HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-01/17/2024 Glenn Goldsmith,President �QF SU!/rTown Hall Annex
A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice President 54375 Route 25
P.O.Box.1179
Eric Sepenoski l Southold,New York 11971
Liz Gillooly ua �r Telephone(631) 765-1892
Elizabeth PeeplesG O@
.c` � Fax(631) 765-6641
olyCOU ,�
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes `
Wednesday, January 17, 2024 s®4l/� -7b
5:30 PM 0�Q:X VST
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: All right, good evening, and welcome to
our Wednesday January 17th, 2024, 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, we
have Trustee Sepenoski, Trustee Gillooly and Trustee
Peeples. To my right we have the attorney to the Trustees
Lori Hulse, we have Administrative Assistant Elizabeth
Cantrell. And we have with us tonight as well Court
Stenographer Wayne Galante, and from the Conservation
Advisory Council we have Carol Brown.
Agendas for tonight' s meeting are posted on the
Town' s website and are located out in the hallway.
We do have a number of postponements tonight.
The postponements in the agenda, on page four, 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
Board of Trustees 2 January 17, 2024
areas) , a proposed raised 4' wide by 80' long catwalk with
4 ' wide staircase to ground at landward end leading to a
41x46' catwalk to a 31x12' aluminum ramp to an 18.7'x6'
floating dock with a 2 'x4'bump-out for ramp situated in an
"L" configuration and secured by two sets of two (2)
dauphin pilings at each end; catwalk to have Thru-Flow
decking throughout with pressure treated pilings set at 8'
on-center; total length of catwalk is 126 linear feet.
Located: 610 Jacksons Landing, Mattituck, SCTM# 1000-113-4-8 .
On page 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
On page five under Wetland & Coastal Erosion
Permits, 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 3.51x12 ' ramp
and existing 81x20' floating dock; the 6.51x53' fixed dock
and 11'x11' fixed portion in the "L" configuration to
remain; remove existing ramp, float and two piles and
install a new 41x20' ramp with rails and an 8 'x18 '
floating dock situated in an "I" configuration secured by
four piles; and to install four tie-off piles.
Located: 371 Hedge Street, Fishers Island SCTM# 1000-10-7-18.
On page nine, we have numbers 11, 12 and 13,
listed as follows: Number 11, PABLO LEON requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a proposed 4'x±62 ' set of
timber bluff stairs in the same location as remains of
existing bluff stairs (to be removed) , with minimal impact
to the vegetation and environment consisting of 4 'x±4 '
landward steps to a 41x8 ' top landing to 4'x±23' stairs to
Board of Trustees 3 January 17, 2024
a 41x4' middle landing to 41x±22' stairs to a 51x6' lower
landing with 4 'x±12' stairs to beach; all wood to be
lumber CCA, U.O.N. with galvanized hardware.
Located: 1400 Salt Marsh Lane, Peconic SCTM# 1000-68-3-2
Number 12, 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 non-turf buffer area
throughout the seaward side/rear yard.
Located: 4155 Bay Shore Road, Greenport SCTM# 1000-53-6-21
And Number 13, En-Consultants on behalf of KP
REALTY OF GREENPORT CORP. Requests a Wetland Permit for
removing 1, 108sq.ft. Of existing grade-level masonry patio
and 179sq.ft. Area of landscape retaining walls; construct
872sq.ft. Of "upper" grade-level masonry patio, 181x46'
swimming pool with 60sq.ft. Hot tub, 428sq.ft. Of "lower"
grade-level masonry patio, 181x31' roofed-over open-air
accessory structure with a ±6' x ±31' enclosed storage
shed that has closets, an outdoor fireplace, and a
basement for storage and pool equipment, an outdoor
kitchen, and associated steps and planters; install a pool
drywell and 4 ' high pool enclosure fencing with gates;
remove 34 linear feet of existing stone retaining wall and
construct 24 linear feet of new 2.7' high stone retaining
wall; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 50 foot
wide non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer adjacent to
the wetlands boundary, replacing approximately 3, 850sq. ft.
Of existing lawn with native plantings and maintaining a
cleared 4 ' wide pathway to existing dock.
Located: 2006 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-3-12. 11
And on page ten numbers 14 through 16 are all
postponed. They are listed as follows:
Number 14, AS PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Board of Trustees 4 January 17, 2024
AND PLANS RECEIVED 11/9/2023 Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
225 WILLIAMSBURG DRIVE, LLC, c/o WILLIAM TOTH requests a
Wetland Permit to remove and replace 101 linear feet of
deteriorated timber bulkhead in-place with new vinyl
bulkhead including one 16' vinyl returns on north side of
existing 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
Number 15, Baptiste Engineering on behalf of
ALLISON CM FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to
remove existing wood planters and part of the existing
stairs and construct a 64 ' landscape wall along the east,
a 60' landscape wall along the south and a 5' landscape
wall along the western portions of the property of the
existing embankment; the proposed material for the
landscape wall is formed concrete with a dye stamp; and
the lowest elevation of the bottom of the wall (BW) is
5.5' with the highest elevation of the top of the wall
(TW) is 12.51 .
Located: 820 East Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-110-7-22
Number 16, 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
Board of Trustees 5 January 17, 2024
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
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 Wednesday, February 7th, 2024,
at 8:OOAM.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
II. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next
Trustee meeting Wednesday, February 14th, 2024, at 5:302M
at the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
III. WORK SESSIONS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next
work sessions Monday, February 12th, 2024, at S:OOPM at
the Town Hall Annex 2nd Floor Executive Board Room, and on
Wednesday, February 14th, 2024, at S: OOPM in the Town Hall
Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) :
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the
Minutes of December 13th, 2023 Trustee meeting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 6 January 17, 2024
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The Trustees monthly report for
December, 2023, a check for $33, 940. 13 was forwarded to
the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
VI. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Public Notices are posted on the Town
Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
VII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 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, January 17, 2024 are
classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and
Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA, as written:
Peconic River, LLC SCTM# 1000-81-1-18. 1
Daniel T. & Justine T. Sweeney SCTM# 1000-70-5-31.2
Joseph & Barbara Isabella SCTM# 1000-107-7-6
Charles & Lynn Hill SCTM# 1000-80-3-20
Ursula Vavas SCTM# 1000-53-6-6
William MacGregor SCTM# 1000-104-9-2
HC Nofo, LLC SCTM# 1000-104-5-3.3
Walter Gless SCTM# 1000-87-5-7
Albert J. Breneisen & Helen E. Breneisen, SCTM#
1000-35-5-16
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
VIII. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Resolutions - Administrative
Permits. In order to simplify our meetings the Board of r
Trustees regularly groups together actions that are minor
or similar in nature. Accordingly, I'll make a motion to
approve as a group items 2 through 4, listed as follows:
Number 2, Patricia C. Moore on behalf of FREDRIC.
FABIANO & HILDA HUTCHERSON requests an Administrative
Permit to replace existing 5'x4 ' front stoop on existing
house with steps to grade, footings with 10" sonotubes 36"
below grade.
Board of Trustees 7 January 17, 2024
Located: 2386 Hyatt Road, Southold. SCTM # 1000-54-1-4
Number 3, Michael A. Kimack on behalf of SILVER
SANDS HOLDINGS I, LLC requests an Administrative Permit
for the existing ninety (90) feet of 6' high wood
stockade fence along westerly side of proposed pool
enclosure to remain, 28' of which is within Trustee
jurisdiction; remove the existing 6' high wood stockade
fence, posts and gate on south, east and north sides
(westerly side of fence to remain) ; install a 4 ' high
1"xl""welded wire metal pool fence with 4"x4" wood posts @
8 ' oc (243.51f) in approximately same location; install
two (2) 4 ' high x 2.5' wide (5 total) outswing wooden pool
gates with (2) 4"x4" wooden posts with a 2.5'x4 ' wood
panel on each side (10' total for each gate with panels) .
Total 4 ' welded wire pool fence, wood panels, wood doors
263.5 linear feet.
Located: 1135 Shore Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-47-2-15
Number 4, Stephen Kiely on behalf of MATTITUCK
PARK DISTRICT requests an Administrative Permit for the
removal of a 201x28' 1 ',� story frame building with covered
porch, and replace with a 321x29' pergola.
Located: 11280 Great Peconic Bay Blvd. , Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-126-6-18
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, Michael A. Kimack on behalf
of BLUE MOON PARTNERS, LLC requests an Administrative
Permit for the as-built 10. 67'x11.5 ' (122.7sq.ft. ) Second
floor open deck with three (3) ft. Composite railing and
5/4" composite decking, carried by 2," x 8" double-joisted
@ 16" OC joists with (4) 2"x10" girders, supported by two
(2) 6"x6" posts (wrapped) on 12"x12" piers on 2'x2 '
footings at. three (3) foot depth from grade.
Located: 360 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.33
Trustee Sepenoski conducted a field inspection
January 7th, noting straightforward.
The LWRP found the project to be inconsistent. ,
The inconsistency is the structure was constructed without
a wetlands permit.
I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted and thereby granting it a permit will bring
it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IX. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Again, in order to simplify our
Board of Trustees 8 January 17, 2024
meeting, I'll make a motion to approve as group Items 1
through 3. They are listed as follows:
Number 1, David Bergen on behalf of KEAN &
BRIDGET DRISCOLL requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#5094 from Pat Scollard to Kean & Bridget Driscoll, as
issued on December 17, 1999.
Located: 905 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-10-3
Number 2, STEVE PLITAS requests a Transfer of
Wetland Permit #8316 from Hugh Murphy to Steve Plitas, as
issued on October 16, 2013.
Located: 3105 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-6-8
And Number 3, STEVE PLITAS requests a Transfer
of Wetland Permit #4577 from Hugh J. Murphy to Steve
Plitas, as issued on March 28, 1996.
Located: 3105 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-6-8
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
X. WATERFOWL/DUCK BLINDS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve Number 1,
MICHAEL VIGGIANO requests a Waterfowl/Duck Blind Permit to
place a Waterfowl/Duck Blind in Broadwater Cove using
public access.
