HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-02/14/2024 Glenn Goldsmith,President fjF S0 Town Hall Annex
A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice President 54375 Route 25 Q lO P.O. Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski Southold,New York 11971
Liz Gillooly y Telephone(631) 765-1892
Elizabeth Peeples �QQ Fax(631) 765-6641
OWN,
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, February 14, 2024 MAR 2 1 2024
5:30 PM
'out�ac 'avua
Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President C'jera
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
Valentine' s Day, Wednesday, February 14th, 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) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We'll start off the meeting by announcing the
people on the dais. To my left we have Trustee Krupski, Trustee
Sepenoski, Trustee Gillooly and Trustee Peeples. To my right we
have the Attorney to the Trustees Lori Hulse, and we have
Administrative Assistant Elizabeth Cantrell. And with the CAC we
have Shannon Wright.
Agendas for tonight's meeting are out in the hall and
posted on the Town' s website.
We do have a number of postponements tonight.
Postponements are in the agenda on page six, under Amendments,
Number 1, Michael Kimack on behalf of CAROLINE TOSCANO requests
an Amendment to Wetland Permit #10281 to establish a 4' wide by
10' long path through the Non-Turf Buffer area leading to (and
over the established Buffer areas) , a proposed raised 4 ' wide by
80' long catwalk with 4 ' wide staircase to ground at landward
end leading to a 4'x46' 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
Board of Trustees 2 February 14, 2024
pilings at each end; catwalk to have Thru-Flow decking
throughout with pressure treated pilings set at 8 ' on-center;
total length of catwalk is 126 linear feet.
Located: 610 Jacksons Landing, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-4-8
On page six under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits,
Number 3, 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'xl5. 4 ' (115sq. ft. )
Portion of existing second floor wrap around deck with existing
3. 111x30.21 , 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 121x34.5' (412.3.sq.ft. ) Third floor
wood deck; construct a 7. 6'xl5.4 ' (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 ten, numbers 12 and 13:
Number 12, Amos Meringer Builder on behalf of ANY ORR
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a proposed 1 &- story
27 .5'x45.8 ' (1, 259.5sq.ft. ) Dwelling with seaward 10'(x27 .5'
(275sq.ft. ) Attached deck, a 4'x12 ' front entry with 3' wide
path to driveway, and cellar entry steps (1, 534 .5 total square
footage) ; install A/C units and a generator; install a 4'x6'
outdoor shower; a proposed Hydro-Action I/A sanitary system
landward of dwelling; install gutters to leaders to drywells; a
±869sq.ft. Gravel driveway; and to relocate existing 12 . l'xl4 .1'
shed further landward.
Located: 625 Terry Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-65-1-23
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, 18 'x3l' 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
i
Board of Trustees 3 February 14, 2024
l
wetlands boundary, replacing approximately 3, 850sq.ft. Of
existing lawn with native plantings and maintaining a cleared 4 '
wide pathway to existing dock.
Located: 200;6 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-3-12. 11
And on page eleven,. numbers 14 through 16, as follows: _..
Number 14, AS PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PLANS
RECEIVED 11/9/2023 Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of 225 WILLIAMSBURG
DRIVE, LLC, c/o WILLIAM TOTH requests a Wetland Permit to remove
and replace 101 linear feet of deteriorated timber bulkhead
in-place with new vinyl bulkhead including one 16' vinyl returns
on north side Hof existing 14'xl6' wood ramp which shall be
removed and void filled with clean stand/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 �58.41x24 .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 20'x23. 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. 91x20' 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 12.5 ' .
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
i
Board of Trustees 4 February 14, 2024
and expand existing porch with a 40sq.ft. Porch and 20sq. ft.
Porch stairs to ground; construct,,/a 38 ' long by 2 ' wide by 12"
to 24" high landscape wall with a 3' wide by 8"-12" high stone
step; install one (1) new drywell for roof runoff; abandon two
(2) existing cesspools and install a new IA/OWTS system
consisting of one (1) 500 gallon treatment unit and 46 linear
feet of graveless absorption trenches (i.e. one (1) 24'L x VW
trench and one (1) 22 'L x VW trench) ; and for the existing
84sq.ft. Shed.
Located: 5605 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM#
1000-137-4-3.2
All of those are postponed, so we will not be hearing them
tonight.
Under Town Code Chapter 275-8 (c) , files were officially
closed seven days ago. Submission of any paperwork after that
date may result in a delay of the processing of the
applications.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to have our
next field inspection on Tuesday, March 12th, 2024, at 8: 00 AM.
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, March 20, 2024, at 5:30 PM, at the Town Hall
Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
III. WORK SESSIONS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next work
Session on Monday, March 18th, 2024, at 5,:OOPM at the Town Hall
Annex 2nd Floor Executive Board Room, and on Wednesday, March
20, 2024, at 5: 00PM in the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IV. MINUTES
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of
the January 17, 2024, meeting.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
Board of Trustees 5 February 14, 2024
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The Trustees monthly report for January 2024 .
A check for $48, 823.77 was forwarded to the Supervisor' s Office for
the General Fund.
VI. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Roman numeral VI, Public Notices are posted on
the Town Clerk' s Bulletin Board for review.
VII. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully
described in Section XI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda
dated Wednesday, February 14, 2024, are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to
further review under SEQRA:
They are listed as follows:
Fishers Island Development Corp. , c/o Fishers Island Yacht Club
SCTM# 1000-10-1-9
Wamsley Family Trust, c/o Dianne Wamsley SCTM# 1000-78-5-10
Ben & Christina Hansen SCTM# 1000-26-3-11
Amy Orr SCTM# 1000-65-1-23
Island View Lane Home Owners Association, LLC SCTM# 1000-57-2-37.2
Mark & Lisa Montifiore 1000-128-4-22.2
Brian O'Reilly SCTM# 1000-70-5-31.1
Patricia M. Homan SCTM# 1000-74-1-35.51
Donald J. & Pamela E. Schneider SCTM# 1000-52-2-31
Dunne Living Trust SCTM# 1000-35-4-11
Pablo Leon SCTM# 1000-68-3-2
Pablo Leon SCTM# 1000-68-3-2 .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
VIII. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral VIII, Resolutions -
Administrative Permits.
In order to simplify our meetings, the Board of Trustees
regularly groups together items that are minor or similar in nature.
Accordingly, I'll make a motion to approve as a group Items 2 through
Board of Trustees 6 February 14,2024
4 and 6. They are listed as follows:
Number 2, En-Consultants,,-,on behalf of MATTHEW GLASSMAN & TRACY
HELLER requests an Administative Permit to construct a 6' 4"x10'2"
second floor dormer addition onto the landward side of existing
1. 5 story, 1, 882sq. ft. Single-family dwelling with 81sq.ft.�
Attached deck; 312sq. ft. Enclosed patio; and 135sq.ft. Covered
stoop; verify and upgrade stormwater drainage system for existing
dwelling; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide,
approximately 1, 860sq.ft. Non-turf buffer to be planted with native
vegetation along the landward edge of the top crest of the bluff.
Located: 4995 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-9-11
Number 3, Patricia Moore, Esq. On behalf of MICHAEL & NANCY
MAGHAKIAN request an Administrative Permit to perform maintenance
and modifications to the existing two-story dwelling with garage
underneath (2, 436sq.ft. Footprint, with closet addition 2,501sq. ft. )
Consisting of installing new windows, siding and relocating front
door/entry area; construct a 4 ' wide roof overhang over new front
door on easterly side; resurface and replace railings on the
existing 16'x10.1' second floor deck; resurface and replace railings
on existing 10.1'x28 ' deck on north side of dwelling, then wrap around
to east side of dwelling and resurface and replace hand rails on the
16.7 'x8. 1' existing deck; remove existing and construct new entrance
steps (2 .51x5' top step to a 5'x5 ' landing to 51x6' steps to grade) ;
install an outdoor shower under easterly portion of deck;
existing easterly section of 41x21.5' wood deck to be removed and
reconstructed; existing southerly wood deck to be removed and construct
a 12 .2'x27.2 ' deck; construct a 71x2.7 ' closet overhang; relocate two
A/C units; and install two 81x4 ' drywells to contain
roof runoff.
Located: 80 West Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-58-2-16
Number 4, Niall Carroll on behalf of NICOLE ECKSTROM & CARLOS
SAAVEDRA requests an Administrative Permit to conduct construction
activity within 100' from the landward edge of wetlands for the
construction of an in-ground swimming pool, stone terrace and pool
shed.
Located: 590 Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-5-22 .
Number 6, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of HENRY L.
FERGUSON MUSEUM requests an Administrative Permit to remove invasive
vegetation and revegetation with appropriate native, non-fertilizer
dependent species; establishment of an unpaved three (3) car parking
area. using existing' soil and native grasses; installation,
of straw tube drainage and erosion cutouts for stormwater management
along beach access; legalize existing stone steps leading to beach;
installation of driftwood handrail along stone steps for safe beach
access; and for -the concrete removal of abandoned roadway.
Located: Private Road off East End Road, Fisher Island.
SCTM# 1000-3-2-11.1
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 7 February 14, 2024
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, LEVAS FAMILY 2014 IRREVOCABLE
TRUST, c/o ANGELA LEVAS requests an Administrative Permit for
the as-built reconstruction of the existing 667sq.ft. Deck with
--- ---- ----_--ll0sq.ft. Of steps to ground, 24 linear feet of cable rail, and
10 linear feet of handrails.
Located: 5335 The Long Way, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-5-13
Trustee Sepenoski conducted a field inspection on February
12th, noting it was straightforward.
The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency is the as-built was constructed without a Board of
Trustees review or permit.
I will 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) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 5, Coastal Plantings Inc. , on behalf
of JOHN & LAURA GALGANO requests an Administrative Permit for a
planting along Antler Road of: (1) 4" Red Point Maple; (7) 7-8'
Native Eastern Red Cedar; (7) 6-8'• Beach Plum; (8) 36" Bayberry;
(3) 5-6' White Spruce; (3) 5-6' Blue Spruce; (6) 8-10' Hollywood
Juniper; and (6) 5-6' Sea Green Juniper.
Located: 780 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-97-7-7
Trustee Krupski conducted a field inspection February 7th,
2024, noting that we need additional plans depicting the minor
berm.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that it' s subject to new plans depicting a berm no
higher than 18 inches.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 7, En-Consultants on behalf of 2740
DEEP HOLE DRIVE LLC requests an Administrative Permit for a Ten
(10) Year Maintenance Permit to selectively hand-cut using only
handheld tools, i.e. , no heavy machinery, a 5, 579sq.ft. Area of
common reed, Phragmites australis, once annually (between July
15 and August 1) , to a minimum height of 12" above root base,
with no disturbance to any other naturally existing vegetation;
and remove cut shoots for disposal at an approved upland
facility.
Located: 2740 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-4-11
Trustee Goldsmith conducted a field inspection January
llth, 2024, noting it was straightforward.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
1
Board of Trustees 8 February 14, 2024
is the work is proposed in a non-disturbance buffer established
in the Wetland Permit issued in 2023. We do have on the agenda
tonight an application to amend that permit to allow for
trimming of phragmites.
Therefore I'll make a. motion to approve this application, .
and it 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: Under Roman numeral IX, Applications for
Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments. Again, in
order to simplify our meeting, I'll make a motion to approve as
a group Items 1 through 8 and 10. They are listed as follows:
Number 1, GAYLE MARRINER-SMITH & CHRISTOPHER F. SMITH
request a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit #10080, as
issued on February 16, 2022, and Amended on July 13, 2022 .
Located: 2555 Kirkup Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-121-3-8
Number 2, DEMETRA MAKRIS requests a One (1) Year Extension
to Wetland Permit #10065 and Coastal Erosion Permit #100.65C, as
issued on February 16, 2024 .
Located: 910 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-30-2-81
Number 3, En-Consultants on behalf of NORTH FORK PROJECT,
LLC requests a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit #10084,
as issued on February 16, 2022.
Located: 5775 Mill Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-6-3
Number 4, ORIENTAL UNICORN, LLC requests the Final One (1)
Year Extension to Wetland Permit #9833 and Coastal Erosion
Permit #9833C, as issued on March 18, 2021.
Located: 860 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-2-47
Number 5, En-Consultants on behalf of KENNETH MADSEN &
MICHELLE HARMON-MADSEN requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit #10359 to eliminate to proposed 81x12 ' spa and to
modify the dimensions and configuration of the proposed deck and
swimming pool to increase the minimum wetlands setback to the
proposed deck from 65 to 76 feet, resulting in a 'proposed
1, 507sq. ft. Deck (in place of existing 732sq.ft. Deck) , and
121x39' swimming pool.
Located: 1425 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-116-7-6
Number 6, Mark Schwartz, Architect on behalf of SCOTT ROSEN
& LORI GOEDERS ROSEN requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit #10071 for the addition of a buried 500 gallon
liquid propane tank; install an A/C condenser on south-west side
of dwelling; remove existing generator slab and relocate for a
new propane powered generator on north-east side of dwelling;
the as-built lower deck on the seaward east side has been
reconfigured and cut back by 2 '3" and also on the southern side
I
Board of Trustees 9 February-14, 2024
(angular portion) ±5' 8" further from the water with the approved
267sq. ft. Square footage remaining the same; and as-built
'5' 8"x7 ' hot tub on upper deck.
Located: 850 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-11-16
Number 7, Eastern End Pools, Inc. , on behalf of MARK
ALBERICI requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#9975 for one 91sq. ft. Total patio, in lieu of the previously
permitted patios.
Located: 115 East Side Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-3-19
Number 8, Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc. , on
behalf of MIMN HOLDING, LLC c/o NICHOLAS NOTIAS requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10459 to construct a
4, 710sq. ft. Two-story dwelling in lieu of the originally
proposed 5, 144 sq. Ft. Two-story dwelling; construct a 910 sq.
Ft. Pool in lieu of the originally proposed 960 sq. Ft. Pool;
construct a 2, 750 sq. Ft. Covered and open terrace in lieu of
the originally proposed 2, 907 sq. Ft. Covered and open terrace;
construct a 460 sq. Ft. Entry and mudroom terraces instead of
the 8'xll' north patio entrance with steps to the ground.
Located: 450 Paradise Point Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-93-1-3
Number 10, En-Consultants on behalf of 2740 DEEP HOLE DRIVE
LLC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#10398 to allow for trimming of Phragmites within the 75 foot
non-disturbance buffer, provided such trimming is conducted
pursuant to separate and unexpired wetlands permits from.,the
Board of Southold Town Trustees and the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation.
Located: 2740 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-4-11
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 9, David Bergen on behalf of JAMES &
PAMELA-LUBIN requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit #1527 to construct a 41x24' ramp with short stairs to
ground off of current landward end of catwalk using 4"x4" posts
and thru flow grating; new ramp to be maintained 3' above
wetlands as per NYDEC; and to add water and electricity to
landward end of catwalk.
Located: 2765 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM: 1000-86-2-2
Trustee Peeples conducted a field inspection February 12th,
2024. Notes say Dark Skies compliant lighting if installed.
No LWRP on this one.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that any lighting be Dark Skies compliant.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
X. MOORINGS/STAKE & PULLEY SYSTEMS:
Board of Trustees 10 February 14, 2024
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral X, Moorings/Stake &
Pulley Systems. I 'll make a motion to approve as a group numbers
one and two:
Number 1, PAUL D. MURPHY requests a Mooring Permit for a
mooring in Gull Pond for a 21' outboard motorboat, replacing
Mooring #19. Access: Public
Number 2, WILLIAM C. LENGYEL requests a Mooring Permit for
a mooring in East Creek for a 17 ' outboard motorboat, replacing
Mooring #61. Access: Public
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Roman numeral XI, Public Hearings. At
this time I'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting
agenda and enter into public hearings.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a public hearing in the matter of
the following applications for permits under the Wetland
ordinance of the Town of Southold. I have an affidavit of
publication from the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may
be read prior to asking for comments from the public. Please
keep your comments organized and brief. Five minutes or less, if
possible.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 1, Docko, Inc. , on behalf of FISHERS
ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP. , c/o FISHERS ISLAND YACHT CLUB requests
a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to install four
(4) 4'x20' floating finger docks and one (1) 41x20' fixed wood
pile and timber finger pier with ladders along the east side of
the Trustee permitted west fixed to floating main dock; each
finger float/dock to have associated support, restraint,
fender/tie off piles, and new water and electric utilities; and
to retain and maintain the existing 8' wide by 18 linear foot
long floating dock, an intermediate 12 ' wide by 84 linear foot
long floating dock, and a 10' wide by 30 linear foot long
floating dock at shore end all off of the northeasterly side of
existing Trustee permitted dock.
Located: Central Avenue, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-1-9
The Trustees most recently reviewed this application on the
7th of February.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency stems from the fact that the action is within
Board of Trustees 11 February 14, 2024
Chapter 111, Coastal Erosion Hazard, and that the dock system
exceeds 200 square feet.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection therefore no recommendation was made.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. NIELSON: Yes. My name is Keith Nielson, with Docko, Inc. ,
out of Mystic, and we've prepared the application documents for
you tonight for this particular project.
The Fishers Island Yacht Club has operated this facility.
for over decades and has a variety of docking systems, some of
which are fixed piers, some of which are floating docks. And we
have an overall plan view on our application drawing which shows
the location of the entire dock facility. And then we have this
blowup in the upper left-hand corner that shows the specific
project.
