge of rock" will become the new jurisdictional line, 50
feet from that line to the pool; and that the pool will be
salt water; and that the buffer that you have denoted on
your plan will be a vegetated buffer.
MR. UELLENDAHL: But it says that on my plan.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: She is in the middle of a motion.
MR. UELLENDAHL: I'm sorry.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And that is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: To address your question, we just wanted
it to be, it's noted as a non-turf buffer, so we would
just like that to be a vegetated non-turf buffer in your
notation, please.
MR. UELLENDAHL: Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very much. Enjoy your
travels.
MR. UELLENDAHL: Well, it' s not pleasurable travel,
unfortunately. But, anyway, thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have a good night.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Good night.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4, 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"x22111" 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
The Trustees did an inhouse review on December 6th,
2023, noting review the plans at work session.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The
Board of Trustees 21 December 13, 2023
inconsistencies are the as-built structures do not meet
Policy 6.3. In the event the action is approved, the
vegetated buffer is recommended landward of the wetland,
and an upgrade to IA/OWTS is recommended.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application. The CAC supports the application with
the recommendation of an IA septic system.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding
this application?
MS. RIVERA-PITTORINO: Hi, I'm Deborah Rivera-Pittorino,
the applicant, and I can answer zany questions that you
have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Yes, ma'am. So, the first time we
went out, there's a couple of sheds that are on the
property that look like it exceeds the property and is on
to the wetlands. So we are going to request those be
pulled back on to your property.
One of the other issues that we had was there seems
to be some debris, like coal and some garbage that kind of
spilled over into the wetland. We would like that removed.
We were talking about putting a split-rail fence on the
edge of your property line to delineate your property and
the wetland, and then a ten-foot -- 15-foot wide vegetated
non-turf buffer landward of that split-rail fence.
I think those were our concerns with the project.
And also gutters to leaders to drywells for the roof
runoff.
MS. RIVERA-PITTORINO: Okay. Yes, I already, I had marked
something up but I don't know if your office would want
it. But we are actually removing the shed. When I bought
it, I have an old photo of when I bought the property, and
that's where the sheds were. And also that coal stuff was
there as well. But we are in the process of moving that.
We are going to relocate the sheds to the property next
door that I own, and it won't be near the wetland line.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
MS. RIVERA-PITTORINO: The only request I wanted to make
was that I had planned to do what they call a rain garden
between that property line and the wetlands, and I think
it' s more environmentally friendly, and also more
attractive, rather than a split-rail fence. But that' s up
to you guys. I did bring some pictures of what it would
look like.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The concept behind the split-rail fence
is, whether it' s you or somebody else down the road, that
you are not encroaching on that wetland.
As far as the rain garden for the vegetated non-turf
buffer, that could definitely work, so just have a
split-rail fence at the edge of your property line and
then you can do the rain garden or whatever kind of
Board of Trustees 22 December 13, 2023
vegetation you would like landward of that. That would not
be a problem.
MS. RIVERA-PITTORINO: Okay. All right, I'm fine with that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this
application with the following conditions:
That the sheds are moved out of the wetland; that any
existing debris is removed from the wetland; that a
split-rail fence be installed on the property line; and a
15-foot vegetated non-turf buffer/rain garden of your
choice, be placed landward of the split-rail fence; and
that the installation of gutters to leaders to drywells.
And by doing that will bring it into consistency with
the LWRP.
And subject to new plans showing all those changes.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MS. PITTORINO: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 5, Graham Associates on behalf of
CONKLING ADVISORS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to
install one (1) 12, 000 gallon double wall underground fuel
tank (split 7, 000 gasoline and 5, 000 diesel) ; temporarily
install steel sheathing around the hole during the
installation of the underground tank which is to be
removed prior to backfilling; install new double wall
J
piping leading underground from fuel tank to two (2) new
fuel dispensers at seaward end of dock; all proposed
structures to have leak detection panel, probes and
sensors.
Located: 1760 Sage Boulevard, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-57-1-38.3
The Trustees most recently visited the property on
the 6th of December. The notes were: Discuss
environmental impacts and through-flow possible decking on
the fixed pier.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be exempt.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to
support the application.
Board of Trustees 23 December 13, 2023
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding
the application?
MR. GRAHAM: Good evening. I'm Glenn Graham, with Graham
Associates, 256 Orinoco Drive, Brightwaters, New York, /
representing Conkling Advisors, LLC, which owns Brick Cove
Marina.
We are seeking to put in a 12, 000 gallon double-wall
fiberglass split-compartment fuel tank which would consist
of 7, 000 gallons worth of gas and 5, 000 gallons worth of
diesel.
This would be land-based tank underground. It is
anchored for buoyancy compensation so it can't float out
of the ground in a flooding condition.
We are locating it on the second north-most pier,
which is one of the fixed piers there. We chose that
location because it' s a bit higher in elevation, a little
further from Peconic Bay, and it also allows the
northern-most pier to be a buffer from the neighbors.
This is a similar application to two others that I
have done in the past year or two. One was recently just
completed and built in the spring at Orient By The Sea,
next to the Plum Island Ferry.
We also did a smaller fuel system at Port of Egypt
within the past couple of years as well. The tanks and the
piping both are double wall, meaning they have sensors in
them to see if there is any type of leak, and that could
be a breach from the outside, from a rock or some sort of
crack that would let water intrude and then a sensor would
go off. Same thing if it was a leak from the inside.
The piping also has a double wall. It' s double wall
and pitches an eighth of an inch a foot back to a sump
sensor either at the dispensers or on the tank sump.
We also have overfill protection from when the driver
comes, there is a 15-gallon spill bucket that would drain
back into the tank to take any residual flow. There is
also a fill-limiting device, both mechanical and
electrical, so at 90% tank capacity an alarm would go off.
I'm here to answer any other technical questions you
may have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have any. Thank you. Is there
anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
(No response) .
Any additional comments from the members of the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this
application with the following stipulations: That
Board of Trustees 24 December 13, 2023
through-flow decking be installed along the catwalk; not
to remove any existing vegetation; and that native
planting be installed surrounding the tank and disturbed
area. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. GRAHAM: Thank you, have a good night.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 6, Debbie Orlando on behalf of
JOSEPH SBARRA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
proposed two-story dwelling with a 2, 170sq. ft. First floor
living space, 2, 001sq. ft. Second floor living space,
277sq.ft. Front covered porch, 104sq.ft. Side covered
patio, 488sq.ft. Seaward first floor covered patio with
terrace above, 54sq.ft. Side covered entrance, and A.C.
units; a proposed 624sq. ft. Detached garage landward of
dwelling; a 20'x40' in-ground pool with a 400sq.ft. Patio
surround, pool enclosure fencing, pool equipment area; and
to install an I/A OWTS sanitary system.
Located: 2590 Cox Neck Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-8-
The Trustees,most recently visited the site on our
December 6th inspection.
The notes from that inspection read: Identify top of
bank on plans; non-disturbance from top of bank seaward,
at approximately the 30-foot contour line; a non-turf
buffer landward from top of bank; we're investigating a
clearing violation on the property; and re-vegetation plan
for disturbed areas.
The LWRP coordinator found the project to be
consistent with its policies.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to
support_ the application, recommending a 20-foot buffer,
planted with native vegetation, and the planting of
additional trees to stabilize the slope.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the
application?
(No response) .
Any comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Does anyone wish to discuss on the Board the location of
the line?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think based off our comments in the
field and at work session, it looked like roughly that
30-foot contour was nearly the most appropriate point for,
you know, if there had not been a house there, that that's
where the natural start for that bank/bluff area would
have began. And in the field I think it' s most easily
referenced as adjacent to the neighbor' s black chain-link
fence. .
