HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/17/2024 Glenn Goldsmith,President QF S0(/r Town Hall Annex
A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice President ,`O ��� 54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski l J Southold,New York 11971
Liz Gillooly N Telephone(631) 765-1892
Elizabeth Peeples �l� aQ Fax(631) 765-6641
OOUNT`I,�
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
MAY 1
6 Z� TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, April 17th, 2024
5:30 PM
Present Were: Glenn Goldsmith, President
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Eric Sepenoski, Trustee
Liz Gillooly, Trustee
Elizabeth Peeples, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Administrative Assistant
Lori Hulse, Board Counsel
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Good evening, and welcome to our Wednesday,
April 17th, 2024, meeting. At this time, I would like to call the
meeting to order and ask that you please stand for the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance is recited) .
I'll start off 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, we have Administrative Assistant
Elizabeth Cantrell, we have Court Stenographer Wayne Galante and
from the Conservation Advisory Council, -we have Carol Brown and
Nancy May.
Agendas for tonight's meeting are located out in the
hallway and also posted on the Town's website.
We. do have a number of postponements tonight. The
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 41x46' catwalk to a 31x12 ' aluminum
I Board of Trustees 2 April 17, 2024
ramp to an 18.7'x6' floating dock with a 21x4'bump-out for ramp
situated in an "L" configuration and secured by two sets of two
(2) dauphin pilings at each end; catwalk to have Thru-Flow
decking throughout with pressure treated pilings set at 8 '
on-center; total length of catwalk is 126 linear feet.
Located: 610 Jacksons Landing, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-4-8
On page ten, Numbers 10 and 11:
Number 10, WILLIAM & MARIAM HALLOCK request a Wetland
. Permit to install a proposed 161x32' in-ground swimming pool
with a 1' wide coping surround; a 660sq.ft. Pool patio surround;
4' high pool enclosure fencing; a pool drywell for backwash; and
pool equipment area.
Located: 1230 Clearview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-9-56
Number 11, James DeLucca, R.A. , LLC on behalf of DOUGLAS P.
ROBALINO LIVING TRUST & DIANE E. ROBALINO LIVING TRUST requests
a Wetland Permit for the as-built 1, 628sq. ft. One-story dwelling
with attached 186sq.ft. East side deck with steps and 405sq.ft.
West side deck with steps; as-built 181sq.ft. PVC pergola;
as-built 345sq. ft. West side concrete patio; 526sq.ft. Of as
built concrete walkways; 827sq.ft. Of as-built step-stone walks;
as-built 598sq. ft. Masonry block walk; as-built 1, 600sq.ft.
Brick & asphalt driveway; existing previously permitted
1, 380sq.ft. Two-story garage; and 10' diameter by 8 ' deep
cesspool with shallow dome.
Located: 1695 Bay Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-9-21. 1.
And on page 11, numbers 12 through 14:
Number 12, En-Consultants on behalf of KP REALTY OF
GREENPORT CORP. requests a Wetland Permit for removing
1, 108sq. ft. Of existing grade-level masonry patio and 179sq.ft.
area of landscape retaining walls; construct 872sq. ft. Of
"upper" grade-level masonry patio, 181x46' swimming pool with
60sq.ft. Hot tub, 428sq.ft. Of "lower" grade-level masonry
patio, 18 'x31' roofed-over open-air accessory structure with a
±6' x ±31' enclosed storage shed that has closets, an outdoor
fireplace, and a basement for storage and pool equipment, an
outdoor kitchen, and associated steps and planters; install a
pool drywell and 4' high pool enclosure fencing with gates;
remove 34 linear feet of existing stone retaining wall and
construct 24 linear feet of new 2.7 ' high stone retaining wall;
and to establish and perpetually maintain a 50 foot wide
non-disturbance/non-fertilization buffer adjacent to the
wetlands boundary, replacing approximately 3,850sq.ft. Of
existing lawn with native plantings and maintaining a cleared 4 '
wide pathway to existing dock.
Located: 2006 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-3-12.11.
Number 13, 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
Board of Trustees 3 April 17, 2024
16' vinyl returns on north side of existing 141x16' wood ramp
which shall be removed and void filled with clean sand/gravel
from upland sources; construct a, new 4' wide by 40' long
boardwalk on-grade with untreated timber decking; install and
perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the bulkhead; demolish existing 58.4 'x24.4 '
dwelling and garage, leaving existing foundation and garage
slab; construct a new 58.4 'x24.4 ' two-story dwelling in existing
foundation footprint with attached garage on existing slab;
construct a 201x23. 9' single story addition on south side of
dwelling; construct a 161x20' 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 14, 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
And on page 12, number 15, AS PER REVISED PLAN & PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED ON 5/10/2023 Young & Young on behalf of
STEPHEN & JACQUELINE DUBON requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 1, 118sq. ft. one-story dwelling and for the demolition
and removal of certain existing structures (project meets Town
Code definition of demolition) , within and outside of the
existing dwelling to facilitate construction of the proposed
additions and alterations consisting of a proposed 45sq.ft.
Addition to northeast corner, and a 90sq.ft. Addition to
southeast corner for a 1, 195sq.ft. Total footprint after
additions; construct a 1, 195sq.ft. Second story addition; a
70sq.ft. Second story balcony; replace and expand existing
easterly deck with a 320sq.ft. Deck with 69sq. ft. Of deck stairs
to ground; replace and expand existing, porch with a 40sq. ft.
Porch and 20sq.ft. Porch stairs to ground; construct a 38 ' long
by 2' wide by 12" to 24" high landscape wall with a 3' wide by
8"-12" high stone step; install one (1) new drywell for roof
runoff; abandon two (2) existing cesspools and install a new
IA/OWTS system consisting of one (1) 500 gallon treatment unit
and 46 linear feet of graveless absorption trenches (i.e. , one
(1) 24'L x 4 'W trench and one (1) 22 'L x 41W trench) ; and for
the existing 84sq.ft. Shed.
Located: 5605 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-4-3.2.
1
Board of Trustees 4 April 17, 2024
So all of those are postponed for 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 the delay of the processing of the
applications.
I. NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to hold our next
field inspection on Tuesday, May 7th, 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, May 15th, 2024 at 5:30 p.m. at the Town Hall
Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
III. WORK SESSION:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to hold our next work
sessions Monday, May 13th, 2024, at 5: 00 p.m. at the Town Hall
Annex 2nd Floor Executive Board Room; and on Wednesday, May
15th, 2024 at 5:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Main Meeting Hall.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IV. MINUTES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of
March 20, 2024 .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
V. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The Trustees monthly report for March 2024. A
check for $15, 687 . 46 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office
for the General Fund.
VI. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's
Board of Trustees 5 April 17, 2024
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 X Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, April 17, 2024 are classified as
Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are
not subject to further review under SEQRA.
Listed as follows:
Of Oregon 2021, LLC, c/o Cliff Olson - SCTM# 1000-72-2-2.3
East End Seaport Museum & Marine Foundation, Long Beach Bar Bug
Lighthouse - SCTM# 1000-132-1-31
Sterling Brent Real Estate LTD. , c/o Brent Nemetz SCTM# 1000-15-2-17. 6
Kevin & Jane McGilloway - SCTM# 1000-144-5-3'0. 1
Lester & Ethna Lay - SCTM# 1000-78-5-9
Scott & Lori Rosen - SCTM# 1000-115.-11-16
Neil & Amy McGoldrick - SCTM# 1000-116-4-16. 4
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. - SCTM# 1000-15-9-10.1
600 Glenn, LLC - SCTM# 1000-78-2-24
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: That is my motion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE_GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
VIII. RESOLUTIONS i ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: In order to simplify our meeting the Trustees
regularly group items that are similar or minor in nature. As
such, I'll make a motion to approve as a group Items 3 through
5, as follows:
Number 3, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of TODD
FREED & EDITH WEBSTER-FREED requests an Administrative Permit to
add approximately 200 cubic yards of fill to a height of 18"-24"
from existing ground level; plant 63 green giant arborvitaes
along the length of the property; install a 6' high chain link
fence along the east side of the arborvitaes; and to remove two
existing locust trees; with no disturbance or grade change
within the 10' right-of-way.
Located: 12400 New .Suffolk Avenue and Right of Way off New Suffolk
Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-116-6-12. 1 & 1000-116-6-12.2
Number 4, JOSEPH FLOTTERON requests an Administrative
Permit to install an approximately 16'x25' garden area using 6'
high fencing, with four 3'x8' window boxes.
Located: 595 Clearwater Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-2-14.1
Number 5, Ben Heins on behalf of MATTITUCK PARK DISTRICT =
WOLF PIT requests an Administrative Permit for a Ten (10) Year
Board of Trustees 6 April 17, 2024
Maintenance Permit to clear bittersweet and wild rose from east
side of lake to allow a foot path around the lake; damaged tree
limbs to be removed but trees to remain; install hay bales and
silt fencing near town overflow pipes to prevent further erosion
and trap sediments from road runoff; removal of the following
invasive species: Wild Rose, Japanese Honeysuckle, and
Bittersweet; initial removal will be around the landward
perimeter of the walking trail with further removal along the
water' s edge to coincide with planting of native species;
trimming or removal of large wild cherry tree if necessary;
removal of pressure treated (CCA) railing that has failed and
not to be replaced; plant various native species over the next
two (2) years to include: Myrica Pensylvanica (Northern
Bayberry) , Solidago Sempervirens (Seaside Goldenrod) , Solidago
Canadensis (Canadian Goldenrod) , Prunis .Maritima (Beach Plum) ,
Asclepias Tuberosa (Butterfly Weed) , Vaccinium Angustifolium
(Lowbush Blueberry) , Conoclinium Coelestinum (Blue Mist Flower) ,
Pycnanthemum Muticum (Mountain Mint) , Symphyotrichum
Novae-angliae (Purple Dome) , Chamaecrista Fasciculata (Partidge
Pea) , Monarda Punctata (Spotted Beebalm) .
Located: 5005 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-4-11
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 1, Twin Fork Landscape Contracting,
Inc. on behalf of JONATHAN TIBETT requests an Administrative
Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to trim the
hand-cut Common Reed (Phragmites australis) to not less than 12"
in height by hand, as needed.
Located: 845 Budd's Pond Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-5-11
Trustee Gillooly conducted a field inspection April 14th,
noting care must be taken to avoid accidental trimming of
vegetation, including Cedars. Phragmites only.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is the permit was issued in 1990, for it to be left in its
natural state. "Natural state" would not include the cutting of
phragmites. Native plantings are not proposed.