There are two elements to the project; one is to retain and
maintain sailing program floats that were previously covered by
permits about a decade" ago, and I'm not sure what exactly
happened there, but the permits were issued by the Corps of
Engineers, DEC and the Department of State, consistency
determination to keep those _docks. At one time they were
considered for replacement with concrete floating docks, and
that was ultimately changed and they went back to an all-wood
system.
The remainder of the dock system, the first part of it is a
fixed pier, a ramp, and then a long floating dock which used to
end in a T-section. Five or so years ago we got permits to add
four finger piers off the end to make boating access a little
bit more -- a little less risky. Because the previous facilities
included tie-off lines much like the tie-off line that is shown
on our application drawing that we are replacing at this time.
This does not change the number of slips or the type of
boating or usage or frequency or anything, it just makes it a
little safer for the occupants to use.
The first four from the south running north, are floating
docks attached to the main floating dock system. The last one is
a fixed finger pier attached to the main wooden access pier.
There are a minimum size, four feet in width, and 20 feet in
length. They are accommodating the same boats that are out there
right now. And included with the project' is the removal of the
tie-off line system that .currently exists.
I understand the technicality about the 200 square feet,
but I believe that these are part, these docks, floating docks
are really just finger piers and they are an accessory to an
existing overall dock system that vastly exceeds the 200 square
feet, but this is a marine, a water-dependent -- high-priority,
water-dependent use. And the maintenance of safe and reasonable
finger piers for boating access is a reasonable and
understandable accessory.
Board of Trustees 12 February 14, 2024
And so, at any rate, these are in the best interest of the
users.
So that is the second element of the project.
There is no change in vessel accommodations by number or
size. We have reviewed the provisions of all of the regulations ------ - - -and in our opinion this is consistent and beneficial
development, and is in accordance with the spirit of all of the
regulations for the Town.
We prepared all the necessary forms and narratives in
accordance and, have published our notices, and turned in the
original along with affidavits. And so we believe this is a
good project and should be approved the way we have presented
it.
I would be happy to answer any questions that you might
have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. You are familiar with our process in
terms of Chapter 111, and if you were to receive an approval,
say, for,wetland, the wetland1portion of this 'and a denial for
Chapter 111, how "you would have to go before the Town Board and
just appeal?
MR. NIELSON: Yes, sir
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think' you have been through that process
before. Just clarifying. Because, you know, the coastal erosion
is the state law that we are upholding.
MR. NIELSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak to
this application or anyone else in the audience?
(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 the wetland permit
portion of this application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to deny the coastal erosion
permit due to the size and scope of this application under
Chapter 111.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. NIELSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 2, AS PER REVISED PLANS AND PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED ON 2/6/24 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 removal
and reconstruction of the existing dock consisting of
reconstructing the existing 5 'x52' fixed dock, raise it 0.5' in
Board of Trustees 13 February 14, 2024
elevation (final elevation 6.0' ) , and extend it 19' seaward;
remove existing ramp, float and remove two (2) piles; remove
existing 11'x11' portion of the fixed dock and two (2) piles;
install a new V x20' adjustable ramp with rails; install an
8'x16' floating dock secured by four (4) piles; and install
three , (3) tie-off piles. '
Located: 371 Hedge Street, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-7-18
The Trustees conducted an in-house review at our most
recent work session, 7th of February. THE notes from that
session read: Straightforward modification within pier line.
The LWRP was written more than a year ago and it addressed
a concern with eel grass, but that concern was laid to rest by
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service eel grass survey,
which did not find evidence of eel grass in the area.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. JUST: Good evening. Glen Just of JMO Environmental
Consulting.
If there are any questions from the Board, we visited this
site I think well over a year ago. At that time you pointed out
your concerns regarding possible eel grass, which we discussed,
as well as the pier line, and we have reconfigured the project
to be landward of the pier line, and to be able to make it a
good project.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I have no further questions. Does anyone
else, member of the public, or members of the Board, have any
questions or comments?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted, with the new plans stamped received February 6th,
2024 .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. Good evening. '
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Under Wetland Permits, Sean O'Neill on behalf
of WAMSLEY FAMILY TRUST, c/o DIANNE WAMSLEY requests a Wetland
Permit to abandon existing collapsing septic system and install
a new I/A OWTS waste water system on the property.
Located: 490 Williamsberg Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78.-5-10
The Trustees most recently visited this site on February
7th, noting straightforward improvement with IA system.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
Board of Trustees 14 February 14, 2024
consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
this application.
Is there anyone 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?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application ,as
submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 2, Michael Kimack on behalf of DUNNE
LIVING TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to temporarily remove
existing 3'x10 adjustable ramp ,and 61x70' floating dock, 102
linear feet of existing wood bulkhead and 8. 6'x8 'x6' hot tub;
install 102 linear feet of new vinyl bulkhead in same location
and raised 25" to match height of southerly adjoining bulkhead;
perform reclamation dredging to be done as required; reinstall
existing adjustable ramp and floating dock; install
approximately 65 linear feet of stone retaining wall at ±2 '
above top of new bulkhead with a ±10' retu,rn along southerly
property line (±75 linear feet) with stone steps (12sq. ft. ) ;
backfill area between new raised bulkhead and base of new
retaining wall with ±60 cubic yards of clean fill; install a
12 'x18 ' in-ground pool in approximately the same location as
removed hot tub; install pool enclosure fencing; install a pool
drywell; install a pool equipment area; install a ±280sq.ft.
Blue stone patio O/E; backfill landward side of new retaining
wall with ±25 cubic yards of clean fill and reseed; remove three
(3) trees; and to establish and perpetually maintain an
approximately 10' wide by 40 linear foot long northerly
vegetated non-turf buffer area and an approximately 10' wide by
60 linear feet of a southerly gravel non-turf buffer area both
along the landward edge of new bulkhead.
Located: 1425 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-11
The Trustees most recently visited this site on February
7th, and Trustee Sepenoski noted the pool proposed too close to
the water and too large. Three healthy mature oaks to remain.
Bulkhead appropriate for location.
The LWRP found this application to be both consistent and
inconsistent. The inconsistencies lie in the setback of the pool
and drywell are too close to marine waters. A minimum setback
from a bulkhead wetland to a pool is 50 feet.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support
Board of Trustees 15 February 14, 2024
the application to install a 12'x18 ' in-ground pool of 216
square feet in approximately the same location as the removed
hot tub.
The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the
p out of compliance.location of the pool on the bulkhead which is with Chapter 275.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Mike Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. I could
review the bulkhead, raising it, primarily, and the reason being
is that one side, on the northern side, is 32 inches higher than
. the existing bulkhead, and the one on the southern side is 25
inches. And I chose to raise it to the 25-inch level and bring
it right across, in its same location.
As far as the non-turf buffers, as you have observed it, if
you looked at it, the one on the northern side, primarily, will
be pretty much replaced with vegetation as it is now.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes.
MR. KIMACK: But there is a breakpoint because it comes down on a
bit of a slope or a bit of a bank. And then the rest of it from
there over will match the ten-foot setback of the existing
non-turf buffer gravel adjacent to it.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes.
MR. KIMACK: And that will come back flat for the ten feet, with
the retaining wall, because of the in-ground pitching up at that
point. Which is on the drawing. Then beyond that there is a fill
area just to blend everything in.
Now, your concern is the pool and the closeness of the
pool. It.kind of replaces the hot tub, amongst the same
location, and it's really no closer than the hot tub was to the
bulkhead. Yes, it's a little bit larger, but the, I think the
hot tub was about 7 '5"x7' 5", if I remember correctly, and the
pool being 12xl8.
It' s, that whole area is all stone in that one particular
location. I'm not quite sure where we could put it. There really
is not much leverage on the property in terms of anyplace else.
It was, this, when the hot tub was set up with the stone, that
was the location it was put in, and the pool is just a
replacement for it.
Did you have any suggestions as to where it might go?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Well, just a couple of comments. Thank you, for
sharing all of that.
When I'm looking at the submitted drawing, stamped and
received on February 1st of 2024, it does actually appear that
the pool is 'getting closer to the bulkhead. The hot tub already
is in close proximity and it actually appears, according to this
drawing, that the pool would be about ten feet from the
bulkhead. And as noted in the LWRP, the Chapter 275 states a
50-foot setback for a pool.
So, you know, I think when we reviewed this onsite, it did
i
i
Board of Trustees 16 February 14, 2024
not seem like this was an appropriate location for a new pool. I
understand your comment about the hot tub, however that is a bit
of a different situation.
The other question I would like for you to address and
answer, the stone retaining wall, what is the height of that
proposed --
MR. KIMACK: Two feet.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Two feet. Okay, so currently this is an
existing property and very well landscaped. We definitely, it,
there is a clear understanding of why they would want to replace
the bulkhead and raise the height of it. That seems fairly
straightforward.
The retaining wall, I don't quite understand the necessity
for that, with the understanding that currently there is not one
there. The lawn does sort of slope down, the property does slope
down and almost flattened area there where the gravel, ten-foot
proposed gravel buffer will be.
MR. KIMACK: The rationale behind that was, basically to, the
owner, the new owner of the property wanted to be able to
flatten that area down in order to put the gravel down there so
that it would not, it wouldn't travel all the way down.
If you really think about it, it's actually an advantage
because the non-turf buffer being flat, any water or anything
running into it will drain down rather than have an opportunity
to run over it.
So if you had that kind of slope going down, even if you
only had a ten-foot non-turf buffer, and your concern is the
pesticides, the grass area, which is considerably above it, it' s
a pretty steep area right there, it would pretty much run
through it.
So by flattening it down it really, it really enhances the
ability to slow down any pesticides that may get into the water.
Which would be your goal.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Onsite I noticed that the property to the south
had a very similar situation, they had a raised-height bulkhead, -
they had approximately ten-ish buffer --
MR. KIMACK: And it was flat across it.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And they had flattened it. But they only had a
little bit of a curb or, you know, stones that were kind of
delineating that line --
MR. KIMACK: Completely different contours, though, between the
two properties. It was not as steep on the southern property as
this one.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, I think my point is that when we reviewed ,
the property, the existing property, it didn't seem like there
was a need for that retaining wall, that the buffer could be
added in, you know. Obviously you are raising the grade already
because you are going, to be replacing the bulkhead there.
MR. KIMACK: Yes, if you look at it, primarily, from the original
one on the drawing, you can see where the original one was, we
Board of Trustees 17 February 14, 2024
were raising it up about 25 inches, really two feet. AND then in
order to lessen the grade behind it, it was a ten-foot retaining
wall, in order to lessen the pitch. And all of that, basically,
plays into the fact that you are going to be able to slow the
drainage down to be able to, that you have it ,,drain into the ---
non-turf area as opposed to going overboard into the Gull Pond
itself.
It' s really steep. And what the retaining wall does is it
lessens the angle of the repose, and therefore slows down the and it makes it easier for the owners to walkup and down a
hill. {
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Another issue to address are the three mature
oaks that are on the property. When we were there, it seemed
like they were on the north edge there.
MR. KIMACK: Yes, they were. Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. Is there any way to maintain those?
MR. KIMACK: Well, that would depend upon what we are doing at
the pool, in essence. I'm not quite sure if there is any other
place for the pool on the property, unless what we can do, what
I can perhaps do, is turn that pool so that it's parallel to the
house, and move it further away. If that would be something that
you might consider.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Recently we have been pretty strong with the
precedent of a 50-foot offset for the pool.
MR. KIMACK: Well, the house is 37 foot.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You could move the pool 20 feet to the east.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Towards the house?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's west.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Oh.
MR. KIMACK: You mean make it, come off the framed deck?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, east is this way. (Indicating)
MR. KIMACK: I'm sorry, what was it, Nick? Which way are we
going?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm saying if you moved it 20 feet east you
would be in the creek, which is probably more appropriate to
swim at this location.
MR. KIMACK: I 'm not quite sure you want to, I don't think you
want to swim in the creek in this location.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Trustee Sepenoski asked the inspection notes
state: Pool proposed too close to water and too large. Three
healthy mature oaks to remain. Bulkhead appropriate for
location.
MR. KIMACK: Would you consider the retaining walls based upon
the information I gave you in terms of really trying to lessen
the slope going down the hill. That was one of his reasons for
the retaining wall. And also because it does 'in fact enhance
the ability to minimize pesticide flow.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I mean, my understanding when I saw the
retaining wall was that that was part of the pool project,
because I was not --
i
Board of Trustees 18 February 14, 2024
MR. KIMACK: No, it was separate and apart.-
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. Because based on the neighbor, you know,
the adjacent neighbor to the south, and the fact that we were
there on the property, and you would be raising the bulkhead 25
inches, which means you already are going to be raising that - - - -_ - - - ------- - --
grade slightly, I don't see, you know, I'm one Trustee, I don't
see the necessity of also a two-foot retaining wall. Because
essentially you are raising the grade approximately that anyway.
MR. KIMACK: Well there is quite a bit of change of grade within
about that 20 foot there. My detailed drawing does not
necessarily give you a good picture of that, primarily, because
I have not really enhanced it. But, yes, we are bringing up the,
the bulkhead the two feet and then we are flattening back to the
retaining wall and raising it another two feet. Essentially that
gives us that four foot overall to be able to land it down, but
we really only changed that pitch maybe from, 'it' s quite a steep
angle going down the hill.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Mr. Kimack, do you know if` there are any
current permits on the existing retaining wall or hot tub
onsite?
MR. KIMACK: I'm not quite sure. I have not looked into whether
or not one had an existing one, because I was going back through
the process to replace it. So I was less interested in whether
it in fact was, you know, the hot tub was in fact -- I would
imagine it might and should be, but then again I hadn't checked.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I'm currently looking through the file history
and I'm not seeing a permit for the hot tub. So using that as a
justification for the location of the pool, it's an un-permitted
structure, so we could not consider it, as far as I know. As far
-as I can see here.
MR. KIMACK: I just want to point out again, the retaining wall
is separate and apart, and it was not really designed because of
the pool. It was designed in order to lessen the grade of the
property.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And would that retaining wall connect in with
kind of what you currently have as somewhat of a retaining wall
on the north side of the property where it's vegetated, kind of?
MR. KIMACK: It would just dive into it. It was difficult to
choose where it was going to end, but essentially it would just,
as you raise it up, it would dive into that little bit of slope
coming down on the one side.
If you could see where the retaining wall was going into
where the pool area is, that was a location, I chose that, that
was where it bled into the bank.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay.
MR. KIMACK: Coming down.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay.
MR. KIMACK: It was just an end to it. It was not anything to do,
supporting the pool or anything like that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you.
Board of Trustees 19 February 14, 2024
MR. KIMACK: But if you remember, it was an odd piece of
property, that whole bank came down, and that's where the
retaining wall would bleed into.
I think what you are giving me instructions is basically to
reconsider relocating pool if in fact I can find a suitable -
location that would be acceptable to the Board. Leave the trees
in place. But I would in fact ask your indulgence on the
retaining wall for the very reasons that I had expressed.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And when we were looking at the plans, it
doesn't. have any elevations or contour lines, which would make
this discussion a little easier if we did have that in the
future.
MR. KIMACK: I didn't have a contour thing. What I did is I used
the survey plan next door so that it's an accurate in terms of
the height for the bulkhead. I used that, and that is 5' 8" at
that particular point. So when I brought that across, I was able
to use, they had a survey with contours on the one adjacent to
it. And when I brought it across, I was able to use that as a
tie-in point.
Would it be advisable at this point to ask that it be
tabled so I have an opportunity to go back and make an
adjustment and changes on it.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Certainly, if you would like to table it.
MR. KIMACK: I think that would be advisable. I 've got your
points. I understand that, primarily.
The pool is too close. We'll see if we can find a better
location, leave the trees and --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So one thing we did discuss, with the
proposed retaining wall, currently I think you have a ten feet
behind the bulkhead. We were talking about potentially kicking
that further landward, and --
MR. KIMACK: I did it only because it matched the ten-foot
non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, so what we were discussing is moving
that further landward to increase that buffer and then do some
plantings in front of the wall.
MR. KIMACK: You advise 15 feet? You would not mind if I raised
it to three then in order to pick up the grade?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We were going to limit it to two and then do
some plantings in front of it.
MR. KIMACK: Give back five feet, and eliminate the two? 30
inches?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Nope. So we are just -- we are giving you
feedback --
MR. KIMACK: We've had these nibbling conversations before.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: (Continuing) so when you go back to the
drawing board with the pool and everything, you are --
MR. KIMACK: I mean five feet is going to kick me up, on that
particular grade, it's going to be at least 18 inches.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And then maybe with the new plans have the
Board of Trustees 20 February 14, 2024
contour lines so we are all on the same page with elevations.
MR. KIMACK: Okay. And I'll talk to my client about the pool
itself. The only place that it might possibly go would be part
of that framed deck, and steps, in order to -- it' s never going
_.. __ to be the 50 feet, but it's going to be certainly further back.
Basically are you saying if it's not 50 feet there is no pool at
all?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, we can't speak to that, but if you look
at the past precedent for I don't know how many years, you can
find the answer.