Board of Trustees 25 December 13, 2023
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I would also like to note that when we
were out on field inspection the, pretty much the entirety
of the property had been cleared of trees and any
vegetation. So I think part of why we were having to
define this top of bank area is because so much has been
removed on the property in terms of vegetation. And so I
would like to see a re-vegetation plan as a part of this
application as well.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I agree with that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Does the Board feel comfortable with
moving ahead with this application or waiting to discuss
it further after --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: My thoughts, and, you know, we asked our
attorney, would be, you know, if it was to go forward,
subject to an approved re-vegetation plan by the Board.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Sounds good.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Are there any other comments from the
public or the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing no other comments, I 'll make a motion to close the
application.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the
application subject to conditions herewith: Using the
30-foot contour line or the neighbor' s fence, thereabouts,
to delineate a line of non-disturbance seaward to the
wetland. We need a re-vegetation to address the
clear-cutting of the lot. And am I missing anything?
And a non-turf buffer from the proposed pool, 30 feet
landward.
Okay, right, from the top of bank, from the 30-foot
contour line landward, a non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 7, AS PER REVISED PROJECT
DESCRIPTION AND PLANS RECEIVED 11/30/23 AMP Architecture
on behalf of KATHLEEN WALAS & THOMAS SARAKATSANNIS
requests a Wetland Permit for the demolition and removal
of existing 21.1'x33.3' (700sq. ft. ) Second-floor of
dwelling, 30.71x19. 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, 7.8 'x9.2' (61. 6sq.ft. ) Rear stair and
landing, existing septic system, and leaching pools;
construct a proposed new dwelling consisting of an
Board of Trustees 26 December 13, 2023
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
14.1'x13. 6' (192sq.ft. ) Rear addition; an elevated and
renovated garage with a 1' 8" lift, 13.81x20.7 '
(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 10'X14. 8' (146sq.ft. )
Rear screen porch; 6. 9'x9.5' (64sq.ft. ) Rear steps and
landing; 8. 1'x18.5 ' (147sq.ft. ) Rear steps and landing; a
9.7'X11' , 4 .7'x7 ' (137sq.ft. ) , 4' deep pool; a 17 . 5'x5' ,
41x4' , 5.5'x9.5' (175sq.ft. ) Rear patio at grade; proposed
septic system with grading above; proposed Cultec
stormwater chambers; a 4 'x4' pool drywell; 4' high, 70
linear feet of pool enclosure fencing; proposed 5'x5 '
(25sq.ft. ) Outdoor shower; 3'x8 ' (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 Trustees most recently conducted an inhouse
review at our work session on December 11th, 2023, to
review the new plans that were submitted.
Our most recent plans were received on December 11th,
2023, including an ecological restoration plan.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent.
There are several numbers here. And this is not in
review of the newest plans, so I'm just going to read' a
couple of them here.
The leaching galleys are located in the FEMA flood
zone Elevation 7.
Number two, will the expansion of the house add more
sanitary flow and potential impacts to the high quality
Pipes Cove ecosystem, and if so, how much over existing
conditions.
Number three, what does the modified vegetation
buffer refer to.
Number four, what is the finished grade slope; will
storm water flow into surface water.
Number five, a significant buffer and vegetation
density is recommended to protect the water quality in
Pipes Cove.
And, number six, maximum setbacks should be required.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this
application and resolved to not support the application
because the setback of the proposed pool is not in
compliance with Chapter 275.
Again, this decision was reached at their August
meeting and was not in review of the newest set of plans.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
Board of Trustees 27 December 13, 2023
application?
MR. PORTILLO: Yes. Good evening. Anthony Portillo, AMP
Architecture.
So we, based on the last hearing, we did move the
pool back to 50 feet. We also slid the screened porch back
and we are 80 feet at our closest point, and 86.1 feet at
the furthest point, since we basically have about 180
degree if not more, maybe 270 degree, on the wetland line.
We did propose a vegetation plan, initially elected
to hire Cole Environmental to help us out with that, since
I'm not an expert in it, and they are. And Kate is
actually here from Cole to go over that with the Board and
answer any questions.
One other point I heard, and I don't think this came
up last time, but it is an existing four-bedroom home and
we are not proposing any more than four bedrooms, so I
don't think we are increasing any septic requirements,
just to be clear about that. I thought I heard that.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. We did review and saw that
you were able to pull the pool back to 50 feet, which we
appreciate.
We did have a few questions in our work session, one
of them being do you know the depth to groundwater, and
how deep will the pool be?
MR. PORTILLO: Yes. So our depth to groundwater --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes, it' s 5. 9.
MR. PORTILLO: 5.2 feet below grade. And our test hole was
taken I believe basically in that area where we are
putting the septic system. Oh, I'm sorry, no. It' s taken
in the front of the house, at the six-foot grade line. So
the pool would essentially be above water, the way we
designed it.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, and it' s not a raised pool, it' s
an in-ground pool?
MR. PORTILLO: Yes. At four feet.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, another question that came up in
our latest review of the plans was the access to the
property through county land. I apologize for not flagging
this sooner, but this access, do you have written
permission from the county for this driveway access?
MR. PORTILLO: I would have to say that we could provide
that. I would imagine it's in the deed, but I would have
to get that for you. I don't have that tonight.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, so we would have to --
MR. PORTILLO: You guys can come up and say hi if you want.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just state your name for the record.
MR. SARAKATSANNIS: Tom Sarakatsannis, the owner, with my
wife Kathleen Walas.
There is a 50-foot right-of-way as part of the deed
that extends to the house. It' s shared by two other
Board of Trustees 28 December 13, 2023
homes, as you can see on that road, known as the dirt
road, Brooks Road, sometimes Applebee. So these records go
back. We understand that this right-of-way has been
around for close to 100 years. I think 1917.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay. Thank you. So we would need to see
the documentation of the right-of-way. Additionally --
MR. PORTILLO: Would that be acceptable if it would be --
MS. HULSE: Is the right-of-way depicted on the plans?
MR. PORTILLO: I would say on the survey. Let me look at
the survey. I have a copy of it.
Normally I wouldn't have it depicted on my plans but
it would be something that's on the land survey. Let me
just see if I have that. If not I can provide that as
well.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't doubt that you have the
documentation it's just, you know, for us looking at a set
of plans with a border driveway, we have, you know, cross
our is and dot our i's.
MR. PORTILLO: I actually have the survey here, if -- I
believe you have our copy.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I'm sure we do. It' s a very thick file.
I was just looking for it.
MR. PORTILLO: It states a 50-foot right-of-way on the
survey, on the land survey. I mean, I would imagine that
the Building Department would need that justification as
part of our file. I mean, I don't think, they're not going
to give us a permit if we don't have --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Would you mind bringing the survey up
just so we could take a look at it.
MR. PORTILLO: Of course. (Handing) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
MR. PORTILLO: Okay.
I mean, if I'm correct about this, the Building
Department will need documentation of the right-of-way.
MS. HULSE: The Trustees do as well.
MR. PORTILLO: It's something I would provide then.
(The Board is perusing the documentation Mr. Portillo
handed up) .
MS. HULSE: So the driveway is not part of the right-of-way
that you are referring to, correct?
MR. PORTILLO: Um, I'm sorry, are you speaking about the
gravel driveway that' s shown on my site plan?
MS. HULSE: Correct. That's not included in part of the
right-of-way, correct?
MR. PORTILLO: It is on county land, so it would be part of
that right-of-way. That is not on our property.
MS. HULSE: You just said a private right-of-way, and now
you are saying a county-owned right-of-way?
MR. PORTILLO: No, the land is county.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As depicted on the survey, that
Board of Trustees 29 December 13, 2023
right-of-way runs down the road 50 feet and then passes
straight on the, you know, top of their house here. This _
way. (Indicating) . So the actual driveway on your plans
appears to be, you know, largely on county property,
outside of that right-of-way.
MR. PORTILLO: Okay. Yes, maybe you can --
MR. SARAKATSANNIS: If I may, we have been here 20 years,
and this has been untouched for what we understand
generations in terms of the access. We know this from our
neighbors who are third or fourth generation living there.
Those are the two other houses on the dirt road.