Located: Broadwater Cove, Cutchogue.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to go
off our regular meeting agenda and enter into Public
Hearings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a public hearing in the matter
of the following applications for permits under the
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: Under Amendments, Number 1,
Board of Trustees 9 January 17, 2024
En-Consultants on behalf of PECONIC RIVER, LLC requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit #9930 to authorize a revised
site design that results in a reduction in the combined
structural footprint of the proposed dwelling, deck and
pool, specifically to demolish existing two-story, 2,300
sf, FEMA-noncompliant, single-family dwelling with 460 sf
attached deck and 761 sf detached garage, and construct
new 1 and 2-story, 2, 576 sf, FEMA-compliant, single-family
dwelling with a 2.3' x 29. 1' easterly roof overhang, 6. 1'
x 17' 4 and 15.5' x 20' covered porches and steps, 4. 9' x
10. 6' and 5' x 12. 8' areaways, 17' x 40' swimming pool
(equipped with saltwater filtration system) , 1,293 sf
attached deck with steps and, on top of deck, 5. 8 ' x 6.5 '
enclosed seasonal bathroom, 4' x 5.5' outdoor shower, and
6.5' x 10.8 ' trellis over outdoor bbq; remove existing
nonconforming septic system located +42' from bulkhead,
and install new I/A OWTS sanitary system more than 100
feet from bulkhead; install a drainage system of drywells
to collect and recharge roof runoff and pool backwash;
install new pervious gravel driveway and parking areas;
install 4 ' high pool enclosure fencing, pool
equipment/heat pumps, generator, and 500 gal underground
propane tank; remove specified trees located no closer
than +69 feet from bulkhead; and establish 27 ' to 39'
wide, approximately 5, 959 sf vegetated buffer area
adjacent to bulkhead, consisting of approximately 4, 259 sf
embankment and approximately 1, 700 sf area up to 10 feet
landward of top of bank and retaining wall.
Located: 450 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-1-18.1
The LWRP coordinator found this to be both
consistent and inconsistent. The inconsistency lies in
structure in VE FEMA flood zone should be relocated
outside the zone or minimized.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to
support the application and asked that, or suggested that
a 10 to 15-foot non-turf buffer be planted with native,
vegetation.
The Trustees most recently reviewed this file on
the 9th of January, and noted that they would discuss
further at work session.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Good evening. Rob Herrmann from
En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicant.
The Board is probably getting used to looking at
this site at this point. This is a permit that was issued
a couple of years ago for a substantially larger work
scope that has already been once amended to reduce the
size of the overall structural footprint. I 'm not sure if
-- that LWRP review may be based on a prior plan because
Board of Trustees 10 January 17, 2024
there was a point in time when the deck on the east side
of the property was shown to be north or proud of the FEMA
boundary. The plan you should have in front of you now in
connection with this permit, all the structure is in fact
proposed in Zone X, landward of that flood zone boundary,
so that would be consistent with the LWRP coordinator' s
comments.
Overall, the structural footprint has been again
reduced relative to the most recent amendment. You can see
the entire project is now more compact. It' s actually
located farther from both side property lines, and whereas
the previously approved house footprint was located about
87 feet from the nearest part of the bulkhead, the entire
house footprint is now actually, more than 100 feet from
wetlands, and the deck is now also on the east corner, set
farther back. '
The setbacks from both corners are the same or
greater. The tree removal scheme is the same. There is
still an IA sanitary system and storm water drainage
system proposed, and the proposed buffer is the same as
was associated with the prior permits. There is a 27 to 39
foot wide almost 6,000 square foot buffer that includes
the naturally vegetated embankment which as I know, I
spoke to Elizabeth, is sort of in the process of being
worked on because the bulkhead was recently replaced. The
retaining wall that was permitted to be reconstructed has
opinion been removed but not yet replaced, and that buffer
also includes a ten-foot buffer that is landward of the
top of that bank and retaining wall that is going to be
restored.
So in terms of all the project mitigation, the
buffer, all of that is the same. It's really again just a
bit more of compaction and overall downsize of the
project. The overall town lot coverage gets reduced from
15.7% to 150 .
We did, as you requested, get it- staked out, and
hopefully you had a chance to see that, and we were able
to get notices actually in the hands of all of the
neighbors. And we, I just submitted to Liz the proof of
those deliveries.
So if you have any questions, I'm happy to
answer them. I'm hoping this is the last time you are
going to see this. But at least it's gotten better each
time, I guess.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here
that wishes to speak regarding this application, or any
additional comments from the Members of the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
Board of Trustees 11 January 17, 2024
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this
application as submitted, noting that the original deck is
no longer seaward of the flood zone, thereby bringing it
into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Under Wetland Permits, Number 1, AS PER
PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 1/10/24 En-Consultants on
behalf of DANIEL T. & JUSTINE T. SWEENEY requests a
Wetland Permit to construct an "L" shaped fixed timber
dock (with water and electricity, rope handrails and a
gate located at or landward of existing fence) , consisting
of a 4'x89' fixed timber catwalk constructed with
open-grate decking, and a 41x16' terminal platform (with
ladders) .
Located: 647 Pine Neck Road, Southold SCTM# 1000-70-5-31.2
The Trustees recently conducted a field
inspection on 1/9/24. Notes read: Review permit history
with fence, recommend buffer seaward of fence. On 1/7
, Trustee Sepenoski wrote consider buffer in fence area.
The LWRP found the project to be inconsistent
with its policies, for several reasons. Under 6.3 protect
and restore tidal and fresh water wetlands; concern about
habitat fragmentation and loss of coastal fish and
wildlife species; a concern about water quality and
turbidity; and the cumulative effects of residential and
commercial docks changing the nearby environment.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to
support this application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on
behalf of the applicants. The applicants Justine and Dan
Sweeney are also here with us in the audience.
I just handed up to Elizabeth, you'll notice
during field inspections Trustee Peeples -- and thank you,
by the way, if I didn't say this previously -- had
suggested if the applicants had wanted a gate on the
catwalk, which they did, they also thought about the
addition of rope rails, similar to the Trustees permitted
dock on the adjacent property to the east, and so we did
last week submit a revised plan showing the gate on the
catwalk, showing the rope rails, and that is the
description, the modified description that goes along with
those plans is the one that it posted on your agenda. And
I just handed up to Elizabeth hardcopies of those plans.
Board of Trustees 12 January 17, 2024
So you should have those now.
With respect to the LWRP comments and the
application in general, as we set forth in our wetlands
application and also in the LWRP consistency application,
the dock does comply in all ways with the Trustees'
standards for dock permit issuance under Chapter 275.
The dock is elevated above the grade of marsh,
the entire structure would be built with open-grate
decking. It meets the required setback from the lateral
extension of the property line. It �meets the pier line
that is in effect, essentially by mirroring the
similarly-proposed dock that is immediately to the east,
and has, was also permitted by this Board.
Because the Board typically considers water
depth less than 30 inches at mean low water to be
insufficient for a float, we went with the fixed design to
comply with your policies, and again to be consistent with
the permit on the adjacent property to the east.
We did receive a New York state DEC permit. for
this configuration, so in this case we don't have any
concern about the state not going along with the Board's
preference for the fixed "L" design. And that is really
it.
If you have a specific question, I can try and
answer it, but hopefully I've covered it.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: You covered all my concerns regarding
the dock. Would you be able to speak to`the vegetated
buffer proposed seaward of the fence?
MR. HERRMANN: Right. So, let me try respond to that both
generally and in specific terms. You know, as you know,
the vast majority of the applications I bring to this
Board have some sort of buffer as mitigation for the scope
of work that is proposed. In connection with the bulkhead
replacement you preclude having chemically-treated lawns
running right up to the edge of the bulkhead. If you have
residential expansion, accessory structures, et cetera,
within the 100-foot wetlands setback, buffers provide
sinks for nutrients runoff, et cetera.
This has come up one or two times in the past,
and what I would suggest again here is there should be
some nexus between that type of mitigation and the
proposed scope of work. And really this Board
historically has not required or requested buffers in
conjunction with the dock construction. I would argue the
mitigation for dock project is built into the design,
right, it can only be so wide, it has to be elevated above
the marsh, it has to be open-grate decking, et cetera.
In this particular case, I do know, and again,
the owners are here, so they can correct me if I'm
speaking out of turn, but they have talked about coming
Board of Trustees 13 January 17, 2024
back to be a third-time customer before the Trustees -for a
patio proposal on the waterside of the house, and so I
would suggest, consistent with what I was just saying,
that any recommendation or imposition of a covenanted
buffer be held off on until it can be associated with that
work, because I think that is a more appropriate time to
ask for a buffer than in connection with the dock
structure. That would be my position on it.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Sounds reasonable to me. Other Trustees
are welcome to weigh in if you would like.
(No response) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay, that answers all my questions.
Anyone else wish to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response) .
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the
application as submitted with plans received January 17th,
2024. The descriptions that the expediter has laid out for
the dock construction addressed the concerns of the LWRP,
providing thru-flow deck, open-grate decking, a fixed-
pier design, does not affect the -navigability due to its
curvature of the coastline and situation of the dock
location, and there is a history of docks in the area
consistent with this design.
I make a motion to approve this application,
thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 2, En-Consultants on behalf of
JOSEPH & BARBARA ISABELLA requests a Wetland Permit to
remove and replace in-place approximately 82 linear feet
of existing timber bulkhead and ±15' southerly return;
backfill with approximately 15 cubic yards of clean sand
to be trucked in from an approved upland source; remove
one' oak tree and one black cherry tree located behind
bulkhead and plant one oak tree farther landward; and to
perpetually maintain the existing 10' wide non-turf buffer
with 3' wide path to dock that is adjacent to and along
the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 1855 Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-7-6
The Trustees most recently visited this property
on the 9th of January, noting two-for-one tree replacement
with native species.
Board of Trustees 14 January 17, 2024
The LWRP coordinator reviewed the project and
found it to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council supports
the application with a 15-foot non-turf buffer planted
with native vegetation and trees; replace with new trees
in the same diameter and species, two-for-one, for every
tree removed as outlined in the comprehensive plan.
I'm also in receipt of a letter from a neighbor
in support of the project.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding
this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on
behalf of the applicant.
This is a pretty straightforward bulkhead
replacement. On a continued topic of buffers, there was a
previously-required ten-foot wide non-turf buffer adjacent
to the bulkhead, which the owners have dutifully
maintained over the years. The plan incorporates a
proposal to continue to maintain that non-turf buffer. A
ten-foot non-turf buffer would be consistent with the
permit that was issued by this Board earlier this year for
four properties to the south be consistent with a previous
permit issued to the adjacent owner to the north.
As far as the tree replacement, yes, I mean, I
did talk to them about the tree replacement. We had the
tree replacement in the plan, we did not account for
two-for-one because typically the Board has asked for
one-for-one. If you are looking for two-for-one, I don't
think there would be any great objection to that or
argument. They are not going to be able to match diameter.
The oak, I mean, kind of tree replacement occurs in
Sagaponack, I'm not sure maybe here, but they would
certainly be happy to plant the native trees, and as I
said, that was already included in our plans, so it would
just be an adjustment in the ratio, which again I think is
fine.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
MS. BROWN: Carol Brown, from the Conservation Advisory
Council I just want to reiterate two of those items that
were mentioned: Buffers. We find buffers extraordinarily
important, and we don't want to see gravel buffers,
because typically with gravel buffers, at some point you
are going to be putting down pesticides or herbicides in
there, so we find that to be antithetical to the idea of a
buffer, which is supposed to keep, stabilize the top of a
bluff or bulkhead, et cetera.