MR. KIMACK: It' s interesting that with Gull Pond, and I don't
want to take up much of your time, but you look around, a lot of
the pools in front there, especially on the other fork, are
literally ten or 15 or 20 feet away. And they have been -- now
granted, you may have a different read on it at the time, but
the past, the past history of Board discussions has allowed them
to be in those positions, especially when they are behind a
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Mr. Kimack, I know we've shared a lot of
information and had a nice discussion here. You've mentioned
tabling the application --
MR. KIMACK: Yes, it would be advisable, I think.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, I mean we could proceed with conditions
to the permit, if that would -- although --
MR. KIMACK: That may be helpful, basically, because I think we
probably whittled it down in terms of, and then tabling is not
necessarily going to change the outcome, essentially like that.
So if you wanted to do it with conditions and give me the
opportunity to come back and meet those conditions. That would
help.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So perhaps I'll just review what we discussed,
just to make sure we are on the same page.
So it would be retaining the three mature oaks.
MR. KIMACK: Correct.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Moving the retaining wall back.
MR. KIMACK: Five feet.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And --
MR. KIMACK: And keep it at the same height.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. To no higher than the two feet.
MR. KIMACK: Okay. I would let you know that I might vary the,
rather than keeping that 15-foot plat, I may vary that in order
to keep the two foot.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I'm sorry, could you clarify that?
MR. KIMACK: The non-turf buffer, rather than keeping it flat, I
may vary that from one end to the other. I may raise it. I may
slope it.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: You may submit whatever you wish to the Board
for its review.
MR. KIMACK: Correct. I mean, it' s going to be the 15-foot, it' s
going to be the two-foot retaining wall. But in order for the
Board of Trustees 21 February 14, 2024
retaining wall to catch the grade behind it, I may raise it up
on the landward side, perhaps, in that 15-foot about a foot.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: By bringing, in fill?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We still have too much back and forth. At this
____point,_ I don't think we are on the same page.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I would agree with you. So I think at this
point perhaps --
MR. KIMACK: We'll table. I'll redraw it and come back again.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you, very much. With all that said,
I make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 3, En-Consultants on 'behalf of
PATRICIA M. HOMAN requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing
bluff stairway from east end of property and construct a new
4'x±45' timber bluff stairway on west ,end of property consisting
of a) 4 'x2.5 ' top entry steps and 4 'x6' top entry landing, 4 'x32 '
steps, .4 'x6' landing, 4 'x4' steps, and 41x6' landing at top of
bulkhead, with relocated 2.81x14 ' removable aluminum steps to
beach; and using native plantings to restore areas of existing
vegetation disturbed or lost during removal of existing stairway
and construction of new stairway.
Located: 4630 Blue Horizon Bluffs, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-74-1-35.51
The Trustees conducted a field inspection February 7th,
2024, noting the project was straightforward.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
This is basically a rebuild of an existing set of stairs
;that is on the property. One side of the property is facing
severe erosion, so they are proposing to move the stairs to the
other side.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant.
I think Glenn summarized the proposal well, and the reason
for it, and to help the Board make up a little lost time, I
won't add anything to that, unless you have any questions.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Oh, my goodness.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wishing to speak with regard
to 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.
Board of Trustees 22 February 14, 2024
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. - -
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 4, En-Consultants on behalf of DONALD J.
& PAMELA E. SCHNEIDER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
6.5'xll.5' one-story addition onto existing 1, 063sq. ft.
One-story dwelling; construct a 41x7 ' wood stoop and a 4'x4 '
bluestone pathway in place of existing 62.2sq. ft. Deck, stairs
and walkway; construct 121•.5sq. ft. Raised wood deck with 41x6'
steps in place of existing 72.7sq.ft. Deck and steps; and to
reconstruct in-place existing 119.lsq. ft. Raised deck; replace
existing septic system with new I/A sanitary system located
landward of dwelling; install a stormwater drainage system; and
to establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer
with native vegetation along the landward side of the top of
bank.
Located: 890 Ruch Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-2-31
The Trustees visited the property on the 7th of February
and noted that a 15-foot non-turf buffer, vegetated buffer,
would be recommended, given the slope and the location.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
this application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicant. The applicant, the homeowner, Pam Schneider, is
also here.
It is a reasonably straightforward application for a small
addition in the front, and deck addition and reconfiguration in
the rear. It was the Board's recommendation to increase what we
had proposed as a ten-foot non-turf buffer to a 15-foot non-turf
buffer. We have been able to revise the plans to accommodate
the Board' s request, and I'll submit now two copies of a, sealed
site plan from Maresca & Associates Consulting Engineers last
dated February 12th, 2024, which shows a 15-foot vegetated
non-turf buffer and a four-foot wide access path to be
maintained as a cleared access to the approximate center point
of the existing platform at the top of the stairs.
And that note regarding the width of the buffer to be
planted is kind of on the right-hand side of the depicted
buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And there are no other changes that have been
made to the plans aside from the buffer?
MR. HERRMANN: Correct. Well, I shouldn't say that. There are a
r
Board of Trustees 23 February 14, 2024
couple of minor design details to the sanitary system that' s
located outside the Board' s jurisdiction, just pursuant to a
couple of comments from the Health Department. But they should
not affect this Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. - .
Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding
this application? Or any additional comments from the members
of the Board?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Appreciate meeting with you in the field and
the thorough going-over of the project. You answered all our
questions and presented detailed, carefully drawn plans that are
ready to go.
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hearing no additional comments, 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
based on the plans stamped received by the office February 14th,
2024 .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 5, Clay Coffey & Margot Coffey on
behalf of MARK & LISA MONTIFIORE requests a Wetland Permit for
the existing 1, 971sq. ft. One story, single family dwelling;
construct a 416sq.ft. Addition onto the landward side of the
dwelling; construct a 997sq.ft. Second story addition; new
roofing and siding; existing 600sq.ft. Ground floor seaward side
deck to be reconstructed and reduced to a proposed 517sq. ft.
(18. 6'x24. 8 ' ) deck with a ±21x24.8 ' trellis; construct a
3. 6'x11. 8 ' front entry; construct a 2'x5.8 ' mudroom entry;
construct a 6.5'x39' second story deck within the footprint of
the first floor; ; 'abandon existing septic system and install a
proposed I/A OWTS septic system landward of dwelling; abandon
existing well and install public water line; install gutters to
leaders to drywells; outdoor lighting to be Dark Sky compliant;
install staked hay bales and silt fencing prior to and during
construction; and to establish and perpetually maintain the
existing 2, 740sq.ft. Vegetated bank as a non-turf buffer area.
Located: 4452 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel
SCTM# 1000-128-4-22.2
The Trustees visited the site on the 7th of February and
our notes from that visit read: Increased non-turf buffer from
top of bank.
The LWRP coordinator found this project to be consistent
and also recommended maximizing a vegetated buffer landward of
Board of Trustees 24 February 14, 2024
the top of bluff to minimize turf seaward of the residence.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not have enough
information to make its determination, so it does not have a
recommendation at this time.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this - -
project?
MR. COFFEY: Good evening, it' s Isaac Clay Coffey with Isaac Rae
Architects.
Thank you, Board for meeting us tonight on Valentine's Day.
Appreciate your time.
I just wanted to give you, I know we spoke at the site
meeting, but I wanted to just give you a little bit more
information on the amount of existing area that we are proposing
to retain.
The total existing exterior wall area that we are proposing
to retain is 85% of the exterior walls. It' s 72% of the interior
walls of the ground floor, and then total floor area that we are
proposing to retain is 82%.
So essentially we are right in that 80 to 70 -- 85 to 70%
retention rate of the existing structure. All of the existing
footprint of the house that is on the landward side of the house
is retained. We wanted to, you know, drew in the pier line with
you guys, discussed that, and increased the ten-foot border. I'm
happy to answer any questions you may have, and thank you for
. your consideration.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I have only the one issue to address, which
would be the vegetated non-turf buffer at the top of bank. When
we visited you in the field, the bank is well vegetated, and you
seemed to indicate that the owner of the property was in favor
of vegetating a bit more of that bank to stabilize it and also
provide some esthetic value and some habitat value as well.
MR. COFFEY: Absolutely. So we resubmitted a site plan on Monday
that showed an increased ten-foot top of bank forward.
Landward.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I did see that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: You saw that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Great. All right, any other questions or
comments?
(No response) .
I know that we did discuss, too, the irrigation that is
present in the field, and I would actually be in favor of
irrigation remaining, but for about a year, to establish any
plantings that are in place, and then after that period of time ,
the irrigation would be removed.
MR. COFFEY: I think that' s amenable to the client. Currently
irrigation runs off well water, which they are proposing to
replace. Their water system will be coming from the street, so
the irrigation itself is going to be, you know, the water system
itself is going to be upgraded.
Board of Trustees 25 February 14, 2024
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay. Any other comments from the Board or
members of the public?
(No 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 the new plans -- pardon. Bear with me --
received and stamped February 12th, 2024, depicting the ten-foot
vegetated buffer landward of bank. And those plantings would be
native plantings and that a temporary irrigation system be in
place.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 6, PABLO LEON requests a Wetland Permit
to construct a proposed 41x±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
41x±23' stairs to a 4 'x4' middle landing to 41,x±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
The Trustees most recently visited the site on February
7th, 2024, noting a 15-foot vegetated buffer landward of the top
of the bluff is recommended.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent. The rate of erosion and instability of the bluff
prevents the safe construction of structures on or near it.
Number two, use of CCA treated wood in construction with
human contact is a health risk.
And number three, public beach access is available at
Goldsmith Inlet just east of the parcel.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this application
and resolved not to support it, noting the stairway should have
retractable stairs parallel to the shoreline at the base, and
there is no erosion control measures in place.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. LEON: I'm the owner of the house. Can you rephrase so that
I couldn't understand it. The meaning properly.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Sure, sure. So our applications are reviewed
by the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program to look for
consistencies with our Local Waterfront Revitalization plan.
MR. LEON: Uh, huh.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And they found, the review of that, found this
Board of Trustees 26 February 14, 2024
plan to be inconsistent, stating that the rate of erosion and
instability of the bluff prevents the safe construction of
structures on or near it, saying that the bluff is so unstable
that the construction of the steps may not be safe, and noting
that there is public beach access nearby.
MR. LEON: Yes, it was also an application by the previous owner,
2012, where she got the approval for the Board, for the DEC, to
build the stairs. However she developed illness over the years,
and she lived in the city, and now she sitting in nursing home,
so she couldn't build the stairs at that time. But it was
previously and the conditions are pretty much the same as they
are right now.
If I were to build out a stair six month ago, according to
DEC, the permit was granted, I think they provided ten-year
window to do that. That is what they told me at the DEC. But
unfortunately we did the closing at the end of September or
August, and I couldn't do any work by then. Actually, it took a
little longer than that. I just wanted to bring that point up.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, thank you.
Is there anyone else here wishing to speak regarding this
application, or any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just a very brief comment. I would echo the
LWRP in that, and we've seen this for, you know, over eight
years now, this little stretch of property is losing a massive
amount of bluff every year. So while I don't have a problem with
access stairs there, and certainly it's, if you are interested
in doing that, so be it, but you might want to consider
protecting your assets before adding more to them. It's --
MR. LEON: Oh, absolutely. You know that' s the whole idea, is to
restore as much as we can, and protect that in the future if I,
a permit is granted by the DEC as well. You know, I want to keep
that property for a long time and inherit to my grandkids and
family.
But that will be the general idea, to protect it and make
it safe for the environment, and work with the DEC and the Town
as much as possible to make it stable.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just so we are clear, and I'm really just
saying this for your benefit at this point, there is a good
chance if you build the stairs, they are going to get wiped out,
without securing the toe of the bluff. So.
MR. LEON: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have seen it multiple times within a half
mile of this property, so.
MR. LEON: I just doing it for my wife.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's great, but it might be best to secure
the toe for your wife first, is all I'm saying.
MR. LEON: I totally understand. I am an engineer and I know all
those chances and problems that can come in the future, and
believe me, I want to avoid as much as I can to preserve the
property.
Board of Trustees 27 February 14, 2024
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Great.
MR. LEON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Are there-any other questions or comments from
the Board?
(No response) . -- --- -----
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing,
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I make a motion to approve this application '
subject to minimal use of CCA materials only as needed, and
stipulating the replanting of any disturbed vegetation with
native species. And new plans depicting the 15-foot vegetated
non-turf buffer from the top of the bluff. By using -- the
minimal use of CCA treated lumber and replanting of the
disturbed bluff, we will thereby be bringing this into
consistency with the LWRP. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 7, PABLO LEON requests a Wetland Permit
for the existing dwelling with a 40.2'x24.5' basement level; -
existing 1, 163.03sq.ft. First floor; a proposed 822. 94sq. ft.
(36.2'x24.5' L shape) second story addition; a proposed
11' 11"x5' (59.756sq.ft. ) Open terrace attached to the front of
the dwelling; a proposed 24.51x8 ' (±195.20sq.ft. ) , with 4 ' of
terrace to be cantilevered) open terrace attached to the rear of
the dwelling; `total gross area to be 2, 966.85sq. ft. ; and to
install an I/A OWTS system on the landward side of the dwelling.
Located: 1400 Salt Marsh Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-68-3-2
The Trustees most recently visited the site on February 7th
of 2024, and Trustee Krupski noted: House in the same
footprint; small cantilevered deck on seaward side; need to see
non-turf buffer on plans 15 feet; drywells need to be on plan
and walkway.
We are not in receipt of an LWRP.
We do have a letter from the Conservation Advisory Council
that resolved to support this application.
Is there , anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. LEON: I am.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Is there anything you wish to share? -
MR. LEON: Well, it does put the second-floor addition, right?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: This is for the addition on the house, correct.
MR. LEON: Currently it's a three-bedroom house. I am converting
into same three-bedroom house and do my master bathroom upstairs
on the second floor, with the cantilever terrace at the back of
the house. The cantilever is going to extend four feet out from
the edge of the back of the house, and four feet is going to be
Board of Trustees 28 February 14, 2024
inside the house.
I got permits ready to be filed with the Department ,of
Buildings for all that work. Downstairs will be two bathrooms, a
stairs going all the way upstairs, by removing one bathroom,
and first floor would remain as is. And I'm putting a new septic.-___._.__
system, as required by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, great. So you mentioned this cantilevered
deck, and I just want to confirm, because we are in receipt -of
new plans that are stamped and dated February 12th of 2024.
MR. LEON: Correct.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So on these plans you are now showing the
proposed deck, and in the previous plans there was no deck that
was shown on the plans. And my guess is that that is because
it's cantilevered. It does not touch the ground, correct? It' s
on the second floor?
MR. LEON: The second floor is not going to touch the ground, no.
It's going to be cantilevered with the steel beam W14' s and it' s
going to go pretty much, maybe about 16, 17 feet into the house,
supported by columns.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay.
MR. LEON: And it' s not going to touch the ground.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. And, the way I understand this, you've
noted here on these new plans that's dated February 12th, 2024,
that it' s eight feet deep, but in fact it' s four feet --
MR. LEON: No, that' s a wood deck on the first floor.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Oh, so there is a deck --
MR. LEON: It' s a deck to get --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: On the ground floor.
MR. LEON: It' s a deck to go from the ground floor into the
patio. It' s about eight-foot deep by the width of the house,
excluding the addition of the house on the side, the portico,
and, it' s about 24 or less in width. It .pretty much will be the
width of the house, is to put - chairs and enjoy the view. That's
the only part that is going to be getting of the first floor.
Second floor will be cantilever. It will not touch the ground.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So there is an eight-foot deep on-grade deck,
and then there is also a cantilevered deck on the second floor
above?
MR. LEON: Well, the cantilever deck is going to be four feet,
this -- this is the edge of the house. Is going to be four feet
in.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes.
MR. LEON: So the second floor girder is going to be four feet
away from the first floor nine, and then it' s going to extend
four feet out, which is going to be the cantilever for the
terrace.
' Below that, for the first floor, it's going to be a wood
deck or a PVC deck, just to, when you exit the first floor, you
have a place to put your chair and sit down, and it's going to
be on the ground level.
Board of Trustees 29 February 14, 2024
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay,, because I don't see that in your project
description. So that's a new -- that seems to be a new addition
to the project.
MR. LEON: That is not there. And I apologize for that. When I
got .the new survey, I was talking to the surveyor, and he- says
if you want. I can put this future deck on the, actually on the
first floor so you can submit that to the Town.
So at that time, the survey was done' a couple of weeks ago,
I believe, and I updated that on the plans that I submitted on
Monday, so I can show more information, and I got a couple of
copies with me. But I cannot that description at any time
because I don't remember if it was, I don't know, do you
remember, Natalie? The deck, I don't think it was added to
that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So I do see this survey that was stamped and
received on January 25th, 2024, does that sound correct, that
does show the proposed deck at 33 feet from the top of bluff.
MR. LEON: Can I take a look?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Sure, you are free to approach.
MR. LEON: I just want to see what you are asking me
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: This is the survey that you are referring to.
MR. LEON: This is the survey. Okay, this is the survey.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, so this is the most recent survey and
this is the most recent plan, correct?
MR. LEON: Right. So the surveyor asked me if I wanted to add a
deck over here for the ground level.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Right.
MR. LEON: So when I get off from the first floor, I can go on to
the deck with the chairs.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay.