There is certainly a practice that has not been
adjusted or changed by anybody who has lived here, to our
knowledge. The access goes to the house and it's been
that way for generations. We have been there for 18 years.
Predecessors to this house represented the same.
I think one of the observation you are making is that
this three houses on this dirt road that is either Brooks
Road or Applebee Road, have really old documentation, and
this stuff has not been changed, to our knowledge, since
1917, is what was represented to us.
So, I understand your questions, I can only tell you
there is a pattern here, or practice of access. This is
our residence, and we need to access it. It's not a
misused piece of property.
To be clear for you, because I heard some reference
to county land, we are supporting environmentalism. This
set of properties around our house was privately owned
when we first arrived 18 years ago. Some of your
predecessors attended awareness campaigns and fundraisers
that were held on this property.
I think it was well-known and recognized as an
opportunity, maybe what was called a once-in-a-lifetime
opportunity to take some of this property and preserve it
forever.
We accomplished that to a large extent. There are
still some things I think that need to be filled in. And
so when you are looking at this right-of-way as a county
property, that is true, but it' s a relatively recent
development.
So during the private era and during the public era,
there has been no change whatsoever, to our knowledge, of
this right-of-way. What we are asking for is access to the
house. I think it' s a reasonable one, and it' s certainly
reflective of what that tradition for that property has
been for, what I understand, and I'm representing to you,
generations that I think go back 100 years.
MS. HULSE: So this Board can't make its determination on
that, what you've just referenced. Although that might be
true, but this Board requires authorization. The owner is
Board of Trustees 30 December 13, 2023
providing authorization. So if this is owned by anyone
other than you, and there is no authorization specifically
in the file that references approval and notarized
authorization for the work to be done, and we are talking
about also from, obviously from the county, if it' s
county-owned property, then this Board is not at liberty
to grant a permit for same.
MR. SARAKATSANNIS: I understand your question and your
observation. I can try to add one more thing for
perspective. As I was mentioning, there was this campaign
to try to get everything preserved. The county did engage
with everyone in that surrounding area to make the changes
that would be necessary to preserve that, and get that
property back to the, whoever they were that were owning
it. It was under the county, but there were many other
people that were -contributing money for that cause.
One of the things it was not asked to be changed was
anything to do with that driveway. And I'll give you
examples of --
MS. HULSE: Were you given something by the county
indicating that you had a right-of-way there?
MR. SARAKATSANNIS: Well, I think it was by the absence of
their -- they gave things that said you must, similar to
what you do today, based on my observation today, they
would say you have to change these things in order to make
this happen.
One of the things that needed to be changed was not
anything to do with that driveway, which pre-existed their
involvement, and certainly could have been part of the
list that they gave us.
So you are looking for an affirmative indication, and
I'm trying to explain to you that the circumstances of
that were the opposite.
The county knows, just as you do, how to mandate a
change. There is a record that they did, and it didn't
involve that driveway.
So this is a little bit of a paradox, in my mind. You
are looking for an affirmative statement. The county
granted all of this and required no change.
As you were saying earlier to the gentleman that
preceded us, it' s a public record. You can find that. You
can see what they asked to change and what they didn't ask,
to change.
MS. HULSE: Right. So that could be true, too, but it' s not
the obligation of the Board to do that due diligence and
that research. It' really, what I'm just trying to say
very simply, is the code requires that this Board take no
action unless the applicant before the Board can
demonstrate that he or she has authorization to act.
So all of, what you are saying could be perfectly
Board of Trustees 31 December 13, 2023
true, however the Board is not able to grant a permit
unless we have something with written authorization. That
is just the way the code is written.
MR. SARAKATSANNIS: I understand what you are saying, but
the implications are profound. You are saying we can't
access our house unless we have affirmative proof that
some governmental authority told us, or someone prior to
us over the course of 100 years, that this access to the
house, which is demonstrably has occurred, people have
lived here --
MS. HULSE: Would you like to take the time in order to
provide the information, if you think that, because what
you are saying is it seems to you, it' s clear to you that
you have that authorization. Would you like to table this
and then to discuss the issue so that you can provide what
this Board is looking for?
MR. SARAKATSANNIS: Look, I'm just a guest here, a person
asking. I'm going to defer here to Anthony and the
collective wisdom here. But I'm taken back that this is
happening right now. This is our home.
MR. PORTILLO: So is it possible to move forward and then
we provide the information; in other words close the
hearing if there is nothing else in question and then we
provide documentation if the right-of-way is allowed? Or
the right-of-way is acceptable?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Mr. Portillo, the survey that you
provided for us, which we would like to give back to you,
unless you would like to enter this into the file, because
I believe --
MR. PORTILLO: I believe that was provided.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It' s up to you. We can have it stamped
entered in or you can take it back.
MR. PORTILLO: I believe you have it, actually. It was part
of the submission.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, great. So one thing I just want to
make sure we are all talking about the same thing here,
there is that very clear 50-foot right-of-way on the
survey which allows you access to your home and, you know,
understand the history with it.
What the Board is specifically referring to here is
the gravel driveway portion which is kind of an "L" shape,
very hard line there on the plans, that seems to be on
county property also, but not on the county right-of-way
portion of the property.
I believe that is what we are all, I want to make
sure we are talking about the same thing here.
MR. PORTILLO: Understood.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So it's not -- there is not a limit of
access to your property. It's the portion of the driveway
that, because the right-of-way actually does come, allow
Board of Trustees 32 December 13, 2023
you access to your property. It would just be in a
different location. There is this one portion that is on
the property, I believe that would be to the west of your
property, not the one that is to the north, which includes
that right-of-way.
MR. PORTILLO: Understood.
MEMBER PEEPLES: Okay.
MR. PORTILLO: I think -- so I would ask the Board if we
could --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I do have an additional question.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So I saw the, through the variance
process with the Zoning Board of Appeals, I know that in
order to violate the sky plain code you went up for FEMA
flood zone reasons, but I also noted that this is a solid
concrete foundation. Is there a reason why piles and
breakaway walls were not used?
MR. PORTILLO: It' s in an A Zone. That' s what is, required.
You don't have to use -- breakaway walls are B Zone or
Coastal A Zone.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, so you were able to violate the
sky plane for FEMA reasons but you don't have to do the
breakaway walls.
MR. PORTILLO: FEMA, in an A Zone you're allowed solid
walls with flood vents, proper flood venting, which is
every 20 square feet of basement, not basement space.
Crawl space, or whatever you want to call it, has to be
provided. We provide the flood vents.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay. All right, are there any other
questions from the Board?
MR. PORTILLO: Well, just a matter of the right-of-way, if
that is the, if you need documentation that the
right-of-way and that driveway is allowed to be there,
from county or from whatever properties we're going over,
I mean, is that something we can provide for the Board and
not necessarily table the hearing?
MS. HULSE: That is part of what is required to submit an
application. It' s part of what is required before
technically it even gets on for public hearing. So that
has to be provided before this board can even consider
granting any permit.
MR. PORTILLO: I understand. Right. And I think the
right-of-way what was what, from my office, and the
question is that small gravel portion that we assume the
right-of-way was, you know, allowed that entry to the
property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It would appear our hands are bound by
legal here, but just to make is clear to your client, we
certainly are not, and I think this is obvious. But we are
certainly not blocking access or saying your client has to
Board of Trustees 33 December 13, 2023
prove access to their house. It' s just that this Board
legally cannot grant a permit without a blessing from the
adjacent property owner. It happens to be the county in
this case. I mean that' s pretty standard practice.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure. Understood. I think that maybe they
can, our thought was the right-of-way was what allowed
that access, not necessarily this gravel driveway part
which is in question, I think. So now that I understand, I
think it' s just a matter of us coming up with that
documentation; is that correct?
MS. HULSE: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Right.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, I would like to -- sorry, do you
have any other questions or comments of the Board?
MR. PORTILLO: Should we talk about the buffer or worry
about that next time? Is that necessary?
Just because Cole is here. Do you guys want to discuss
that or is that something we shouldn't get into?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think the buffer was amendable to the
Board.