I'll make a motion to approve this application noting
trimming of the phragmites will help with the native vegetation
and allow it to flourish thereby bringing it into consistency
with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
('ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, MICHAEL & ROBIN COLAPIETRO request
an Administrative Permit to replace in-kind the existing damaged
south side property line retaining wall that is 82 ' in length
and 3' in height at the highest point.
Board of Trustees 7 April 17, 2024
Located: 3800 Deep Hole Creek, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-17-6.1
Trustee Goldsmith conducted the field inspection April
14th, noting the retaining wall not to exceed two-and-a-half
feet in height.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
I'll make a motion to approve this application with the
condition that the retaining wall be limited to no higher than
two-and-a-half feet in height.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
IX. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Again, in order to simplify our meeting, I'll
make a motion to approve as a group Items' 1 through 11 and 15
through 17, as follows: 5 -
Number 1, VASILIS & CHRISTINE FTHENAKIS request a One (1)
Year Extension to Wetland Permit #10156, as issued on May 18,
2022.
Located: 6925 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-15-9
Number 2, En-Consultants on behalf of AMNON & KATHLEEN
BAR-TUR requests a One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit
#10094, as issued on March 16, 2022.
Located: 170 Bay Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-24-2-26. 4
Number 3, DEKKA, LLC, c/o CHRISTIAN BAIZ, ADMINISTRATIVE
MANAGER requests the Final One (1) Year Extension to Wetland
Permit #9895, as issued on May 19, 2021, and Amended on December
13, 2023.
Located: 120 Bay Home Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-5-1.3
Number 4, En-Consultants on behalf of PECONIC RIVER, LLC
requests the Final One (1) Year Extension to Wetland Permit
#9930, as issued on June 16, 2021, and Amended on June 15, 2022,
on April 19, 2023, and Amended again on January 17, 2024.
Located: 450 Basin Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-1-18. 1
Number 5, Peter DiClementi on behalf of BAILEY INVESTMENT
GROUP II, LLC requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #5473 from
Roberts Premier Development, LLC to Bailey Investment Group II,
LLC, as issued on December 21, 2001.
Located: 910 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-27
Number 6, Peter DiClementi on behalf of BAILEY INVESTMENT
GROUP II, LLC requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #10212 from
Roberts Premier Development, LLC to Bailey Investment Group II,
LLC, as issued on September 14, 2022.
Located:( 910 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-27
Number 7, Peter DiClementi on behalf of BAILEY INVESTMENT
GROUP II, LLC requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #10363 from
Roberts Premier Development, LLC to Bailey Investment Group II,
LLC, as issued on April 19, 2023.
Board of Trustees 8 April 17, 2024
Located: 910 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-27
Number 8, Martin Finnegan, Esq. on behalf of LAUREN TAURO &
RONALD LOFRESE requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #10032 from
Jerry Iovino to Lauren Tauro & Ronald Lofrese, as issued on
November 17, 2021.
Located: 1320 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#' 1000-111-14-19
Number 9, Martin Finnegan, Esq. on behalf of LAUREN TAURO &
RONALD LOFRESE requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #9955 from
Jerry & Christine Iovino to Lauren Tauro & Ronald Lofrese, as
issued on July 14, 2021.
Located: 1320 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-14-19
Number 10, Martin Finnegan, Esq. On behalf of LAUREN TAURO
& RONALD LOFRESE requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #8716
from Thomas Macari to Lauren Tauro & Ronald Lofrese, as issued
on December 16, 2015.
Located: 1320 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-14-19
Number 11, Martin Finnegan, Esq. On behalf of LAUREN TAURO
& RONALD LOFRESE requests a Transfer of Administrative Permit
#8669A from Thomas Macari to Lauren Tauro & Ronald Lofrese, as
issued on September 16, 2015, and Amended on October 14; 2020.
Located: 1320 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-14-19
Number 15, AMP Architecture on behalf of ANDREAS
SERPANOS requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#10327 to modify the pool enclosure fencing by proposing 104
linear feet of 4' high fencing with gate, wood with wire mesh at
landward edge of 15' vegetated non-turf buffer; removal of
existing 6' high stockade fence at West and East side of
property; proposed 210 linear feet of 6' high stockade fence at
West and East side of property; and proposed 32 linear feet of
4' high fencing with gate, wood with wire mesh.
Located: 19105 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-17
Number 16, David Bergen on behalf of BAILEY INVESTMENT
GROUP II, LLC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit #10363 for the as-built 1, 079sq.ft. Pool patio around the
existing, permitted pool; and for the as-built relocation of the
pool enclosure fencing that encroaches onto the neighbor of 800
Glenn Road.
Located: 910 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-27
Number 17, DKR Shores, Inc. on behalf of KORYN ESTRADA
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #10237 to
include a 115sq.ft. And 137sq. ft. deck expansion (total deck
1, 190sq.ft. ) , and egress access for ADA purposes; and to add a
cantilevered 4. 8 'x22. 9' raised planting bed.
Located: 2350 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-4-7
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 12, Alexander Perros on behalf of
SILVER SANDS HOLDINGS I, LLC requests an Administrative
1
Board of Trustees 9 April 17, 2024
Amendment to Wetland Permit #10334 to remove the verbiage "that
there is to be no sod used on the entirety of this parcel, " and
also remove "and perpetually maintain the entirety of the
property located within the jurisdiction of the Trustees as a
non-turf buffer" from the permit; and add in the verbiage
"perpetually maintain the designated non-disturbance and
non-turf buffer areas; grasses within the remainder of the
Trustee jurisdiction shall be a no-mow and non-fertilization area."
Located: 1300 Silvermere Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-47-2-12
Trustee Sepenoski conducted a field inspection April 14th.
Notes: Concerned about plans not clearly delineating areas and
plantings in Trustee jurisdiction; grass/sod not appropriate
near wetlands; non-turf areas should be made non-turf.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. A vegetated or
non-disturbance buffer should be established and labeled on the
plans. Species should be native, salt and drought tolerant,
survival parameters for the planted species should be required.
So this was subject to a full and fair discussion at a
recent public hearing, with the conditions set in a recent
Wetland Permit.
There is no need to revisit it when it was discussed and
vetted at a recent hearing, therefore I'll make a motion to deny
this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 13, Alexander Perros on behalf of
SILVER SANDS HOLDINGS I, LLC requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit #10335 to remove the verbiage "that
there be no sod used on the entirety of this parcel, " and also
remove "establish and perpetually maintain the entirety of the
property located within the jurisdiction of the Trustees as a
non-turf buffer" from the permit; and to add in the verbiage
"perpetually maintain the designated non-disturbance and
non-turf buffer areas; grasses within the remainder of the
Trustee jurisdiction shall be a non-mow and non-fertilization area."
Located: 1220 Silvermere Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-47-2-13
Trustee Sepenoski conducted a field inspection April 14th,
2024. Notes concerns about the plans, review at work session.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is: Vegetated or non-disturbance buffer should be established
and labeled on the plans; species should be native, salt and
drought tolerant; survival parameters for the planted species
should be required.
Again, as in the previous application, there was a full and
fair discussion at a public hearing with the conditions set in a
recent Wetland Permit. There is no need to revisit it when it
was discussed and vetted at a recent hearing, therefore I'll
make a motion to deny this application as submitted.
Board of Trustees 10 April 17, 2024
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 14, Alexander Perros on behalf of
SILVER SANDS HOLDINGS I, LLC requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit #10380 to add after the verbiage L
4. 11, add "perpetually maintain the designated non-disturbance
and non-turf buffer areas; grasses within the remainder of the
Trustee jurisdiction shall be a no-mow and non-fertilization area."
Located: 1100 Silvermere Road, .Greenport. SCTM# 1000-47-2-14
Trustee Sepenoski conducted a field inspection April 14th,
2024, noting concerns about the clarity of plans; review plans
and observations at work session.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies
are: Minimize landscaping in non-turf buffer dependent upon the
irrigation and fertilizer. Fertilizer influences are harmful to
the eco-system balance.
Again, similar to the previous two, there was a full and
fair discussion at a public hearing with the conditions set in a
recent Wetland Permit. There is no need to revisit it when it
was discussed and vetted at a recent hearing. Therefore I'll
make a motion to deny this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second. `
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: At this time I'll make a motion to go off our
regular meeting agenda and enter into public hearings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: This is a public hearing in the matter of the
following applications for permits under Chapter 275 and Chapter
111 of Southold Town code. I have an affidavit of publication
from the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may be read
prior to asking for comments from the public. Please keep your
comments organized and brief, five minutes or less if possible.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits,
Number 1, L.K. McLean Associates on behalf of EAST END SEAPORT
MUSEUM & MARINE FOUNDATION, LONG BEACH BAR BUG LIGHTHOUSE
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to
construct a new pier by saw-cutting and removing existing
concrete within footprint of proposed timber pier, remove ±148'
of existing timber pier and replace with an 81x40.75'
1
Board of Trustees 11 April 17,2024
(±322sq. ft. ) Greenheart timber pier, stepping down to an
8'x16.4 ' (132sq.ft. ) Fiberglass-grating pier at lower elevation
and situated in an "L" configuration; install 94 linear feet of
timber railing around the perimeter of the pier, 40' long fender
pilings evenly spaced around the perimeter of the pier, and
three (3) aluminum marine ladders; replace four (4) two-pile
dolphins while shifting them slightly to the 'east to accommodate
the new location of the pier; install one (1) five-pile dolphin;
install a new 19.5' wide wave screen using 10' long 3'Jix10"
greenheart timber boards connected to three (3) 8"x8" greenheart
timber wales and (3) 12" lqng steel brackets, and then fastened
to 35' long HP 14x102 steel piles, placed at 6' on center; and
to construct a new walkway path around the existing building
with approximately 113 cubic yards of heavy granite stone over
an area of 787sq.ft. ; the stone will lay flat and will allow the
visitors to walk around the lighthouse.
Located: Off End of Long Beach Bar in Gardiners Bay, Orient.