MR. LEON: The second floor as cantilever.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I do understand that. Okay. Thank you, for
clarifying that. i
MR. LEON: It' s, but it' s cantilevered. And the reason for the
cantilever is to protect the ground on the rear of the house so
I don't have to do any foundation or any major lots that will
come from the roof and the cantilever.
TRUSTEE HULSE: Can I interject for a second. It sounds like
there is a lot of, it's either vague or not clear in the plans
that are submitted what exactly is being requested, is what it
sounds like.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: The project description does not include that.
MS. HULSE: Okay, so it sounds like that needs to be clarified in
writing, it needs to be come from the applicant and it needs to
be clear so that the Board can act on it. The back and forth is
not helpful now --
MR. LEON: Okay
MS. HULSE: Because the description needs to be firmed up and it
needs to be something that everyone understands what you are
wanting to be put before this Board. Do you think that you could
Board of Trustees 30 February 14, 2024
dog that or --
MR. LEON: I can do that at any time. I can take care of that. I
work with a new survey a lot and all these documents that are
requested by the Board. So that description I can have it done
tomorrow morning, e-mail that, if it's accepted to be e-mailed.
But as far as the cantilever and the second floor and all
that information, it' s already on the description of the
project. It's just that that little detail ,came up when I 'was
with my surveyor a couple of weeks ago, and he says to me why
don't you add that on your survey, at the future, and then you
can apply for the whole, for the whole work.
MS. HULSE: Okay, so it' s important that the plans that are
submitted with the application and the description match each
other. It has to be --
MR. LEON: Everything match except that deck on the floor level,
from the first floor, everything else is the same. Everything is
check. And I can do a letter, I can sign and seal, I'm an
engineer, so I can do that any time. My office can e-mail that
right away. So I take full responsibility of that, for a couple
of things. One I'm going to build it. I have it also I'm a
builder. And I will take full responsibility. Plus it's my
house, so I 'm not going to cut any corners.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Trustee Peeples, what is the distance from
top of bluff to the proposed structure?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: The distance from top of bluff to the proposed
deck, that is eight feet deep, is 33 feet. And the distance from
top of bluff to the existing house, with the proposed second
story, is 41 feet.
MR. LEON: Yes, the slope counts like this.
MS. HULSE: So I just want to interject. There is no action that
the Board can take tonight, for a couple of reasons.
One is there needs to be clarification of the description.
And two is that it needs to be reviewed pursuant to our code on
LWRP 268 by the LWRP coordinator. And that has not been done
yet. That review has not been provided to the Board. So this
matter has to be tabled in any event, and that review has to be
made.
MR. LEON: Yes, but that delays the whole thing for me and I
don't think that would be --
MS. HULSE: Which would be delayed anyway, because at this
juncture --
MR. LEON: That I will do whatever is necessary. I just don't
want to delay this project much, because I really want to start
getting the documents into the Building Department and get the
framing, get it started.
MS. HULSE: Sir, really, just let me, really quick. The LWRP
requires this Board to have that review done, and they have to
allow that coordinator time prepare that review. That has to be
done. This Board is not permitted to act without that. So they
don't have an option to make a decision on this application
Board of Trustees 31 February 14, 2024
tonight in any event. So I'm just suggesting, with what you are
discussing here with Trustee Peeples, maybe you want to clarify
what you are specifically asking for and match that description
to what the plan is.
MR. LEON: That is fine. I can do that. But we are just talking
about the deck, living on the first floor. The rest of the
property, the cantilever beam, second floor, the three bedroom,
that is already been described on the application. So I
shouldn't really get penalized for everything except for the
deck. And if there is a problem with the deck, and I can deal a
little time, I can do that. But I would like the opportunity.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sir, not to interrupt, but we discussed it.
We legally cannot move forward with this application tonight.
Period.
MR. LEON: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: What we do not have is the project
description that matches the plans specifically in regard to
your cantilevered deck.
So, because we can't move on it tonight, in the meantime,
get the project description, everything tightened up, that
matches what you plan to do so the plans match the project
description, resubmit it to this office, and it will be tabled
until next month when the LWRP coordinator has a chance to
review this, and then we'll table, it until March' s meeting to
make a determination. Legally, there is nothing we can do
tonight.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have one last question. Have you applied to
the Building Department at this time?
MR. LEON: Well, I could file, if you give me the opportunity to
submit drawings with the Building Department, just so I can
expedite the review, and in the meantime I can wait for the
March meeting with the Board again.
I just want to ask if you can please, you know, help me to
get the documents in to the Building Department so they can
review everything that I'm doing, elevation, details.
MS. HULSE: You need to make an application to the Building
Department for the deck. That needs to be done.
MR. LEON: Excuse me?
MS. HULSE: You need to make an application to the Building
Department .for the deck. That needs to be done.
MR. LEON: Okay. Okay, so I can do that.
MS. HULSE: Is the second-story addition approved by the ZBA, or
no?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I don't think he did anything.
MS. CANTRELL: He has the ZBA determination for the second story
addition. That's where the IA came from. The deck just showed up
on the plans, so that is not, I don't know if he applied to the
Zoning Board for the deck.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So just to be clear, for the second-story
addition, you've been to the Building Department and ZBA?
Board of Trustees 32 February 14, 2024
MR. LEON: Building Department would not allow me to file until I
get Trustees approval for the second floor.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : For the house?
MR. LEON: For the house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For the entire structure? --- ------- - ---
MR. LEON: For the construction, right. When I apply to the
Building Department,that was back in, that was back in
September, I apply and I put drawings and they say you got to go
to Trustees first. So I went to Trustees, I got the application,
I prepare the information they needed it. And I submitted it.
Then they said that I needed Board of Zoning Appeals review
so I went to the Board of Zoning Appeals later, a few months
later. And they approve everything with the exception to put a
septic system. I agreed to do that. And then -- and then I, you
know, asked for a new day for the Trustees meeting.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Mr. Leon, what decision was rendered to put
you before the ZBA?
MR. LEON: I'm sorry?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: You have to have a denial of some form or
another in order to be before the ZBA. Was there a denial issued
on your project that put you before the ZBA?
MR. LEON: Yes, you're right. I 'm sorry. I file with Building
Department. They give me denial letter. You are correct about
that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: And what was the nature of the denial letter?
MR. LEON: The denial I believe was to file with the Trustees
board. That was the denial. I got that. Yes. You're right.
Because they said we have to give you denial first. I think I
pay like $60, I don't remember how much. It was not a lot of
money. And then once the denial went in, I applied for the
Trustees. Yup, thank you, for remind me that.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I just want to say, I appreciate how
complicated it is with all the different Boards, and I know you
are navigating it and I know that it can be a little bit
frustrating to go around.
MR. LEON: I understand. I deal with a lot of jurisdictions. One
of the ones is the City of New York, which is never easy. But I
deal with landmarks, everybody in New York can. I know these
steps got to be taken care. But in this case, because it' s my
personal house, and I want to build it for my family, I want to
build it for them so they can enjoy the summer. I need some
privacy on the second floor.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes. So the main thing is that we just
legally can not move forward without our LWRP review. So that is
where we are.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That's where we are legally, but I think
Trustee Krupski's comments earlier is that there is a
significant erosion in this location. And in fact one property
over a house was pushed back 80 feet.
MR. LEON: Oh, yes, I know.
Board of Trustees 33 February 14, 2024
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So if you are, again, planning this
investment for your grandchildren, you should think in a
longtime horizon. Or they will inherit a house, on the edge of
the bluff.
__MR.. LEON: If any passing, but I'm taking responsibility, and I.
pray to God, you know, it will be like that for many, many
years, you know. But, you never know about what will happen.
But I want to ask the Board if I can prepare those for the
Building Department in the meantime so they can review it, and
they can grant me the allowance to review drawings while I'm
coming back for the next Board meeting. Can we --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You can go to the Building Department
tomorrow.
MR. LEON: That' s great.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So if you would like to make a request to table
the application, that will then give you time to go to the
Building Department with the on-grade deck and also resubmit the
updated project description to the Trustees. And then, you know,
now that you have opened this application with our Board, once
you submit the proper material that is required, then we can
kind of move things forward so it won't then set you back. It
will only just kind of put a pause and then we can continue once
we have appropriate --
MR. LEON: It' s important to do that. And I appreciate that.
Because I really want to move forward.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes. I just wanted to explain to you, you are
not starting back over with this Board. We'll just put it on
pause until we receive the information.
MR. LEON: Yes. The description of the whole thing will be done
tomorrow.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And then I do want to just add, when you go to
the Building Department for this on-grade deck, I think it' s
important that you just understand their definition of a demo,
for the Town definition within the Building Department. Because
there is a certain percentage that is increased on the house in
terms of square footage and value, and there are, those are
things that this Board is interested in understanding, because
it will weigh in on our determination as well.
MR. LEON: Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So if you'll just make sure to clarify that
when you are speaking with them.
MR. LEON: Yes, I will make everything so clear that if they have
any questions, they can probably see it on the documents. I try
my best.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. Sounds good.
MR. LEON: Okay, thank you, so much. So that means that we going
to have another Board meeting, I have to have the meeting at the
property? Like we did it before?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It's not necessary.
MR. LEON: I don't have to put signs or anything for the next
Board of Trustees 34 February 14, 2024
Board meeting?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The sign can stay up. The original sign is
still appropriate.
MR. LEON: Okay. Great, thank you, so much.
_- .. TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you, very much.
MR. LEON: Okay, Happy Valentine' s. Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Happy Valentine' s. Are there any other
questions from the Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 8, Michael Bontje on behalf of ISLAND
VIEW LANE HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, LLC requests a Wetland Permit
to replenish the storm eroded eastern barrier beach area to a
height of 18" to 20" above the current depressed beach surface
consisting of installing temporary construction access matting
(20) 3, 000sq. ft. ; over a 15,500 to 16, 000 sq.ft. Area (up to 300
cu.yd. May be recovered from the westerly beach surface) install
approximately 600 cubic yards (12" to 14" in height) of sand and
gravel (to 1") to be placed above cobble-sized (4") native
stones contained in 45 (36"x144"x12" deep each) , Gabion mats
over an area of 180' north to south and 9' wide (west to east) ,
set 6" into the existing depressed surface; plant American beach
grass (Ammophilla brevigulata) plugs on the peak and westerly
slope of the replenished sand and gravel; and to remove
construction mats and place 3" gravel on existing private lane.
Located: Conklin Point Beach off of Island View Lane, Greenport.
SCTM# 1000-57-2-37.2
The Trustees conducted a field inspection February 7th,
noting that we'd further review the plans at work session. DEC
permits will also be required.
The LWRP did not make a ,determination on this yet. He
requested more time. He says if we did -- he just requested
more time. He believes that the shoal as it stands now provides
value to shore birds. I do not see the point of altering its
geomorphology. A shore bird specialist should be consulted.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make a
recommendation on this one.
We do have a letter in the file from a Cecilia and Gerard
Hauser (sic) supporting the project.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BONTJE: Yes, Michael Bontje, B. Laing Associates. I have
just a couple of returned green cards (handing) .
Michael Bontje, B. Lain Associates. I have been a wetlands
scientist, a natural scientist for 44 years, and I know this
particular property for 35 years.
Board of Trustees 35 February 14, 2024
The property is on Conklin Point. Basically it encompasses
32 acres of the point that is shown on the slide, to what would
be the upper right-hand side, the eastern and central portion of
the beach. And the interior marsh.
Basically what is happening right now is -- the interior
marsh is vegetated. Outside the marsh, which would be the lower
right-hand corner, is Shelter Island Sound. The tide runs there
at about six-and-a-half knots. Right now the vegetated marsh has
little to no velocity, particularly on the regular tides.
However what we've noticed is that in the `past ten years or so,
the number of over-washes of the beach have been increasing
substantially. And that has led to velocity in the marsh, in
the higher tides. And then that comes across and it impacts the
beach, which is shown on the southern part of ;the slide, which
is owned by the Sage parcel.
That particular beach is the one that has the Piping Plover
habitat for nesting, and a number of other shore birds where
they nest. Basically from the point itself, around to the east
and to the inlet is where that habitat occurs.
And on the beach that is under question right now is the
eastern beach, and that declining, that decline in that beach
geomorphology, has created that extra velocity against the
beach. Again, I have been there for 35 years. So for the first
20-25 years, it was velocity against the bird habitat beach on
the south part of the slide, and the eastern beach, when you had
an ebbing tide, when it was outgoing. But not on the incoming
tide. Now on the incoming tide, once it breaches that beach,
that velocity goes straight across and impacts the beach on the
other side, which we don't own, that's owned by the Sage parcel,
which is now Breezy Shores, and that, again, in my experience,
has declined. We don't own it, but I have seen it decline about
a foot in height as well. Which makes it less suitable to the
bird habitat and the nesting that is going on there.
Basically, what we are looking to do is to, just avoid
further intrusion into that marsh of velocity. Part of it is
being smothered right now by the materials that are being swept
off the beach. What we are anticipating is that once that
overflow or over-wash goes lower, is that that will increase the
velocity in that marsh pretty substantially. And what is going
to happen is you'll open up, at some point, an inlet on that
part of the beach, and it will connect directly over to the
inlet that already existing on the eastern side. And you'll
have that same, you know, high current at high tide.
Like I said, on the outside is Shelter Island Sound, it
runs about six-and-a-half knots at peak tide. Right now it' s
almost no velocity inside. So what's going to happen is once
- that beach declines further, you are going to have that
six-and-a-half knot velocity for a very long period of time come
straight across that marsh. It will erode the vegetated marsh.
That's for sure.
Board of Trustees 36 February 14, 2024
If you doubt that, you can go to that eastern beach or the
western beach that the Sage parcel owns, and you can see areas
on the outside where the velocity and the wave action have
actually taken away what was vegetated tidal marsh, because
there is too energy on that part of the beach.
On the inside as well, there used to be more vegetated
marsh, and ,that has declined over time.
So basically what we are trying to do here is to, if there
is a no action, prevent basically a new Shelter Island Sound
coming north, coming through there, and basically tearing into
that vegetated marsh and further declining of the bird habitat
that is available.
Um, what we are requesting to do is to go in and to go down
the gravel lane that comes off of Island View Lane and Bayshore,
and then when we get down to the very last house, I call it the
silty house, it' s owned by the Gothesman's (sic) . There is a
convenient 45 degree angle on to the beach of that property. The
property comes almost up to the deck in the last gray house on
that property.
So at that point what we can do is we can start
construction matting and we can stay -out of the marsh and we can
go up over that portion of the beach. There is a Red Maple
tree, multi-stemmed Red Maple. I probably would trim two, maybe
two-and-a-half of those limbs, one of them is dead already, and
then you could be able to fit a ten-yard dump truck upon on to
that area, or run a Bobcat back and forth from a staging area.
Then we are going to run the mats all the way out to the
working face, which is about 270 feet south of that last house.
There would be, well, what we would like to do is take about,
dig about six inches down into the beach, the way it is now, lay
down a one-foot deep Gabion mat, one-foot deep, so it's
three-feet wide, 12-feet long each. That would be 15 long by
three wide. So it would be 180 feet long by nine feet wide. Then
on top of that you'll have about six inches above the existing
grade, we'll put another 12 to 14 inches largely of gravel, and
then top that off with sand and plant beachgrass.
Right now, you guys were out there on the field visit,
you'll notice it is largely un-vegetated but there are some
remnants of beach grass and there are some remnants of
Panicgrass, both of which are upland species, but there are some
that are still hanging on there.
So what we would like to do is prevent this future movement
to the beach and movement to the current inland.
Let me see if I have anything else. Oh, yes. It will be
about a total of six-hundred cubic yards of material over about
a 5, 000 squar-e foot area on the beach. So you'll have the Gabion
and then it will go up 12 inches, but then you have to have
slide slopes down, three on one, so you have another three to
four feet on either side. And then that would run the length and
you would also want to cover the ends as well.
Board of Trustees 37 February 14, 2024
So the total between the Gabion and the gravel that we
would bring in, and the gravel would obviously be native gravel,
native to Long Island, and the sand is about six-hundred cubic
yards.
We'll do it with the beach grass, then when we are done
we'll withdraw the construction mats, and then do any
.reconstruction that might be necessary on the beach. There might
be a little regrading here and there. Maybe put another layer
of gravel on the entrance road, since we are going to be
traveling back and forth on that gravel entrance road, maybe a
two-inch layer. Then we are out. We are done.
I anticipate probably the job time is something less than
two months to get it done. So from a construction standpoint,
it's actually a fairly, simple straightforward construction
matter.
Anyway, that's the purpose and the method that we are
proposing, and I invite comments, obviously, from the Board.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All right, so, you know, obviously you do
have an erosion issue there. We all saw it when we were onsite.
So, you know, we support you with what you are trying to
accomplish. Have you gone to the DEC yet on this?
MR. BONTJE: Yes, we had made application simultaneously with the
DEC, okay, gotten back a notice of incomplete application. Which
is fairly standard. You know, it' s like the doctor hitting your
knee with a hammer when you go in for, and your foot will go up.
So you get a notice of incomplete application. And basically
it's technical stuff. You know, show the mean high water line.
Show the lot number. Additional photographs. There is no
discussion of the concept or anything like that. It' s just, you
know, additions basically to the drawing. And nothing that would
change the concept at this particular point.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. I notice on your plans, you are talking
about Bank Run.
MR. BONTJE: Uh, huh.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is that what you are planning to use for
fill?