MR. PORTILLO: We had no questions about that? Okay, great.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: No, I think the project has come quite
a long way. It's a nice project.
MR. PORTILLO: I appreciate that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I do feel for the applicant that this
needs to be satisfied before they can move forward but
other than that, the project to me was solid.
MR. PORTILLO: Okay, so we'll work on getting that evidence
of the driveway.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I do have one more question for you about
the fill. I believe it was noted -- bear with me, we were
reviewing this at the work session. There was a reference,
I believe, of around, I have in my notes, around 33, 000
square feet of fill. And I just wanted to -- I think it' s
in the drawing. Would you just speak to the fill since I
can't find that on the drawing?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I can jump in on that. So within your
plan is one area, and I don't know exactly where because
it' s not in front of me right now.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I found it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want jump back in?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Sure. There' s a fill calculations box
that you have the plans and it notes raising grade. And
then it says the average depth of grade increase is
approximately 33,216 cubic feet. So that means you are
taking the 11, 072 square feet and raising it by three
feet, is how I understand this calculation here.
MR. PORTILLO: So the area we are proposing a grade change
is only in the vicinity of the new septic system, just to
get to a certain height around the septic and leaching.
Board of Trustees 34 December 13, 2023
It' s not the entire property.
Originally we had proposed that, but most of the
property is remaining the same. And the grade is,being
changed at that septic leaching area.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So do you have a calculation for how
much fill that would require?
MR. PORTILLO: I believe the fill calculation is correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, there was a discrepancy though,
because it was noted as two different numbers. One was
30, 000 and one was closer to 3, 000, I believe.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Right, the project description is 2, 995.5
cubic feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. So we need to make those two
align to the plans.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure, I'll make sure that's correct. Sure.
No problem. ,
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Are there any other questions or comments?
MR. PORTILLO: Thank you, very much. No, I think we are
good.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Hearing none, I make a motion to table
this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. PORTILLO: Thank you, Board.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Have a good night.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 8, AS PER REVISED PROJECT
DESCRIPTION AND PLANS RECEIVED 11/22/2023 Patricia Moore,
Esq. On behalf of ESTATE OF RICHARD JENSEN, c/o RICHARD C.
JENSEN, JR. , EXECUTOR requests a Wetland Permit to
demolish existing dwelling and garage (1,205sq. ft. ) ,
demolish exiting landings, stairs (75sq.ft. ) ,
patio/terraces (140sq.ft. ) , existing asphalt driveway
(339sq. ft. ) , and abandon existing sanitary system;
construct a FEMA compliant two-story dwelling with a
991sq.ft. First floor, 1, 040 second floor, 414sq. ft.
Attic, 261sq.ft. Wood deck and stairs, a 21sq.ft. Roof
over 16sq.ft.landing, and 64sq. ft. Hot tub flush with
deck; install an I/A sanitary system landward of dwelling
with a 195.5 linear feet in length and varying 2 '-2 1-�'
maximum in height retaining wall around sanitary covered
with veneer stone and cap; add ±180 cubic yards of fill
material for I/A system; install A.C. unit on a stand on
north side of dwelling; install a stone blend parking area
in the front yard for two cars; install French drain "A"
on south side and French drain "B" under deck to capture
drainage; and to establish and perpetually maintain a
Board of Trustees 35 December 13, 2023
non-turf buffer area throughout the seaward side/rear
yard.
Located: 4155 Bay Shore Road, Greenport SCTM# 1000-53-6-21
Note that as per the revised project description and
plans were received on 11/22/2023.
The Trustees most recently visited this site on
December 6th and noted review new plans at work session.
Prior to that, the Trustees visited the site on September
6th of 2023, and noted concerns about the proximity of the
pool and the height and location of retaining wall.
The LWRP found this application to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council does not
support this application because the pool and the dwelling
are not in compliance with Chapter 275 setbacks, and the
lot coverage is maxed out.
I am in receipt of plans stamped and dated November
22nd of 2023, as well as an updated survey dated November
21st, 2023.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to
this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore, on behalf of the
applicant. I do have Richard Jenson's son here and Paul
Fiore who is the architect, so they can both assist me I
guess on some of these issues.
You did get a revised plan which, if you recall, the
deck was a little bit different and it included the pool
originally, but we did take your comments into
consideration, and the pool was removed from the plans.
We are requesting a small hot tub that is going to be
flush with the deck, and the hot tub would just drain
directory to the French drain system, so there would not
be, it would all be contained.
The house is at 20% lot coverage. We were very
careful not to increase the, beyond the zoning regulations
with respect to the house. The existing house is, actually
the new house is pushed back a few feet from where the
existing house is, and most of this project is dictated by
the sanitary system.
The IA system requires a certain amount of separation
from property lines, and a certain depth to the ground
water, we have to maintain the depth.
So the question regarding the retaining walls, the
retaining walls are only about two-and-a-half feet,
between two and two-and-a-half feet, and it's very
prevalent on Bayshore Road, you see pretty much all the
homes there that are being, having sanitary systems
replaced, all have similar retaining walls.
We were, the Zoning Board, we went to the Zoning
Board regarding side yard setbacks. We had to provide for
the Zoning Board two parking spaces, and our retaining
Board of Trustees 36 December 13, 2023
wall had to extend out long enough to accommodate the two
parking spaces and also maintain the separation of the
sanitary system from ten-foot separation that was
mandatory.
So this is a very tight site, we very carefully took
very many months to design, and we have actually pushed
everything back as much as possible to provide for a good
environmental plan.
So we will, you know, we'll try to address any other
points or questions you might have.
We did make -- also one of the recommendations was
non-turf, which we did incorporate non-turf. It was drawn
this way but honestly the entire property will be non-turf
because we are -- it's either a French drain or it's
non-turf.
So if you have any particular design issues, as I
said, the architect is here and the owner is here as well.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you, very much. I appreciate
you talking us through that and the study of the property.
I think one, obviously we did mention the pool in our
previous discussions on this project, and it seems the hot tub
is a smaller pool.
MS. MOORE: It' s very minimal. It' s contained and it is
self-filtering, so it's not, it doesn't have the impact of
a swimming pool.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It' s still, as one Trustee, I still see
it as a small pool.
The other thing that I was trying to understand from
this property is the addition of a pool or a, excuse me, a
hot tub, a small pool, a hot tub, when the requirement of
the property requires retaining walls. So that just didn't
seem to line up in my mind, that a property needed to be
elevated to accommodate the sanitary system, yet you are
also installing a hot tub as well.
MS. MOORE: I mean, we did pull out -- do you want to give
some specs on the hot tub or do you want me to explain it?
The hot tub is self-contained and it's going to be,
it' s shallow, you just sit in it. And it's going to be,
the bottom of it sits on the ground so it's not excavated.
It's just placed there, so.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, I appreciate you explaining that.
I think my broader point here is that you have quite
extensive retaining walls in the front part of the
property. And it seems like there is a lot of effort put
in to all of that. And in my mind it doesn't allow with
this further addition of a hot tub.
And we have seen examples of properties and projects
where they were actually able to eliminate. or really
heavily reduce the retaining walls in order to still
accommodate the sanitary system. And, you know, I think,
Board of Trustees 37 December 13, 2023
in just looking at this proposal here, the retaining walls
are on the property line.
So that is something that we would --
MS. MOORE: Yes. Well, if I could address that, because we
spent a lot of time with Tom Wolpert, who is available by
phone. But if you see, remember, on the property line you
are permitted a fence that is four feet in height. So a
retaining wall that is two-and-a-half is like this, . it' s
essentially it's a curve.
Remember, our neighbor to the south actually asked, I
asked him, because his house and his garage are closer to
us, and I didn't want to impact his property with a
retaining wall. He understood and he actually sent an
e-mail saying he had no objection to the retaining wall.