So we are just going to be saying that on every
single one of our applications because we think they are
very, very important.
Board of Trustees 15 January 17, 2024
Additionally, we are now in 2024 and I applaud
the attempt for us to start moving forward with some of
the things that were addressed in the comprehensive plan.
The two-for-one on the trees is do-good for everybody, so
we want to support that as well.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Is there anyone else here
wishing to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Are there any questions or comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this
application, noting a two-for-one tree replacement, so one
additional tree, and plans depicting that.
MR. HERRMANN: Two trees?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: You had already accounted for one
additional tree in the project description, so it would be
one additional tree to that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is a cherry, too. Sorry.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Oh, okay. May I restate my motion.
I make a motion to approve this application with
a two-to-one tree replacement and plans reflecting that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 3, David Bergen on behalf of
URSULA VAVAS requests a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace in-place existing wood groin, bulkhead with
return, and beach stairs off bulkhead; groin replacement
beginning at Mean Low Water and extending landward to
proposed terminal end approximately 50' in length;
elevation of new groin to be no more than 18" above grade
on downdrift (north) side; groin to include 6' vinyl C-Loc
sheathing with 10" piles, 10' in length, with 10" batter
piles on downdrift (north) side of groin, 6"x6" stringers
and aluminum grate cap; terminal seaward end to include
four (4) 10" diameter pilings; replace bulkhead with 17 '
south return in-place at existing height using 10"
diameter piles 6" on-center, three 6"x6" timber whalers,
one inch diameter tie-rods leading to horizontal lay-logs
with vertical deadmen, and a fiberglass cap; existing
stairs to beach to be removed during construction and
replaced in same location post construction; and to
Board of Trustees 16 January 17, 2024
establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf
buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 3085 Bay Shore Road, Greenport SCTM# 1000-53-6-6
The Trustees most recently visited the site on
January 9th of 2024, and noted this application is
straightforward.
The LWRP finds this application to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council supports
the application with a non-turf unfertilized buffer, and
retractable stairs parallel to the shoreline beach stairs.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak in regard
to this application?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, on behalf of Ursula Vavas. As you
noted in your field notes, it' s a straightforward
application for bulkhead replacement as well as the groin.
And it' s noted that we are dropping the height of the
groin down significantly from what it presently is at.
So I 'm here to answer any questions that you
might have.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Great. Thank you. So you mentioned that
the height as being reduced. Is the length of the groin
being reduced as well?
MR. BERGEN: The length of the groin as reflected is 50
feet, which is what it' s currently at, which is at the
low-tide mark. So it' s already right at the low-tide
mark. If it needs to be adjusted by a foot or so at time
of construction because of the tide changing, we certainly
can do that. But right now that is where it was measured
at and I staked it that way, painted the piling that way.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes, thank you. And then do you have
DEC?
MR. BERGEN: We have a letter from the DEC, which I'll be
glad to provide you with a copy of, December 20th, no
objection pending modification. The DEC has no objections
of replacement of the bulkhead stairs and groin. 'They
asked for revised set of plans, and we did so. Tle revised
set of plans were because they wanted the distances from
the existing residence to the existing bulkhead and groin
put on not just the site plan but on the overhead plan of
the plans. So we did that.
In other words call it a scrivener' s request
from them. And that there be no excavation seaward of the
bulkhead. Which I'm not sure why they thought there would
be that, but we said no, there would be no excavation
seaward of the bulkhead.
So here is a copy of the letter. (Handing) . So
in essence they have approved it. It' s just pending those
two items, which of course we responded to within days,
and we have not heard back from them.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you. And thank you for
Board of Trustees 17 January 17, 2024
providing this letter for our file.
MR. BERGEN: That was a letter I've never received before.
Interesting.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: With the title "no objection, pending
modification. " Okay, thank you.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. BROWN: Carol Brown, CAC. When I made the field trip,
it was high tide and the stairs are underwater. Just like
many of our other, many of the other applications that
come in, our recommendation is that the stairs be parallel
to the bulkhead, and retractable, so that it doesn't
impact, it' s not impacting the water, and it' s also I
allowing for public to pass by. Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you. Is there anyone else who
wishes to speak? Any other questions or comments from the
Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 4', CHARLES & LYNN HILL
request a Wetland Permit to remove and replace existing
approximately 60 linear foot long bulkhead in-place using
vinyl sheathing with a proposed 12' long return using
lay-logs and deadmen; remove existing 15' wide by 60' long
gravel buffer area, existing 8"x12"x3" pavers bordering
the turf and gravel, and excavate approximately 30 cubic
yards of fill for bulkhead replacement with all to be
stockpiled away from the worksite; existing bulkhead,
floating dock and gangplank to be disposed of off-site;
reconstruct new vinyl bulkhead in same height as existing
with a 12 ' long east return and connect to west neighbor;
stored fill to be used as backfill and leveled off;
install pervious weed tarp and place stockpiled gravel as
the 15'x60' non-turf buffer area along the landward edge
of the bulkhead which is to be perpetually maintained; and
to install a new ±30"x±16' long adjustable aluminum ramp
off bulkhead to a 6'x20' floating dock in same location as
existing (float supported by plastic tubs with no CCA wood
touching the water) .
Located: 655 Lake Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-80-3-20
Board of Trustees 18 January 17, 2024
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on
January 9th, 2024. Notes suggest increasing non-turf
buffer due to visible high-tide rack line.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the
application with a ten-foot non-turf buffer planted with
native vegetation, in addition to the gravel.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding
this application?
MS. HILL: We are here. He just went to the men's room.
Sorry. I don't know if I can answer any questions.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, ma'am.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you just approach and state your
name please.
MS. HILL: Lynn Hill, 655 Lake Avenue, Southold.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So our one question concerns the return
on the eastern side of the property. Is that going back
in-place/in-kind?
MS. HILL: Return on the eastern side of the property.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because there was some marsh and
phragmites and everything just outside of that return. So
it' s a little unclear on the plans if that return is going
to be --
MS. HILL: Oh, that corner.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes.
MS. HILL: He' s going to have to answer that. I'm sure it's
going to be put back the way it is. I don't think we were
adding anything or doing anything different.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, yes. That was our concern, just
with that existing vegetation. So it was just a little
unclear to us.
MS. HILL: Yes, it' s going to be exactly what is there now,
just newer.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
(Mr. Hill enters the meeting hall)' .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Mr. Hill?
MS. HILL: He's hard of hearing so.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: How are you. Question regarding the
return on the eastern side of the property. Is that just
going back exactly where it is?
MR. HILL: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. So, because there is vegetation
right outside of it, but that' s not going to be touched?
That's going to be maintained --
MR. HILL: I think we are going to have to dig that out
because it' s, it will interfere with the construction of
that, that deadman. But we can leave it if you want us
to. But it' s just weeds. That' s all it is.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Normally, we leave that. It's a
protected species. As part, I don't know if you went to
Board of Trustees 19 January 17, 2024
the DEC yet or not, but. the DEC always requires that any
existing vegetation to be left alone on the seaward side
of the bulkhead or return.
MR. HILL: I have no problem with that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All right. Okay.
TRUSTEE RRUPSKI: Just to clarify that, that corner is,
there is some Baccharus there and I believe a- little bit
of the Spartina. Those are protected species, so they
can't be removed. So.
MR. HILL: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So you have a return as is. So as long
as the bulkhead and everything and the return is where
it' s at, everything should be okay.
MR. HILL: Okay. Perfect. So you saw that wall that was
there, right? That small little wall, that' s exactly where
the return will be.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
MR. HILL: All right. So we'll leave those bushes right
there. We'll just leave them.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, does anybody else have any,
anybody else want to comment regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this
application as submitted, with the condition that the
returns are replaced in-place/in-kind, and in the exact
same location.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. HILL: That's it?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Have a good night.
MR. HILL: Thank you. Appreciate it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 5, Michael Kimack o'n behalf of
WILLIAM MACGREGOR requests a Wetland Permit to remove
existing wood dock, ramp, floating dock and pilings;
construct a proposed 41x70' raised fixed catwalk with
Thru-Flow decking throughout and secured with ten (10)
rows of 8" diameter pressure treated pilings at 8 '
on-center set 3' above finished deck; install a 41x 5'
pressure treated wood staircase off of landward end of
catwalk; install a 31x14' 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"
Board of Trustees 20 January 17, 2024
diameter pressure treated anchor pilings; abandon
approximately 30' of existing pathway and create
approximately 4 'x30' of new pathway to connect to new dock
location.
Located: 1120 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-104-9-2
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The
shift in the dock structure from its current footprint
will impact vegetated high-quality intertidal marsh. It
is recommended that CCA-treated materials be minimized in
the dock structure.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to
support this application. The Conservation Advisory
Council supports the application and recommends the dock
is constructed in a "T" configuration and doesn't extend
and further seaward than the existing structure, and the
existing pathway is way re-vegetated.
The Trustees visited the site on the 9th of
January and noted that the existing 30-foot section of
pathway should be re-vegetated as well.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant, and
the owner is here as well also.
We were before the Board about three or four
months ago, primarily, and one of the concerns I think was
the depth, one of the depth readings, primarily, next to
it showed 2.29, and you wanted us to revisit the
soundings, primarily. And the only way I could do that was
to get the surveyor out there again, which we did. And we
reshot all of the soundings again. And the 2 .29 turned
out to be 2.51. And then the others under the proposed
location of the dock got a little bit deeper, from 2.51
and 2. 6 up to 2.7. It was just the nature of the GPS, the
way we do it. But I think I just didn't want to go out
there and try to put a stick in the ground. It would not
have made any sense to anybody, so we shot the whole thing
over again, basically. And I believe that was one of your
primary concerns last time.
The only place, that' s the only place we can
actually get a floating dock there, with the depth of
water. And as you well know, DEC has taken the position
that if we don't have two-and-a-half feet of water we can
not have a motorized vehicle. Motorized boat. Simple as
that. We ran into, I ran into that, if it' s two foot, 2.2
foot, they would recommend it to be fixed dock. So it
shows that we have sufficient depth for a floating dock,
it' s next to the existing floating dock. So I think about
six feet over, essentially like that.