MR. BONTJE: Well, the idea would be to use native Long Island
material. It would be Bank Run in the sense that I would want to
do a minimum screen of most of the material, well, the stuff-
that is going to go in the Gabion is going to be four to
six-inch cobble. Because it has, you know, it has a three-inch
mesh size. It will be galvanized.
Then you wire that all together and then that I figure will
be somewhere between 70 and 90 yards worth of material. Then, in
next portion would be gravel. And if we, when we went out on the
beach, kind of the minimum grain size I want to say is about
three quarters of an inch, the gravel size. So what I would like
to do is have bank run, but have it run through a screen that
would get everything less than three quarters of an inch out of
that material. Then I would limit the upper part to about,
Board of Trustees 38 February 14, 2024
probably three inches, put that down as a layer, and then put
sand on top of that, so we have something to put the beach grass
in. So it' s kind of a multi-layered approach. ,
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Because we were concerned about the use
of Bank Run in this area. Now previously in your testimony you
were talking about that inner wetland getting smothered already.
MR. BONTJE: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So if you are using Bank Run, which is
usually is more of a fine material.
MR. BONTJE: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You are going to increase that problem. So,
you know, I would suggest you use native sand of the same grain
size that currently exists, which might help to alleviate that,
part of that problem.
MR. BONTJE: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It talks about up to 300 cubic yards may be
recovered from the westerly beach surface.
MR. BONTJE: Correct.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: What is that?
MR. BONTJE: There is an area, you can see it again, if you look
carefully -- do you mind if I walk to the screen, I can just
point to it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sure.
MR. BONTJE: Just to orient everybody. Conklin Point. Island
View Lane is here. This is Bayshore. This is the private
gravel drive that comes down. This is that Maple tree. And then
we, the property actually angles out and comes very close to
that deck. So- that is what we are bringing the construction
matting our, underneath that tree. Then about 270 feet down, we
would start the Gabion mat. And then that would extend 180 feet
which gets you just about to the shoal at nine feet wide.
So as a part of what is happening now, you can actually see
this slightly darker part, right in here. That is greater
moisture and higher grain size. So that's. the over-wash area
right now. And this marsh, again, from my personal experience,
and just if you look at aerial photos over-time, actually used
to be a straight line, right like that. You know, right across.
And so all of this area down here is smothered marsh. So the
idea would be, there is an area that is about two feet high, to
go down to marsh bed or just where the organic begins because
that is where the Spartina was --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Sorry to interrupt you. It's just that you are
not at a microphone right now, and just in terms of taking
Minutes for this, I think it would be better just to return to
the microphone. Sorry.
MR. BONTJE: Yes. Basically the idea is to take that portion of
the material that has run westerly off the beach, the finer
material that you were referring to, and grade basically down to
the organic mat, the original organic mat, the top of it, and
then slide back to straighten out that line, and then recover
Board of Trustees 39 February 14, 2024
whatever material we can from that, and that would be the top
dressing. We would use that as a very top-dressing layer.
Now, you know, my thought is that you are adding back to
the marsh. You are going to add back to the vegetated marsh. If
it' s considered an impact, then we'll bring everything in. . . ____..__._-----___._________.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think you better revisit that, because I
think it would be considered an impact.
MR. BONTJE: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You know, I don't think you should be using
any existing vegetation and/or sand onsite as part of that
project.
MR. BONTJE: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That' s just my opinion. I believe the DEC is
going to concur with that. They usually frown upon using
existing boulders, existing sand, that is already in the public
domain, for that type of project.
Um, and then on that plan it talked about PVC coated
Gabion?
MR. BONTJE: I don't know if we talked about PVC or galvanized.
I'm -- usually I go with galvanized. I would be surprised if
somebody slipped in PVC.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, it was a _little hard to make out, but it
says- --
MR. BONTJE: Yeah, let me take a look.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It says PVC-coated or galvanized.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Or galvanized. Right.
MR. BONTJE: Yes, you know, I'll go with galvanized on that. I
have more experience with galvanized. And I have been pretty
happy with it, actually, so far. And any shoreline use would say
that. So galvanized -for sure.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: What is the life expectancy of the galvanized?
MR. BONTJE: In a situation like this where it' s laying flat, and,
it' s covered, my expectation is that it would be decades. For
example, I have two sites that I can describe 'to you. One is in
Queens, in a place called Hook Creek, that runs pretty hard with
the tide. Not unlike Shelter Island Sound here. That is actually
a vertical wall of Gabion. Because it' s a commercial site. And
that' s lasted about 25 to 30 years for my client.
It was a little different, because what we did there, since
we were stacking them up, was we also did a strapping, where we
did dead-men inside and then we did a strapping on the outside,
an I-beam strapping to kind of hold the face in. But that' s not
necessary here.
And then the second one is actually down Island View Lane.
There is one house, which has a fronting of three-foot Gabion
baskets, 3x3x12 ' s. And that's been in for about ten years now.
Ten or 12 years. And so far it's fine.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you.
MR. BONTJE: So I think of the lack of velocity, and the fact
that it' s buried, I'm expecting decades. Because I don't want a
Board of Trustees 40 February 14, 2024
mess out on the beach, you know, that' s for sure.
But I do need, I do feel that we need something
substantial, because if this thing wears away, with the material
on top, which it probably will over time, then you get to a
bottom where it' s going to be a, basically a multi-ton
structure. So you might as well have large boulders down there.
But flat. So now the water is going to want to run over that but
it's not going to be able to move anything.
And what I also found, with the Gabions, one of the things
I liked, is you had this structure but then inside of these
little, you know, smaller rocks, I wouldn't say little. Or
cobbles. And when you get energy in there, they tend to move
just a tiny fraction. You know, if you have high enough energy.
And that helps dissipate the energy, I have seen. So basically
that's the reason I want to go with that as a base, is to really
minimize a potential for future action.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And is that also speaking to why you've chosen
not to look at using boulders for this project?
MR. BONTJE: Yes. I thought boulders would be out of place. And
what happens with boulders, is, first of all, I like them to be
flatter rather than round structures, because, you know, I want
a two or three-foot boulder, if I want tonnage, I want a big
rock. But then that will stick above the beach. And there are
no other large, this is not like a bluff on the north shore
where you get large boulders. This is basically a barrier beach.
And so I thought the boulders would look out of place. And I
also find with the boulders that then you have to do something
with the space around them.
So I would almost want to do like a mat of cobble and then
put the boulders in that. Because what will happen is the water
will want to come and then run between the boulders, and then
erode the narrow material between the boulders and then they
start to shift all around, and they become a little
unpredictable.
So that' s why I thought the Gabion mat would be better
because it's that one single structure. And if we go with the
flat ones, it's going to go down below, and it won't be taking,
you know, direct wave action and it won't be taking current on a
regular basis.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And then you are proposing planting and
everything on top of that?
MR. BONTJE: Yes. I want to go with beach grass, American
beachgrass because that's part of what is out there anyway, and
it would fit into this situation. And I'm also going to try and
range with one of our HOA members, where I can run out temporary
irrigation for at least the first season, from their water
supply, and water it every couple of days. Because I find if you
can do that, that really helps the survival. Because it can be a
pretty dry environment in the summer.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Again, I empathize with you, with what
Board of Trustees 41 February 14, 2024
you are going through and trying to protect it. I don't know
what the answer is. I don't know if this is the answer.
You know, I would recommend, obviously having conversations
with DEC.
MR. BONTJE: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think maybe you could actually reach out to
Cornell Cooperative Extension as well. You know, if this works
or whatever you potentially come up with, could be a roadmap on
how to address it in the future. So they might' be willing to
work with you and as well as the DEC on, you know, maybe it's an
experimental-type project in conjunction with Cornell and DEC.
To see what will work. Will Gabions work? Is there a better
material to use? Is there, you know, like ECOncrete, something
else that may work? And maybe there is funding available
because Cornell has a living shoreline project down by Cedar
Beach. You know this might be a perfect real-world scenario in a
more exposed environment.
So I think that might be something that you should, you
know, entertain going forward.
As you saw from the previous one, because the LWRP
coordinator did not have a chance to review this in its entirety
yet, we cannot move forward with it. But I just wanted to get
everything out there to talk about alternatives so that you are
not getting bounced back and forth between us and DEC and other
agencies.
MR. BONTJE: Yes, a couple of comments in that regard, if I could
first.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sure.
MR. BONTJE: First, is it possible that I could directly contact
the LWRP coordinator for the Town, or does it 'have to go through
-- to have a discussion as opposed -- I don't mean in writing. I
mean sit down and talk.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: You can call him, sure.
MR. BONTJE: Because I really believe that, you know, you
discussed that, you know, detriment to shore bird habitat, and
frankly I think that is occurring already, but on the western
beach. So if we can have a discussion, maybe we can go out in
the field and look at it with him, or her, I don't know who it
is --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Him.
MR. BONTJE: And have that discussion. Because again, I have been
doing this for 44 years, so I have seen a thing or two.
The second thing is, I really don't, I don't have any
doubts that this is a solution which can work and will work.
That part doesn't bother me at -all. And I have considered
alternatives in my mind, I have not necessarily put them on
paper, and this was the best alternative that I came up with.
But I will be more than happy to talk to other folks and
see if there is something that, another alternative that they
might suggest.
' r
Board of Trustees 42 February 14, 2024
I
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sure, and while you are doing that, it might
be beneficial to revamp this plan a little bit, because I know
you just mentioned three sets of Gabion mattresses, nine-foot
wide, which on this plan stamped received December 29th, 2023, I
cannot make that out on this plan. -
MR. BONTJE: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This plan also shows Bank Run, this plan also
shows PVC coated. So there' s a couple of things that need to be
tightened up. Maybe that is something the DEC was also
referring to in their incomplete application. It doesn't specify
the plantings being, I know you mentioned beach grass. Is it
one foot on center, whatever that is. Also like to see all the
work being done, like DEC mean high water. So everything being
above that. You know, no reclamation of., anything below mean high
water.
MR.. BONTJE: No problem. Yup. And what I will do probably is add
a sheet three, where I can focus in on that particular area.
That is, especially where it's going to be the Gabion and the
over fill..
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And then one other, I know you talked about
putting the mats down for construction and then removal.
MR. BONTJE: Right.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: But on the plans it doesn't specify removal.
So that kind of stuff needs to be on these plans as well.
MR. BONTJE: I believe I have it in the description but I'll put
it on the plans as well.
TRUSTEE 'KRUPSKI: So if I could just piggyback off of that. You
know, I do like the project. I'm not as sure as you that it will
work because Mother Nature is, you know, certainly a force to
respect. But I think it' s worth trying.
I would slightly disagree on the part of the reclamation
portion that, you know, with a background habitat restoration,
I'm kind of a fan of if we are trying to bring Spartina back. It
might make sense, Trustee Goldsmith mentioned to speak with
Cornell. We have, this Board has worked with that organization
before, with some reclamation projects and habitat restoration.
It might make sense to sort of gain an opinion there and, from
a, you know, someone who specifically does that toward this,
when you comeback to us.
I do think speaking to the plans, you know, a zoomed-in
image, a little closer and clearer, and also a side profile of
what you plan to do, sort of bottom to top, would be really
helpful.
I think that's all I have for this evening.
MR. BONTJE: Just if I could provide one thing there, too. I have
done a lot of wetland restoration, tidal wetland restoration, as
well as freshwater. I always say I'm probably not the
grandfather of wetlands, but I'm certainly one of the uncles. So
I have been around for a long time, I'm doing it for 44 years.
So I have hundreds of acres. And many, multiple projects of
Board of Trustees 43 February 14, 2024
Spartina restoration experience. I would be happy to provide a
couple of examples of that where we have been successful, and
maybe that would help in the analysis, too.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Great, thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak -
regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any other questions or comments from the board?
(No response) .
So as we mentioned, we don't have the LWRP. You are free to
reach out and speak with him. We mentioned all the changes that
we would like to see on the plans for a little more detail. So
with all that in mind I'll make a motion to table this
application.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. BONTJE: Thanks, for your time. Appreciate it, and your
expertise as well.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, Number 9, REVISED PLANS AND PROJECT
DESCRIPTION SUBMITTED 2/13/24 AMP Architecture on behalf of
BRIAN O'REILLY requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
one-story 24. 11x50. 3' (1, 223sq.ft. ) Dwelling with basement;
existing 6'x24 ' seaward paver patio with trellis; existing
4'x10.8 ' rear stoop (brought under new patio covering & new step
added on side) ; existing 7. 8'xl2.1' shed; remove existing
outdoor shower, entry stoop, 191x25' rear brick patio, and a
portion of existing driveway & retaining walls at existing
garage (121x301 ) ; construct a 211x61' (1,313sq.ft. ) One-story
addition onto the landward side of dwelling; construct two small
2.5'x5 ' (25sq.ft. ) Additions on west side; construct a 71x18'
(138sq. f.t) front covered porch; construct a 41x6' (24sq.ft. )
West side covered stoop; construct an ±181x32 ' (697sq.ft. ) Side
covered patio (with exterior 4 ' wide fireplace, 3' wide grill,
2' wide sink, 2 ' wide counter fridge, and 31x8 ' peninsula) ;
install a 25.3'xl7.5' (461sq.ft. ) Rear patio at grade (replacing
existing) ; install an irregularly shaped 455sq.ft. In-ground
pool; install an irregularly shaped 647sq, ft. Pool patio;
install a 3'x6.5' pool equipment area on base; install a pool
drywell; install pool enclosure fencing; install a 31x5'
generator; install 41x10' (irregular) boulders as retaining
wall; install a 4 'x4 ' 10" outdoor shower; new 41x16' exterior
basement stairs; abandon existing septic system and install a
new I/A OWTS sanitary system landward of dwelling; install
gutters to leaders to three 8'x4 ' drywells to contain roof
runoff; remove existing driveway and retaining wall on west
side; approximately 504 cubic yards of earth to be excavated and
Board of Trustees 44 February 14, 2024
approximately 20 cubic yards to be used for backfill or
re-grading; all removed trees shall be replaced with a new
planted tree at a one-to-one ratio; and to establish and
perpetually maintain a vegetated non-turf buffer area from the
_landward edge of wetlands up to top crest of bank.
Located: 659 Pine Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-5-31. 1
The Trustees most recently visited site on the 7th of
February, suggested a deck instead of the existing patio;
vegetated non-turf buffer seaward of existing structure; um,
questioned covered-porch area; questioned whether meets Building
Department definition of "demolition"; and tree replacement
one-for-one.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent.
The CAC resolved to support the application.
And I also want to note that I'm in receipt of new plans,
stamped received by the office February 13th, 2024, stating that
all trees that shall be removed will be replaced on a one-to-one
ratio. And also I wanted to note that the buffer is inclusive of
the area that the Trustees had suggested, seaward side of the
house.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PORTILLO: Good evening. Anthony Portillo, AMP Architecture.
On the LWRP, I believe that was -- that might have been an older
on the pool location because --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I believe you are correct with that. Yup.
MR. PORTILLO: Okay, because when we met onsite originally that
was one of your comments, and we adjusted, the pool is now
landward of the home.
So the application is for a one-story addition to an
existing two-story home. Essentially, one of the stories is
below grade, but it is a finished story.
We have submitted the design to Amanda at the Building
Department, and she concluded it would not be considered a
reconstruction by the Building Department.
One thing to note --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I interrupt? So you submitted to Amanda.
Do you have an official determination on if it' s a demolition or
not?
MR. PORTILLO: No, sir, I just have an e-mail from her.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have an e-mail from her.
MR. PORTILLO: Normally we don't submit prior to Trustees
submission, and we just, we will ask for a determination if we
do feel there is a possibility for --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You picked up on that?
MS. HULSE: I don't understand why. Why didn't you apply to the
Building Department, though? I'm not understanding that.
MR. PORTILLO: Normally the submission to the Building Department
would be if we need a zoning determination, and then we get a
denial letter. But for Trustees applications, we don't bother
Board of Trustees 45 February 14, 2024
the Building Department.
MS. HULSE: Basically you are saying you don't need the building
permit?
MR. PORTILLO: No, that' s not correct. I'm saying prior to the
._Board we didn't submit to the Building Department. Prior to our
Trustees application.
TRUSTEE_ KRUPSKI: You are just saying timeline.
MR. PORTILLO: Correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you don't think you need ZBA, you submit to
Trustees first?
MR. PORTILLO: That' s correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
MR. PORTILLO: And we don't go necessary to the Building
Department with an application, because the application, they
won't really accept our 'application in a scenario where we need
Trustees or we need a septic system. So the septic system
design, Suffolk County requires us to provide the Trustees and
DEC approvals to get that approval from them. So we need the red
stamp surveyed normally for an application in the Building
Department. We do submit to the Building Department for a denial
letter for zoning, you know, but in this case we don't need
zoning.
So due to some of our past experiences we will ask for the
Building Department to just look at our drawings to verify that
we don't have a reconstruction scenario. If we, there might be
one, which we did think that this could be coming close to it. I
feel that the existing home being basically two finished-levels,
and we are just requesting a one-story addition, is probably why
we are not looked at as a reconstruction and more of an
addition.
We are not taking the main roof off, just to be clear, too.
The covered patio that we are proposing is going to be a layover
on top of that existing roof, so I'm basically just putting a
roof on top of that. So mainly not touching that, that main
structure that is there.