We really wanted to push the retaining walls away
from the property line, but we cannot and meet the Health
Department criteria. You can see the leaching pools have
to1be, they have to be ten feet from the property line,
and the leaching pools require a certain depth of soil. ,
So the retaining walls are giving the additional soil that
is necessary for the placement of the sanitary.
So it 'would not meet code to bring the retaining wall
in. We would not meet the ten-foot separation. It' s ten
feet from the property line or a retaining call or any
other enclosure. That's the minimum.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are very familiar with that.
MS. MOORE: Exactly, I'm sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we are also, I mean, this Board has
looked at so many applications and properties similar to
this one at this point that it might behoove you to go
back and look at, I mean there' s probably days' worth of
testimony on the record about the Board does not want high
retaining walls on property lines, and we understand the
need, obviously, for covering sanitary systems. There's
different types of systems you can use, if you can't use,
that don't require much height.
And not to mention, the walls need to be pulled in or
lowered. There' s ways to do it. We've had this argument.
There is an agent sitting in here tonight, we have gone
over this and he eventually was able to work something
out. There was, I mean days of testimony about one down
Fisherman's Beach. This isn't a new precedent, and I mean,
I can't say much more on the matter.
MS. MOORE: I did relay that to Tom Wolpert, and he spent a
great deal of time discussing with the engineers on how to
meet the Health Department criteria, and again, a tall
retaining, I understand this is two-and-a-half feet. So if
you look next door, there is a two-and-a-half foot
retaining wall.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Not on the property line, though
Board of Trustees 38 December 13, 2023
MS. MOORE: Well, only because the sanitary is on the
opposite side, so.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: But the question here is about retaining
walls on property lines. I just don't want to have it
represented that the neighbor has a retaining wall on
their property line. They do not.
MS. MOORE: No, no. His sanitary is on the opposite side,
and he understood the need. Believe me, I really, we've
spent a lot of time with Tom Wolpert. Tom, maybe you can
add something that I can't.
We have to meet the Health Department, and in part
the Zoning Board created the issue for us for the parking
spaces because essentially what we have to do is park on
top of the soil because there is no way to fit the
sanitary, the IA system that is here, and not, you know
park on top of it. So that's, we were forced into that
scenario.
But go ahead, if you can add --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let me interject. The amount of times I
heard someone stand in front of this Board and say there
is no way to do it, with this exact situation, I can't
even tell you how many times. So, thank you.
MS. MOORE: I had the same discussion with Young & Young. I
mean, we spent several at least an hour on the phone,
asking is there another design. Can we use a different
system. Can, you know.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And the answer is yes. And we have been
dealing with this for years where people start off with a
five foot to eight-foot high retaining wall on the
property line for the IA system. Turns out to have five
inches of fill and no wall. Pressurized mats. There' s
other alternatives that need to be explored. We have been
extremely consistent on this Board with not allowing
retaining walls on property lines.
So it is something that we hoped didn't have to have
this discussion much going in the future, but I guess we
are still here.
There are alternatives and, you know, we are very
consistent in standing firm on that.
MS. MOORE: Well, give me what is your rule of thumb so
when I do go back to Young & Young and say you've got to
do something.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You can go back to, as Trustee Krupski
referenced multiple applications --
MS. MOORE: But are all the lots only 75 or 50 feet in
width?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We've done them every month. We've done
them here, we've done them on Fisherman's Beach, we've
done them in East Marion. I don't recall, I can't recall
us allowing a retaining wall on a property line any time
Board of Trustees 39 December 13, 2023
in recent memory. We have always required those to be
pushed off the property line with vegetation. If we are
going to allow a retaining wall to begin with, pushed off
the property line with vegetation between the retaining
wall and the property. That is something we have
entertained, but you have not proposed that to us. And/or
different, not necessarily leaching pools but pressurized
mats that you don't necessarily need additional depth that
you would with a leaching pool. So there are ways around
it.
MS. MOORE: Are those approvable by the Health Department?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes.
MS. MOORE: I would defer to the engineers on the type of
system, because the combination of IA and --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: But again, engineers have come with we
can't do anything, and then we battle it out, and next
thing you know, oh, there is a solution. So what that
solution is, I don't know, but.
MR. FIORE: My name is Paul Fiore, I'm the architect. So
unfortunately you don't have the person you need here
tonight. You have us.
Just a couple of clarifying questions for the Board.
If you can't be on the property line is there a dimension
that you require or are you just, are you just saying we
get as far away as possible?
Like what do I -- and, also, if 30 inches is too
high, what isn't? Is two feet okay? Is 18 inches okay?
I need some design criteria in order to give, to be able
to give --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So, yes to all. As far back as possible
and as small as possible.
MR. FIORE: So there isn't a specific number. I just need
to know.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That' s a fair question.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And often we have asked that there are
some sort of plantings, native vegetation on the, outside
on the property line side of the retaining walls in order
to, you know, soften the view for the neighbors.
MR. FIORE: So one further question. If the neighbor on the
south side, because of the, say we were able to do that on
the other sides but the neighbor on the south side,
because of this parking issue, and if he was amendable to
it being on the property line, would that be looked at as
a, you know, as a potential acceptable solution;
If I'm at one side, in order to meet zoning' s requirement
of parking and the neighbor was amenable to it, and we can
get him to tell you that, somehow.
MS. MOORE: Well, he had sent an e-mail.
MR. FIORE: He did. Okay. Is that something he look at that
we are doing as best we can on this teeny, little
Board of Trustees 40 December 13, 2023
property?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: My response to that is I would ultimately
try to lower the wall or move it in
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, lower the wall or what?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Lower the wall or move it in. Or both.
MS. MOORE: Okay, I guess I know what it is, but I think
the client would like to know what is the rationale for
low walls, because this again is a two to two-and-a-half
depending on the grade. So anywhere from 18 inches to
two-and-a-half at highest.
When, again, you are allowed, not that I like it,
because my neighbor has one, but you are allowed to put a
fence, four-foot fence on the property line and nobody can
say anything about it, so.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: There are several reasons why you would
want to avoid a retaining wall on a property line. One of
which is esthetic. The neighbor doesn't want to look at
whatever the applicant has put forward, and has to look
out their window all the time.
The other major environmental concern is that when
you retain property on one lot, you push rainwater, storm
surge, debris and other things on your neighbor's
property, including a castling effect on your property,
and you are making your neighbors more vulnerable to
whatever may come. And we are trying to avoid that.
MS. MOORE: I understand.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Is that clear?
MS. MOORE: Thank you. We'll go back to Young & Young. If
we can't get Young & Young design something acceptable, we
may be looking for another engineer, so.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Since you are revisiting the plans and
looking at everything, I would just note that your raised
hot tub is, you've noted here 38 feet from the wetland
line, and in a previous application, on this very same
evening, we were pushing back to 50 feet.
So I just want to make that comment on the record as
well, that that is what we are also looking at when we are
looking at this application.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And one final question. Currently the
driveway is at grade. Is there a reason the driveway has
to be elevated?
MS. MOORE: It was the sanitary that required a ten-foot
separation, so in order to -- you see the sanitary with
the circle, the manhole, and then the, what's it called,
sorry, I don't have the parts memorized, but there is a
circle and then the, the specs are on another page.
MR. FIORI : Yes, they need ten feet from the property line.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Perhaps .they can pull that in and to
avoid having to raise the whole driveway.
MS. MOORE: I will -- this, believe me, because that to me
r
Board of Trustees 41 December 13, 2023
made a lot of sense to shorten that distance, but those
are the Health Department regulations on separation of the
different components of the IA system.
So my only concern is that when you start having to
modify a system, if it' s not what the Health Department
generally allows, you end up having to go to the Board of
Review for a variance from the Health Department, which
pushes the expense and you now are relying on the Health
Department to accept a modification on a design.
So as long as the design is one that can be approved
regularly through the Health Department without a Board of
Review, that is certainly, you know, none of us have an
issue with that. It' s just pushing it into a variance with
the Health Department. They don't like to hear the fact
that you guys don't like retaining walls on the property
line. They're going to say health/welfare trumps
everything else, and now we are in the ping pong between
two agencies. So I would ask to please keep that in mind.