And the old pathway, the old pathway going to
the other dock, it can be re-vegetated. We just have to
Board of Trustees 21 January 17, 2024
cut the new one going over the walkway. I think you saw
that when you went to --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. KIMACK: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to
speak regarding this application, or any comments from the
Members of the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this
application with the stipulation that the re-vegetation of
the existing portion of pathway to be removed takes place
after construction, minimization of CCA-treated materials
in construction. That paired with the through-flow
decking brings there application into consistency with the
LWRF coordinator.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. KIMACK: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 6, AS PER REVISED PLANS AND
PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECEIVED ON 12/15/23 Michael Kimack on
behalf of ANDREW PACE requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 4 'x55 ' wood walkway from dwelling to "L" shaped
4 'x8' wood landing to 3.51x3' 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 at "L" configuration; existing electric
pedestal, electric recep and water line with faucet;
as-built 9'x7.5' hot tub on existing 19.7 'x17 . 6'
(346.72sq.ft. ) Deck; expand existing deck an additional
8.7'x19.7 ' (171.39sq.ft. ) For a combined 518 . 11sq. 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
Board of Trustees 22 January 17, 2024
yards) to be disposed of off-site; the proposed basin
bulkhead to be 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
3-tread (4'x3' with (4) 8" risers) staircase; construct 8
linear feet of retaining wall adjacent to staircase;
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 and parallel to
the bulkhead at 10' distance; remove existing anchor
pilings and install two (2) new 8" diameter pressure
treated anchor pilings; install 3'x15 ' (wood or aluminum)
adjustable ramp in new location; plant seven (7) 2"-3"
caliper red cedars along south property line; establish
and perpetually maintain a 10' wide vegetated non-turf
buffer area along the landward edge of the bulkhead from
southern property line to bulkhead basin, and a gravel
non-turf buffer area within the area seaward of stairs
with retaining wall on northern side of basin.
Located: 205 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.45
The Trustees have reviewed the application and
revised the project description at our January 9th
meeting. After conducting an in-house review, the Trustees
found the updated description sufficient.
The LWRP in December, found the project to be
inconsistent with its policy, namely 6.3, concerned with
the as-built structures that were constructed without
Board of Trustee review or permit, and called out to the
trees to be removed and wished for a minimization of turf,
fertilization and irrigation on parcels adjacent to this
low-flushing water body.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to
support the application. The Conservation Advisory
Council specifically recommends the shed is setback 50
feet from the bulkhead in accordance with 275, and asked
for a non-turf vegetated buffer.
In reviewing the plans in detail, there is a
portion of the area adjacent to the bulkhead that is going
to be covered with jute mat and planted with American
beach grass. The shed will be relocated 44 feet from the
bulkhead and ten feet off the property line. Several
cedars are planted on the property line, satisfying many
of the concerns of the LWRP and the Conservation Advisory
Council.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant.
I know that when we were onsite you asked me to
Board of Trustees 23 January 17, 2024
push it back 50 feet, but I was only able to do 44 because
of the size of the shed. We were up on that little
platform, and I submitted additional photos showing I
couldn't move it back anymore landward because the
property line fell apart, it was like a little shelf that
it was going on, and I couldn't get the 50 feet only
because, as you moved it back toward the house, it dropped
away. So I would have been off the shelf. That' s why the
44 feet. "I moved it back as far as I reasonably could,
staying on top of that little plateau. And I did preserve
one of the trees you asked me to, we cut back, rather than
taking seven out, we took six out, and we replanted the
trees, and we made that area to the left of the slip
cut-in to be gravel. Because you asked me to express
exactly what that was going to be. And I believe that was
the major portion of your requirements, your
recommendations to me.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The one final concern that I have, and
the other Trustees may weigh in on this, is the location
of the float. I think in this location I would like to see
the float pulled up against the new bulkhead., thereby
removing any concerns around navigability in such a tight
space.
MR. KIMACK: I did change the location of the float
basically based on your recommendation from where it was
originally. I pulled it back in and back toward the
bulkhead, primarily, to stay within the two-and-a-half
feet of water, primarily. But I think it moved in about
two or three feet, if I remember correctly.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes, given this application is
proposing to dredge a slip for a large vessel in that
area, I don't see the need for an additional float so far
out into the water body. So I would be okay moving
forward with this application if the float were pulled in
and made fast to the pilings on the bulkhead, removing the
ramp or reconfiguring the ramp.
MR. KIMACK: So essentially looking for the float to be
pretty much up against it, basically, about a foot or two
away, primarily? J
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. Last hearing there was concerns
from the neighbor regarding navigability. It was our
understanding since there is getting dredged anyway, there
would not be a problem with water depth, because there is
going to be dredged right in front of that that bulkhead.
I believe most of the floating docks in this section are
right up against the bulkhead, so to help the neighbor in
her own navigability issue, just pull it right up
alongside the bulkhead.
MR. KIMACK: Okay. Do you want a revised plans. to that
effect, or do you want to just specify it as a condition.
Board of Trustees 24 January 17, 2024
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I 'll make it a condition, but I would
like a revised plan to show it so there is no confusion in
the future, and amend the written description.
MR. KIMACK: Okay, fair enough.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay, anyone else wish to speak
regarding the application?
(No response) .
Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the
application with the condition that the floating dock'
depicted on the plans stamped December 15th, 2023, be
pulled in and made fast to the bulkhead.
The reasons I outlined earlier in our discussion
in the public hearing portion addressed the LWRP concerns
about the removal of the trees and the structures that are
without a Trustee permit.
I make a motion to approve this the application
subject to new plans and an updated written description,
thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. KIMACK: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 7, AS PER REVISED PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 1/9/24 & 1/16/24 PLAN Patricia Moore,
Esq. , on behalf of ALBERT J. BRENEISEN & HELEN E.
BRENEISEN requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
two-story dwelling (2, 196sq. ft. Footprint) with a 51x20'
seaward deck with stairs, a 91x10' deck with stairs, a
4 'x10' balcony above, and cellar entrance seaward of deck;
existing gravel driveway; covered pool equipment area;
existing ±124' long wood wall beginning at wood deck and
stairs off dwelling in a westerly direction ±17 ' long to
south ±30' long to east ±45' long to north ±7 ' long to
east ±15' long to north ±10' long; and lower ±52' long
wood wall/bulkhead having a ±17 ' long section to a ±35'
long section; existing lower wood bulkhead ±45' long with
±8' angled return; existing southwesterly 3' wide by ±70'
long catwalk over part of seaward bulkhead to an angled
31x±7' section connecting to wood wall/bulkhead; existing
westerly 105' long to a 20' long wood rail fence with gate
to house and deck; existing 55' to a 36' long fence on
east property line with gate to house; existing 35sq.ft.
Brick patio landward of bulkhead with 4 ' wide brick steps;
existing 45 'x50' brick patio around pool; existing 3'x28 '
Board of Trustees 25 January 17, 2024
catwalk to a 2.5'x11' adjustable ramp to a 6'x40' floating
dock situated in an "L" configuration and secured with
three (3) pilings; reduce the seaward end of fence that is
located in the wetlands by two (2) posts and six (6)
rails; cap off or remove existing drainage through
bulkhead and connect gutters to leaders to drywells to
contain roof runoff; install a drywell for pool waste
water; install a gravel trench drain along the seaward
edge of southwesterly brick patio to capture runoff; and
establish and perpetually maintain a non-turf buffer area
approximately 9 to 10 feet in width, 688sq.ft. Along the
landward edge of the 17' and 35' upper wood bulkheads.
Located: 715 Dawn Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-5-16
The Trustees most recently visited this site on
the 9th of January, noting gutters to be tied into a new
drywell, height in timber wall, not appropriate drainage,
non-turf buffer from bulkhead to be added on northern side
of property, remove two fence posts leading down into
wetlands, address drainage on large brick patio.
Since the field inspection, we are in receipt of
a new project description that is printed in the agenda,
and new plans that depict, that were submitted 'on January
16th, 2024.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it
to be consistent, noting that aerial photographs showed
the dock to be in-place since 1978.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not
to support this application. They are citing a concern
with the location of the house- and the pool being too
close to the water. They recommend gutters, leaders and
drywells for the pool and the house, an IA septic system
and a 15-foot non-turf vegetated buffer planted with
native vegetation.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding
this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore, on behalf of the Breneisen
family.
We actually, this is all existing. It' s`
pre-existing with respect to the Trustees, and they are
in, they were in the process of selling, so we want to
have permits on all structure. So it' s cleaning up the
record because what you guys do today is require permits
for everything that is in-place.
So we had the field inspection, there were some
recommendations regarding the drywell, in adding some
drywells for the existing house. We, the plan we
submitted in the project description includes the new
proposed drywells. There was also a recommendation of
making some of the grass area that is between a, the
seaward bulkhead and an upper retaining wall, to be a
Board of Trustees 26 January 17, 2024
natural vegetated non-turf buffer. It's presently grass.
It' s under shade, so it' s not a real robust, but it' s
definitely grass. So that is being shown on the revised
plans.
There was also a request that a small brick
patio, which the brick is all on sand, but there was
concern that there would be water that is coming off of
the steps down to this little brick patio could cause some
storm water runoff. So as a mitigation of that there was
a recommendation it to pull up some bricks, to put in some
form of a gravel trench drain to capture the water before
it enters Gull Pond.
So those were all reasonable requests. The
client has no issue with it, the buyer has no issue with
it, so that has been added to the plan.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. And, yes, I do believe that
the new plans that we have address the concerns that we
had in the field. So we appreciate those. You gave us
that.
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 KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this
application as submitted with the revised project
description and the new plans dated January 16th, 2024 .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 8, AS PER REVISED PROJECT
DESCRIPTION AND PLANS RECEIVED 1/10/24 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,
30.7'x19. 9' (611sq.ft. ) Rear wood deck and stair, 9'x5.5'
(49. 6sq.ft. ) Outdoor shower, 8 .7'x7 .9' (69sq. ft. ) Front
landing, 24 .3'x7.5 ' (138 . 4sq.ft. ) Front ramp and stair,
7.8 'x9.2' (61. 6sq. ft. ) Rear stair and landing, existing
septic system, and leaching pools; construct a proposed
new dwelling consisting of an elevated and renovated
first floor with a 1' 8" lift, 13. 6'x13. 9' + 30.8 'x49.4 '
(1, 700sq. ft. ) Living area and a 14. 1'x13. 6' (192sq.ft. )
Rear addition; an elevated and renovated garage with a
1'8" lift, 13.8'x20.7' (282.2sq.ft. ) ; a 30.7 'x49. 4 '
Board of Trustees 27 January 17, 2024
(1,511. 6sq.ft. ) Second floor; a 41x18 . 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 9.71X111 , 4 .7'x7 '
(137sq. ft. ) , 4 ' deep pool; a 17.5'x5' , 41x4 ' , 5.5'x9.5'
(175sq. ft. ) Rear patio at grade; proposed I/A septic
system with grading above; proposed Cultec stormwater
chambers; a 41x4 ' pool drywell; 70 linear feet of 4 ' high
pool enclosure fencing; proposed 5'x5 ' (25sq.ft. ) Outdoor
shower; 3'x8 ' (24sq. ft. ) Pool equipment shed; install a
new generator; wall mounted A/C units above flood
elevation; reconfigure existing driveway to a 742sq. ft.