MS. HULSE: Can I inquire, because you just brought up the e-mail
that you had with Amanda. Was that referencing anything, any
aspect of this potentially being a demo?
MR. PORTILLO: That' s correct.
MS. HULSE: And what was her response?
MR. PORTILLO: That she didn't believe it was a reconstruction
MS. HULSE: She what?
MR. PORTILLO: She would not determine it as a reconstruction.
MS. HULSE: Do you have a copy of that e-mail?
MR. PORTILLO: I can provide it. I don't have- it with me.
MS. HULSE: That would be helpful, I think
MR. PORTILLO: Of course. Like I said, normally we do that if we
feel that it could be a reconstruction. I also, I think
sometimes with submission to Trustees we could get asked that
question so, oh, let's go verify and make sure.
Board of Trustees 46 February 14, 2024
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: When looking at the north elevation of this
project, it does look like that roof that you are saying you are
just adding on, it looks like there is filled-'in space above.
So is that like a second-story space above the covered porch?
No?
MR. PORTILLO: (Perusing) . I'm taking a look at what you are
referring to.
Yes, so if you look at the north elevation, you'll notice
the, you know, the, let's call it the existing portion, which is
the one with all the glass in it and it has that column, has
that trellis. So, we are basically building, just ,building a
roof, essentially, that doesn't really have any attic access or
anything. I mean, it's just a covering, really to tie in the
architecture. That was the main reason. But it' s not a liveable
or, it's not even accessible from the house. The actual roof
structure of the house -- it's already cathedraled in that
portion of the home, and it's going to be remain that way. It's
just building on to it. Really, to make it look right, in my
opinion. But that was the reason for it.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think the important part of this conversation
is that, as a Board, in reviewing this application, there are,
there were a lot of questions in terms of whether this would
meet the Town definition of a demolition, because there is quite
a bit of additional structure for this project.
We do understand it sounds like you went through the proper
channels, and we would appreciate including that in the file.
However, in looking at what was submitted, there was a lot of
questions for us, and I think part of it is in regards to the
fact that the existing structure is essentially built into the
side of that bank. And so the --
MR. PORTILLO: Sure.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: (Continuing) the addition of all the additional
structure is so close in proximity to that bank and what is
happening there, and so, you know, with the original, I know
there is an updated plan here, but the patio that essentially
. had, you know, a very large retaining wall, you know, all of
these elements are things that we are looking at as
environmental concerns.
And so that is why this is coming up, because it's, it all
still, by utilizing what is existing there, and adding on
additional structure on this bank, you know, we are just trying
to figure out how to kind of alleviate some of those
environmental concerns.
MR. PORTILLO: So, I mean, one thing that I think we should just
consider is most of the foundation work is happening on the
landward side of the existing structure. We are not really doing
any foundation work besides the pad footings for the columns.
Well, essentially sonotubes, so sometime core drilled in a
sense. We are not necessarily doing like large excavation for
Board of Trustees 47 February 14, 2024
that.
I-did notice the comment about the patio, which I had
discussed with my' client, and we would consider a different
material. We were concerned with maybe like a real pervious
paver that we fill with like gravel, you know, something that is
really open there. And she has no concerns, no problem with
that, if that' s something we want to put as part of the
approval.
But again, I mean, in regard to the reconstruction,
unfortunately that is just not how the Building Department
operates. I mean, you know, I have never had to get a
determination letter from them to give the Trustees.
Now, with that said, I had issues where we have not tracked
with them and then we got, we received an approval from the
Trustees for a non-reconstruction. And we had to come back to,
basically, and that's the reason why now we have been very sure
to verify projects that seem like they are reconstruction.
And I mean, obviously, with like pier lines and things like
that, that if it becomes a reconstruction, then all those things
come into consideration in the design.
So, I'll, I was just going to say one last thing. I didn't
really change the design based on our original site visit that
we met, besides the pool location was a big thing. So we were
always -- and the covered porch portion, is also back, you know,
approximately 12 feet. You know, we are not going all the way
out to the end of the existing structure. Just another comment.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I just, I guess rather than beat around the
bush or waste time --
MR. PORTILLO: Sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If -- I suspect this is going to end up being a
demo. We could go through this whole process and work with you
and try to remedy some of the environmental impacts, as Trustee
Peeples said --
MR. PORTILLO: Sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And get to like a working version of this
project. But if you go, if you, say we vote and you get a permit
and then it goes to Building and determined as a demo, you are
going to have to come back to us and we are going to look at
this completely differently.
MR. PORTILLO: Understood.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : And you'll have to re-work the project.
Potentially extensively. So I don't know if you want to waste,
if you want to spend that time or not. I 'm not, you know, I'm
trying to be very transparent with you.
MR. PORTILLO: And I appreciate that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And just to elaborate on Trustee Krupski. If
this was determined as a demolition, it would be need to be
compliant with the pier line.
MR. PORTILLO: Understood. So one thing I want to state though,
is the addition of the habitable space is what they are going to
Board of Trustees 48 February 14, 2024
be calculating for the construction cost, right? The roof-over
on the porch would not be considered habitable space. So we are
not going to be looking at that as what that total cost is. The
pool also is not determined in that calculation.
Um, I have the right to basically get, you know, the - - - --- -- - - ----
current building assessed and evaluated and then provide to the
Building Department what the cost of construction would be.
I feel that if that ends up being considered a
reconstruction, then we'll probably end up looking at this
design and changing it, because I don't think that is what my
client is looking to do. We were not trying to go down a
reconstruction pathway.
That -- and with that said, this has been going on for a
couple. of years. So it' s not, I have been pretty transparent
with the Town and what we were doing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Certainly. I'm certainly not suggesting that
you have not been.
MR. PORTILLO: And I think there' s ways, if we have to minimize
the design, to get it to fit that rehab addition pathway, then I
think we would do that. And obviously we would have to come
back. And it might be more of an amendment, I think, because it
would be probably minimizing the impact instead of increasing
the impact.
So I think I'm comfortable, if you were okay with the
project, that I can provide the e-mail from the Building
Department. I'm even willing to go down there and all, and have
them look at it again. I don't want to get into getting a
Building permit and having any problems. And I know my client
doesn't want that either. The only other thing is we are already
at the Health Department. So I would have to make this decision
and change prior to ,going back to them. Because, you know, over,
we are waiting for approval from the Board here.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That's fine with me, I would just like to see
him vegetating that bank.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I do' appreciate the submission of new plans
with the native vegetation along the whole bank. A couple of
notes, then, toward this application is, you do have a walkway
going through that vegetation to the dock there. So I would just
recommend you just clarify that it's a four-foot access path, and
just take the hatching off of it, just so we are clear that is
where your access is.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure. That is the intention.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The proposed small boulder retaining wall.
What is that for? It's a ten-foot by four-foot, then is there
height on that, and what exactly is that for?
MR. PORTILLO: Oh, that' s at the, where the existing retaining
wall is. We were going to put -- do you want to speak to that?
It's this wall here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It just says ten, proposed small boulders as
short retaining wall.
Board of Trustees 49 February 14, 2024
MS. O'REILLY: Mary O'Reilly. So the idea is right in front of
that retaining wall, it's very sloped. So it's dangerous to
walk across. So we just wanted to make it a little bit, you
know, just the small path to walk for safety. That was the idea
behind that.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI : Okay.
MS. HULSE: Who is this?
MS. O'REILLY: Do you want me to get them?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I think he should come in through the
entrance.
MS. O'REILLY: That' s my dad.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So, moving down the list. So then in terms of
structure here, it says remove existing patio and replace with
on-grade patio. So, you know, we viewed this in the field, and
the Building Department speaks to on-grade patio. So all sides
you have to be able to run a lawnmower over.
So I think there is a four or five-foot retaining wall
there. Obviously it would not be on-grade. But I think when we,
are talking, you know, a rather large scope of a project here,
for me at least it might make sense to pull that patio back or
maybe discuss a deck, something lower impact. Because that is,
we are very close to the bank and wetland in this location.
MS. O'REILLY: The existing patio that is there, that we are
talking about where the table is right now?
The pavers that allow porous stuff, that's not a good solution?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, we try to minimize structure within or
close to the wetland boundary. At this point we are right on top
of a bank which leads right into the wetland. Granted there is a
patio there already, with a rather aggressive retaining wall,
that this Board would not permit that in that location, or the
house in that location, if we were talking about a new build.
Because of the extent of the project here, and addition of
some infrastructure on that existing house, I feel, and I
believe the rest of the Board feels, that it would be
appropriate to try to slide that patio back or a deck or
something a little bit less of an impact, less retaining walls,
certainly less of a face that close to the bank and creek.
MS. O'REILLY: So if we took, just remove the pavers and put
grass there, rather than porous pavers, rather than a wooden
deck?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: When we were in the field, we looked at the
idea of where that patio is. It's almost half on-grade or maybe
like a third on-grade and maybe two-thirds, you know, kind of
with, relying on that retaining wall.
When we were onsite, we kind of thought that, there was a
conversation of if that was a deck instead, that is on piles, as
opposed to requiring the retaining wall, that then you could
still have' that same, you know, access to having a table, you
mentioned a table there, that sort of thing, but then it' s on
the piles and not relying on that retaining wall and all the
Board of Trustees 50 February 14, 2024
fill.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Or if you were to bring that back or over, I
don't want to design anything, um, away from that bank, you
would not need as high of a wall. So whether you wanted, if you
_. wanted to put some other structure there, the further back you
can move it, the lower the wall would have to be. And I think
that's closer to something that this Board would be looking to
approve in that.
MS. O'REILLY: See like it is, in my mind, we want to do the
least impact. The whole idea of the one tree for one tree, we
were planning on doing that. We're probably going to do extra
trees.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Great.
MS. O'REILLY: The reason we have the house out here is because
we love everything about the nature of it. So in our mind when
we decided we are adding effectively two bedrooms, we put it at
the portion of the house furthest away from the creek.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Very smart.
MS. O'REILLY: We are not trying to disturb anything near. So in
my mind I have a house that we are increasing a bedroom by just
within the footprint of the house and the basement, and putting
it, you know, a basement, it's grade, you walk out. So let' s
call it a three bedroom, three-bath house. And what we are
adding on is two more bedrooms. And so, and two baths. Two
bedrooms and two baths.
So to me, and I guess you'll figure it out, the idea that
it's a re-do, I mean, we are not touching anything, you know, in
the house, trying not to disturb anything near, but, and so
those pavers that are there, that are held by the retaining
wall, you know, I'm fine with taking them down. But the idea to
add wood structure, you know, I really would like nature, we are
purposely trying not to do anything near, and now it seems like
we are going to be adding --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, I'm not saying you would have to do
necessarily a deck or any wood structure, but if you could move
the large retaining wall and patio landward, to some effect, I
think that' s what we are looking for.
MS. O'REILLY: I have sliders.
MR. PORTILLO: A portion of that retaining wall might be
necessary.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Because of the French doors, I understand. I
saw that. I understand that completely.
MR. PORTILLO: So it would be like retaining, wall and sort of
tiering it, I guess, then letting it sort of naturally grade.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you could come up with something like that,
that would be the least impactful and excellent. And we are
certainly open to alternatives.
MR. PORTILLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are not painting you into the corner of a
deck by any means. Or a total removal.
I
Board of Trustees 51 February 14, 2024
MR. PORTILLO: I understand what he's getting at. We have to look
at it.
MS. O'REILLY: Yes. The point that is confusing to me is that
is there and I 'm not like touching anything near there, so why
do we have to change -- ---_ —
MR. PORTILLO: Well, I mean, I guess the question would be if we
just leave the existing the way it is, would that be something
the Board would be accepting of?
MS. O'REILLY: Right, we could do that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that a permitted structure right now?
MS. O'REILLY: It is.
MR. PORTILLO: The retaining wall, I believe the retaining wall
and that is, and we actually legalized the trellis and the
shower recently as well, because John came out and, ,the
inspector came out, and it didn't have a permit. We were not
aware of that. So that was taken care of. But the retaining wall
is on the original application for the building. And he said it
was acceptable. And we didn't have to legalize that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. No, I understand it is there and
existing but when we are adding more to a property or project, r
we are j-ust trying to do our due diligence and reduce any
environmental impact or proximity to any wetland or bank.
MS. O'REILLY: Yeah, and that' s why I think the whole vegetation
in the front and the planting the trees for the trees, makes
sense to me.
MR., PORTILLO: Just to say, there is a, landscape architect on
the project that is sort of the one that worked up a lot of what
we are doing here in regard to the yard.
MS. O'REILLY: Yes, she was not able to come here.
MR. PORTILLO: Unfortunately.
MS. O'REILLY: But she is also, you know, very focused on, as
was my directions to minimize any environmental effect. That's
extremely important to us.
MR. PORTILLO: It sounds like whatever way we decide, it would
have to get tabled or we would have to show a different plan.
Is that what, I mean, at least, we couldn't make a ruling based
on saying we'll leave existing conditions?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Here?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, it's already out here, see that circle.
It' s right there.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Let Nick answer.
MR. PORTILLO: What was that?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: He was asking --
MR. PORTILLO: If we were saying we were leaving existing
conditions, could we make a ruling and put that in the ruling
what would be allowed? Or if that would be allowed? I mean it
just sounds like we don't want to do anything with moving all
that stuff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think, and, you know, we did a little bit of
digging for the permit for that existing patio and retaining
Board of Trustees 52 February 14, 2024
wall, and I have not found it yet. I 'm not saying that it's not
existing, but I think we would want to see that before making a
determination.
MR. PORTILLO: Sure, sure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And if that's the route we are going to go with
maintaining the existing.
MR. PORTILLO: The reason I know is because, like I said, we had
to legalize the shower and the trellis, that John came out for
the inspection, that was determined that the retaining wall was
originally there. But I could provide what I gave him.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: With our office, you are saying.
MR. PORTILLO: Of course. I could provide what I gave to --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean the permit within, would be with our
office, is what I 'm asking. Not a building permit.
MR. PORTILLO: See, that I can't answer that question, I 'm sorry.
I don't know that, actually. I think I, I think it was just part
of the original CO on the house. I don't think it was an
approval from Trustees.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: There is an approval from Trustees for the
trellis and the as-built outdoor shower.
MR. PORTILLO: Right, that was recently I filed that. No, I mean
when the original house was filed, the retaining wall was a part
of that application. Again, I don't recall if it went to the
Trustees at that time or not. I would have to look at that.
MS. O'REILLY: It wasn't. It was just on the CO of the original.
I don't know what year that was. A long time ago.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And on the plan that we have from the recent
submission, we don't see the retaining wall or the -- wait. Is
this it?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: The retaining wall was right underneath that
patio, right?
MS. O'REILLY: Correct.
MR. PORTILLO: So the landing with the stair was always there
with the door. I imagine that whoever designed it showed that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It does show the retaining wall there under the
patio.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: It' s not specifically called that on the
permit but it is on the plan associated with the outdoor door.
MR. PORTILLO: It was not an objection in the Building Department
as -- it came up and I showed the CO when the house was built,
and the Building Department approved that, as it being
originally with the CO.
MS. O'REILLY: The other thing, if I may, the other thing that
is important to us, why I really want to move this forward, is
we have a septic system that is non-compliant, near the creek,
and we want to put in an environmentally-friendly system that
is, I forget the name.
MR. PORTILLO: IA system.
MS. O'REILLY: IA system. So in order to move forward with that,
which we really want to do, we literally do no laundry, we won't
Board of Trustees 53 February 14, 2024
use the dishwasher, we, you know, don't want anything to happen.
We need this process to be approved so we can go forward with
that. So we are just anxious to get that septic system out and
the new one that is better for our house and the creek in.
MR. PORTILLO: Just, could you back that, we are proposing a new
waterline and removing the existing well as part of the septic
application.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: We appreciate your goal of updating that
septic system., It's super important. So, thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
regarding this application? Or any additional comments from the
members of the Board?
(No response).
So I will say, as much as I would like to see the patio
moved back, I can appreciate the fact that it is existing on a
permit of ours that has been issued. I think, environmentally
speaking, it would be the right thing to do, but I can
appreciate the precedence that is there, so.
MS. ,O'REILLY: And like I said, if you prefer grass, if there is
a concern that there is not enough drainage, that is absolutely
something I would be happy to, you know, if that' s going to be
better for the creek, then I want to do it, truthfully.
MR. PORTILLO: We did discuss if we can put a trench drain in to
a drywell, if that' s something the Board would like to see. .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that' s a good idea.
MR. PORTILLO: Not a problem
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, thank you. Hearing no additional
comments, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the submission of new plans showing a four-foot wide access
path, the condition of a minimum of one-to-one tree replacement
with native species, with a trench drain on the seaward side of
the patio, thereby bringing it into consistency with the LWRP
coordinator.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
MR. PORTILLO: Thank you, Board.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 10, AS PER REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AND PLANS RECEIVED 1/12/24 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
Board of Trustees 54 February 14, 2024
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 surrounded by a retaining wall that is
195.5 linear feet in length, varying 2 '-2 '-�' maximum in height,
placed two (2) feet off of the property line, and 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, striking the line of the hot tub.
Located: 4155 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-6-21
The Trustees did a review of this at , our work session on
the February 7th, with the new plans that were submitted 'on
January 12th, 2024.
The LWRP coordinator found the project to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council did not support the
application because the pool and dwelling are not in compliance
with 275 setbacks, .and lot coverage is maxed out. .