We are going to go back and see if there is a design
that will work. But believe me, Tom Wolpert, who is our
design professional at Young & Young, went back to his
engineers and couldn't give me anything.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. I hope you got a lot of input
from us this evening, and I feel confident that there will
be some sort of solution that not only addresses the
health concerns but for the environmental concerns as
well.
MS. MOORE: We will work toward that end. Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very much.
MS. MOORE: We'll postpone until, just don't close the
hearing, right?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So what I understand is you would like to
make a request to table.
MS. MOORE: Yes, we're going to have to table it so you can
get revised plans that hopefully will be available.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, sounds good. Thank you.
Is there anyone else that wishes to speak in regard
to this application, or any other questions or comments
from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 9, En-Consultants on behalf of
DAVID & ALLISON AFFINITO requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a ±772 sq. ft. Second floor addition over and
within the footprint of the first floor portion of
existing 1, 890 sq. ft. Two-story, single-family dwelling
Board of Trustees 42 December 13, 2023
with attached 606 sq. ft. deck and 375 sq. ft. Porch
(adjacent to existing ±858 sq. ft. second floor to
remain) , with no demolition or increase in existing
dwelling footprint; install stormwater drainage system to
collect roof runoff; and establish and perpetually
maintain a 10' wide, ±1, 133 sq. ft. non-turf buffer area
to be planted with additional native vegetation adjacent
to the wetlands boundary.
Located: 1675 Pine Neck Road, Southold SCTM# 1000-70-5-42
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on December
6th, noting straightforward.
The LWRP found it to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application.
I also have an e-mail from Robert Herrmann, December
13th, 2023, talking about the height of the proposed
addition that will not exceed what is already there.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding
this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants. As we
discussed in the field, this is an expansion of the
existing second floor over the existing first-floor
footprint. It is a true addition, there is no demolition
associated. Elizabeth had contacted.me just with an
inquiry, I don't know if a neighbor had inquired or
something, but what the height, it's typically something
this Board addresses, but just for the record, the height
consistent with and will match of the height of the
existing second floor that is being expanded.
I submitted a couple of sheets from Jeff Butler
Engineering, showing the building height and sky plane
restrictions will be compliant with Zoning code.
Otherwise, it's very straightforward project. A year
ago this time it would not have needed a wetlands permit,
but now that it does in connection, the mitigation, there
is an IA sanitary system proposed in connection with the
addition, and also vegetated non-turf buffer adjacent to
the wetland boundary, all as shown on the plans.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here
wishing to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
I make a motion to approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 43 December 13, 2023
(ALL AYES) .
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 10, En-Consultants on behalf of
JANICE H. ZIEGLER & KARL A. GROSKAUFMANIS requests a
Wetland Permit to maintain and perform as-needed ordinary
and usual maintenance on as-built 31x12 ' hinged ramp and
6'x20' floating dock situated in an "I" configuration.
Located: 112 Windjammer Drive, Southold SCTM# 1000-71-2-11.5
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent
due to the fact the as-built structure was constructed
without a Board of Trustees review or permit.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to
support this application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding
this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on
behalf of the applicant. This application is intended to
resolve both the un-permitted condition of the dock and
thus hopefully resolve the recommendation regarding the
LWRP consistency.
As presented in the application, the Trustees
actually resolved to approve Wetlands permit #6656 for
this very structure in 2007, but issuance of the permit
was contingent upon the then-owner paying the fees and
providing revised plans. Neither of which ever happened.
Nonetheless they went ahead and installed the dock in, .
somewhere between October 2008 and September 2009, based
on aerials.
The current owners and applicants purchased the
property in June, 2021, and of course long story short,
since then they learned there was actually not a permit
ever issued for 'the structure, so they were seeking to
actually execute the issuance of that permit now and pay
the associated fees.
So they a have wetlands permit in their name for the
existing ramp and float.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here thatl
wishes to speak regarding this application, or any
additional comments from the members of the Board?
(No 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 noting that with the issuance of a permit will
thereby brings it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 44 December 13, 2023
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We'll take a quick five-minute recess.
(After a five-minute recess, this proceeding continues as
follows) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: We are back on the record.
Number 11, AS PER REVISED PLANS AND PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED ON 12/7/23 Michael Kimack on behalf
of DAVID & MARY DESETTA requests a Wetland Permit to
remove existing fixed dock, ramp and float; construct a
proposed new 4 'x50' "L" shaped fixed dock using Thru-Flow
decking throughout with eight (8) sets (16 total) of min.
8" diameter pressure treated pilings; off end of 50' long
dock, install a 3'x10' aluminum ramp; a 6'x20' floating
dock situated in an "I" configuration using marine grade
decking and two (2) 10" diameter anchor pilings; remove
one (1) 24" diameter oak tree 15' from the north west
corner of the dwelling and one (1) 30" diameter oak tree
8 ' from wood deck, and plant two (2) 2"-3" caliper red
cedars.
Located: 1775 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-14
The Trustees visited the site on December 6th, 2023,
and found the project to be straightforward with respect
to the dock; questioned the removal of trees; and noted
that the dock would be pulled in ten feet, according to
Michael Kimack.
The LWRP found the project to be consistent with its
policies.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to
support the application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant.
When we were out there, I had made an error because the
original dock was out ten-feet further, and I placed it in
the same location going out further, but because it was
longer, basically, I realized it was getting over to the
other property, and I didn't want to have it exceed the
pier line on that one.
Pulling back ten feet made no difference because they
had plenty of depth of water on that particular one. So
rather than being 40 feet out, it's now 30 feet out. So
it's ten feet less. It's ten feet more landward than the
original dock.
It had to be shifted over in order to meet the
15-foot setback line because of the irregularity of the
property line being extended, it comes in at about a 70
degree angle.
And that' s also what DEC would require also.
And then as a result of moving the two trees, I did
Board of Trustees 45 December 13, 2023
give you another drawing indicating we would plant two red
cedars in its place, and I gave the location of those.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right. Anyone else wishing to speak
regarding the application?
(No response) .
Members of the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I 'll make a motion to approve the
application with the stipulation that two red cedars be
planted of two to three-inch caliper, and two oaks be
planted in two to three-inch caliper, in Trustee jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. KIMACK: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you, Mike.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 12, AS PER REVISED PLANS AND
PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED ON 12/13/23 Michael Kimack on
behalf of ANDREW PACE bequests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 41x55' wood walkway from dwelling to "L" shaped
4 'x8' wood landing to 3.5'x3' wood stairs to a 5'x7 ' wood
landing to a 31x15' adjustable wood ramp to a 61x20'
floating dock with two (2) 8" diameter pilings securing
the float in an "L" configuration; existing electric
pedestal, electric recep and water line with faucet;
as-built 9'x9' hot tub on existing 19.5'x20' (390sq.ft. )
Deck; expand existing deck an additional 15 'x20'
(300sq. ft. ) For a combined 20'x34 .5' (690sq.ft. ) Deck;
remove existing bulkhead, landing, staircase and portion
of walkway; temporarily remove wood ramp and floating
dock; relocate existing 8.31x20.2 ' shed; remove seven (7)
trees; construct a new vinyl bulkhead in the same location
as the existing with an elevated height of 18" above
existing; total length of bulkhead 198.5 linear feet
inclusive of the proposed landward boat basin bulkhead to
create off canal boat dockage slip with a 15' north return
and 10' south return; if necessary a one-time incidental
dredging within a 10' wide area along new bulkhead to
reclaim lost fill during reconstruction; excavate ±350
cubic yards of soil to create the basin, of which ±100
cubic yards to be used to backfill along the landward side
of the new vinyl bulkhead to reestablish the slope; the
remainder of the excavated material (±250 cubic yards) to
be disposed of off-site; the proposed basin bulkhead to be
Board of Trustees 46 December 13, 2023
raised an additional ±30", about 14 .5' landward of the
seaward point of the northerly slip opening to adjust for
the grade change; construct a three (3) tread staircase
(1'x12 ' with (4) 8" risers) ; install a five (5) step float
step aluminum dock ladder; install an electric pedestal
and water line with faucet for boat basin; reconstruct the
portion of removed walkway, landing and staircase in-kind
and in same location as existing; relocate existing "L"
shaped floating dock a minimum of 8 ' to the south; remove
existing anchor pilings and install two (2) new 8"
diameter pressure treated anchor pilings; install 31x15'
(wood or aluminum) adjustable ramp in new location; plant
seven (7) 2"-3" caliper red cedars along south property
line; install a 15' wide stone paver area as a non-turf
buffer area north of the new basin; and to establish and
perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer area along
the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 205 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.45
The Trustees most recently visited this site on
December 6th, noting a one-to-one tree replacement; save
mature oaks where possible; remove shed, septic and hot
tub, question mark.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent. The as-built structures were constructed
without Board of Trustee review or permit. They also noted
the existing trees proposed to be removed, other than the
leaning one shown, should be to further Policy 6. Mature
trees provide many functions and benefits. Minimize turf
fertilization and irrigation on parcels adjacent to this
low-flushing waterbody.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this
application and resolved to support it, .with the
recommendation that the shed is setback 50 feet from the
bulkhead in accordance with Chapter 275, and a non-turf
vegetated buffer is added.