SCTM# 1000-132-1-31
The Trustees conducted an in-house review April 9th, 2024,
noting that we'd review the plans further at work session.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
is the proposal does not meet Chapter 111, Coastal Erosion
Hazard Areas of the Southold Town code. Allowable activities in
these areas may include open timber piles or other similar open
work supports with a top surface area of less than 200 square
feet, which are to be removed in the fall of each year.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection, therefore no recommendation was made.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. MASSERIA: Keith Masseria, from L.K. McLean Associates, and
we are proposing to replace the existing pier that is there to
make it more pedestrian friendly and also more safe for the
access of smaller vessels. Currently the pier is very high,
which is accessible to the larger boats that dock there, but
when the smaller boats are there, it creates an unsafe condition to
have to climb the ladder to get to the top of the higher pier,
so we are proposing to install one section of the pier about
three feet lower so, to create it safer for the smaller boats as
well. And also widen the pier in order to make it a little bit
safer. Currently the pier reduces in width from about seven or
eight feet to about four.
So those are the driving forces with the project in order
to make it safer for pedestrians.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And just a quick question. This is all fixed
right? It won't be removable?
MR. MASSERIA: Correct, all fixed.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Excuse me, would you clarify, you've indicated
fiberglass grading as the surface material. Is that open-grate?
MR. MASSERIA: It's open-grate, yes. That's for the lower
Board of Trustees 12 April 17, 2024
section of the pier. We recognize that we are expanding the pier
over a section of water that does not currently have one, so it
will allow the natural light to pass through. But also it's an
area that is subject to extreme wave action, so it will reduce
the wave forces on the dock.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I would like to state for the record that,
going by the lighthouse very frequently, the dock has been in
rough shape for a long time, and I think this project is
necessary.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. And just procedurally, there's two
sections to this. There' s the 275 and 111. Due to the fact that
it's over 200 square feet, we cannot approve it. We would have
to essentially deny it and then you have to take it to appeal to
Town Board. However, we can vote on the wetland portion of it.
So hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion to close
this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland
Permit section of this permit.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE,.GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to deny the Coastal
Erosion Permit due to the fact it's over1200-square feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 2, 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
12'x34.5' (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
Board of Trustees 13 April 17, 2024
sanitary system landward of dwelling; and ',to install two (2) 8 '
wide by 2' deep drywells to contain roof runoff.
Located: 1200 Leeton Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-1-1
The Trustees most recently reviewed this application at
work session on Monday. Before that we first inspected the
property November 8th, 2023. There were concerns over the
primary dune.
Additionally, this hearing was opened during that November
public hearing, at which point we laid out a large amount of
concerns over the dune habitat that the third story was proposed
on.
The LWRP, as mentioned in November, found this to be
inconsistent. Coastal Erosion Hazard Line splits the parcel with
a shift landward to account for the no seawall area. Part of the
single-family residence and deck are located within the Coastal
Erosion Hazard Area. The proposed action does not have a
functional relationship to coastal waters and therefore is not a
water-dependent use. Pursuant to Chapter 275-2, water dependent
use is defined as: Activity which can only be conducted on, in,
over or adjacent to a water body, et cetera.
As inferred above, the proposed construction and sanitary
system are located within FEMA Flood Zone 'VE elevation 13, a
structural high hazard area with a 1% chance of annual flooding
with wave velocity. In reality, flooding occurs on a more
frequent level. Structures in these areas should be minimized,
not expanded. The breach of the lot coverage limits set a
precedent of potential loss in a structural hazard area.
The natural protective feature as defined in 111-6
definitions is a land and/or water area containing natural
protective features such as a beach or primary dune. New
construction is prohibited in natural protective feature areas
primary dune. Only non-major additions to existing structures
are allowed on beaches or primary dunes pursuant to 111-13.
The distance from the proposed actions to the natural
protective features is zero feet. The minimum setback distance
of 100 feet is required pursuant to Chapter 275-3 Findings,
Purpose, Jurisdiction, Setbacks.
Require the applicant amend the application to meet the
above policies to the greatest extent practicable, minimizing
damage or destruction to manmade property and natural protective
feature and other natural resources to protect human life.
I'm also in receipt of a letter from one of the neighbors
who is adamantly against the property building in such a
storm-burdened area within the dunal habitat.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PORTILLO: Good evening, Board. Anthony Portillo. I'm really
just going to summarize the project. We have a new team or some
added team members to the professional side of this. We have
brought on Nica Strunk, a lawyer to discuss some of the legal
I
i
I
Board of Trustees 14 April 17, 2024
side of things, and Cole Environmental in regards to the
environmental concerns that the Board had.
So we are requesting to do an addition from the existing
footprint of 115 square feet, which will be on piers with
breakaway walls, so we'll meet the FEMA compliance there.
And then we are requesting a third story, which was
approved by Zoning. The application was submitted to the.
Building Department. The Building Department did not find the
application to be a reconstruction, so it' s not considered a
substantial improvement by FEMA code. And then the request --
so really the building and the project is FEMA compliant for
that reason. And we are providing an IA system in the front yard
and replacing the existing sanitary system.
I'll turn it over to Cole Environmental to discuss any
environmental concerns about the part about the dune.
MS. RUMMEL: Kate Rummel, Cole Environmental.
I have reviewed the Board's concerns as well as the
concerns of the LWRP coordinator, and in comparison, to the
parcel as it currently stands, the proposed third-story addition
is not going to have adverse impacts on the environment. But we
have included some improvements which will improve the impact.
So, one being the IA system, which obviously is going to
remove approximately up to 97% ratio of pollutant removal as
well as a nitrogen-reducing ratio of up to 75%.
Also, in an effort to protect and stabilize the dune, which
is a major concern of the Board, the proposed plan reduces the
beach access path to four feet, and it also includes
supplemental native vegetation to the dune, as well as the area
directly seaward.
And lastly, the Board previously approved a revetment of at
this site, which as a static hardened structure it can actually
adversely impact the dune, but the homeowners have chosen to not
move forward with that, as they do they prefer the natural
shoreline.
And we'll turn it over to Nica Strunk, the attorney.
MS. STRUNK: Good afternoon, members of the Board. My name is
Nica Strunk, I'm an attorney at 37 Windmill Lane, Southampton,
New York, here tonight for Christopher and Marissa Lazos.
I have a letter -- I was recently retained -- I have a
letter I would like to submit to the Board, and I also have a
disclosure form in this package, six copies. Could I hand it up?
(Handing) .
I reviewed the Minutes from the last public hearing on this
application and what I believe I saw when I read those is that
the Board seems to be interested in requiring the applicant to
elevate its existing, their existing home so that it meets, so
that it' s higher than FEMA base flood elevation for this FEMA
zone.
However, as I think Anthony may have mentioned, and I know
was mentioned in the past hearing, the Building Inspector has
I
i
Board of Trustees 15 April 17, 2024
I
made the determination that this is not a substantial
improvement that would require making the existing structure
elevated for the FEMA district.
So, as a matter of fact, this structure is at ground level,
it always has been at ground level. There is a CO, the oldest
that we have is from 1966, and that was for an addition. So the
actual house itself is clearly longstanding in this
configuration, at this level.
I And so that is really what the application is about. It' s about
what is the impact, if anything, of adding an additional story
onto this existing structure. The existing structure as it is
not before the Board for approval. It' s already been approved.
What is before the Board for approval is the addition, the third
story that is going on top of it, and a 116 square foot
stairwell area that is being added on to it, which as Anthony
mentioned will be, that will comply with the FEMA elevation. And
I make these points my letter.
The determination of compliance with FEMA has been
delegated by the Town Code to the Town Building Inspector, and
not to this Board. So this Board doesn't have the jurisdiction
to require the property, the structure to be elevated as
required by FEMA, for substantial improvements or new
construction. That is not what this is.
If the Building Inspector, if someone thinks the Building
Inspector made an incorrect determination, then the remedy for
that is to appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals from his
determination. Not -- there is no appeal to this Board from that
determination.
I So I think that that is really a key point, that the FEMA,
issue of FEMA compliance, I mean, I'm saying FEMA compliance
even though the Building Inspector has determined that what is
proposed is FEMA compliant, is really outside the purview of
this Board.
And so when you get past that and you look at the standards
for a Coastal Erosion Hazard Permit, this application meets
those standards. Your code provides that non-major additions to
existing structure are allowed on primary dunes pursuant to
Coastal Erosion Management Permit and subject to permit
conditions concerning the location, design and potential impacts
of the structure on the primary dune.
So this is a non-major addition, as defined. So it is
permitted. Clearly conditions can be imposed that are
rationally related to the activity that is the subject of the
permit, and again, that activity, the scope of that activity, is
only the additional story and the 116 square foot stairway area.
And by the same token, the proposed project is entitled to
a wetlands permit under Chapter 275 of the Town Code.
This is a pre-existing structure. Wetlands jurisprudence is
very well established that pre-existing structures are
protected, constitutionally protected, as a matter of vested
i
i
Board of Trustees 16 April 17, 2024
rights. The state regulations make that very clear. The state
regulations which I've quoted in my letter state: No provision
of this part shall be deemed to prohibit or require removal of
any land use and development, including any structure lawfully
in exi'stence on August 20th, 1977. Which this structure was.
Now, this Board has powers that were granted to it by the
Town Board in Chapter 275 of the Town Code. Those powers have to
be exercised consistently with state law, not inconsistently
with state law. So it's my position that those vested rights
must also be respected by this Board.
Your Town Code, Section 275-12, lists a number of standards
for the issuance of a permit, and it states that the Trustees
may adopt a resolution directing the issue of a permit to
perform operations applied for, only if it determines that such
operations will not substantially, and then it lists Items A
through J. I'm sure you are all very familiar with them.
The operations in this case is, as I said, only the
additional story. And the 116 square foot addition. And of these
A through J items, the first one, adversely affects the wetlands
of the Town. There is no evidence or indication or anything that
would support a conclusion that thils additional story or the 116
i square foot addition adversely affects the wetlands of the town.
And likewise, B says cause damage from erosion, turbidity
or siltation. Same thing. This activity, this operation, does
not cause damage from erosion.
C, cause salt water intrusion into the freshwater resources
of the town. Obviously that doesn't apply.
Adversely affect fish, shellfish, doesn't apply.
Increase the danger of flood and storm tide damage. There
is no indication and there is no basis for any conclusion that
this addition will increase the danger of flood and storm tide
damage.
F, adversely affect navigation on tidal waters. That
clearly doesn't apply.
Change the course of any channel, the rest these I 'm not
going to go through. But let me just say that this is, none of
these, there is no basis before you to conclude that there is
any adverse impact for any of these standards from what is
proposed.