I would just like to indicate that that determination by
the Conservation Advisory Council was made around a prior
iteration of this project. The current plans before us no 'longer
depict a pool.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding the
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Good evening. I know it's late. I do want to
have Tom Wolpert discuss briefly the sanitary system, because I
want to make sure that you understand our predicament, and then
I!11 step aside. Because I think we have pretty much discussed
this project previously. We've been in the field, and, um, it's
really the issue is forcing the' sanitary design with the walls
that are required to be two feet off the property line, pushes
us to the Board of Review. It gives us, it's an application that
doesn't conform with the Health Department regulations so it
means that this project will have to get Health Department Board
of Review approval to build the system that has been shown on
the most recent December plans.
But I want Tom to discuss it briefly because I think there
is some misunderstanding of the type of systems that are
available and when they are available.
So, Tom, if you don't mind coming up.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry. Before Mr. Wolpert speaks --
MS. MOORE: Yes. Do you have a question?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes. My question is if you can just clarify
what is the height of the retaining walls proposed currently on
this plan. And what is the setback off of the property line of
those retaining walls.
MS. MOORE: Yes. At our last meeting, you asked us to push the
retaining walls that are no higher than two-and-a-half feet, it
Board of Trustees 55 February 14, 2024
depends on the grade there, to have the adequate depth to ground
water for the sanitary system. And so it was drawn up at two
feet off of the property line, and that is the plan that was
submitted to you in I want to say, dated the December plan.
-- - - That's what you have now based on the request by the Board.--- - -- - - — - -
We obviously preferred our plan with the retaining walls on
the property line because that made for a conforming Health
Department application. The Health Department has already
reviewed the plan that has the retaining walls on the property
line, they are ready to approve it subject to getting the
Trustees permit. So the Health Department waits until the
permit's issued by the Trustees before they will release the
permit. So by pushing the walls two feet off the property line,
now our approval cannot be as-of-right with the Health
Department, because we don't meet the regulations. And we, in'
order to deviate from the Health Department regulations, you
have to go to the Board of Review for an appeal or a variance
for, from the standards. And that is where we are, that is the
position we are in today if the board insists on having the
retaining walls off the property line. So, but we wanted to make
sure we gave you a drawing which is consistent with what you
requested.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you.
MR. WOLPERT: Good evening, members of the Board and staff.
Thomas Wolpert, Civil Engineer, with Young Associates.
I would just like to make a few additional comments about
the, or to try to justify the sanitary design that is before
you. Basically the challenge here is this is a very small lot,
it's only 50 feet wide, 135 feet in depth. However, the usable
part of the property for a sanitary system, which the preferred
location is away from the wetland on the landward side of the
house, and what the Health Department would consider the front
yard. That is one of their guidance parameters citing a sanitary
system in the front yard. Um, so with a small lot, the other
challenge is high ground water. All right? We, based on the
test hole that Mark McDonald did, in the vicinity of the
proposed sanitary system, we have ground water at a depth of
only 2. 6 feet. So it' s literally impossible to install a
sanitary system in those groundwater conditions without bring in
some fill.
So the, if we consider the average grade of the property at
Elevation Four, we need to bring the property up to Elevation
Seven to achieve the proper separation from ground water to the
bottom of the leaching pool and cover above it as well. So that
is the, that I would consider a low profile design, believe it
or not. But, the other parameter that is a challenge for us is
the Health Department requires us to maintain a finished grade
of not more than 50, and that translates to one in 20 feet. And
they specifically say for a distance of 20 feet, from the outer
edge of the sanitary leaching pool, but we don't have 20 feet on
Board of Trustees 56 February 14, 2024
this property. We would have to acquire ten additional feet on
both the north and south sides to accomplish that.
However, the Health Department says if you can't achieve
that, then a retaining wall may be approved. It has to be a
- waterproof retaining wall, and the maximum_5% grade can hit the
top of the retaining wall. So, if you do the math, the retaining
wall ends up at six-and-a-half feet, and so --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Elevation.
MR. WOLPERT: Elevation. Yes. Okay. And the idea of the maximum
5% grade is to prevent leachate from seeping out a steep slope.
So the 20 feet, that is a sufficient distance where it no longer
is a potential problem in terms of seepage.
The second parameter that comes into play here is an
assessment of the land area available for the leaching
structures. And in this case, by the time you pull in the
required setbacks and separation distances from the treatment
unit and the alignment manhole, we are left with an area that
measures about the size of a pool. And that is 16'x32 ' , or 512
square feet.
So the proposed configuration of five eight-foot diameter
leaching pools with two expansion future pools fits within that
512 square feet. We did in fact consider other alternative
systems, such as leaching galleys, we also considered
gravel-less absorption trenches, and we considered pressurized
shallow drain fields. None of those systems would work here.
They work in certain circumstances where there is more property,
where the leaching is spread out over a larger area. So there is
just no way that one of those other three alternative systems
would be appropriate at this location.
That.' s all I have. Does the Board have any questions of me
regarding sanitary design?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: In your expertise, what is the minimum ground
water, sorry, the minimum depth needed for an effective system
MR. WOLPERT: What do you mean by "minimum depth"?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So, right now we are looking at retaining
walls that have to bring the ground level up. So what is, what
depth is the minimum that you have seen working for IA systems?
MR. WOLPERT: Well, I --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I know you just mentioned the leaching
galleys, the pressurized drain fields, and those don't work
because of --
MR. WOLPERT: Because of insufficient land area to install that
to install. It would be greater land area than what is
available to install those systems.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is it possible that underneath the driveway
there is additional space? Because I saw that area was not
utilized on the plan.
MR. WOLPERT: The Health Department doesn't allow you to put any
sanitary under a driveway.
TRUSTEEIGILLOOLY: Without a variance, right.
Board of Trustees 57 February 14, 2024
I
MR. WOLPERT: Without a variance, right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, can you say that last, what was the
question?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I asked if it 'would be possible to put any
part of the leaching galleys underneath the driveway, and. they.
represented that it is not possible but it's not possible
without a variance.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have done that. This Board has done that
already.
MS. MOORE: But not without a Health Department variance.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Correct.
MS. MOORE: So we would have to get a Health Department variance.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. But we are also talking about a large
structure nearly at sea level with groundwater just below it. So
it makes sense to jump through hoops to get this done because
this is not just a straightforward application. To anyone.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: If I'm not mistaken, I think on the plans it
showed the limit of wave action was in the street. So if we
need to get a variance to try to get, you know, a conforming
septic system on this property, I think we need to go that
avenue before we just say, you know, put it wherever you want.
MS. MOORE: I think what you are missing, one of the points that,
I don't know if he said, was this system as it is designed, is a
shallow system, which allows the least amount of separation
between the pool /and the groundwater. Because I asked that
question as well.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We have worked with other applicants on other
projects that have less distance to groundwater than this, and
they have been able to design a system that works. It' s been the
policy of this Board for a long time not to have retaining walls
on the property line. You know, for numerous reasons, the effect
on the neighbors, storm damage, esthetics, damage from erosion,
you name it. So we have been consistent with that for a while.
And we have been able, or applicants have been able to design a
system to make that work, whether it's getting a variance,
whether it' s moving, whether it's a load-bearing galley where,
you know, it' s incorporating the driveway, whatever the case may
be. There are alternatives. I know it might be more of a hassle
for you to try to got a variance, but from our perspective,
environmentally-speaking, and potential damage to neighbors and
the environment, we definitely want to exhaust all options
before we, you know, go in a different route.
MR. WOLPERT: As far as installing leaching galleys under the
driveway, and it. is true that a covenant variance and a covenant
would be required by the Health Department to do that, however,
the grading, we would have to raise the driveway up to the
Elevation Seven and that is just not really practical here.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Well, and that brings to a question I was going
to ask. There is a retaining wall on that south side of the
property, on the next, to the driveway.
Board of Trustees 58 February 14, 2024
MR. WOLPERT: On the neighboring property?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: No, no, on their property. Would you speak to
the purpose of that retaining wall?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: This may be more of a Pat question. It doesn't
___._.. appear to be directly related to the septic system.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: We just referenced you would need to raise the
grade of the driveway, so what is the purpose of the retaining
wall that is right there?
MS. MOORE: So --
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: To the south portion.
MS. MOORE: Actually the retaining wall on the south is -- I
asked the same question, so I'm glad you asked it. There has to
be a ten-foot separation between the ring, you see the ring, and
the retaining wall. That is a ten-foot separation. So that is,
um, the way that this is, that retaining wall is for the
purposes of the sanitary design, not because of the, not because
of the driveway. So this wall, because we looked we asked those
questions, can you move this retaining wall that is on the south
side, is there any way to move it. But it was actually designed
because of the, you knee, see the OWTS, the treatment unit --
what' s this part?
�
MR. WOLPERT: The alignment manhole.
MS. MOORE: Alignment manhole. Okay, I'm learning way too much
here on sanitary. But that retaining wall is for the ten-foot
separation, not because of the driveway. The driveway we had to
provide for the Zoning Board, and we put it in that area which
it's actually going to be slightly elevated but not on top.
So --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I think the answer to the question that
Elizabeth asked is that this manhole has to be ten feet away
from a retaining wall, at least. But that doesn't mean that
there has to be a retaining wall ten feet away from it. So
removing the retaining wall and having the driveway slope down
or at grade or --
MS. MOORE: Well, you're three dimensional here. You have to have
the soil and the separation, the ten feet requires the soil to
be at a certain grade. You have to have the soil here and then
the system ,is here. So the retaining wall is keeping the soil
from coming off the property. We have to maintain that ten feet,
and it's retaining the soil that is needed for the manhole to be
below grade, to be underground.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And that is required to be underground?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Yes. You answer it. I'm not the engineer, but
that has to be buried, right?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: That has to be underground?
MR. WOLPERT: What is the question? Does the manhole have to be
underground?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes.
MR. WOLPERT: Yes, of course. By definition, a manhole is
underground.
Board of Trustees 59 February 14, 2024
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, can I see the plans again?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I think what is confusing is you were speaking
in sections, Pat. You have the depth, you have the system that
is below the proposed grade.
MS. MOORE: Right. All parts of the system, you have the rings,
you have the manhole cover and you have the --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was a snarky response.
MS. MOORE: I didn't mean to be snarky.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not you.
MS. MOORE: Oh, okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: No, no. .I don't want to get into the
engineering of that. My point is that there is a, the system is
below this proposed grade with the fill.
MS. MOORE: Correct.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And then you have the driveway, which I would
assume a driveway to be, to meet code, would have to be flat and
not on an angle. Because what you are saying is that that
retaining wall that I was questioning on the south side of the
property, would be, in order to hold back any fill there. But I
think my, the way I read this is that the driveway should be on
current grade.
MS. MOORE: It can't be.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So you are also raising the driveway?
MS. MOORE: Well, two-and-a-half feet means that the, you have
some space between the Bayshore Road and then you have a slight
grade up, and it' s on top of the grade. So.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So the entirety of the landward portion is
raised.
MS. MOORE: It all has to be raised. Exactly.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay.
MS. MOORE: So the issue is, we have, with the retaining walls at
, the property line, we have more space. But if we can't and we
have to reduce it, then we don't meet the separation distances,
we are down to eight-and-a-half on the one side and I think we
are at, you tell me, what is that, isIit a ten or an eight? I
can't recall. Because if you are ten feet to the property line,
that means you are eight feet from the retaining walls?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the purpose of the manhole in this
system?
MR. WOLPERT: Okay, I want to look at two sheets, if we can. I
want 'to look at sheet one, I want to look at sheet two, with the
hydraulic profile.
MS. MOORE: Here, let me give you because it might be easier.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have a full packet. I have a full packet of
plans here. But what is the purpose of the manhole.
MS. MOORE: Okay, sorry.
MR. WOLPERT: So let's start with sheet one. We've got the
proposed house, we got a sewer line coming out through a
clean-out to the treatment unit. And that is next to the
driveway. And then we pipe to an alignment manhole, and from
i
Board of Trustees 60 February 14, 2024
there we go north into a regular distribution pool.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So what is the purpose of the manhole
MR. WOLPERT: It' s for alignment, because you can't pipe directly
from the treatment unit into the distribution pool.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why is that? -
MR. WOLPERT: Why? Because the Fuji system doesn't allow for
that. It's straight in and straight out.
MS. MOORE: This is a Fuji system. It comes off the --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
MS. MOORE: You know, it's --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Right. First of all, you never do sanitary at
a 90 degree. You use 45' s for flow. ,So you could easily, move
that manhole further away from the property line, and use a
series ,of 45' s.
MR. WOLPERT: No, that' not true, manholes have 90 degree sweeps.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And that is certainly not ideal. But why would
you not use a 45 and move ;it away from the property line? Which
would give you more room to remove that retaining wall.
MR. WOLPERT: Then we' don't have the proper separation between
the treatment unit and the leaching structure.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: From my understanding, I think the retaining
wall is from the leaching wall, not the unit itself. From our
understanding on doing these numerous times, the unit itself, in
theory, could be in groundwater. It' s, the purpose of the
retaining wall is for that leaching of the galleys so that it's
got room so it' s not spilling over on to a neighbor's property.
The unit itself is contained. You don't need a retaining wall
for the unit itself.
MR. WOLPERT: Believe me when I tell you, I 'm not a fan of
retaining walls either, but there are certain cifcumstances
where it is just necessary in order to get through the Health
Department.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 'Unfortunately we have been fighting this
battle every month for a years, and we start off where we are
here and we end up' somewhere completely different. So it is
doable. It takes a lot of, maybe a variance with the Health
Department or whatever the case may be, but the point of this
Board is we don't want retaining walls on the property line,
septic systems or no septic systems, because of the potential
adverse environmental impact it will have and the effect of what
it will have on neighboring properties.
MS. MOORE: I mean, I understand your point. I'm just letting you
know that when that's the determination then you have to
understand that an applicant is going to go to the Board of
Review. Health Department Board of Review. So be it. I'm hoping
that maybe a conversation between this Board and the Health
Department, that they would allow for some deviation when you
have tight properties on the water. Believe me, it just costs
everybody more money, more aggravation. Retaining walls are not
what people want. It' s what these sanitary systems require when
Board of Trustees 61 February 14, 2024
you have inadequate soil depth to keep the system out of the
groundwater.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes. No one is really pleased with state of
affairs that we find ourselves in in 2024. The lots have been --
- - MS. MOORE: The thing is that right now we'have an existing house- -
with a sanitary system that is in almost, almost the wetlands.
So all of these projects are actually improving
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Right. It's a step in the right direction.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I mean, unfortunately the lots have been
carved so small that you find yourself in these situations. The
Trustees, unfortunately, have been put in the position by the
Town Board to deliberate about these retaining walls and septic
systems and IA systems, and it's a difficult needle to thread.
And every single month, on multiple projects.
And before the applicants even come before the Board, I
wish they would spend as much time and energy and expertise in
limiting the size of the retaining walls and finding
alternatives so that we could fly through these applications,
and save all the applicants time and money.
I'm ready to move forward on this application, moving the
retaining walls off of the property line three feet and limiting
their height to two-and-a-half feet. That is what I think as a
Trustee is most suitable to this location. It would limit the
amount of storm water that will be pushed on to neighboring
properties, which is primarily our concern as a Board, which is
to limit destruction of properties adjacent and the ones before
us. It is not to make it easier for an applicant to go before
the Board of Health and sanitary system design. That is not our
purpose. It is to protect the wetlands. And protect property. So
please, I mean, bear with us, that's what I'm proposing, and we
can move forward with the application. I 'll make a motion.
MS. MOORE: So you are not accepting two feet off the property
line, you want three feet off the property line.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is it a legal motion? You have to close the
hearing first.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I have to close the hearing first but that' s
what I will motion. Does anyone else wish to speak regarding
this application?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: The only thing I 'll say about, in addition to
the environmental benefit of having an IA septic system, is that
you are turning a small cottage into a nearly three-story house.
And I think that, you know, another option is to shrink the size
of the house to make this appropriate for the lot that you are
making the proposal in.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE) : May I speak to that?
MS. MOORE: Sure, you' re our architect.
MR. WOLPERT: Not until I speak.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
MR. WOLPERT: We could do that if the architect and client --
Board of Trustees 62 February 14, 2024
don't -- if the architect and client agree to that. But I just
want to say that it's not going to effect the sanitary system at
all.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But, and you know what won't be effected at all
—.---- -----either-,_. which you know very well, is -if we move these--walls- in-- ---------- ---------- —
several feet, it's going to have a positive effect on the
neighboring properties. However there is going to be no
difference from the gray watery recharge out into the bay. At
all. There will be no impact. You are not speaking toward a
dispositive impact for the environment by moving these walls.
It's just benefitting the applicant and making it easier to go
forward. Moving these walls is going to have zero impact on how
that gray water gets down into the ground water or surface
waters whatsoever.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Indeed.
MR. WOLPERT: I don't have the final say on that, the Suffolk
County Health Department does.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Also true.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Good answer.
MS. MOORE: With respect to the design of the house, we limited
this to no more than 20%. And if you look up and down this
block, we found every single property asking for more than 20%
lot coverage. We spent a year-and-a-half, almost two years,
designing a house that met the code. And that, it was arm
twisting, with tremendous amount of effort by the architect.