I'm also in receipt of a letter from a neighbor. I
will summarize some key points.
This is, the neighbor says our house is located at
the end of Gull Pond next to Mr. Pace's property. The
canal gates narrower when it comes to the end.
The letter says that the four homes share the last
part of the canal, and they need enough room to be able to
make a U-turn.
They say that the floating dock is too long and too
far out, blocking the middle of the canal, making it
harder for their boat .if get in and out, and especially to
make a U-turn.
They say that due to years of dredging and management
and maintenance, his pier has formed a large pit that is
15 feet wide 20 yards long, and at least 15 feet deep.
Board of Trustees 47 December 13, 2023
It goes to talk about years of garbage, Airbnb usage
of the property, and asking will supervise and manage the
safety of this property.
It also talks about not wanting Mr. Pace to build any
path or staircase around our border due our bad
experiences with him.
And is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding
this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant.
I'll try to address first of all- the things that we had
discussed onsite. You had requested that we preserve one
of the 28-inch oaks because you felt that it was far
enough away from the construction. And I have eliminated °
that. So rather than removing eight, we are removing
seven, but we are saving that 28, which is furthest away.
The first point.
And we also, I included the as-built hot tub on the
deck, and I included the deck within the description also.
And then he also wanted the, he asked me if I have a
chance to extend the deck, and I said we might as well put
it on now for a proposal. The deck would be no more
landward than the original one. It would be a sideward
expansion.
As far as the neighbor is concerned, that was the
reason we did the inset as far as we could, because we
recognized, or I recognized in the design, that he has his
boat fairly close to that one dock there, and we could not
really, with a regular 33-foot boat, it would not stick
out it any further than the end of the raised bulkhead.
That' s the reason we were coming back 36 feet.
The other thing that I think helps him is we are
moving the existing dock eight feet away. So if he has
not had an issue or problem with the way it was prior,
he's not going to have an issue or problem with the way it
is now. Because he can certainly, he was able to swing
into that bay where the original dock' s position was, and
now we are moving it further south by eight feet.
So I think that addresses that gentleman's concern.
The depth of the inlet basically is to make sure that the
boat doesn't stick out, which would further cause him an
issue.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you, Mr. Kimack. Is there anyone
else here wishing to speak regarding this application?
MS. HE: My name is Bing He. And also people, I have an
American name Athena. I am the one writing.
I'm the one, you know, living on the corner. The
corner over there. You see that. Andrew actually is my
neighbor. My right-hand. And the thing is you can see the
canal getting narrower. Then we have four home over there
share that canal. And Andrew has that float out. And you
Board of Trustees 48 December 13, 2023
see my boat cannot very hard to get into where, you know,
that corner, that spot. And especially make a U-turn is
almost impossible.
And then you can see the plan over there, you know,
he want outside the floating dock, also next to his
property, another dock. I don't know what he's doing.
It' s kind of how many boat you want to park in this little
area. You do have to save some room for the neighbor,
you know, and I think the safety issue.
So I would, you know, disapprove that. This plan is
really full of safety issue.
Another thing is we do have an issue with him
year-round, because we are living there, you know,
year-round. And he's using it as Airbnb for years. And
that' s why I don't want him build anything, because each
week we would expect him to see who is going to be the
candidate. Then we kind of, oh, this person -looks good.
Oh, that person, you know, have a drunk issue, has a fire
issue, a lot of issue. So for our property safety we
really don't want him to build anything next to the
border, because, you know, you don't know. You get so
cautious with that.
And also, our dock is kind of old wooden bulk, and
with this plan, this with heavily construction, I don't
know if my dock can take it. If anything collapse, or
something to need a professional to evaluate it, if
anything, because if you see this dock, it' s a big pit
over there. It's already wash out all the dirt. And then
it's in fact under my dock. So it' s all the safety issue.
So I want to, you know, brought it ,here to, you know, to
get, for you to get attention to concern about that and,
you know, I just want to make it safe, and also for
convenience for neighbors. It' s just not one person take
up the space and look at it like I take up all space. I'm
going to park in four, you know, three, you know, and just
I disapprove that. If somebody wish to share, be friendly
and share, and not just for somebody make a profit, and
plan to make more profit. And we suffer so much from
this. That' s all my. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Kimack, looking at the plans here,
seaward of the bulkhead, you are doing some reclamation
dredging.
MR. KIMACK: That is allowed by DEC, basically, based upon --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So would there be any consideration as
far as moving that floating dock closer to the bulkhead?
You have to dredge it anyway. '
MR. KIMACK: Well, the water gets a little shallower there.
Board of Trustees 49 December 13, 2023
I'll be out of the 2.5.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hold on.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So you are dredging it and you are also
dredging the proposed basin. So, I believe you are allowed
to go to four foot below mean low water. So that would
give you enough depth for a float even right up along the
bulkhead. You know, it would still give your client a
floating dock, and it would also address some of the
concerns of the neighbor.
MR. KIMACK: I see what you are saying. I see what you're
saying. We have to do reclamation, we can get down to 2.5
and bring it a little closer in.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Exactly.
MR. KIMACK: That's would not be objectionable. I
understand. That's rather creative on your part.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. It is Christmas.
MR. KIMACK: I think the distance right now looks to be
about ten to eleven feet, roughly, out there. I think,
what we could probably do at that point is to probably
readjust the floating dock so it' s parallel to that
section of the bulkhead.
The bulkhead is kind of, not quite a wide, but it
kind of veers out that way, and even if I did that,
primarily, if I even made the bulkhead even, the inside
even with that reclamation line, that would bring it in
about an extra five feet or so. If that would be
acceptable. That would certainly make a big impact.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think that would address some of the
neighbor' s concerns, too.
MR. KIMACK: I mean, I understand, and going into it, I
know it would be sensitive. It' s a tight spot to get into
and out of. They have been able to reconnoiter it where
the original dock is now. I'm sure that it probably is
not the best of circumstances, simply because it' s
swinging in. But by moving it over and re-angling it,
moving it over eight feet, we're going to create quite a
bit more space there. And that would work to your benefit.
And as far as the bulkhead itself, it does have a
return basically on it, essentially like that, but
generally that's fairly standard, in order to protect, in
there is any washout on both sides. And the concern would
be to make sure there is no damage to the adjoining
property. But that would be something we would be
responsible and liable for under the contract.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Mr. Kimack, we would also like to see
the sheds pulled back further.
MR. KIMACK: Yes. You want to bring it back about 50 feet.