And Kate, the environmental consultant, said when she spoke
here that if you compare the existing structure, which is what
the applicant has the right to maintain, to what is proposed,
there is actually a benefit, and that benefit to wetland and to
the environment primarily because of the IA system that is being
proposed as well.
So that is, that explains why both permits, in my view,
should be granted.
I would also like to speak to the LWRP memo, because that
does not contain any findings that would support the denial of a
i Coastal Erosion permit or a Wetland permit.
I
Board of Trustees 17 April 17,2024
It does say, and I quoted it in my letter, that structures
in these areas should be minimized, not expanded. But that is
not what the Town Code says. In fact, that statement is actually
inconsistent with the provisions of Chapter 111 of the Town Code
which affirmatively allows non-major additions to structures on
primary dunes, as I explained before.
The LWRP memo also states the distance from the proposed
actions to the natural protective feature, (primary dune) is
zero feet. A minimum setback distance of 100 feet is required
pursuant to Chapter 275-3. However, I believe this statement is
incorrect because Section 275-3 (d) of the Town Code, which is
setbacks section, provides minimum setbacks from the -wetland
boundary or bank and top of bluff. It does not provide a minimum
setback from a primary dune. And, in fact, as I mentioned a
moment ago, the code affirmatively allows non-major additions to
existing structures on primary dunes.
So for all these reasons, I'm submitting that the
application should be granted. I'm happy to answer any questions
you may have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MS. STRUNK: Thank you, very much.
MR. LAZOS: Hello, Board. My name is Chris Lazos, 1200 Leeton
Drive. Thank you, for your time tonight. And we appreciate it.
To give you some background, we purchased the property back
in 2019. We love Southold, my wife and I, one of our happy
places. We have three kids, a 10-year old, 8-year old and a
5-year old.
Just to be clear, this is not an addition that we, you
know, want to do. It' s a necessity. We have three kids in a
two-bedroom house. And my daughter is ten and she doesn't want
i
to, doesn't need to share, as she grows up and we have a growing
family, a bedroom with two brothers. So the least amount of
impact that we can do, and the least, smallest addition that we
can make is what we are proposing today. It' s literally just an
existing floor setback on the existing footprint. So we are not
touching the dunes, we are not damaging anything, and we are
keeping the existing floors, the main, the ground level and the
main level the same, and just adding a staircase in front of the
house to get there.
So we are also adding, you know, beach grass and whatever
we need to do and getting rid of some other plants, just like
Kate said, from Cole Environmental. And we just want to be good
neighbors, and we appreciate your time, and you guys considering
our application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. LAZOS: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak
regarding this application or any comments from members of the
Board?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: The legal counsel makes some, several strong
I
I
i
j
i
Board of Trustees 18 April 17, 2024
I
I
points. I'm just curious if she ever set foot on this property
and seen it in its wild state.
When we visited the field, the dune is trying to move its
way through the house. There is a glass slider door at the base
level, the first floor of the building, which is piled up with
sand. And so to see this in its location, despite all the points
that were made about the legality and the evidence, it' s very
clear that the house is exposed to wave action, storms, and
1 heavy winds, and is adjacent to a really healthy dunal system.
Going up, building on to it, to further expose that home to
those forces could potentially create damage to adjacent
properties when pieces of that house break off and go laterally
or across the road.
So that is the eyes with which I looked at the project, and
I welcome other comments from the Board or the public.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to
speak regarding this application?
MR. BROWN: Carol Brown, Conservation advisory Council.
I just want to make everybody here aware of the projected
sea level rise, so that what might be seemingly safe today in
the next ten years, they are expecting seven to 14-inch sea
level rise and a primary dune is going to be impacted with that.
And we also have to look, when we are approving or
considering applications, the 20-year lookback, and in 20, 25
years from now, we are expecting 14 to 24-inch sea level rise.
So we have to look not only for now but also for the future on
all of our wetlands applications. Thank you.
j TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Thank you.
MR. LAZOS: I would like to say one more thing as well. Just
talking a little bit of history about it, and I appreciate you
coming up. Thank you.
Since I have been there in 2019, and my neighbors have been
there for 40 years, great neighbors all around us, actually, all
\ immediate neighbors, and they told me that the beach today is
the largest it's been in 40 years. Okay?
So the beach is growing every year. It's the largest it has been
since 2019. And I've only been there for five years.
So, not only is the beach growing, its healthier and it' s
the healthiest it's been in a long time. As you see, the beach
grass continues to grow towards the water.
Okay, so that' s one thing I think is important. And my
neighbors have taken pictures from when they originally
purchased the property to today, and it' s massively larger, and
I think that will continue.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just one quick question. Do any of your
neighbors have any pictures from Hurricane Sandy, what it looked
like?
MR. LAZOS: There was no damage from Hurricane Sandy. That was
more on the south side. And there has never been a flood, by the .
I
Board of Trustees 19 April 17, 2024
way, in the house in the 50 years.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Hearing no further comment, I make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to deny both the Coastal
Erosion and the Wetland Permit for the following reasons:
Failure of the applicant to address the concerns of the Board
listed at the public hearing November 15th, 2023. Additionally
taking into the account of the inconsistency report from the
LWRP. As well as under Chapter 11, 111-9 (a) , proposed structure
is not reasonable and necessary considering reasonable
alternatives to the proposed activity. 111-13 (a) (5) , non-major
additions to existing structures are allowed only about
consideration of the potential impact to the proposed
construction on the primary dune, particularly due to shading.
Chapter 111 doesn't prohibit non-major additions to a '
primary dune, however it is case-specific in each proposed
project needs viewed against the projected harm to the
protective feature.
Chapter 275-11 (a) (8) . No structures on beaches, bluffs or
dunes unless approved by the Board at its discretion based on
its site inspection, including but not limited to shading of the
dunal area, increase danger of flood and storm damage, weaken
and undermine lateral lands, adversely affect wetlands of the
Town, adversely affect natural habitat. This is considered a
large addition to an already overburdened property. That is my
motion.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All 'in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 3, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
STERLING BRENT REAL ESTATE LTD, c/o BRENT NENETZ requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a set
of bluff stairs consisting of a 10'x10' deck (flush with
surrounding grade) at top of bluff to a 41x4 ' top platform to
41x8' steps down to a 41x4 ' middle platform to 41x7 ' steps to a
4 'x4 ' lower platform with 31x6' retractable aluminum steps to
beach; all decking to be un-treated timber.
' Located: 38255 Route 25, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-2-17. 6
I conducted a field inspection the 14th of April, 2024, '
made a note that reads: Accessory structure on a vacant parcel.
The LWRP found the project to be consistent and recommended
that the bank is very steep and eroding in that area and that
the project should be sited in a place that is more stable along
the shoreline.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not support the
motion because it felt that the eroding bank was problematic.
i
Board of Trustees 20 April 17, 2024
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding the
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant.
The proposed project is to add a set of stairs for access
for the homeowner to get down to the bluff.
The applicant would have no problem doing some revegetation
of the bank with some terracing. I can modify the application
and add some terracing and some wetlands, with some plantings
such as Cape American beach grass to stabilize the area within
the proposed stairs.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So when you say "homeowner, " there is no home
jcurrently on the property.
MR. PATANJO: Property owner. Property owner. Yes.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay. So what is the purpose of the steps if
there is no home?
MR. PATANJO: So they can utilized their property. They do go
there, I think that there are some pathways through there. I'm
sure you walked through them as well. You know, just for
recreation activities and for a possible future home being placed
on the property.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: All right, let' s cut to the chase, Mr.
j Patanjo. The Town does not allow accessory structures on vacant
parcels. So while I can sit here completely in agreement with
all of the facts that you made and the efforts you are going to
put forward to stabilize the bluff and prevent erosion, now the
Town Code sits as it does to prevent the building of accessory
structures on said vacant parcels.
It's clear to me, looking at the plans and being on the
site, that there is no structure on the parcel. It' s noted on
here. And were this to be a parcel that was built on and you
came back to us with an application for a set of stairs to
provide access from that residence to the beach, I would suggest
that you locate them in a place less severe, less steep, than
the present location that is on the plans.
MR. PATANJO: Is that a Chapter 275 requirement or is that a --
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: That is in Chapter 144.
MR. PATANJO: Okay, normally you go in front of the Building
Department for applications like this, and I did speak with
Elizabeth about the platform being at grade. So, you know, in
j the past we have done at-grade applications, or ones that were
above grade, and it went to the Building Department for review.
So would we have the ability to go to the Building Department
and/or the ZBA, get an approval from them for an accessory
structure without a primary structure and come back to the
Board?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I'm overhearing Counsel say you can apply and
see.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So, and just speaking as one Trustee, our job
is to weigh the environmental costs versus the benefit to the
property owner, and in this case there is no house, you know,
i
i
i
I '
I
I
!
i
Board of Trustees 21 April 17, 2024
�I
it's a little bit of a heavy lift, even if you got that
approval, for me.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Are there any further comments from the
public, members of the Board?
MS. HULSE: Mr. Patanjo, I don't see any impediment to you
! attempting to go to the ZBA to seek relief for something that is
in the code that says it's not permitted. If you want to do
that, you can certainly try to go that route.
MR. PATANJO: Okay. Is that Chapter 144?
! MS. HULSE: It's under Zoning, but it's Building and Zoning.
Building is 280.
MR. PATANJO: Okay.
MS. HULSE: And it's, I mean, it's just what the law reads, it
has nothing to do with our code. So I suppose if the ZBA wishes
to give variance on that, they could, and then you can come back
here. But I'm not sure that would change the Trustees'
perspective, but it's certainly an avenue available to you.
j MR. PATANJO: Understood.
! TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: So in a situation like this where you might
seek another avenue, it's up to you if you wish to request to
table the application.
MR. PATANJO: I would like to table on behalf of the applicant.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Okay, any further comments from the public or
members of the Board?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Wait. There is one. Would you mind stepping to
the microphone and state your name, please.
MR. LICATA: Anthony Licata. I've been fishing that beach for 15
years, and every time I go out there after a rainstorm, it's
shorter. So if you put a dock on top of that and it rains, it
will disappear. It has been for the 15 years that I have been
fishing there, and it's a 40 to 50-foot straight down drop. I
don't even think it's reasonable to even consider that. Just my
opinion.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Right. Thank you. The plans would suggest the
same. The staircase as it' s presently pictured on the plans is,
makes my heart race.