Gravel driveway; approximately 3, 678 cubic feet of earth
to be excavated for proposed improvements and all 3, 678
cubic feet to remain at site for backfill; 33,216 cubic
feet of fill will be needed total; and to establish and
perpetually maintain a 30' wide non-turf buffer area
planted with native, non-fertilizer dependent vegetation
along the landward edge of the wetlands with a 4' wide
access path to the catwalk.
Located: 750 Brooks Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-1-16
I will note that we have received a revised
project description and plans that are referred on January
10th of 2024.
So, working through this file, it' s a little
beefy here. The Trustees most recently visited the site on
January 9th of 2024, and actually this was conducted at an
in-house review, and noted that we'll review further at
work session.
Let' s see, and the LWRP found this application
to be inconsistent, noting number one, the leaching
galleys are located in FEMA flood zone E-17.
Number two, will the expansion of the house add
more sanitary flow and potential impacts to the high
quality Pipes Cove eco-system. If so, how much over
existing conditions.
Number three, what is the modified vegetation
buffer referred too?
Number four, what is the finished grade slope?
Will storm water flow into surface waters.
Number five, a significant buffer and width and
vegetation density is recommended to protect the water
quality of Pipes Cove.
Number six, maximum setbacks should be required.
I would note this LWRP is dated November 15th of
2023, so we have had subsequent discussions since then.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to
not support the application because the setback of the
proposed pool is not in compliance with Chapter 275, and
Board of Trustees 28 January 17, 2024
there is a concern with the addition of 495, 887 cubic
yards of fill. And this was noted on August 9th of 2023.
I'm also in receipt of a letter from Patricia
Moore that includes a copy of the deed and addresses the
legal access of the property from Suffolk County.
So there is a record in the file that the
applicant has a right-of-way for ingress and egress to and
from the premises above described to and from Pipes Neck
Road, over the following described 50-feet private
right-of-way, which said right-of-way is more particularly
bounded and described as follows. And there is further.
But that was based on the last public hearing where there
was discussion about the legality of the right-of-way and
the access. And then I think the Board was also concerned
with the driveway, but that had been addressed in the
updated plans received.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in
regard to this application?
MR. PORTILLO: Yes. Anthony Portillo, AMP Architecture,
Mattituck, New York.
So we did submit a revised drawing based on
that, and something, Pat Moore was hired by Sarakatsannis'
and they are aware of those things that you just mentioned
about the ingress and egress, ,and Pat is here to sort of
discuss that with Board. I mean, just to put this out
here, Tom and Kathleen would like to keep their current
scenario and not do what we are proposing. The proposal I
put forth was based on not knowing if that driveway had
legality or not, that existing drive. So I think that is
what Pat is here to discuss with the Board. I'll let her
talk to you about that further.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. Thank you.
MS. MOORE: Hi. So I was retained by Kathleen Walas and
Thomas Sarakatsannis, and it was for the purposes of doing
the real estate research with respect to the
right-of-ways.
I did provide you, I think you mentioned, the
letter from January 9th.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes.
MS. MOORE: They were actually, there are two deeds
referencing the right-of-way— The deed from the owners
who bought prior to the county purchase, gives a specific
easement that is 50-feet wide. That appears way back from
the subdivision map from the 1920s and then carries
through to all, any property owner on this end, and
apparently there's only two.
Then there is also a secondary description which
the Suffolk County acquired the property after they were,
when these clients were already owners. Any
encroachments, any driveways, any utilities that were in
Board of Trustees 29 January 17, 2024
existence at the time the county purchased, their deed
reflects any activity that' s occurred there, in a very
generic way, intended to be as broad as possible because
the county can't identify where utility lines are, where
things are. So when you can't identify it in that
specific, like that 50-foot right-of-way that has meets
and bounds, you have prescriptive rights that have been
earned over time by use. And the county, when the deed
was conveyed from the Milazzo (sic) family to the county,
used that very generic language to kind of cover all
bases, so that they would not extinguish anyone's rights
that had access by way of the driveway, utilities and so
on.
So I believe what Anthony is pointing out is in
the interim, they were not sure what they were going to
find because, you know, I kind of came in after the fact,
when I found the deeds that pretty much settled the issue
of access is not an issue. And the ingress/egress extends
beyond just the meets and bounds, and it extends to any
prescriptive rights that might have been earned.
From law school, law school 101, when you did
real property, that was the types of rights, Lori, where
you have express rights easements, you have prescriptive
easements, you can have adverse possession and other
things. Here we have prescriptive rights. Clearly the
right-of-way runs along a certain way, and then you have
the driveway that angles off of that.
What they would, what Anthony mentioned is they
really like the first design, because they have the
driveway, they have everything that is there. And the
second design would require them to change their doorway
and the architecture. And that was really .kind of a, you
know, a stop-gap measure when they didn't know what they
had as far as easements and rights. So I'm hoping that
what I gave you satisfies and addresses the issue.
One of the things that I suggested to Anthony,
and certainly could be part of your application or your
permit, is that it says don't do any work in the county's
land, I mean, you are allowed to have what you have, but
don't make any modifications or anything. Our permit is
not including any modifications to any driveways or
encroachments. Your permit is only obviously allowing the
work within the property line. So if that's a concern,
certainly it can be written into your permit.
I don't believe that there is really anything
being proposed for driveways or walkways, but it was not
real clear, if, I think there was going to be actually a
reduction of the driveway with the entranceway, there was
like a circular area that was reducing in fact what the
encroachment is. But if you don't want us to touch
Board of Trustees 30 January 17, 2024
anything, we won't. That' s fine. Or allow the landscaping
that reduces the encroachment.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And I believe what you are explaining
with your hand, is kind of a circular driveway where that,
the bottom portion of that circle exceeds the boundary of
the property onto the county property.
MS. MOORE: No, that' s not the area I'm talking about.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So I have a drawing here that is dated,
well it' s stamped received on January 3rd of 2024, and it
does show a driveway that is within the property boundary.
MS. MOORE: That' s the alternate plan?
MR. PORTILLO: No, that's accurate. What Pat is saying is I
can just not do anything on that portion of. I'll just do
the cut out where I'm putting landscaping, the deck or the
home, only on their property, and we will leave, we won't
touch anything on the county property. There was no need.
It was just, I just don't, I can't recall the way it
looked, but I don't have to, I can just push that curve up
and keep it in line with their property. We'(11 never touch
anything on the county property.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So the recent submission that was
received on January 3rd, that has a modified driveway, is
the current plan.
MR. PORTILLO: The submission from January 3rd was coming
off of the 50-foot right-of-way and not utilizing that
driveway. What we are asking if, what Pat has discovered
is correct to the Board, that we want to use, they want to
use the existing driveway that is there, if that is
allowed, for egress and ingress, from what I'm
understanding, and if we do not touch the, we are not
going to touch their property, the county's property. The
only thing we'll do is manipulate our property to have
that.
So the January 3rd submission was, we are not
looking to do that if we are allowed to use the driveway.
I just also, another thing I discovered after
the hearing, if I could let the Board know --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just give us a moment.
MS. MOORE: There are multiple conversations going on. We
don't know what you are doing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: This is a really extensive file and we
have a lot of drawings, ,so I want to make sure we are
referencing correct ones here. Just bear with us here,
please.
(Board members perusing documents at the dais) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Ms. Moore, just to clarify, are you
asking to leave the existing driveway on the county
property?
MS. MOORE: Yes. It' s permanent. It's allowed to be there.
We are not, I'm saying we are not going to touch it. We
Board of Trustees 31 January 17, 2024
are not going to change it. Any plan that includes a
change to it, we will not make a change to it. q
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Do you have documentation that says
it' s allowed to be there?
MS. MOORE: Yes. That is the deed that I gave you from the
Milazzo to the county.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you call the county? Did you contact --
MS. MOORE: Actually, I called real property. They have no
records over there. So I actually spoke to the title
company, because I said, well, my understanding, as a
title company, when there are encroachments, you typically
exclude those from coverage. So in other words the title
company is not going to fight a battle over any
encroachment that is an exclusion from a policy.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you reach out to Parks, park land,
who owns the property?
MS. MOORE: Well, actually it's county real property. It's
dealt with the acquisition, so that is why I worked
through that. That is the department that purchased. It
lands in Parks only, only because that is who the
depository is and manager of any county land. This is not
development. It' s going to be open space. So that is why
it is in that department.
But the reason I gave you the deed and the
language of the deed, is very clear, as a real property
attorney, that when it allows ingress/egress, and it
allows utilities that are in place, it doesn't mean you
can add more, but you can keep what you have. And that is
what the owners have requested, is let them keep what they
have, which is the way they enter the house, it's the way
they enter the garage and it' s how the house was built and
the garage was built originally. So there are COs on all
the structures that are there, and that' s the way this
property was developed and Building Department issued
permits, Trustees issued permits, on everything that is
there. So it has legal rights to remain. And that' s what
you were asking at the last meeting. I was not retained
at the time, I happened to be sitting here listening, so I
was able to remember some of the questions that you had.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So you mentioned county open space.
Does that open space include driveways?
MS. MOORE: If the driveway is already there, yes. It' s
what I'm saying is, so let me give you an analogy, like on
your own property, okay --
(Board members perusing diagrams and paperwork) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: If I could read the full paragraph that
you cited in that thing. It says: Together with the
right-of-way for ingress and egress to and from the
premises above described to and from Pipes Neck Road, over
the following described 50-feet private right-of-way,
Board of Trustees 32 January 17, 2024
which said right-of-way is more particularly bounded and
described as follows. " So that is involving the
right-of-way.
MS. MOORE: That is a different easement. That's what I'm
trying to explain. But, I don't know which to, who I
should be addressing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, hold on. Wait until Lori --
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
(The Board is perusing documents and paperwork) .
MS. MOORE: If I can help -- I don't know if you are
talking about me or someone else. I can't hear what you're
saying, that's why.
MS. HULSE: No, the Board is talking to --
MS. MOORE: Okay, I'm sorry.
(The Board is perusing documents and paperwork) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So in the spirit of trying to clear off
everything that has been discussed here. We are in receipt
of plans that are stamped received on January 3rd of 2024.
These plans show a driveway that is rectangular, for lack
of a better way of describing it, in nature, and that fits
within the boundaries of the property. I have additional
copies here if you would like --
MS. MOORE: He has it, I just want to make sure. Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And we are also in receipt of the letter
dated January 9th of, it says 2023, but I'm assuming it's
2024.
MS. MOORE: Mine says, yes, sorry.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Just assuming. There were several
hearings regarding this application.
So, Ms. Moore, are you aware of the plans that
we have here in front of us, that the Board has reviewed
as the most recent?
MS. MOORE: Yes. So we are --
MR. PORTILLO: I can testify she has gone over the plans
with us.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
MS. MOORE: So the meeting occurred in December: The issues
came up. Anthony quickly tried to redesign the driveway
within the bounds of the property, but obviously it
changes the entryway of the house. In that time then I got
retained to do the research, the legal research.