It would probably be somewhat, I'm not quite sure if I can
do 50. It would be, I think --
MS. HE: Can I say something? You know, mostly, you know,
Board of Trustees 50 December 13, 2023
because the canal is narrow, the other neighbors, they, we
really have their dock next to their bulkhead, you know,
and then they have a stair go down, and keep it fit. You
know, fit. You know, he can use it and also fit. Because
when he has a floating dock out, not only that spot, he
going to park the boat on the other side. It take a big
part of that. And for anybody, somebody sometime the
tourist come, the boat come in, they would to make a
U-turn, it just impossible. And if it can be, it' s not we
don't want neighbor to improve their permanent. It' s
safety. If he can put it next to by his bulkhead there,
have a staircase going down, not too long, not in anybody
way, that would be possible. That's what my concern.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree with you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
MR. KIMACK: There was always a boat there, I mean,
basically where it was, the original one, there
has always been a boat there. If I remember up on the
property, I think a 25 or 28- footer, with probably an
eight-foot beam. That boat has always been there. So by
moving it back we have not really changed it. We are
relocating the dock, which is going to give more space.
But the boat has always been a factor as part of the
floating dock. But by moving it eight feet over and
turning it to angle with the back portion of the dock, we
would pick up considerably more space for them to come
out. If they were able to make it before, they would
certainly be able to make it with ease now.
And as far as moving the shed back, it's 36 feet. I
can probably, I'm not quite sure if I can get 50 out of
it. I don't want to exceed the deck on that one particular
side. Unfortunately I don't have the dimension.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Given that there are some revisions
needed for this plan, perhaps you could do your best
bringing the shed back as far as possible so that we
can --
MR. KIMACK: I'll pull it back as far as I can on that one,
primarily, and I 'll also indicate on there removal of the
septic. I apologize for not putting that on there.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Additionally with the plans, there is
like an arrow that says "north" that' s actually, it' s a
bit confusing, because it' s actually pointing toward the
south, so I think --
MR. KIMACK: No, no, that's north. That came off the
survey. Unless he did it the wrong way.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Because then when it says "relocate
existing floating dock eight foot southerly" and there is
an arrow pointing.
MR. KIMACK: Yes, because north, it's away from.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Oh, north up. I 'm sorry, it' s the way
Board of Trustees 51 December 13, 2023
that --
MR. KIMACK: It's the way that -- I always put my hand on
the bottom of the arrow. I apologize about that. But, yes,
southerly away.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It's the same upside down and right side
up. I got it.
MR. KIMACK: Believe me, I had to look at those, too, going
which way is this. Like the old Abbott and Costello who' s
on first, on this one.
All right, I'll relocate the shed, I'll relocate and
move the floating dock closer along the reclamation line,
and then turn it to match the angle, primarily.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Also, would you be able to talk about
the stairway and the stone pavers OE, as labeled on the
plans?
MR. KIMACK: Well, the stairway on that particular one, we
are raising, we are proposing to raise the bulkhead 18
inches, which is allowed under DEC. That's all they'll
allow you to raise it at the particular time. And you've
looked at the property, and it' s quite, it' s been carved
out behind that bulkhead, obviously, pretty much. The
proposal is to come back 18 inches, raise it up and then
come back to the point at the bottom of the stairs, or,
and then raise it 30 inches to be even with the ground
from there forward. So the stairs basically would be
starting at grade level, walking down to that lower area,
which would be just stone, which would be the continuation
of the non-turf buffer, which would be on the other side.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think in a situation like this, a
gradual slope rather than stairway, you know, given the
amount of construction that is happening here, I think I
would prefer, as one Trustee, to see a vegetated buffer in
that location rather than the stairs.
MR. KIMACK: Well, that's the access to the boat. That' s
why it's there.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: You can access the boat from three
sides, so I --
MR. KIMACK: Well, it was never intended because there is
an easement going on there. That' s why it's being accessed
on that one side. I'm going to prepare an easement. It has
nothing to do with you guys.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So will you be renting the slip?
MR. KIMACK: No. It's going to be an easement for the
adjacent property.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes. I would be more comfortable with
gravel than stone because that gives the idea of a
non-pervious --
MR. KIMACK: I can do gravel. I can do gravel. Okay, I can
do gravel. So that moving the shed, putting the gravel in
there and relocating the dock to be a little bit more
Board of Trustees 52 December 13, 2023
forgiving in terms of the other boats coming in.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there anyone else here wishing to
speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Questions or comments from the Board?
MS. HE: You know, for us, we don't really want a staircase
on the water with, you know, with Mr. Pace, and because
the staircase, you know, we don't feel comfortable how he
going to use it in the future for his house. That' s where
we have the trouble about it. If you can put it in the
middle or other side, that's fine. But I don't know how
many is it, like, how many staircase going to be. I think
it's supposed to be just enough for him to get on the
boat. Limit it, the number of the staircase, and just for
him to get on the boat. And, you know, I hate to say
that, a little bit stay away from our property, a little
further because the previous problem we have.
MR. KIMACK: The staircase there is to represent the grade
change. I mean, we are going from the regular ground level
which is landward of that staircase, dropping it down 30
inches to match the top of the raised 18 inches of the new
bulkhead. So the stairs only represent getting from the,
tying into the natural grade landward of that, going down
to the area which would be graveled.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think maybe we would prefer to see a
natural slope, you know, there is no staircase on the
other side, and you are also raising that bulkhead. So the
necessity for the staircase I'm not sure about.
MR. KIMACK: Well, .on the other side you can see we are
raising it at that particular point. But that' s a slope
going down to the non-turf buffer over there. It' s not a
problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I just interject. To be honest with
you, after reviewing this, probably the right way to do
this, and I certainly won't design the project for you,
but would be, you know, there' s 12-feet of easement there.
You don't need 12-feet of staircase. And probably the real
right way to do it would be to vegetate the border a
little bit.
MR. KIMACK: We don't have 12-foot of staircase, Nick. I'm
not quite sure what you are looking at. We've only got an
area 12-foot wide and about three feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It' s 12-feet wide of staircase. We don't
need that. I would pull it off the border. I think that' s
kind of like the right way to do things.
MR. KIMACK: Okay, I can I pull it out to make it four-foot
wide. If that would be helpful. And what I'll basically do
is I'll angle that bulkhead in, to close it in to the
four-foot, and just have the staircase on the four-foot
point. If that would be more acceptable.
Board of Trustees 53 December 13, 2023
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Sounds like a big step forward.
Are there are any other questions or comments?
MS. HE: One more question. If something happen during
construction, I mention if our deck is wooden, you know,
if anything we can prevent that happen, or if something
happen I can, what is the next step? I just worry, you
know, because it kind of weak. It take up a lot of the
dirt'from our end already, from his side. So if anything
we should be aware about for the insurance part or
something to be secure our property, you know, dealing
with construction, no damage or no collapse. Worse thing I
think is collapse more my side over there, my property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I will say, if you have a bulkhead, which
you do have a bulkhead, your neighbor fixing their
bulkhead should only help that problem. So we see quite a
few of these and, you know, for the most part it should
actually -- you won't be getting that lateral erosion
anymore with that new bulkhead there.
MS. HE: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And with this project there is, I
believe it' s a 15-foot return. So on their side of the
property, the bulkhead goes into their property 15 feet.
So that would protect you if there was damage on their
side, and also protect them in there was damage on your
side.
MS. HE: I. appreciate that.
MR. KIMACK: There isn't a weakening of the line as of yet.
But it's simply the dirt has pretty much been removed and
vacated on his property, but the boards are old against
that property line. So putting the bulkhead there would
certainly strengthen that one area for you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And if there are Airbnb concerns about
overuse of the property and not complying with the local
code, I suggest you start calling code enforcement
starting in the new year.
Because we need people to help report to the Town ,
about what is going on. Thank you.
MS. HE: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Any other questions or comments?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this application
for new plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. KIMACK: Thank you, everybody, for your consideration.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion for adjournment.
Board of Trustees 54 December 13, 2023
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
(The time noted is 7 : 40 p.m. )
Res ctfully submitted by,
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees
J