I make a motion to table the application at the applicant's
request.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? Aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Aye.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Aye.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: No.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Aye.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Number 4, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. ,
on behalf of OF OREGON 2021, LLC, c/o CLIFF OLSON requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to rehabilitate
existing ±148 ' rock revetment by resetting existing dispersed
rock, supplement with 0.5 - 2 ton rock as needed, not to exceed
i
I
i
i
Board of Trustees 22 April 17, 2024
i
i
I
2.5 tons per linear foot; add 25-50 pound chinking stone as
needed;construct a 10' long western rock revetment return and a
10' long eastern rock revetment return; construct bluff
staircase consisting of a 4'x15' (60sq.ft. ) Platform at top of
bluff leading to a 41x3l' staircase onto a 4 'xll' (44sq.ft. )
Platform to a 41x30' staircase onto a 4 'xll' (44sq.ft. ) Platform
to a 41x28 ' staircase onto a 4 'x15' (60sq.ft. ) Platform to a
4'x13' staircase to beach; install terracing and revegetate
disturbed area around staircase.
Located: 14349 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-72-2-2.3
The Trustees most recently visited this site on April 9th,
2024, noting review at work session.
The LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council reviewed the
application and resolved to not support the application because
the bluff is eroding, which would prevent safe construction of a
staircase. There is also a concern with the topography on the
rear yard and potential runoff down the bluff.
I am also in receipt of a letter from an immediately
adjacent neighbor in support of the application.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MS. COSTELLO: Hi, I'm Jane Costello of Costello Marine
Contracting, agent for the applicant.
The application- pretty much speaks for itself. So the
slight history of it is that a rock revetment was built
somewhere in like 2011. That rock revetment has disbursed. It
needs to just purely be rehabilitated, re-stacked, which I think
is expected for a rock revetment in a coastal erosion area that
is ten-years old plus or minus -- it's got to be a little longer
than that. Costello Marine didn't do the initial work, but I
don't know if anyone has a particular problem with the rock
revetment being rehabilitated, but it' s just a matter of
restacking the stone, bringing in some additional smaller stone,
nothing super big. The original permit allowed up to five ton.
They are look at half-ton plus chinking stone and things like
that to fill in some of the gaps.
I don't know if you had an opportunity to get down on to
the shoreline or if you were just relying on the aerial photos
we provided, because obviously there is no staircase. So I don't
know if you guys got to see it at the beach level.
Um, and then -as far as the staircase, there is now a house
at this location. The property owners would just like to have
the riparian right and beach access to the shoreline.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I do want to just ask a question. So we were
not able to actually access the beach portion but we were able
to view it so we could understand the situation there, and it
I '
I
I
Board of Trustees 23 April 17, 2024
I
does seem there is a need for repair.
Wanting to just confirm with you, because in the
application there are the two returns. The return that is on the
western side of the project, is that intended to connect in with
the existing rock?
i MS. COSTELLO: The existing rock within this property line and it
will continue. The issue is, with this area, is previously when
this rock revetment was first approved there was no house on the
property, okay? And the contractor at that time, they did the
work consistent between this property and I think it was the
three other, you know, adjacent, and two more down to the west.
Okay? This property -- and then on the east side we have a
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Yes.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay. So as you move west, we want to add an extra
return because, again, the rock revetment that is directly to
the west, the property directly to the west, that rock revetment
needs some rehabilitation as well, and we have no indication
when that property owner is going to do something. So we want
j that return to put in. It's a small return just to encapsulate
the property line a little bit.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So it will then connect in with the neighbors
to the west?
MS. COSTELLO:. It will. Oh, yes. It will. I mean, we can't go
i past and we can't do anything, that section, it' s a very narrow
piece of property that is directly west of us. It will connect,
there won't be any gaps whatsoever. There isn't any gaps right
now. It's just now this new property owner, the new owner of
this subject property just wants to rehabilitate and just make
sure that side is encapsulated. Because they don't know what or
if their neighbor is going to do anything.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. Understood. Thank you. It was not clear
from the submission because we couldn't see what was happening
on either side of the property. So, thank you, for clarifying.
MS. COSTELLO: No, it' s no problem.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Is there a way to make either of those returns
more gradual? Because there seems to be a sharp turn on them.
MS. COSTELLO: I don't think it' s -- because -the line of rock is
continuous between the properties that it' s not going to matter
if you soften it and round it out, like you are, I think you 'are
saying. It's just going to be just to encapsulate it a little
bit more. What is going to happen is, because it's such a sandy
matrix there, and the bluff is very sandy and it's, what is
really happening is the stone is sinking, in a sense. You know
what I mean? And so I don't think it's going to make much of a
difference if you curve it and soften it versus doing a -
90-degree, but if that would make you feel better, of course
they can do it while they'll are, you know, re-angling and
resetting some of those stones.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is that proposed return behind what is
i
i
i
Board of Trustees 24 April 17, 2024
I
currently existing?
MS. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because it's being tied in, essentially, I mean
in theory that return should not be necessary, which is why I
feel kind of okay with that.
MS. COSTELLO: Right. It is. I mean, we are not going past the
footprint, you know what I mean?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yup.
MS. COSTELLO: And the rock revetment is doing its job. It just
needs a little upkeep.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Help.
MS. COSTELLO: Yes, it needs upkeep. Which should be expected.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would just recommend a healthy buffer because
it is a very steep, you know, and very busy eroding area.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Absolutely. All right, hearing no other
comments, 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
subject to a 50-foot non-disturbance area from the top of the
bank and new plans depicting such.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. ~
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor? ,
(ALL AYES) .
WETLAND PERMITS:
i
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 1 sunder Wetland Permits, Costello Marine
Contracting Corp. on behalf of KEVIN & JANE McGILLOWAY requests a
Wetland Permit to remove 490 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead
and replace with 490 linear feet navy construction vinyl sheathing
bulkhead up to 12" higher and in same location as existing;
maintenance dredge existing boat slip area to -4 Mean Low Water with
resultant dredge material (64 . 4 cubic yards) to be used as backfill
for new raised bulkhead in upland area; and install a turbidity curtain
on seaward side of intertidal marsh.
Located: 430 Sailors Needle Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-144-5-30. 1
The Trustees most recently visited the site on April 9th and noted
non-turf buffer on the island.
The LWRP coordinator found this project to be consistent and noted
the following to be considered: Use of turbidity control during
construction.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
i
I
I
Board of Trustees 25 April 17, 2024
i
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MS. COSTELLO: Jane Costello, Costello Marine Contracting. I 'm
the agent for the applicant. I think this is pretty
straightforward. What they are trying to do is a complete
bulkhead replacement. Um,. it's 490 linear feet. It's one
section of the property. The other section of the property has
been done, piece by piece.
We are going to raise the elevation of the bulkhead 12
inches. We wanted to clean out the existing boat basin that is
there. We'll use the spoils as backfill. It's just really
maintenance, in my eyes. If you have any questions or concerns,
I'm more than happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you. It definitely looks like its
needs a little more than perhaps maintenance. There were some
areas that we were uncomfortable walking, just because it seemed
a little unsafe. So obviously there is a need for this project.
We did notice that the light, that kind of lighthouse island ,
area, seemed to have a lot of degradation on all sides of the
area. Not only just the bulkhead and then the catwalk, it looks
like obviously the tide is rising in certain areas on that
property. We would like to request that that property be
non-turf, the entirety of that lighthouse island. There is a lot
of vegetation and landscaping that has already been done, and it
seems that the removal of the turf may assist in some, any sort
of future erosion in that area. There was very little turf
there. We just feel like it would be a benefit to that property,
for its removal.
MS. COSTELLO: Non-turf or non-disturbances?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Non-turf.
j MS. COSTELLO: Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It was a kind of highly landscaped area so it' s
likely there are other applications on that turf. So we just
feel ,that would be a benefit to that area.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: We did note that the bridge there is solid
planks and• not open-grate. And while that' s not necessarily part
j of this application it may be advised that that is replaced with
open-grate, only just for the safety of that bridge and that
connector to the lighthouse.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay, I'll definitely discuss that with the
client. That aspect. Like I said, that's not part of this
application.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: It's not, but it' s just something that was
noted and want to bring to the applicant's attention.
MS. COSTELLO: Okay, but the non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else here who wishes to
speak?
(No response) .
Are there any further questions or comments from the Board?
i
i
I
i
I
Board of Trustees 26 April 17, 2024
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition of a non-turf buffer on the entirety of the
lighthouse island, and the installation of turbidity controls
during construction, subject to new plans depicting that. That
is my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
I n
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 2, AS PER REVISED PLANS & PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 4/12/24 Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of DHC
LAND, LLC, c/o WILL PECKHAM requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a proposed 4'xl50' overall length fixed pier,
consisting of a 41x6' upper platform leading to 41x26' steps
down to a 4 'xll2 ' fixed pier with steps down to a 6'x20' "'T"
j section fixed pier; all decking to be Thru-Flow for entire
structure; and electric and water services to be provided to end
of pier.
Location: 4180 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-10-1
The Trustees on April 15th, 2024, reviewed new plans at
work session.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the
application because the scope of the work appears to be a
commercial operation in a residential area, and there are
inconsistencies with the application.
This is a continuation of a prior hearing, but just for the
record I want to note that we do have a number of letters in the
file, basically in opposition to this project, from Neil and
Amelia MacDonald, Patrick and Joanne Conway, Douglas Hirsch,
Christopher Austin, Jennifer Rockneen (sic) , another Douglas Hirsch,
another Douglas Hirsch, Jerry and Karen Diffley, Steven and
Diane Melavia (sic) , Phillip and Catherine Keyman (sic) .
So those are all in the record. Those have all been
considered.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. And as
mentioned, this is a carryover from last month's public hearing
to discuss the project.
All the comments that were discussed during last month's
public hearing have been addressed, as you see on the revised
plans that were submitted to the Board. The proposed dock length
has been shortened, what is it, hold on, eleven feet in length,
to get us to 'water depth that' s about, over 2.5 feet of water.
Board of Trustees 27 April 17, 2024
We are at 2.81 feet of water.
We made the entire length of the fixed pier to be four-foot
wide with no ramp, total width of the entire structure is
four-foot wide for the fixed portion -- well, all fixed. We had
modified, based on the modified location and the shortening of
it, we are now 20 feet back from the projected pier line, so we
are in conformance with the pier line for this dock in
association to the neighboring docks. The entire dock surface
will be thru-flow decking as stated on the plans. Any reference
to commercial applications have been removed from the proposed
plans and the proposed project description.