There are two relevant deeds. Deed one is when
they bought the property, it's that 50-foot right-of-way,
and at the time they bought the property the driveway was
and still continues to meander within and outside of that
50 foot right-of-way. As is very common in the fields all
over town.
I then found the deed that when the county
purchased from Milazzo, what was there at the time was the
Board of Trustees 33 January 17, 2024
driveway that is currently there, again, the driveway that
meanders beyond the 50 feet. There are utility lines for
this and other properties that run outside of the bounds
of the 50-foot right-of-way. Utility lines, cable and
other things. And a solution to that, when the county
purchases, or anybody buys a big field, and the Town of
Southold is the same way, you put in language that says
"subject to the rights of others to keep what is there. "
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes, excuse me for interrupting. I
understand. You explained that very well before, and I
appreciate your explanation on that. The concern that we
have is approving .or, you know, making any sort of
determination on an application that is outside of the
property owner, the applicant' s property.
So what we have here in previous drawings shows
the driveway exceeding the property line, and I 'm not
exactly sure on direction here, there are two county
properties that we are referring to here. One of which
contains the 50-foot right-of-way, and that' s kind of
northwest. I have a survey here, if that you would be
helpful.
MS. MOORE: I'm looking at one, too.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, great. So that includes the 50-foot
right-of-way. The other county property that is to the
southwest of the applicant's property includes most of
that meandering driveway, or this kind of curved driveway.
So if part of that driveway were in the right-of-way, that
would be a different conversation here because there is an
understanding that some of that, there is some flex there
and, you know, the property has had that in place for
quite a while.
So the concern though is that the portion that I
believe you are referring to is in a different tax map
portion of the property. Not the right-of-way.
MS. MOORE: Let me. just make sure I'm understanding. Excuse
me. So here is the small version -- oh, you are looking at
something completely different.
Okay, this is all part of the county
acquisition. This is the 50-foot right-of-way. This is the
driveway that comes in and out.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: That' s not of concern. It's this portion.
MS. MOORE: I understand, that' s the section. It' s all part
of the same Milazzo purchase from the county. It was not
different.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: But according to the survey it is not --
the 50-foot right-of-way occurs here.
MS. MOORE: Yes, yes, I understand.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES:, Not on this property.
MS. MOORE: No, you're right. There is a driveway --
That' s the prescriptive easement. You remember the
Board of Trustees 34 January 17, 2024
prescriptive easement.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I do. And I appreciate the Law 101 here,
but what we are dealing with here, we have our attorney
here up on the dais with us, is that the application that
you are referring to is not reflected in the plan that Mr.
Portillo submitted. If you are talking about something
that is an outlier of this plan. You know, we have this
plan here in front of us today to review as a part of this
hearing. If you were requesting us to review something
different then we would need a different submission to
review that.
MS. MOORE: Okay, it' s, ,the original, the one that came
right before that one was the original submission. The one
that you are looking at, the January 3rd, I think it was,
that came in after the fact when they were not sure what
legal rights they had to maintain or keep their driveway.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: This Board can't approve work on
another person's property. We cannot do that.
MS. MOORE: I 'understand completely.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: If the county wants to come in here and
partner with the Sarakatsannis' and propose work on their
property, we can do that. But we can't propose --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would be happy to do that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: It' s as simple as that.
MS. MOORE: I just want to answer that issue. We are not,
anything, this, the project itself is all within the
bounds of this property. What I'm saying is the driveway
that is there doesn't have to be touched. And this
project will not touch it. If you say in your permit, you
are not allowed to touch anything that is outside the four
corners of your property, absolutely, no problem. Because
the driveway is there. It's passable. It's continuously
used. And there is absolutely no need to make any change
to it. And that is, what was the original submission that
is one before the January 3rd.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is that dated October 30th, Mr. Portillo,
of 2023?
MS. MOORE: Let' s make sure we have the right one.
MS. HULSE: Pat, you do realize that the description that
is before the Board tonight is the description that was on
the January 10th plan. So what you are referencing is
something that is not before the Board tonight. This is
what is before the Board tonight. Did you look at the
description that -- some of this confusion is being
created because what they are looking at tonight to
approve or deny is not what you are talking about. You are
talking about something completely different.
MS. MOORE: I can only tell you what the client was asking,
which is the revised description --
MS. HULSE: Okay, but that' s not what the Board has
Board of Trustees 35 January 17, 2024
tonight. What you are talking about is completely new
information --
MS. MOORE: No, no, it' s the one before.
MS. HULSE: Right. But it's not what the Board was
intending to consider tonight, because what they were
intending to consider and what was noticed to the public
is what appears on the agenda, which is not what you are
referencing that your applicant is seeking to have this
Board approve tonight.
MS. MOORE: Okay, so why don't we do this. If the Board
will approve what is the current plan not changing the
driveway, I'll leave it up to the clients if they want to
come in and amend it, to go back to the original using the
driveway that they had, because the design is the biggest
problem with maintaining the driveway or maintaining
everything within the driveway.
If you can work with it, I know the clients just
want their permit. They don't want to prolong this. It's
the reason the revised plan was submitted is because you
were under, you were believing that they had no right to
keep the driveway they had.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That's not correct. We are looking at
the application before us. If you want to proceed with
the application that is before us, we are happy to move on
that. And you can, as you said, in Law 101, amend the
permit.
MS. MOORE: Exactly. Law 101, I'll let the clients decide
if they want to amend the permit.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, so this evening we are looking at
the plan that is stamped received on January 3rd of 2024 .
And this Board will make a determination based on that and
the current project description that has been noticed on
the agenda. Are we in agreement on that?
MS. MOORE: We are all in agreement.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is there anyone else wishing to speak in
regard to this . application?
MS. BROWN: Carol Brown, CAC. I just want to make everybody
here aware that the CAC receives original applications and
we review and make our recommendations based on that. When
several new ones come through, we have not seen them. So
we have, you know, something we determined five or six
months ago, may not be the same now, but we have not
gotten .those updates.
Also, just to, on the original application, it
did say there was almost half a million cubic yards of
fill. I see that on the new one it' s not there. And of
course if we had, we would update our recommendations
based on the new information, if we had had it. So I just
want to make everybody aware of that. Thank you.
Board of Trustees 36 January 17, 2024
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very much. I think I did
reference the date of your review.
MS. BROWN: Oh, absolutely. I wanted to let some of the
applicants and agents know that as well. Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you, for putting that on the
record. And I did, Mr. Portillo, if you will please come
back up. In the spirit of just wanting to make sure we are
on the same page, I do have some additional questions for
you. And the main one is about the fill. If you could
please speak to that. Because was, as Ms. Brown indicated,
there was an increase, and, you know, due to the location
of this property, it is important to understand where that
fill is going to be located.
MR. PORTILLO: So the increase of fill is at the location
of where the new IA system is being proposed, and it' s
really just to allow for enough coverage of the leaching
galleys that are being proposed there.
But there was an error on our application last
time, that was corrected.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So this 33,216 cubic feet of fill is
required in the area of the IA system.
MR. PORTILLO: Let me make sure I don't state that
incorrectly. (Perusing) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: You've noted a cubic footage to be
excavated, and then to remain, and then in addition over
33, 000 as well.
MR. PORTILLO: (Perusing) . The fill, cubic yards, 2, 995.5,
which is in the application that was submitted, and the
revised application.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I 'm sorry, what was that number again?
MR. PORTILLO: 2, 995. That should also be --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: In the description here we have 33, 216
cubic feet of fill will be needed total. In addition to
the backfill.
So on, let' s see, this is the, in the new set of
plans received January 3rd of 2024, on page DD2, we have
the fill calculation raising the grade 11, 072 square feet,
times three feet. Averaged up of grade increase equals
approximately 33,216 cubic feet. It's on the left-hand
side under your total.
MR. PORTILLO: Sorry, you are referring to DD2. I'm looking
at DD1 (Perusing) . I believe that's correct. That' s what
we had. I'm not sure where --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: The reason I'm bringing it up is it' s
quite a lot of fill. And I know we've worked with you on
other projects where you have been able to reduce that
fill and reduce retaining walls, et cetera. And, you know,
this is a property that is pretty much surrounded by
wetland.
MR. PORTILLO: So, some of those other projects you are
Board of Trustees 37 January 17, 2024
referring to is like where we introduced injection systems
that have a lot larger galleys that would be required. By
looking at this, I'm not really sure that is feasible in
this scenario.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: My only reason for bringing that is up is
just that there -- we have been able to work together on
that. So it' s just a question, this is a lot of fill. Is
there any way that you would be able to reduce that?
MR. PORTILLO: I mean, based on this proposed system, that
this would be what we need for these galleys. Like I
said, an injection system like we proposed on another
project, where I think you are referring to, would require
more galleys. And as you can see, we don't have a lot of
room on the site with, you know, the buffer and things.
like that. We would also probably start bringing it even
closer to the wetlands location.
I mean, just a remainder of what is existing
there, we are not increasing occupancy at this location,
and there is basically a cesspool, two leaching cesspools
in the rear yard that we are replacing with this IA
system. But I don't see, I mean, you know, based on trying
to get that amount of leaching, those galleys would get
very much increased in a shallower system.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So what is the correct amount of fill?
MR. PORTILLO: We redid those calculations because it was
Basked last time. I believe that is accurate.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because there is quite a discrepancy
between 2, 900, what you mentioned, and 33, 000.
MR. PORTILLO: Sorry, one second. (Perusing) . 3, 678 cubic
feet of earth to be excavated. The proposed improvements
3, 670 to remain on the site for backfill. 33,216 cubic
feet of fill to be needed in total. So that is accurate,
what we have on the plans.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Are there any retaining walls -- you are
not applying for any here, but there --
MR. PORTILLO: We are not applying for any retaining walls.
The original design we had, there is a lot more fill that
we were thinking and retaining walls proposals, those were
removed. This is system has been basically approved by the
Health Department. I just have to get them local Trustee
approval to get a permit.
I mean, I just want. to state a few things about
the topographics of the property, you know, we are sort of
in a way in line with what is going 'on on the property.
It' s at currently six feet near the house so, you know,
this sort of fill area would basically almost flatten out
the property with what is currently there. So, and we are
not really proposing any sort of grade changes closer to
the seaward side of that, you know, of where the system is
being proposed, and on the, would be northern side of the
Board of Trustees 38 January 17, 2024
property there, we are proposing the drainage fields for
rainwater and not proposing fill there.
We are really just trying to, it's really
concentrated at that location of the septic system. We are
also just bringing it into compliance with FEMA and all
those things. So I do think that by doing that you are
allowing, you know, rainwaters and all those things to be
able to go through the home, so, and lifting the home as
well to get it above that.