So as far as the house, we meet the zoning code, we are a
conforming-size house. The sanitary system, we are designing
what the Health Department requires us to design. And it' s an IA
system that comes off, this is a system that has been approved
by the Health Department, and the design is, we are trying to
meet all the regulations.
So you are right. I mean, as far as does a retaining wall
change anything with the groundwater? Of course not. But the
Health Department tells us it has to be this. You know, the box
is like this, and if you don't like it, go ask the Board of
Review.
To the extent we keep pushing the walls further and further
in, the Board of Review may push back and say they won't approve
it, and then we'll be back to you. And it' s a very --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are just going around in circles now. I
understand that. We are just going around in a circle.
MS. MOORE: Right.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yup. 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
with retaining walls depicted on new site plan, three feet off
the property lines and no higher than a two-and-a-half foot in
Board of Trustees 63 February 14, 2024
height, with native plantings surrounding those retaining walls
on adjacent property lines.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) . - -
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 11, Patricia Moore, Esq. , on behalf of
IiBEN & CHRISTINA HANSEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
two-story, single family dwelling with the first floor area to
include 518sq. ft. Of living space; a 1, 445sq.ft. Deck; a
70sgf.t. ramp; and a 148sq. ft. Of stairway; second floor to
include 1, 741sq.ft. Of living space; a 345sq.ft. Deck; 112
sq.ft. Of stairway; and 625sq. ft. Landing; install sanitary
system along the easterly portion of the lot; install 151 linear
feet of retaining wall; place approximately 370 cubic yards of
clean sand surrounding the proposed I/A OWTS septic system;
install a well; install a 3�0'xl5' French drain two feet deep and
construct a 560sq.ft. Gravel driveway; landscape the property
consisting of 2, 600sq.ft. Surrounding the house to be planted
with red fescue, 6, 600sq.ft. Planted with Cape American beach
grass; install three groupings of Atlantic Red Cedars and
supplement plantings adjacent to the septic system with
Groundsel Bush installed six (6) feet on-center and within the
bounds of the property.
Located: 305 Narrow River Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-_26-3-11
The Trustees most recently noted that they would conduct an
in-house review on 2/7/2024 .
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
inconsistent. Section 4 . 1, minimize losses of human life and,
structures from flooding and erosion hazards. According to
Suffolk County hazard mitigation tool, the parcel and area,
including roads, are susceptible to flooding. The parcel is
located within the 1% 100-year flood zone, and 0.2% 500-year
flood zone annual chance of flood.
And number two, storm surge zone, the parcel is expected to
flood during a Category 1 hurricane and storms.
Number three, extreme and high New York DOS Coastal Risk
Hazard Area. Extreme hazard areas are areas of frequent
inundation. High risk areas are outside of extreme risk areas
that are currently at infrequent risk of inundation or future
risk of sea level rise.
It is expected, according to the LWRP, that the property
will be inundated during storms and in most hurricanes. Sea
level rise will also adversely impact this parcel in the future.
The recommendation from the LWRP is to move the existing
development and structures as far away from flooding and erosion
hazards as practical, maintaining existing development and
structures in hazard areas may not be warranted.
The Conservation Advisory Council has resolved not to
support this application as submitted due to the proposed
i
Board of Trustees 64 February 14, 2024
location in a flood zone, the recent changes in sea level rise
predictions and the potential runoff from this project.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Thank you. Patricia Moore on behalf of the -- - - - --
Hansen's. Christina is here, one of the -- the wife. They are
in the process of building the house.
Um, I know you know I don't know the LWRP was aware or the
CAC when they made their recommendations. This was a permit that
was issued, they built with •a building permit. The house is up.
The infrastructure is up. And while the construction is pending,
the permit expired. They, um, Mr. and Mrs. Hansen failed to ask
for an extension, which they would have automatically gotten had
it come in on time.
I was, actually, I represented the prior owner, and this
was a property that had previously had approvals for Health
Department and everything, and her husband died, she didn't
build on the property, the Hansen' s went into contract and the
whole project was made subject to getting the permit.
So we waited whatever time period, and it was almost a
two-year process to get permits in place. It was a very
thoroughly reviewed permit by this Board, and all the other
Boards that were involved in this project.
This, the design, everything prior to the IA being a
condition of a permit had been designed with an IA system, that
is what is being built. Actually you see the forms there on the
property waiting to continue.
There were C&R' s, there were C&R' s recorded on this
property, and so the C&R' s required that the property be left in
a natural state, no grass, just leave it in a 'non-turf buffer.
So that is already a C&R that is on this property.
The Health Department was issued, building permit is
issued. Um, the building permit was extended, we are just
waiting for this permit to be reissued so that they can
continue.
The house is up. They were stopped because the permit
expired. And at this point everything is ready to move forward.
I did get a letter, I don't know if it was e-mailed to you or
not, but, um, from the neighbor who was supporting the
application, it's the other house directly adjacent to ours, and
they are in the process of build. I think they are finishing up
their construction, but I'll give you the letter. I thought we
sent it but it could have possibly not come in. That letter --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: For the record, that letter is not currently
in the file, so I have not had a chance to review that.
MS. MOORE: I have a letter from the adjacent property owner who
is supporting this application. They are probably a few months
behind our construction, and they understand the process.
I'm, we are here to answer any other questions. This is a
completely design-built, ready-to-finish house. And we are so
Board of Trustees 65 February 14, 2024
far along in the project, I was surprised that we had to go '
through this process, because at a certain point you have vested
rights in the permit. But we were asked to come back in and have
the permit reissued so that the work continues under a current
valid permit. So.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes. So your permit expired, so you are here
re-applying.
MS. MOORE: It expired so it has to, re-application had to be
made. If they had just asked for the extension, it would have
been automatic.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So as part of my due diligence for looking at
this application, I went back and reviewed all the Minutes and
the extensive reports. I reviewed the engineering report that
was submitted in 2019 as part of the previous submissions. That
was prior though my joining of the Board. It stated that the
soil composition is classic for wetland, and the drainage
proposed was inadequate at the time for that location.
The report also suggested a full topographical survey be
submitted depicting all existing grade as well as proposed
grading, and I was unable to locate those submissions. They may
not have been required at the time.
Since the 2021 approval, and I just want to share that I am
speaking only as one Trustee, and that other Trustees will have
differing opinions, I'm sure, so please allow them to also
respond before your response. But since the 2021 approval, the
IPCC has released several reports, including the assessment
report in February of 2022, which stresses the imminent threat
of sea level rise, in addition to more frequent precipitation
and storms, and the importance of climate-resistant development.
In August of 2021, the New York state DEC released a new report
entitled observed and projected climate change in New York
state, stressing the increased threat of extreme precipitation
as well as sea level rise and coastal storms.
In 2022, NOAA released their sea level rise technical
report with a top-line warning of the predictive average of ten
to 14 inches of sea level rise by 2050, and moderate flooding
expected to occur, on average, ten times as often as it does
today.
There are many other reliable resources out there that
point to this increased threat, and I think it' s my obligation
to review all applications under the latest information that we
have available.
At a minimum, for me, I would want to see, the IA/OWTS
technology that we have just been reviewing has been rapidly
improving over the years. We have seen the use of shallow
systems in recent projects, like the one we are just talking
about, and it' s dramatically changed the way that this Board
looks at retaining walls. Especially within the last two years.
So as it stands, the current retaining wall on this
property is set to be I think five-and-a-half feet tall, which
Board of Trustees 66, February 14, 2024
will increase "the danger of flood and storm-type damage. And I
believe this project should be reconfigured to harness this new
technology and thereby reduce the overall height of the proposed
retaining wall and the need for so much fill.
-- -.- .. - So that is my assessment of it, but I would like for the ---- .-- --- ..- -- - - --
other Trustees to weigh in prior to your response.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So as a Trustee who was on the Board when this
house was first proposed, certainly a lot -has changed. The
flooding was not nearly as apparent at that time. The vegetation
has converted even further into being wetland species. Um, at
the time ,I did not think a house should be built on this lot,
but I did not have the votes to go that route. However I do
believe that this, we issued a permit twice, and the house is
being built, construction is underway, and for me it' s, you
know, it's a done deal. So I would support the project as
submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: As we spoke on .previous applications, we have
come a long way on IA systems, and, like Trustee Krupski, I was
on the Board when this first was approved. We have learned a
lot since then.
This was based on a precedent from the house immediately to
the south, had a wall that got approved and so the precedent was
set for this area. It' s been approved twice. Ideally, you know,
if we could go back in time, it might be different. But we
can't. It' s got an approved permit. As you said, if they just
simply applied for an extension we would not be here. So I,� you
know, I think we need to move .forward on this one.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just to clarify something. The precedence, I
don't- believe is set for this area, just maybe this corner of
this location. Certainly not this road or area.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Nope. And again, going back, I want to say it
was the same month, the following month, where we had the
application for the house immediately to the south that got
similar, same size, so that was the basis or bases the argument
for the house directly across the street. At least in my mind,
that's how it worked.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: If we were looking at this application today -as
a new application, I believe there might be a very different
outcome. This is, obviously this Board, you are familiar with
some of the precedent that this Board has set in recent past.
As a new application, I would look at this very
differently. Um, you know, I was not on the Board at the time of
the previous approvals, and I, the one thing that I would say in
review of this today, as with the permit history is, is there
anything that could be modified at this point with the height of
the- retaining walls.
Because I mean, the most recent application we were just
discussing with you, Ms. Moore, we were talking about, you know,
feet, . you know, trying to get it down to, you know, as minimal
as possible for the retaining walls. And I would question if
Board of Trustees 67 February 14, 2024
there was any way that these could be reduced based on
conversations prior and, you know, the willingness, obviously of
this Board to understand, or myself, I 'll speak for myself, to
understand that there is a history here.
However, I would ask if that., -if there is anything that
could be done, because that five-and-a-half foot retaining wall
is really, you know, it has negative environment impact,
negative esthetic impact, and I would just ask if that could be
reviewed.
MS. MOORE: This application went, action went through the Board
of Review, the Health Department Board of Review for its design.
I think there is actually room to, and actually there was a
planting plan that was part of the original application that is
going to screen the retaining wall from the street.
Obviously it can't hide it. The house is on piles. Really
any house that is built in this area has to deal with FEMA
standards and flooding. That is obvious.
It really would be a hardship to go back to the Health
Department, and we would not be able to do it without going back
to the Board of Review, since the Board of Review approved this
design. So it really leaves us, it would be a tremendous
hardship.
The house is up and this break, and thank you, very much,
for allowing us to put the windows in to protect the interior,
the wood, but the contractor has warned me that the house cannot
remain exposed much longer without damaging the wood that is
already in place. So I don't know how one would redesign this
and go back to the Health Department when it was the Board of
Review who granted the application. I don't believe that the
regulatory division would be able to override the Board of
Review decision. And that is how this design took place.
So, I mean, the vegetation, it's already going to be
covered. Is the retaining wall going to be like esthetically
different than like what is it going to look like? Maybe that' s
a possibility, that you could make it look, you know, less
cement? I don't know that that is a solution.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think, to clarify, the Baccharus is supposed
to remain between the road and the retaining wall, to cover it.
MS. MOORE: I don't know. I mean there' s been a lot of flooding
there. So I don't know if the Baccharus is still there or not.
I don't recall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Baccharus can handle flooding. That' s
consistent, it' s a wetlands species.
MS. MOORE: No, no. I know, but I don't know if all the activity,
it it's there or not. If it' s been damaged it has to be
replaced, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's fine, too.
MS. MOORE: That's really the only thing I can suggest is, you
know, the vegetation, but I really don't see legally a way
around this with the design. It's outside of the realm of our
Board of Trustees 68 February 14, 2024
abilities, and once the Board of Review grants an approval, you
have to go back to them fore any modification.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you, for explaining that. It's
worth asking the question.
MS. MOORE: Sure, I understand.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Just to respond to the comment about the house
to the south. The difference in my mind between the two projects
is that one is a lot that had never been improved before, while
the other one is a house. And you'll note on this plan that
that there is no distance to wetlands anywhere on the plan
because the engineer ruled that this is all wetlands. So you are
building on top of the wetlands. So I would think that is a
little different, in my mind.
MS. MOORE: The application was so thoroughly reviewed last time,
there was a lot of discussion of whether or not the whole
property should be deemed a wetland or not. And it was, I
believe you are right, it was deemed a wetland by vegetation.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes. And soil.
MS. MOORE: Well, the soil, that --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Yes. So is there anyone else here wishing to
speak regarding this application?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Sure. As someone who grew up in Orient, I
never wanted to see this lot developed. It was obviously a
wetland when I was a kid. There was Spartina Patens, Baccharus.
All the wetland species were present there, even a couple years
ago, before the house started construction. And the DEC, in
their infinite wisdom, failed to address aspects of their review
to consider parcels across from roads, over roads, to be
included in wetlands. And that's unfortunate.
It' s also unfortunate that when the Baccharus was removed,
that a local police force didn't respond and issue a summons on
that particular violation. But here we are.
I also have a memory that 'this entire area was farmed at
one point. And so we are dealing with all sorts of human impacts
and changes to the neighborhood.
I will say that although I don't like it, it has a permit,
it expired, you are seeking to renew it. Two members of the
Board who were here when they first issued the permit made their
decisions, and so respecting those property rights, I think that
the applicant has a right to move forward with the application.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Any other questions or comments from the
public or Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just very briefly, that I do hope the
applicants, when they re-vegetate this, it should be all very,
very native species. If it's standing water, I mean certainly
Baccharus should go back in. If there is an appropriate place
for some form of Spartina, that is what this should be
re-vegetated with. Not just native species but species that
belong there. And, you know, if it does pass, don't let it
Board of Trustees 69 February 14, 2024
expire again.
MS. MOORE: Believe me that's Christina --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: If you would just speak into the microphone
at the lectern.
MS. HANSEN: Thank you. I feel bad, I feel bad
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'm sorry, can you please state your name for
the record. We don't have a stenographer here.
MS. HANSEN: It' s Christine Hansen. And I'm an architect, I 'm
working for a landscape architect now.
Um, I feel bad that we are building on this land that you
loved as a child. I, um, I live in Brooklyn, I 'm getting
acquainted with how meaningful the land is to all of you, and I
didn't know that the contractor removed the Baccharus. We'll put
it .back. and more. And, yeah, I just, we want to do the right
thing. I would lower the retaining walls, too, if we could do
that without.
MS. MOORE: I don't think it's possible, without jeopardizing
your Health Department permit, so.
MS. HANSEN: So you can't make improvements to what is already
approved without triggering review?
MS. MOORE: I mean, you're my client. We can always go to the
Health Department and ask to amend our permit, but I don't want
to delay this project because the Health Department is already
in place, and we can't modify it without going back to the
Health Department.
So, I have a lovely client, she is very, very sensitive to
the situation. I think it's great. She belongs in Orient with
all of you veteran Orient. We can go back and look at it with an
engineer, but I think for purposes of this permit, it' s --
TRUSTEE' GILLOOLY: I do understand what you are saying, and if
the permit does get approved then you, I encourage you to
explore that -opportunity if it' s something you feel called to
do.
MS. MOORE: I mean, I can talk to -- Joe Fischetti did the
design, and I can talk to Joe tomorrow and have him look at it.
Because, as you said, the IA system that was approved at the
time was innovative. At the time. And now your, it' s
standardized, so, I'll look into it.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And if you did go that route, it would be an
administrative amendment with our Board, so it would be very
minor for us. If it came down to that. I just wanted to explain
that process, so that you know you would have to come before us
again, but it would be very minor.
MS. HANSEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And just to piggyback on that, I think it
would be a great idea for you to explore. There are better
environmental alternatives than what was initially approved. As
we said, we have learned a lot on these IA systems over the last
eight, nine years, whatever it was, since this was first
approved. There' s ones now, pressure-treated mats that we
Board of Trustees 70 February 14, 2024
discussed on a previous application, where you probably have the
land area to do that, and •then you only need two feet below
that.
So, you know, for esthetics, for everything, for the
environment, you know, there are, and I encourage you to explore _.._
those if at all possible.
MS. HANSEN: Joe Fischetti would know about this? Good.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: There are multiple people, I know Joe
Fischetti was the initial one that we worked with eight years
ago, or whatever it was. He did fight us on the design then, so
you know, but as you see, we have been able to work with other
applicants and come to a more environmentally. friendly solution
for everybody. So there are better alternatives out there than
what was approved eight years ago. And by all means.
MS. HANSEN: I will. Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And I appreciate your interest in wanting to
explore and, you know, understanding all of these aspects with
such a precious property is important. So I appreciate that.
MS. HANSEN: Yeah, I mean, I think what is great about attending
this hearing is education that. you get. I had no idea. Um, so.
I'm going to look into that. Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to
close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Shall we do a roll call vote?
MS. HULSE: We need a motion first.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want me to make a motion?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Sure.
TRUSTEE• KRUPSKI: Can I make a motion?
MS. HULSE: Certainly.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, with the stipulation that if they are able to lower
the walls, that they do so.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. Roll call vote, we'll start with
Trustee Peeples.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Trustee Gillooly?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Trustee Sepenoski?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Trustee Krupski?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And Trustee Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The ayes have it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Motion carries.
Board of Trustees 71 February 14, 2024
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
i
Respectfully submitted by,
'�JC
Glenn Go smith, President
Board of Trustees
r