The proposed davit arm that used to be on the application
has been removed, and any references to commercial activities
have been removed from the proposed plans.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
MS. BROWN: Carol Brown, CAC. I just want everyone here to be
aware that we did not, the Conservation Advisory Council, did
not see the updated plans and we appreciate all the efforts to
address all the items that had been discussed. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
MR. MACDONALD: Neil MacDonald, 855 Lupton's Point Road. Just a
few points, and a lot of these were covered in the letters.
With some history on this project, the community really
came together on this parcel to protect and preserve it,
providing financial resources along with Peconic Land Trust and
the Town of Southold. You know, in a lot of ways it was a great
success, but I think a lot of community members feel a bit
misled through that process, because nothing in the agreement
that was drawn up between the Town and the land trust
contemplated an aquaculture facility such as this. It was more
focused on the land and less on the creek. So this was a bit of
a surprise to many of the members of the community.
So I think had that been brought to light sooner, you know,
maybe the project would not have really gotten off the ground,
because I think a lot of these community members do hold Deep
Hole Creek as a very important resource and are quite concerned
about the impacts.
Many of us feel as well that the application is premature
in that the use is subject to a site plan approval from the
Planning Board, and that any approval granted by the Trustees
would sort 'of be used as almost indicating that the Trustees are
proponents of the proposed use.
And I recognize that the application has been scaled back
from what a more commercially robust dock but, you know, we
continue to see it as just that.
In addition, it's unclear whether or not the DEC will
ultimately grant approval to farm in the creek. So with these
approvals still outstanding, you know, I would suggest that the
members of the Trustees that any kind of approval should be
i
i
I
Board of Trustees 28 April 17, 2024
i
i
deferred.
Continuing, um, so the Conservation Advisory Council had
indicated their earlier opposition. I would also ask for an
updated recommendation from them based on their review.
The dock being proposed is significantly larger and more
elaborate than any of the other docks in the area, and I think,
you know, the purpose really is to get the length of the dock
out into the deeper water. And this would facilitate and allow
for larger commercial vessels to enter the creek in support of
the operations. You know, so, you know, this type of commercial
boating is not something Deep Hole Creek currently has, so it's
a new sort of intrusion into that space, which will sort of
disrupt, you know, a lot of the neighboring residential
properties.
And, you know, there are other implications to this type of
commercial activity in the crook, environmental impacts, that
should be considered.
You know, just on a personal level, my wife and I, we live
on Lupton Point Road, our son who is disabled, spends a lot of
time out on his kayak in that creek, and fishing and enjoying
that environment. And our concern is that unlike neighboring
homeowners who know Dylan and can appreciate him as an
individual, I'm worried about the employees of an operation like
this, a commercial operation, operating in such a height area to
navigate and what impact it has from a safety standpoint. So
those are my concerns.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Just a couple of points. This Board does not
vote 'on or determine proposed use. I stated that at the last
meeting we are looking at this as a residential lot with a
residential dock, and all of the conditions of a residential
dock in accordance with, Chapter 275 apply here, and we are
trying to make it as consistent with other docks in the area as
possible.
So they have made some adjustments to what was previously
proposed, which brings it more in line with what is currently in
the area.
So, again, we are not looking at this as a commercial
operation. It was a residential lot, residential dock, and
that's what we are looking at and voting on tonight.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just want to piggyback off that statement,
before you speak. One moment, please.
As Trustee Goldsmith said, it's a residential situation
right now. Literally, it' s just a house and a farm there. So we
are looking, if we were to approve it, it would be a residential
I
dock.
Now in terms of the Trustees, you know, taking a stance on
the application, that's not true, because the applicant, if he
wanted to do anything within Trustee jurisdiction would still
i
I
i
Board of Trustees 29 April 17, 2024
have to come back before this Board. So, you know, things that
go into an aquaculture operation, whether it be, you know,
culling tables or culling machine, or any structure that would
be built to accommodate that would have to come back before this
Board, unless it was outside of our jurisdiction.
So certainly we are not getting involved in any aspects of
the aquaculture discussion at this time. And to be" fair, right
now, it is just a house on the creek. So if the business, you
know, no disrespect, but the business, maybe the oyster business
never happens. I don't know. We are looking at this through
that lens right now.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, ma'am.
MS. REICHERT: Good evening, everyone, my name is Martha
Reichert, Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo, 33
West Second Street, Riverhead, New York, on behalf of the'
applicant DHC Land and Will Peckham.
I want to thank Trustees Goldsmith and Krupski for their
comments just now because it does sort of contextualize this
application which is for a residential dock on an upland parcel
that is improved with a residence and also has an aquacultural
field.
You know, as this Board is well aware, every property that
touches the water has a fundamental riparian right to wharf out
to navigable water. And that' s what we are proposing here.
Again, to further contextualize this dock within the
character of Deep Hole Creek, you know, one of the earliest
comments was the length of this dock. However, I have prepared
an analysis of residential docks on Deep Hole Creek, including
the most adjacent ones. Mr. Hirsch' s dock has an overall• length
of 120 feet, the Conway dock further to the north has an overall
length 'of - its dock, ramp and float are 105, but when you take
in the stairs and everything else, and the landings, you get to
138 feet. So what we are proposing here is not actually
atypical of Deep Hole Creek. In fact, further to the southern
portion of Deep Hole Creek there is a dock of 148 feet. And
while we have listened to the comments of the Board and the
community, I do want to establish a couple things in the code.
So, for example, the davit. The Trustees regulations do not
prohibit such a structure being fixed to the dock when it's
related to a water-dependent use; right? And what we have here
is a water dependent use. Also, the Trustees have recent times,
even following the passage of the section of the code that
prohibits boat lifts, on the Schul's dock, Trustee permit #7318,
they, they approved a catwalk, ramp and float of 112-feet long
with a 1, 500-pound davit affixed to an eight-inch piling.
So I wanted to, clarify those aspects. This application in
its revised form has removed all of those structures, but I
think as a matter of, just to get it on the record, they are not
specifically prohibited by your regulations, especially when
they are used in conjunction with a water-dependent use.
i
I
Board of Trustees 30 April 17, 2024
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you applying for a davit right now?
MS. REICHERT: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would avoid that conversation, then, if I
were you.
MS. REICHERT: No, no, I just wanted --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A personal recommendation.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, first we're talking about a residential
lot and a residential dock and a water-dependent use.
MS. REICHERT: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It would be too much time FOIL'ing with FOIL
requests, but we are going in the wrong direction here.
MR. REICHERT: No, that' s fine. I just wanted to sort of revisit
that even though it's been from the application. It's not part
of it. This is --
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: You are also comparing a residential area from
a marine district.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Because we could make the argument a
residential lot is not a water-dependent use, a residential
house is not a water-dependent use. '
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And not to mention the right to wharf out is
the access to the water, not to navigation. So it could just be
stairs to the bottom to, you -know, so they can step in with a
kayak. That' s the right to wharf out.
MS. REICHERT: Anyway, I appreciate that feedback, but I did want
to, again, like I said, contextualize this dock application in
that its length is not uncharacteristic of other docks on this
body of water. Moreover, we are not extending beyond the pier
line, and I believe we meet all the other criteria for approval
under the regulations.
So if the Board has any questions, I would be happy to
answer them. If not, then I 'll leave those comments there.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Anyone else here wishing to speak
regarding this application?
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: So you did mention that the dock is in
consistency with similar docks in the area and that it is
setback from the pier line. So we do appreciate that that has
been taken into consideration.
1 And as a fellow oyster farmer, I would just like to say
that, you know, obviously, this is -- you know, I also, too, my
livelihood is growing shellfish as part of this historical .
industry. And I know that Will spoke to that in the last -- Mr.
Peckham -- in the last meeting. And that I do appreciate your
hard work towards the environmental and improving the
environmental aspects of our town, the waterways and growing
shellfish. So, thank you, for that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions or comments from the
Board?
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
i
i
I
I
l
Board of Trustees 31 April 17, 2024
I '
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the following conditions; that the project description be
modified to read as follows:
Proposed 4 ' wide by 144' overall-length fixed pier, with
thru-flow decking consisting of a 41x6' upper platform, 4'x26'
steps and a 4 'x106' fixed pier, and 6'x20' fixed T-section at
the end of pier, and also a 15' vegetated non-turf buffer
landward from the top of bank. And new plans depicting all of
that.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 65 feet.
MR. PATANJO:- Can you write that down for me or something?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So basically shave six feet off of it,
overall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Six-feet off the end.
MR. PATANJO: That's all I need. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: And a 15-foot non-turf buffer at top of the
bank.
MR. PATANJO: From top of bank landward.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Vegetated. Yup.
I
I
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 3, AS PER REVISED PLANS AND PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED 4/15/24, Michael Bontje on behalf of ISLAND
VIEW LANE HOMEOWNERS 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. ; install an approximately 91x180' native stone
" cobble area using 4" to 12" in diameter stone wrappediin jute
matting and coir coconut fiber logs to aid in beach grass
establishment and sand trapping; add ±600 cubic yards of gravel
fill (3/41"-2' in diameter) up to 18" deep over large cobble and
taper north/south to 4.2' grade; plant American beach grass
(Ammophilla brevigulata) plugs on the crest and westerly slope
of the replenished area; and to remove construction mats and
place up to 3" gravel on existing private lane.
Located: Conklin Point Beach off of Island View Lane,
Greenport. SCTM# 1000-57-2-37.2.
The Trustees most recently viewed the plans on this
application on April 15th. We are in receipt of new plans which
shows removal of the gabion baskets.
j The LWRP did not make and complete a report on this
j application.
The Conservation Advisory Council has no comment on the
application.
Is there. anyone here that wishes to speak with regards to
1
I
I
I
i
I
I
Board of Trustees 32 April 17, 2024
I
the project?
MR. MILAZZO: Good evening, my name is John Milazzo, I'm a board
member of the Island View Homeowners Association. We appreciate
the opportunity to present revised plans. You have a long agenda
so we won't take a lot of your time.
Mike Bontje is here with me. He's presented on the
application, I know you've met him at the site. Caroline Burghardt,
who is a board member, is here as well. Margaret Krepp, who is
our President of the Island View HOA, is out of town. She
couldn't be here. She wishes she could, but she could not attend.
I just wanted to, as I said, John Milazzo, I live in
Greenport. I have a house in Greenport. I'm a member of the
Island View HOA. We want to just summarize really what happened.
Since we last met, we made a couple of revisions to the plan,
which you'll notice. The most significant is we got rid of the
gabions. We know that was a cause of concern. So those have been
replaced with coconut mats and coir logs. The size of the rocks
have been a little bit increased to give them a little more
structural stability because they don't have that framework of
the gabions to told the together.
Otherwise, the project is pretty much, it's actually all
j the same. What has happened in the interim, as per your
guidance, we met with the Audubon Society, and also a member of
the board from Breezy Shores, which is the community just to our
west.
We met with them a couple weeks ago on the site. We walked
the site with them, we discussed the project. We spent about an
hour together, going over what we were trying to do.
The Island View HOA bought this property, it's 30 homes
that sort of banded together to buy the 20 some acres from the
Mullholland family, to protect it, right? So we live there, we
i
have houses there. We have people on both sides of the street.
This is an asset that is a community asset, it's a Town asset,
and we don't want to see it get washed away. So that is our'
number one principal that is guiding all HOA activities.
So we have rules and regulations that govern how the creek
can be used, to water body, bay bottom in the area, and one of
the things we are trying to do is preserve it and protect the
bay, the wetlands that are behind this beach. So that' s why we
are here.
With the two changes that we've made and with the Audubon
support of the concept of the project, not the means of the
project, we just wanted to refresh that with you, come back, see
if there are questions for the Board and address your concerns
i
rather than worry with the technical details, which you have all
in front of you. You know this is what you all do for a living.
We are here to just answer any questions that may have arisen
since that last conversation.
We are still pending with the DEC. The DEC has received our
submission, had some highly technical critiques and questions
i
i
i
I
I
Board of Trustees 33 April 17, 2024
i
for us, like the name of the entity, did we put the right
measurement from this point, how is the wetland marked out. So
those are all being addressed, and we'll go to the DEC, and we
are actually waiting for the next step with the DEC.
But rather today we just want to have a quick conversation,
if there is anything you need from us to move this forward. And
hopefully with your support. Because we can't go forward if we
don't have it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I mean, personally, I'm not sure if
this is going to work. I hope the project is successful. I don't
see a negative impact to the attempt. I'm viewing it more as a
pilot project, because we are seeing instances like this all
over Town. The board typically looks favorably on not hardening
shorelines. So doing something without. I mean, we certainly
would not allow a wall. But doing something without a wall is
ideal. Hopefully, naturally, this takes over. You know, maybe in
the future, at another location at the site we can discuss -- I
recommend going to the DEC first for something like that. But
maybe some reclamation work there as well. I'm sort of open to
that going forward. But I do like the direction that the plans
are headed for the application.
MR. MILAZZO: Thank you. We value your input, and we also, if
there is a way to work with the Trustees and the Town on gauging
the success, if it' s working, we are open to that, right? So
that is something we would be interested in. And there are some
scientists in the community, Mike' s a scientist that's been
doing this for a long time, so if it works and it's a model,
everyone else should try the same thing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think as Trustee Krupski said, we are all
rooting for you. You are guys are not the only spot in Town
that's losing beach. So, again, we are all looking for
alternatives and solutions, and if this works, so be it. It can
be a roadmap or a template for other areas in Town.
MR. MILAZZO: We welcome that, and hopefully it will work. It
can't hurt, and we are going to protect those wetlands,
hopefully. It' s a significant habitat, as the Audubon opined in i
that letter to you
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I would like to say we appreciate the
incorporation of our comments from the last hearing. I think
it's a better project overall from that. So, yes.
MR. MILAZZO: We of course will do that. I think that's the best
path to work with you.
MR. BONTJE: My name is Mike Bontje. I was here at the last
hearing. In regard to' the LWRP, we also submitted 'a report
demonstrating compliance with Polices 4, 6 and 9, which are the
ones which apply here, basically as preservation to the Town's
eco-system. Policy 9 is actually navigation, so I noted that
there was no report from the Town with regard to the LWRP, but
we did supply a three-page letter explaining how we do in fact
I
I
i
Board of Trustees 34 April 17,2024
I
comply.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that
wishes to speak regarding the application?
(No response) .
Hearing no additional comment, 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
based on the plans stamped received by the office April 16th,
2024, and the new description received by the office April 15th,
2024 .
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. MILAZZO: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll be recusing myself from Number 4 due to
personal relationship.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 4, REVISED PLANS SUBMITTED. 4/12/2024
JOSEPH & KRISTINA OTTOMANELLI requests a Wetland Permit for the
as-built 101x15' on-grade irregular shaped bluestone dry-set
patio located near edge of wetlands to be removed and not
replaced; construct an 18 'x44 ' in-ground pool with a 1, 845sq. ft.
Stone pool patio that has an outdoor kitchen area; install a
drywell for pool backwash; install ±483 linear feet of 4' high
pool enclosure fencing with gates; install a pool equipment area
with evergreen screening; install a 101x12 ' pool house with a
4'x6' outdoor shower; install a buried 1, 000 gallon propane
tank; install a generator; install a 41x80' stone path to dock;
remove seven (7) trees; all existing trees in the buffer area to
remain; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 25' wide,
approximately 6, 200sq.ft. Vegetated non-turf buffer area along
the landward edge of wetlands using native vegetation.
Located: 2223 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-5-11.3
The Trustees reviewed the new set of plans in our April
work session.
The LWRP in a prior review of a previous set of plans and
written description found the project to be inconsistent because
the as-builts were constructed without Board of Trustee review
or permit. And the removal of seven trees does not meet the
policies set forth for• the LWRP. Trees provide beneficial
functions and values and buffers, nutrient filtration, wildlife
habitat, food source, et cetera, as depicted all around me in
the front of me on the walls.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding the
application?
MR. LAKE: Good evening, and thank you, for your time. I'm
Brandon Lake with North Fork Landscapes. This is Jason Peters
i
i
i
Board of Trustees 35 April 17,2024
I
i
with North Fork Pool Care. We are the contractors on the
project. I just want to thank you guys for taking the time to
talk to us.
I modified the most recent set of plans with I believe all
the recommendations that you guys have made going forward. If
you have any questions or if there is anything else you would
like to see in there, we are all ears.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: So, one question is, I see the written
description was not updated to remove the sentence that says
"remove seven trees. "
My understanding is that the project is only proposing to
remove one tree at this time, is that correct?
MR. LAKE: Yes, there is only going to be one tree that is inside
the buffer that is completely gone. The rest are going to
remain.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you. And again, with the written
description, my question was, I think that we need to amend the
language a little bit, as it says 25-foot non-turf buffer, but
it should reflect I think an irregularly-shaped non-turf --
vegetated non-turf buffer with a minimum distance of 25 feet.
Because it is significantly greater in some parts on the
property; is that correct?
MR. LAKE: Yes. The smallest portion is 25 feet and it goes out
to almost 60 feet in other areas.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: (Perusing) .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I'm saying we should update the written
description to reflect what's on the plan.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Yes, that makes sense.
One further comment, the Conservation Advisory Counsel
resolved not to support the application in its prior iteration,
its prior version, because of the hardscaping and the pool's
proximity to the side yard, and as the applicant has already
made clear, the bluestone patio will be removed, and satisfy the
Conservation Advisory Council' s recommendation.
Does any member of the public or member of the Board wish
to speak any further on this application?
(No response) .
All right, hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close
the hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: I make a motion to approve the application
j striking from the written description the removal of seven
trees, allowing the one dead tree to be removed; and to
perpetually maintain a non-turf buffer as shown on plans stamped
received April 12th, 2024, maintaining no less than a 25-foot in
width non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
i
I
Board of Trustees 36 April 17, 2024
(ALL AYES) .
MR. LAKE: Thank you.
MR. OTTOMANELLI: Joe Ottomanelli, the homeowner. I just wanted
to, Trustee Krupski, you mentioned last time cleaning up the
beach front. We did all that, took your advice. It was driving
me nuts, too.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Fantastic. Thank you,.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Charles Cuddy, Esq. on behalf of CROSS SOUND
FERRY SERVICES, INC. requests a Wetland Permit to fill and grade
a parking lot consisting or raising the grade an average of 1.4 _
! feet throughout; the fill will be approx. 2, 000 cubic yards of
dredged materials presently located at the shoreline east of the
ferry slips; raise the existing 281x34 ' two-story dwelling
i
in-place to comply with FEMA requirements with no additions to
dwelling; and abandon existing septic system and install an I/A
OWTS sanitary system.
j Located: 41190 Route 25, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-9-10. 1
The Trustees most recently visited the site for a
pre-submission inspection and conducted an in-house review on
April 9th, 2024.
The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed this application
and resolved to support it with the recommendation that the bulk
of the parking lot is pervious.
And the LWRP reviewed this application and found it to be
consistent.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
Application?
MR. CUDDY: Yes, thank you. Good evening. I 'm Charles Cuddy, I
have an office at 445 Griffing Avenue in Riverhead, New York.
I'm here with Vincent Gaudiello who is a project engineer.
Together we represent Cross Sound Ferry.
One of the reasons for this, and probably the most
significant reason, is we are trying to raise the level of this
parking field so disabled people can go from one field to the
staging area, which is right next to it.
It becomes significant because you can't have people walk
up stairs to get to that site. So it becomes very important that
we be able to raise it by moving dredge material from the east
side of the property which will be dredged from underneath the
ferry to this site. And we've made application to the DEC, they
indicated we have a complete application. We have not gotten
the permit yet, but we hope to very soon. I think that if you
have any questions of me or Mr. Gaudiello, we would be pleased
to answer them.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: One comment that came up during the Trustee
work session was the idea of increasing a non-turf buffer area
seaward of the house structure. Is that something the applicant
would be amenable to?
i
i
i
Board of Trustees 37 April 17, 2024
I
i
MR. CUDDY: I think so. I don't think that's a problem.
i TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else here
wishing to speak regarding this application?
(No response) .
jAny further questions or comments from the Board?
MR. GAUDIELLO: I just want to make a comment. One of the
comments -- excuse me. Vincent Gaudiello, I'm with the Raynor
Group. I'm a professional engineer, and we were retained by
Cross Island Ferry to prepare the site plan as well as prepare
the survey.