So I think the other things they are doing on
the property are going to assist with, you know, helping
any of the other concerns. I mean, that' s based on, I have
the septic design drawing, if you want to see the section.
But basically our, we are at all minimums from what is
required for ground cover on this system. We are not going
any higher than what we need. If you want the section, I
could provide that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Throughout the course of the
application, and it' s gone through a few iterations, we
have removed the second access path to the creek, we've
increased the buffer, and we've asked that it be vegetated
with native species plants, which I think is a win for the
environment. We are removing any of the Miscanthus or
invasive species that were planted as ornamentals. We
don't want those getting into the wetlands, and because
there are no retaining walls proposed for this fill, I 'm
more comfortable with the amount. In other applications
and other locations, seeing that much fill would more
seriously alarm me, but I'm not seeing the proposal for
retaining walls and bulkheading and things that would be
an attempt to castle the property.
MR. PORTILLO: I appreciate that. And that' s kind of what
my statement was, is the property is currently at like six
feet, at the, I'm saying north, I don't know if I'm
correct there, the northern side, east west --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: The southern.
MR. PORTILLO: The southern side. And really kind of
bringing that around on the western side, so it' s not
necessarily a hill that we are creating. It is basically
flattening it, essentially. That's natural to what is on
that southern side.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And the grading will all take place on
the property and not exceed the property line into the
county area, correct?
MR. PORTILLO: Yes, ma'am, and that's required by Suffolk
County, from the Health Department as well. We're not
allowed to go on the other property.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Greet. Thank you, for confirming that, on
the record. Is there anyone else here that wishes to
speak?
Board of Trustees 39 January 17, 2024
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just to note for your applicant, that if
they did want to resubmit with, you know, the previous
plan again, that is an option. You can table this and we
can consider that in the future. But I just wanted to
throw that out there as an option.
MR. PORTILLO: I appreciate that. I think an amendment
might be at hand here if we can get the proper
documentation so we can make sure that they can keep that.
You know, just for knowledge for the Board, I don't know
if you guys know this. There was application for the
garage. I 'm going to guess here, I guess it was 190s or
early 2000s, and that driveway was shown there, and the
driveway that the garage is facing basically, how that
drive is, so at that time there was not any question about
this. So I think that what just on our minds that, okay,
this was done at that time and that' s why when we applied,
we just figured, hey, it was approved at that time through
the Trustees and Building Department and so forth that we
figured that it would be, you know, legal for that sense,
and that' s why we originally applied it that way. And it
made sense for how you enter the garage.
So they'll still be able to get into there but
they'll be doing some maneuvering around that telephone
pole.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: We understand the history involved here
and there are, you know, some flexibilities within the
law, however this Board does, you know, need to review the
application that is in front of us within the boundaries
of the property.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Any other questions or comments from the
Board?
(No response) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Hearing none, I make a motion to close
the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this
application with the plans stamped received January 3rd of
2024, with the condition all work related to the permit is
contained within the applicant' s property, and based on
the discussions that we have had in the previous hearings
and ail of the efforts that have been made to make this
project more environmental, take that into consideration,
would thereby bring this into compliance with the LWRP.
That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
t ,
Board of Trustees 40 January 17, 2024
MR. PORTILLO: Thank you, Board. Have a good night.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 9, Jake LaChapelle, AIA on
-behalf of WALTER GLESS requests a Wetland Permit for the
as-built demolition of existing approximately 29'x20. 6'
(611sq. ft. ) One-story dwelling with attached as-built
20. 6'x10.5' and 26.3'x6.2' deck; as-built replacement of
existing footings at the deck and seaward portion of the
dwelling and new footings proposed for the upland portion;
footings to be provided under the proposed screen porch
and a foundation wall with flood vents to be installed
under the proposed north and east additions; proposed
20. 41x5 ' (102sq. ft. ) One-story north addition; proposed
irregularly shaped ll'x20. 6' (213sq.ft. ) East addition;
proposed 20. 4 'x11' (225sq.ft. ) South screened-in porch;
proposed irregularly shaped ±6.2'x5 ' south deck
addition/infill; abandon existing septic system and
install, an I/A OWTS system landward of dwelling; install
gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff; and
to install a vegetated 10' wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of wetlands.
Located: 700 Koke Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-5-7
The Trustees conducted a field inspection
January 9th, 2024, noting increased buffer and vegetate
with salt-tolerant vegetation.
The LWRP founds this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency is the as-built work was conducted without
Board of Review or approval. See Southold Town Board of
Appeals conditions outlined in determination 7826.
The Conservation Advisory Council does not
support the application because the proposed project is
within the flood zone and out of compliance with Chapter
275.
Is anyone here that wishes to speak regarding
this application?
1
MR. LACHAPELLE: I'm Jake LaChapelle, speaking for the
owner.
The project has described is the renovation and
addition of this house, to bring it into compliance with
the requirements for year-round residence. We are putting
in new foundation elements, and as you described, some of
this is as-built. The addition is proposed.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Anyone else here wishing to
speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 41 January 17, 2024
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this
application with the condition of a 40-foot vegetated
non-turf buffer, and by granting it a permit will bring it
into consistency with the LWRP. And subject to new plans
showing the new 40-foot vegetated non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 10, 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
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
The LWRP Coordinator found this to be
inconsistent due to 4. 1, minimize loss of human life and,
structures from flooding and erosion hazards. Move
existing development and structures as far away from
flooding and erosion hazards as practicable. Maintaining
existing development and structures in hazard area may be
warranted for.
A single-family residence does not require a
location on the coast. A terrace proposed to be located
13.3 feet to the wetland is not supported by this policy.
The minimum setback to any and all operations for a
residence within jurisdiction of the Board of Trustees for
wetland is 100 feet and less. While circumstances dictate
otherwise.
According to the Suffolk County Hazard and
Mitigation tool, parcel is susceptible to flooding and
storm damage. Increasing structures within these
vulnerable areas is also not supported.
Board of Trustees 42 January 17, 2024
The Conservation Advisory Council did not
support the application based on the topography and the
soils and location of the property in the flood zone.
The Trustees most recently visited the property
on the 9th of January, and noted that it appeared the
wetland line -had crept landward in the recent years, and
that they would review further at work session. It should
also be noted that one of the stakes for the patio at this
point appeared to be within the wetland bounds.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(No response) .
MR. COFFEY: I'm Clay Coffey, with Isaac-Rae Architects.
How are you guys.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Good, thanks, how are you.
MR. COFFEY: Good. I'll try to be brief, but also
comprehensive.
So this project was originally presented to the
Trustees in June of 2019, actually, May of 2019, we went
through multiple rounds of presentation, site visits, I
think Mr. Krupski was there, I don't think all members
there, but one of the things that came out of that was the
original proposal was to, you know, essentially create a
house without the existing house.
Now, through that work sessions and through what
we were doing during those meetings during 2019 was to
move the proposed structure as far landward from the
property as possible, while maintaining a driveway.
We have 15-foot rear side-yard setback there. We
are on that setback as part of this application. We have
gone through the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval of
decreased side and rear yard setback for the garage. And
we currently meet, we met it then but we also currently
meet now Zoning Board of Appeals for the gross floor area
and the pyramid code.
In addition to that we have, and as part of this
permit-approval process, which was approved in 2019, we
have DEC approval for the project. And Suffolk County
Health Department approval for the project.
The terrace that we are showing on the plans is r
a permeable terrace. So it' s essentially a gravel kind of
terrace. And that piece is something we worked hard with,
with the DEC for approval. In this process, I think if we
end up changing what we doing, we are going back for
another year for DEC approval.
So what I would like to request is that the
Board would approve the project as it is designed. We,
the client, missed the deadline for renewal by two months.
If we would have made that renewal, it would still be
approved.
Board of Trustees 43 January 17, 2024
So I think our request here is that we have
moved the house back as far as we can for the property, we
worked hard with the Trustees in 2019 to try and mitigate
as many of the issues as we could during that period of
time. You know, change the location of the house, change
the location of the septic system, reducing some of the
footprint at that time, as well as increasing size of the
wetlands boundary from a proposed 10 feet to --
non-vegetated border, excuse me, from 10 feet to 15 feet.
And so I think what I'm here tonight to do is
just propose that the property can be approved as
designed. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I mean, myself and Trustee
Goldsmith were on the Board at the time. And it's somewhat
frustrating, I think, for us, too, you know, when
applicants miss these deadlines, because we do put a lot
of time and effort into these projects, and then when the
permit expires and no work has been done, and we open this
back up again, it puts us in a difficult situation and we
are reviewing it again with a new Board, the tricky
situation for me here is, with the storm the other day,
you know, I live right around the corner. I could have
kayaked in the front door of this house.
And at minimum, you know, that stake now, you
know, enough has changed in four years where at least that
patio, I mean, it' s within the bounds of the wetlands.
And I appreciate that it's permeable and we all met and
worked this. But for me, and the rest of the Board might
disagree with me, but for me, at the very least, that
stake, that one corner would have to be tucked in. And I
know, you know, certainly the DEC would never have a
problem with pulling something back slightly to satisfy,
you know, environmental concerns. So for me that is a
little bit of a concern.
I mean the whole property is obviously a
concern, as we, talked about years ago. But it's only
gotten worse. You know, Skunk Lane has flooded out by I
don't know how many times in the last few years, and this
property is pretty low. I guess that' s my current concern.
MR. COFFEY: I understand your concerns. I mean, one of
the things that we've done in the subsequent
year-and-a-half of trying to obtain the permits and move
this thing through to the Building Department is, you
know, it meets FEMA, right, I know that's imperfect. But
essentially where we are, we have this thing raised up. We
have it on, you know, I have flood vents. We have sump
pump in an inaccessible crawl space, essentially. So I
think we've tried to mitigate that as much as possible.
You know, if it' s about updating the design of
the terrace or the permeable patio, you know, I think that
Board of Trustees 44 January 17, 2024
is something we can consider. I just, I would appreciate a
clear directive so we can do that sooner than later as to
what would be acceptable.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Well, I would concur with what Trustee
Krupski said. Like he said, we were on the Board when this
first came about back in 2019, or whatever it was on the
most recent field inspection at northwestern most stake, I
guess it is, in what is the wetland now. So I don't think
pulling that back a little bit, five feet, ten feet,
whatever that is, I don't think that will have an impact
on your standing with the DEC. I think they call it a de
minimis change. It's an improvement for the environment.
It' s not like we are encroaching further on the wetland.
We are actually retreating and giving it more
room. So I think at minimum the conditions on this
property have changed to the point that, you know, I don't
think that a structure should be located within what is
now basically the wetlands. So, that would be my take on
it.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And if I can just add my own take, and
I'm speaking as one Trustee. This is the first time that
I'm reviewing this application. I 'm a newer Trustee on the
Board.