One of the comments, I believe, of the advisory board
talked about minimizing the impervious parking area, out of this
40, 000 square-foot parcel, 3, 000 square-feet of it would be
impervious, and those improvements being asphalt, really are
solely for -the handicap spaces. The remainder of the parking lot
would be gravel. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you, for the clarification. Any other
questions or comments?
(No response) .
j 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
subject to the addition of a non-turf buffer seaward of the
i structure, and new plans reflecting that change.
TRUSTEE kRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
i
MR. CUDDY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Number 6, AS PER REVISED PLANS & PROJECT
DESCRIPTION SUBMITTED 4/12/24 Howard Ruben on behalf of LESTER &
ETHNA LAY requests a Wetland Permit to replace existing wood
bulkhead (±178' total including returns) with a new vinyl
bulkhead using Helix anchors along 81' of the eastern section of
bulkhead (due to close proximity of dwelling) and using a
tieback/deadmen system for the western 67' section of
bulkheading; new bulkhead to be 1.5' higher than existing;
bulkhead to have a straighter ±30" west return, which is also
the east wall of the ramp; increase ramp surface by 62sq.ft. For
a new total of 274sq.ft. And replace exiting boat ramp planking;
install a French drain at top of ramp to mitigate run-off into
the buffer area; remove existing upper retaining wall and not
replace; remove existing lower and construct a 138' long
retaining wall using 4"x4" treated lumber with a deadman system
and raised an additional 1.5' in height with a ±12' long west
return and a ±12' long buried east return; approximately 557
cubic yards 'of soils will be excavated and replaced during
construction; approximately 135 cubic yards of additional clean
I
i
I '
Board of Trustees 38 April 17, 2024
I
fill from an approved upland source will be placed landward of
the bulkhead line to raise the existing grade; install a 4 ' wide
set of wooden stairs from retaining wall to buffer area; and to
establish and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer
area along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 370 Williamsberg Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-9
The Trustees most recently visited this site on April 9th,
2024, and noted concern around the removal of the upper
retaining wall at the patio area in regards to structural
support of the patio.
The LWRP found this project to be consistent and provided
that the following is considered: Turbidity controls are
compliant with Chapter 275.
We are in receipt of new plans stamped dated April 12th of
2024 .
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
MR. RUBEN: Yes. Howard Ruben, agent.
In terms of the upper retaining wall which is going to be
removed, the lower retaining wall is going to be raised to that
height and that area will be filled, so it will still support
the back patio.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you, for clarifying. There was just
j a little bit of structural concern there.
MR. RUBEN: I understand.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: While it's not environmental necessarily, but
for this Board there was just an acknowledgement of that, so.
MR. RUBEN: No problem.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: And then I note on the new plans that you have
submitted, that you have kind of shifted the return over of the
proposed lower wall and then added in a four-foot stair.
MR. RUBEN: The wall was not shifted. The only thing that was
added to the most recent revised plan was that four-foot
stairway that goes from the lower retaining wall down to the
buffer. But the buffer has been raised to support the bulkhead,
so it' s only a couple of feet. It's a small stairway.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: On the plan -- excuse me -- on the plan it says
"removed section. " And that I understand now, that -- yes, I
understand what is here on the plan. So it's just the addition
of the staircase then.
MR. RUBEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Okay, thank you. Wonderful. Is there anyone
else here who wishes to speak?
(No response) .
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
it
Board of Trustees 39 April 17, 2024
i
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that turbidity controls are to be utilized
during construction. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. RUBEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 7, AS PER REVISED PLANS & PROJECT
DESCRIPTION RECEIVED ON 4/12/24 Eric Martz on behalf of SCOTT &
LORI ROSEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct an
approximately 69. 4 ' long 2.5' tall masonry stone retaining wall
with 10' wide built in stone stairs, approx. 26. 9' from
bulkhead; add approx. 48 cubic yards of fill/topsoil to grade
area above to meet top of wall; install an approx. 40.4 ' long
2.5' tall masonry stone retaining wall approx. 8 ' from bulkhead;
grade approx. 500sq.ft. Area below and cover with stone chip;
remove,, existing deteriorating wooden stairs and replace with
stone steps set in grade; plant area between stairs with
non-turf ground cover mix such as creeping thyme, golden
oregano, creeping phlox; plant area between retaining walls with
perennial beach mix and grasses; plant top of upper retaining
wall with evergreen shrubs, perennial mix and grasses; revamp
reduced lawn/turf area above upper retaining wall; plant
perennial mix around foundation of dwelling and deck; plant
evergreen screen between generator and east property line;
install 33 linear foot stepping stone path along east side of
dwelling; install 46sq.ft. Of stone chip around equipment area
on east side of dwelling; install a 10' 4 7/8" of 4 ' high
welded wire fence with gate on east side of dwelling; install
approx. 20' long evergreen hedge along portion of west property
line.
Located: 850 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-11-16
The Trustees conducted a field inspection April 9th, 2024.
Field notes read as follows: Limit the width of the seaward end
of path to four feet. Trench drain at top of the stairs.
Question the amount of fill and the height of retaining walls to
no more than two-and-a-half feet.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
and recommends the non-turf buffer is increased and planted with
native vegetation the entire length of the bulkhead and behind
the retaining walls.
I want to note that we did receive knew plans and new
project description dated April 12th, 2024, that addressed the
concerns from the field notes.
Is there anyone here wishing to speak regarding this
application?
MR. MARTZ: Eric Martz, just here to answer any questions that
you may have, and to address any of your concerns.
i
i
Board of Trustees 40 April 17, 2024
I �
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing
to speak regarding this application?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I just want to say thank you for addressing
our comments in the field and providing those new plans in a
timely fashion. Appreciate it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions or comments from the
I
Board.
(No response) .
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE PEEPLES: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted, with the new plans stamped received April 12th,
2024, and the new project description stamped received April
12th, 2024 .
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
i
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 8, David Bergen on behalf of NEIL & AMY
McGOLDRICK requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
in-place existing wood jetty with an overall length of ±71' ; the
new jetty shall begin at Mean Low Water and extend landward to
current terminal end; elevation of new jetty to be no' more than
18" above grade on downdrift (east) side; jetty to include 6'
C-Loc vinyl sheathing with 10" diameter pilings, 10" diameter
batter piles 10' in length placed 6' on-center; 6"x6" stringers
on both sides with fiberglass grated cap along the entire
length; waterside end of jetty to include four (4) 10" diameter
piles.
Located: 1671 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-116-4-16.4
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
The Trustees most recently visited the site on the 9th of
April and noted disappointment at the lack of pirate statues
still existing there. But ultimately it was discussed at work
I
session and found to be, looked at to be a fairly
straightforward application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, on behalf of the pirate Neil
McGoldrick. Thank you, for those comments.
I 'm just here to answer any questions you may have
regarding this project.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I think your description speaks for itself.
You know, no higher than 18-inches above grade. And you are
seeking approval from the DEC.
So is there anyone else that wishes to speak regarding this
i
i
,I .
Board of Trustees 41 April 17, 2024
i
application?
j (No response) .
Any additional comments from the members of the Board?
(No response) .
MR. BERGEN: 'Just one clarification point, because I know that I
have been asked about it—This is a jetty rather than a groin,
because it protects the entrance to Halls Creek, so really what
we are hoping to do here is to, that the effect of the jetty
will prevent the frequency of dredging of Halls Creek, so it
will be beneficial for residents there as well as for Suffolk
County who maintains the entrance for that.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: May it be so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Hearing no additional comments, I
make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Number 9, David Roberts on behalf of 600
GLENN, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a proposed
3, 499sq. ft. Two-story dwelling with attached 6.1'x10. 6' front
porch, 15. 4 'x23..8' first floor rear porch, 5. 4'x22. 1' rear
steps, 13. 6'x25. 4 ' second floor deck with 4'xl3. 6' steps to
ground, 6.51x21' second floor deck; an 18.3'x19.7 ' roof deck,
4'x19. 6' & 4'x21.4' roof deck walkways, two window wells in
basement for egress; install a new Fuji Cen 5 sanitary system;
install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff;
install a 16'x32' with 1' wide coping in-ground pool with a pool
equipment area, a designated pool drywell for backwash; code
compliant pool enclosure fencing with gates; install a pervious
driveway; install silt fencing during construction; and to
establish and perpetually maintain a 25' wide Non-Disturbance
buffer area with a 4 ' wide access path to water along the
j landward edge if the wetlands.
Located: 600 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-2-24
The Trustees most recently visited the site on our April
field inspection. The notes from that inspection read:
Non-disturbance buffer to be increased and measured from wetland
flags. ,Entire area seaward of fence, non-disturbance. Add pier
line for house structure, planting plan for areas outside of
non-disturbance.
The LWRP found the project to be consistent with its
policies. Two points. The non-disturbance buffer starts at
wetland line and then landward. And number two, some mature
i
I
Board of Trustees 42 April 17, 2024
trees are left on site.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support
the project because it lacks a ' landscaping plan which should
include a ten-foot non-turf planted buffer landward of the
non-disturbance buffer. There is a concern with sea level rise
and ground water.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding the
application?
MR. ROBERTS: David Roberts, just here to answer any questions or
concerns you might have on the project. It's pretty standard and
consistent with every other house in the area. I 'm just here to
answer any questions you might have.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: I just think whenever we see a project like
this that is on an undeveloped lot in the year 2024, we always
want to take extra care, especially with mature trees, and so
one thing that we would recommend, even outside of our
jurisdiction, is preserving as many of those mature trees as
i possible. If you are open to that. That's just a recommendation
that I wanted to share with you.
MR. ROBERTS: Sure.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All right. Are there any other comments from
the Board?
(No response) .
Members of the public?
(No response) .
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close this
application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Given what we saw onsite, I'll make a motion
to approve the application with new plans depicting a 50-foot
non-disturbance buffer from the flagged wetland line, and a new
planting plan showing existing trees onsite, and those to be
removed within Trustee jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
MR. ROBERTS: Is that a 50-foot non-disturbance non-turf?
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: Just a non-disturbance.
MR. ROBERTS: Oh, just' a non-disturbance.- Okay.
TRUSTEE SEPENOSKI: From the wetland line. I think on here you
flagged it here, so the 50-foot from that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion for adjournment.
TRUSTEE GILLOOLY: Second.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: All in favor?
(ALL AYES) .
Board of Trustees 43 April 17, 2024
espectfully submitted by,
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees
I
i
c