This, to me, the location of the wetlands on the
plans versus what we saw in the field, it's not accurate.
And I think that there is space on this property to
re-work it to be able to pull a house back into a
different corner of the property, that would pull it much
farther away from the wetlands and make it more
environmentally sound project.
So for me, this plan is a little too much, for
me. Personally.
MR. COFFEY: That' s okay. Can I just ask you a question
around that? Because I think, (a) , maybe .you saw it on a
high-flooding event. I'm not sure, when were you there?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: We were there on the 9th of January, so
it was no a particularly --
MR. COFFEY: We can have this reflagged. I think the Board
stands by the flagging of an environmental consultant; is
that right?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Well, we saw in the field that one of
the stakes was located within the wetlands. One of the
stakes of where the porch is proposed. So we could have
flagged it ourselves. I mean, the wetlands is there. So I
don't think there is any argument among the Board about
the location of the wetlands, but it is further landward
than the --
MR. COFFEY: I just have a question on the procedural
aspect of that. The Trustees don't establish the wetland
border, right?
Board of Trustees 45 January 17, 2024
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: We can establish a wetland border.
MR. COFFEY: Okay, are you guys going to be flagging that
moving forward? How do we move forward with this, is what
I'm saying. Like, if the question is that you want to move
this house back to an additional location that may require
Zoning Board of Appeals or something else, how do we get
to this in a period of time that is not six months down
the road.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I see you are anxious to move forward
from with the project.
MR. COFFEY: The client is.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And we would agree that we would want
this to move forward as well. We wish that the applicant
had applied for an extension in a timely manner. So, here
we are.
I think that two of the Trustees at least are
talking about pulling this patio back, the proposed
terrace, proposed patio on the plans. I'm also of the mind
to pull the patio back. I don't think it needs to be that
close to the wetlands.
If I were to revisit this application as a first
time look at a proposal, I would like to see the garage
and the house switched, flip-flopped, because there is
more space between the garage and the wetlands than there
is between the house and the wetlands. So I think it's
just poorly cited.
MR. COFFEY: Well, we have a rear-yard setback to the house
there, right. We have a diminished setback of the
accessory structure there --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And I understand that you thought --
MR. COFFEY: And we have that principal setback that is the
primary issue.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: We often come into conflicts with
setbacks and that' s why applicants then go to ZBA for
relief from the zoning code.
MR. COFFEY: Even though the Zoning Board of Appeals is
required before your --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: No, not necessarily.
MR. COFFEY: Well, typically it is.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I understand that you went through this
process already in conversation with the Trustees. I
understand that there are property rights involved and
that those need to be weighed carefully. At the moment I'm
just looking at the patio.
MR. COFFEY: Sure, I appreciate that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I understand, obviously, your
timeline, you want to get this done. And you understand
that things have changed a little bit. There' s a new
Board, there's additional environmental concerns. So I
really, you know, I'm just looking to reduce this patio
l
Board of Trustees 46 January 17, 2024
slightly to pull it back more from the wetland, and I'm
pretty comfortable with that change.
MR. COFFEY: So, I think we can do that. I will talk to my
client about this. Is that something that we can -- I'm
not sure of the procedural process on that, but is that
something that we can have an intermediate work session
done on it?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I 'm comfortable doing it subject to new
plans this evening and not delaying the project. I mean,
we would put it to a roll call vote, I believe, but --
MR. COFFEY: So if we can get you new plans tomorrow
morning --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no. Just before you get your
permits, you would have to submit new plans.
MR. COFFEY: New plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But it would close the hearing tonight.
MR. COFFEY: So it would require us moving it back the
prescribed --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Roughly five feet.
MR. �COFFEY: I'll discuss it with the client but I think
that' s probably fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak regarding this application? '
MS. BROWN: Thank you. Carol Brown, Conservation Advisory
Council. I just want to make everybody very aware of the
New York state Department of Environmental Conservation
proposed projected sea level rise that they did in 2023.
And in ten years from now, ten years or less, the low
projection is seven inches and the high projection is 14
inches. And 20 years after that we are talking between one
and two feet.
I'm concerned, you retain my concern about
anything that is not at least 100 feet from the wetlands,
the house, 100 feet from the wetland. So I just wanted to
mention that. And if anybody needs, we can make copies of
this so you could see what the projections are for Long
Island. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I also just, I want to note, sorry sir,
for the record. And the Board has reviewed this, and it is
part of the public record, but I did not mention it when I
was reading through the file earlier.
I'm in receipt of two letters from neighboring
properties that are adamantly against the project.
Destruction of wetlands, flooding concerns. There is also
a series of photographs that are available in the file
that show those said flooding concerns and threat to the
delicate wetland eco-system.
Is there anyone else that is willing to speak?
MR. PAPPAS: I'm one of those opposed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I assumed so.
Board of Trustees 47 January 17, 2024
MR. PAPPAS: My name is John Papas. So I recently bought
the home right behind there in 2020. So I was not part of
that 2023 approval, and he had from 2019 to 2023 to build,
right. But he chose to build a barn next to his house
instead of that. So now he's re-applying.
Some of those, I 'm not a real legal guy, right,
but all of those reports and records from years ago, on
how the water is going to rise, the DEC. How along ago
did they apply for those and get those? Things have
changed since back then, right?
He pushed that house back from the plans I
originally saw in 2019, after I bought the house, when
nobody told me the permit was in and I bought the house.
So I made improvements to my house, but on the foundation
of what I had. I didn't expand, I didn't go up.
He's building a mini high-rise in that little
community, two levels, that he'll be watching me in my
backyard while we swim in the pool from their deck, right?
And they pushed the house back almost into my backyard.
Once again, a ten-foot driveway, where we sit on our
lounge chair and watch headlights come at us if they don't
put up some kind of barrier between there. They would be
in my�backyard or pool with their car if they had a night
out in town.
So pushing it back I don't think is the answer
either. I think that lot, the way it's situated and the
pictures I took with that flooding, and I 've been going
there now all the time. The only way he' s going to save
that lot and build a home that size is to put it in my
yard. You know? And I 'm totally against this.
I mean, originally he was going to build it on
the foundation, fine. There is space between the homes and
whatever. But the water is rising. How far back are we
going to push this house and this garage? And it' s a
two-level home. Every home in that little area is a
single-level home. We're killing the beauty of Cutchogue
in that area by building a mini high-rise where people
like me want to come here and relax and enjoy, and now we
don't have our own privacy in our yard to relax and enjoy,
right?
I don't know what the purpose of the development
is going to be. He lives right around the corner, so I
don't think he's moving in. Is it going to be an Airbnb?
Is it going to be something he' s going to sell, or he' s
looking to sell. I don't know. It's not personal. He
needs to build something. He made an investment, but I
also made an investment in this community. And I been
coming to Greenport and Southold since I was nine. So I
love it here and I made the investment to buy a home for
my children to come and enjoy. Not to have someone hanging
Board of Trustees 48 January 17, 2024
out on the deck, who maybe is an Airbnb or whatever, and
my wife is in her bathing suit in our yard and they are
watching her from the deck_ I didn't come to Cutchogue for
that. I came to relax, enjoy the beach, enjoy the beauty
of the town, right? I don't think the way the water is
rising, how that area, that lot, is situated, how the
wetlands cuts in. It doesn't give him much space to build.
You are saying to build it where the garage is. The next
door neighbor also is not for that because he' s going to
have that hanging right over his home.
The beauty of the trees in that area, where are
they going to go? He's got to cut them all down to build
his home, right? All these eco-systems and whatever, the
still water is going to run into the Cutchogue lake there.
So I don't believe this is a plan that should go
forward, pulling back the patio or not. I think it's
something that maybe the Peconic Land Trust, that I paid
thousands and thousands of dollars to, should maybe step
in and take over that lot and preserve it as a wetlands
area for the town. Because it' s too small of a lot to
build that size of a home and accessory garage.
I mean that's just my feeling as a neighbor. I
feel it's going to impede on the quality of life of my
family, the neighbors in the community, and it just
doesn't belong there. You know. And that' s it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I very much appreciate all of those
comments, and I sympathize with each and every one of
them.
Were it up to this Board to weigh architectural
design, we would have our hands full. If it were up to
this Board to weigh the concerns of neighbors who may be
looked in upon a second-floor structure, we would also our
hands full.
MR. PAPPAS: But it's the environment, too, they are
digging into that ground. They are going to be disrupting
the soil there, right? We don't know what repercussions,
right? We can do whatever we want to mitigate mother
nature, but mother nature has their own way of wanting to
do things, right?
So that' s, you know, that's my biggest concern.
How is the flooding and things going to affect my home
when we start disrupting mother nature' s habitat and
beauty, right? That' s my biggest concern.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'm also sympathetic to your desire to
have Peconic Land Trust purchase a lot like that, and I
wish more people across the township would band together
and purchase lots that they think are of high value, such
as the one in your front yard.
MR. PAPPAS: It' s actually my back inside yard.
Board of Trustees 49 January 17, 2024
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Back side yard, right. And, you know,
the Building Department, the Planning Department, the
Zoning Board of Appeals, all of the these Boards and
agencies and staff, each make decisions based on a very
narrow purview.
MR. PAPPAS: I understand.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And our Board is strictly speaking just
to environmental concerns, and having a prior Board
approve this application after several site visits and see
it come back, it weighs a lot.
MR. PAPPAS: And ZBA and all those things, how far back
ago did they look at this?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Well, probably prior to any concerns
about sea level rise.
MR. PAPPAS: So there again, would this be getting
approved? We don't even know. So because they are approved
because they automatically filed something on time,
doesn't make it right either.
Thank you, so much for your time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. And I will add to that, too,
that members of this Board fought, we recognized this as a
problem for years and fought hard for a pyramid law, which
would solve a lot of these issues going forward. So.
MR. COFFEY: So, a couple of things. So, just to assuage
some fears here. There is no second floor deck that
overlooks the backyard, so don't worry. There is no one
going to be looking in your backyard.
Secondarily, this meets the new Zoning code and
the GFA and the Pyramid code. So it' s within the purview
of the Town zoning, and doesn't have a second floor deck
that looks over the backyard. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. Is there anyone here that
wishes to speak regarding this application, or any
additional comments from the Members of the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this
application subject to new site plans depicting the
seaward permeable patio pulled back in and downsized by
five feet landward. All the property to be vegetated
non-turf buffer, and inclusion of the replacement of six
native hardwood trees to be planted, thereby bringing this
into consistency with the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We'll do a roll call vote. Second.
We'll do a roll call vote. Trustee Peeples?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Aye.
Board of Trustees 50 January 17, 2024
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Trustee Gillooly?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Citing my environmental concerns and the
need to re-flag the wetland and redesign this project, I
vote no.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Trustee Sepenoski?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Trustee Krupski?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
The motion passed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
R ctful s mitt�y.
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees